Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 7th Nov 2003 09:03 UTC
AMD While Intel's Extreme Edition is coming out soon but with crazy prices, AMD on Thursday sketched out its strategy for the PC and cell phone markets for the next two years at its annual analysts' meeting and disclosed its plans for another multibillion-dollar chip fabrication facility, or fab.
Order by: Score:
amd will never turn a profit again
by rowel on Fri 7th Nov 2003 09:16 UTC

why? because they cannot possibly win against Intel. intel will soon release p4 4GHz and prescot core with AMD support. intel has better factories which means no more money for amd. sorry folks, ther ecan only be one winner in the cpu war, and that winner is intel, not amd. opteron and athlon64 is both stuck at 2GHZ as intel is poised to break 4GHZ barrier. no cpu has ever done that, and intel p4 will be the first

RE:amd will never turn a profit again
by openforce on Fri 7th Nov 2003 09:56 UTC

now now ;)

I think it's hard to see which one made the better decision. AMD 64-bit processors dont suck, I'm not saying they are a new world wonder either, but they certainly far from suck. And I certainly dont hope there is just 1 winner in the cpu war, neither AMD or Intel, this would be bad for consumers.

What has made me choose AMD over and over again is that at the same performance they are significantly cheaper, why would I spend twice as much money for the same speed?

by ret on Fri 7th Nov 2003 10:14 UTC

....can never be one.

RE: amd will never turn a profit again
by Grant on Fri 7th Nov 2003 11:04 UTC

If you had 1/2 a clue you probably would of realised by now that clock means little anymore.

I recently read this on a linux newsgroup from a guy who was going scientific simulations on various processors..

"We just finished crunching a 3.3 quadrillion atom calculation as detailed in the "Need for Severe Speed" thread. A 2.8 GHz Intel Xeon was loaded with the 32-bit code. 18 hours later a 1.8 GHz AMD Opteron was loaded with the identical program and parameters, both under Linux. Based on 2 GHz AMD consumer PC benchmarks for the same calculation, we expected
1) 8 CPU-weeks in the PC (forget it)
2) 5.7 CPU weeks in the Xeon (maybe 3-4 given "hyperthreading")
3) (8)(2/1.8)(1/2) = 4.4 weeks in the Opteron given double bandwdith for the 64 bit-chip running a 32 bit program.

It looked like a good horserace. As of this morning, less than one week after starting, the Opteron had output the results which graphed and had stats exactly as expected. The Xeon is still cooking. AMD is correct: a well-designed CPU can outperform a much faster Intel chip.(Windows execution is 40% slower than Linux in benchmarks.)

It looks like a 64-bit optimized port of the 32-bit program in four Opteron CPU-weeks can deliver the same crunch as a 168-Xeon cluster over a 3.5 day holiday weekend. That is incredible - especially if it runs in less time. We're gonna try the Opteron."


By the way, as much as some Int3l fanatics want AMD to die – remember if nothing else, competition is good.

I can still remember the days a P4-450 was $1300AU, just before AMD unleashed the Athlon. Shortly after it was less than 1/2 that.

AMD .. MAD :)
by AdmV0rl0n on Fri 7th Nov 2003 12:28 UTC

Having bought an Opteron system, I can only say I am impressed.

Low temperature from the CPU
Fast during normal system use
The onchip memory seems to me to make for a creamy smooth feel in general use.
Some benchmarks clearly favour the Intel systems, but that has often been the case, in particular, the razor fast memory cache speed on Intel is still impressive. AMD for FPU, Intel for Integer

Careful choice of processor/platform for your purpose can net results.

Double thumbs up for AMD on the 64 IMHO though ;)


Stop replying to trolls
by CooCooCaChoo on Fri 7th Nov 2003 13:00 UTC

Rowel is a cronic troll just like walterbyrd and deak. Both are very sad little boys with his sad little PC toy hoping that if the make enough noise on the internet, people will take notice.

Let these boys do what they want. As for the moderators, rowel should not only be automatically moderated down but his whole ip address range banned from posting comments.

From his inane, unfactural comments to his pathetic "plant some flaimbait and watch the action occur", he is worse than the kryoshin and slashdot trolls.

Re: amd will never turn a profit again
by rajan r on Fri 7th Nov 2003 13:49 UTC

rowel, you obviously need to get a clue: CPU frequency is not the only factor for a processor's speed. An good example would be with Intel themselves. When Pentium 4 first came up, although it has frequencies close to double of that of Pentium III, Pentium III remained faster than Pentium 4. And the same with Athlon at that time. Sure, times changed, Pentium 4 got much faster (that can be said of AMD too). So here pops up another example showing that performance is not the result of frequency: Pentium-M. Yes, it has lower frequencies, but I have not see one benchmark that wouldn't conclude that Pentium-M is faster than Pentium 4-m.

