Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (50537)	8/9/2001 5:25:06 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Actually, the optimized code routine is something AMD had to use to make the K6-2 (w/3DNOW) look good against the P-II which had the faster FPU. Didn't work too well especially when Intel widened the Mhz gap and K6-2s couldn't keep up. 2-0 Intel. AMD made hay when the Athlon came out which could out clock the P-IIIs AND had the stronger FPU. So it was 2-0 AMD up until the release of P4 and really for a couple months after that. Then comes the P4. Faster clock but weak FPU. So what does Intel do?...change the benchmark suite, emphasizing some key benchmarks and hiding the FPU weakness of the P4. So rather than 1-1 (tie) it's 1.5-.5 Intel or kind of. Meanwhile they subsidize loser Rambus until they can get out a SDRAM and DDR chipset. The fact remains however that Raw Mhz supercedes all else as a marketing tool for selling CPUs to the masses. Raw CPU power, including FPU power comes in second. Intel doesn't even want to chance that so they cover that base with the selected optimized benchmarks. AMD is just a babe in the woods when it comes to understanding marketing. If AMD continues to let Intel dictate the market then any advantage they had vis a vie Rambus will dissappear...Meanwhile the 6 month slip in Hammer guaranteed AMD won't be close in Mhz for 6 months more than planned. Also...the 3 month slip in Palomino hurt too. It's just very difficult to convince the average Joe that 1.4 is better than 1.7. I knew, despite Athlon, AMD would have to execute close to flawlessly to make a permenant dent in Intel. Seems like Sanders started snoking cigars too soon and Dirk may have been a victim of the peter principle. On the brighter side, the low point for AMD has likely passed in terms of positioning it's chips vs Intel now that AMD has server, SMP and notebook chips in production. A few more speed grades between now and the rest of the year will help too. As will the SIS and Nvidia chipsets. I won't even mention the marketing. Jim

To: AK2004 who wrote (50537)	8/9/2001 6:12:38 PM
From: jcholewa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Àlbert, how about this scenario: amd: clock is slower but performance is better? whoever: prove it amd: third party benchmarks whoever: intel benchmarks show different amd: both intel and amd bias their benchmarks for marketing. but true third party results blah blah blah 3D blah blah blah multimedia blah blah blah supports Extended Professional 3DNow! and Intel's 3DNow! clone technology blah blah blah blah even beats the G4 at equal clock blah blah multiprocessor for the masses blah blah we don't cripple our processors and then boost the gigahertz to deceive the marketplace blah blah blah amd doesn't recall multiple times a year blah blah pheer my 31337 pr skillz! whoever: waaaaitaminute.... you DO have pr skills! you can't be an amd employee! who are you really? ruiner: damn, you found me out!

To: AK2004 who wrote (50537)	8/9/2001 7:10:28 PM
From: TechieGuy-alt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

What AMD needs to do, IMHO, is to start a "tag line" branding campaign. Some thing like: "Get behind the numbers!" or "Do you know your computer's real number?" They need to plant a seed of doubt in people's minds that GHz A != GHZ B But they need to do this without depending on too many abstract benchmarks or actual numbers themselves! (not that they cannot show better performance, but it tends to confuse the customer and they won't believe a bunch of benchmark numbers from a mfr anyway). They need to push the Concept line: "Do you know the real numbers behind the number?" Make the customer feel as if they are in the dark and are being taken for a ride, but let them do their own research. AMD cannot loose if the customers do their own research on the web etc. At least it gets them a fighting chance against some one buying off raw MHz. I'm no marketing guy, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it! :) TG