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: andreas_wonisch who wrote (57036)	10/3/2001 2:13:36 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Andreas, re: The pay higher prices for PCs with better equipment (which happen to be faster because the OEMs differentiate their PC models by clock-speed; or do you really thing a 1.4 GHz P4 and 1.5 GHz P4 could be differentiated by CPU price alone? OEM's pay more for higher MHz chip, put them in units, and sell the units for more money. It is the value system of the industry. Consumers equate MHz with speed, it is the best known performance factor (we could argue this all day, but the fact is that I'm right <g>). We both know that it's not the only factor, in fact if you double the amount of memory in most PC's it would probably mean a larger performance difference than upgrading the processor by 30%. So if AMD and Intel and the OEM's really wanted to be charitable to the consumer, they would say "forget the upgrade, just plop in more cheap memory". But then who makes any money? Not the OEM's, and not most of the component manufacturers. AMD is clearly losing in MHz, so they have gone on a noble crusade to change the consumers performance criteria. If MHz didn't matter to the consumer, why would AMD be doing this? If the industry wanted to change the performance rating standards, the component manufacturers and OEM's should get together to establish a new standard. Probably not a bad idea. But they won't. The whole PC business plan is formulated around MHz. Enter AMD, with a plan to change the industry standard. Do they come up with a new, specific benchmark? No, they throw out some discretionary numbers. If this "system" is intended NOT to be deceptive, why don't they use numbers from 1 to 10, or a one star to five star system? No, they just happen to pick MHz similar numbers, with the intention to confuse the consumer. This doesn't serve anyone, certainly not AMD, not Intel (well maybe), not the OEM's, not the consumer. It's a charade, and to back-test my conclusion, ask yourself if AMD would be pulling this stunt if they had the MHz lead. re: It worked before as witnessed by Cyrix' initial success and it might work again. And tell me about how Cyrix built long term brand equity with their scheme. They probably damaged their brand beyond repair. John