Hi wanna_bmw; Re: "Traditionally, as long as Intel had the brand name, they could be inferior in price, performance, and price/performance, and still sell their product."
I don't think that "traditionally", Intel has been inferior in performance, at least if you include reliability in performance.
I soldered together my first Intel machine. It used an 8088, and at the time it was relatively common for people to buy bare PCBs and then go out on a scavenger hunt for the bill of material. (I was a poor grad student.) It ran CPM-86, so it must have been about 1986.
Since that time, until the Athlon, I never bought another processor other than Intel except for a brief try with a NEC V-20, which I seem to recall was a replacement for that same 8088.
I've always assembled my own machines and usually hot clocked them. Until the Athlon, I always went with Intel because their processors overclocked better.
Intel's better overclockability was related to the higher margins that Intel built into their chips. That relates also with what Jdaasoc was saying about chip temperatures - hobby types don't mind spending a few extra bucks on CPU coolers and hot clocking the processor. Reflecting the good speed margins, those Intel processors were specified to run at very high temperatures. Of course that simplifies the cooling situation, which is what Jdaasoc was talking about.
That changed with the Athlon. From the beginning, it was one heck of a processor. People were hot clocking it 40% in 1999. I posted to the AMD thread that it was clear that AMD had arrived at that time. That Athlon had an extremely high maximum die temperature, even higher than the Intel chips. Since that time, the maximum die temperatures on Intel processors has dived.
What AMD did was they forced Intel to trade their temperature margin for performance. The result is that the two players are now on a much more even playing field.
The people who regularly post that Intel's low maximum die temperatures are a sign of higher reliability are mistaken. If a processor requires very low temperatures, it means that on very hot days, or when the cooling duct is blocked, or when the fan is worn down, the processor doesn't work. Low maximum die temperature restricted processors have less temperature margin, it's as simple as that.
Now I see AMD and Intel as more or less equals in performance. The equality in price is something that I think will slowly evolve. At this time, I figure that my next computer will definitely be an AMD, since they're at least as fast, and much cheaper.
Consumers have a strong tendency to keep buying from what has worked for them in the past. Heck, I know people who buy Ford trucks because their daddy always did. But over the long run, the population as a whole does adjust their perceptions.
For decades, Japanese products in the United States carried a perception of inferior quality. They undoubtedly sold for a discount to equal products by American companies. Eventually the Japanese discovered QC, and after enough years went by, the perception eventually changed.
But you're right, in that it takes a long time for these things to change, and until that time AMD has to sell at a discount. On the other hand, I see AMD as an investment for a fairly long time.
If it were already the business perception that AMD provided products equal in performance (and reliability) to Intel, we wouldn't be seeing AMD trade at a tiny fraction of Intel's market cap. On the whole, I think that AMD is the company to bet on. Right now AMD has almost no sales to business. That percentage has lots of room to grow. My EE buddies (and they don't work for either company) feel about the same way on this.
If I ran the AMD marketing department, I'd concentrate on adjusting people's perception of quality and reliability rather than performance. I don't think that the MHz wars are that big of a deal. When people buy Intel it's because they perceive Intel as providing a more stable platform, and also because they see Intel as the market leader. I'd concentrate on advertising that showed that AMD's market share was increasing, and I'd repeat as much of the good reviews they've gotten as possible. Stuff like PCWorld selecting 8 of 10 of their best PowerPCs as being AMD.
-- Carl |
