Fact 2 is not a fact but, a supposition on your part. The reviews are 50/50 and thus, 2G P4 may have matched in the P4 biased benchmark suites, it fails in those that use real world data and environments.
Translation: Only those benchmarks that show the K7 performing well are "real world." ...and you accuse me of selective perception???
A super cooled 3GHz P4 does not show how it performs against a similarly cooled Palomino or Tbird run to the max. Tbirds have run at over 2GHz and do outrun 3GHz P4s in many benchmarks. I did not see the demo but, 100% CPU utilization occurs well before maximum thermal output. Heck, a cache thrashing CPU is at 100% use, yet it would be not doing very much in the way of thermal output. So fact 3 does not attest to their robustness. A P3-1.13 0.18 Al could do the same yet, it was definitely not robust! So, fact 3 is just another suposition.
I know that the 3.5GHz was supercooled... I don't remember seeing anything that said that the 3.0GHz was supercooled. Anand was impressed by the demonstration and thought it boded well for current yields on the P4 part. Anand is a pretty sharp guy... if you have some counter evidence, maybe you should present it to Anand and he'll change his mind.
Fact 4 is only a rumor. We do not know it to be true.
Then please come up with an alternate explanation for the increased voltage on the 1.0GHz Morgan core Duron and the complete absence of a Palomino running faster than 1.2GHz...
I do not like AMD's plan, if it is true. However, this is also a rumor and can not be considered true until verified by AMD or other such source. So goes your fact 5 down the tubes. However, I will send email to Toni to ask that this plan be dropped, just in case.
Tom had a hell of a lot of detail for a "just a rumor." I believe that AMD is seriously considering this tactic. The policy may not be set in stone, but I think it's safe to say that it's under serious consideration.
All in all, your facts are not facts. You wish they were.
Pete, I’m dismayed by your response (or lack thereof). I took the time to go through and provide 3rd party documentation for several trends I've noticed in the PC market over the past month or two. You answer that documentation with incredulity and supposition, and consider the opinions and/or analysis of several knowledgeable individuals in the industry to be debunked by your supposition. I have purposely been taking my information from individuals who have generally been quite critical of Intel in the past (Anand and Tom) as opposed to those who have been more sympathetic to eliminate any questions of bias, and still logic doesn’t sway you.
I know that you in your heart believe that AMD is the superior company with the superior technology. That is your paradigm. You see AMD as the “small and nimble giant slayer,” but while that makes for great fiction, it’s rarely true in fact. The fact is AMD is now on the defensive. AMD is always going to be around, but the fact is that AMD was in the right place with the right product to capitalize on a rash of uncharacteristic Intel mistakes. Intel has now slowly reversed their quality issues and has refocused on quality and execution. Now, AMD looks as if they are the ones with quality issues (far behind on the 0.13 micron transition, no Palominos above 1.2GHz, 600MHz behind in raw speed, behind in the vast majority (if not all) benchmarks). With Northwood looming large on the horizon, AMD is going to see the Athlon fall into the ranks of the value PC unless AMD is able to substantially increase its frequency quickly. Its price is already in that arena, which is why AMD will post a loss this quarter... |
