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: John Stopforth who wrote (52986)	8/29/2001 12:34:32 PM
From: Epinephrine	Respond to of 275872

RE:<Yea me, calling a 1.4GHZ CPU a model 1600 is just plain dumb.I'm starting to lose confidence in AMD.> John, I don't necessarily have a problem with model numbers per se, I think the real problem with AMD's silly strategy is shown in this little quote (which I got from Dan3's post): "A new BIOS Writer's Guide prohibits the BIOS from ever displaying the true core frequency of Palomino!" I have always been under the assumption that no matter how weak AMD gets with the OEM's (IBM dropping them etc.) they are kicking ass in the screwdriver shops. It is the dabblers and the overclockers that are a large part of the market share that they already have and these people want to know (and tweak) every little minutia of their systems specs and performance. So now AMD is pulling some kind of Intel ramrod BS and forcing everyone to not display the real frequency, thus making it look like they aren't making the changes to be accurate or fair but rather because they are trying to hide something, that's bad enough but instead of taking the extra time and effort to do a thorough marketing and education push they seem to be trying to dictate what others can know by trying to sweep their dirt under the rug. In short I think that by pandering to the ignorance of the troglodytes (what they can't see won't hurt them) they are running the very real risk of alienating and eroding their educated and stalwart technophile base. The other problem with their scheme to me is that it is so arbitrary, instead of something concrete like operations in a given time or some other constant they are basing their whole model number scheme on the performance of P4. So the natural question becomes, what happens when P4 improves, or when it eol's alltogether. Sure that may not happen for a while but what if you purchase a model 1600 today and they do some IPC enhancements or something to P4 and it no longer performs to a level that would justify such a model number in relation to the new P4's. It doesn't matter to me how likely that is, or whether it would be fair to compare an old model 1600 to a newly revamped P4, the perception in a situation like that could become that AMD's modeling specs were bs and this is all about perceptions anyway right? I think AMD needed a PR rating scheme, but I think the one they came up with sucks, sucks, sucks. I may be wrong and it may turn out great but that's my story and I'm sticking to it! Thanks for listening to my rant :) Epinephrine