Yeah, AMD is not making too much money. That's not because they don't have the processor with the highest Mhz. Rather, it is their inept marketing department, plus their restrictive advertising budget. When Pentium 4 was released, ads were flying all over - everyone knew about it (except the Amish). AMD Athlon-64 came to the shelf with little fanfare by geeks and nothing more. No major advertising campaign. Nothing.

Marketing sells the product. Not MHz.

Re: Stop replying to trolls
by rajan r on Fri 7th Nov 2003 13:53 UTC

Sorry, CooCoo....

 Re: Stop replying to trolls
by Manik on Fri 7th Nov 2003 14:16 UTC

You people don't understand rowel. Rowel is a knight. he has a God given mission. He has heard the voice of His angels, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and that other one at Intel. He must fight the devils, monsters and dragons that sit in Cupertino and other places

This is a tremendous burden, as he is constantly confronted to silly stupid stubborn people, reluctant to receive his knowledge, which he wants to spread the more possible, because like jam, the less you have the more you must spread.

It is a dangerous task too, and that is why he has already made his will. He has asked to have his brain formatted (that will take less than a second), then to be buried in a Dell case, with his dearest belongings: his keyboard's Windows keys.

Rowel is my hero.

Re: Re: Stop replying to trolls
by rajan r on Fri 7th Nov 2003 14:34 UTC

Heh, to think that Bill Gates is having an partnerships with numerous different types of devils (Apple, AMD)... Evil God.

@ rajan r
by Manik on Fri 7th Nov 2003 14:49 UTC

He must embrace them to extinguish them. That's his strategy.

Current 32 bit processors
by hcuar on Fri 7th Nov 2003 15:08 UTC

Sorry... but let's compare processors. The current AMD XP 3200+ which supposedly is comparable to the P4 3.2 is way off the mark. Check out Tom's Hardware review... Comparing the 64 bit processor is outrageous. Duh, it's going to be faster. I'll be more impressed if the Opteron is still faster when the Intel 64 bit processor comes out. Just my 2 cents.

yeah, whatever
by umok on Fri 7th Nov 2003 15:18 UTC

I'm a huge AMD fan, I've got like 10 of their chips, but I'm thinking of switching to IBM or Intel because I hate the way they price their opteron DP systems. I like DP systems, but not when it costs me 4 times as much as a single CPU system.

Fuk AMD!

RE: Stop replying to trolls
by Jason on Fri 7th Nov 2003 16:10 UTC

I agree with you...rowel and the others you mention are just sad flamers. But this comment:

"Let these boys do what they want. As for the moderators, rowel should not only be automatically moderated down but his whole ip address range banned from posting comments. "

Not such a good idea. YOu might accidemtally block legitimate access. I have mentioned it before, I'll say it again...log ins. OSNews should have a membership system that requirese eveyone to get a user id, passowrd, and submit their email address to the system. That way if someone causes trouble you can dump their account and block them from getting another account by using the email as tracking mechanism...of course people typically have more than one email.

Enough of the off topic garbage.

Back to business: Yeah AMD. I want to see them opening more facilities. I think they have a great product and provide serious competition for Intel which in turn keeps Intel kinda "in check." I remember prior to AMD Athalon's, Intel was charging people up the ass for their chips. If AMD withers away and nobody else fills their shoes, you can believe that prices will skyrocket.

by :) on Fri 7th Nov 2003 16:21 UTC

Don't feed the trolls *cough* rowel *cough*

compairing a 64bit chip to a 32 bit chip is perfectly fine
by debman on Fri 7th Nov 2003 16:26 UTC

they both run the same code...they are both available NOW. hence you have a choice to make between one or the other.

if you can get an Athlon64, why not? it runs your 32 bit OS better than a 32 bit chip.

RE: debman
by hcuar on Fri 7th Nov 2003 16:35 UTC

Ok, yes the Athalon64 is fast... Woohoo, but geeze it's expensive. AMD used to be top notch because they were better priced for comparable power. Now the roles are reversed. My point was... If Intel can mop the floor in the 32 bit world (XP 3200+ versus P4 3.2), what's going to happen with a 64 bit Intel chip? IMHO AMD will forever be playing catchup. Although, I must thank AMD for forcing Intel to bring prices down to reasonable rates. (BTW: I actually bought the AMD XP 1800+ when Intel's prices were still outlandish.)

Re: debman
by Erwos on Fri 7th Nov 2003 17:38 UTC

"IMHO AMD will forever be playing catchup."

You must have missed the fairly long period where the Athlon consistently smoked the PIII. If AMD can do it once, they can do it again.


by deathshadow on Fri 7th Nov 2003 17:50 UTC

People seem to forget that despite what the die-hard technophiles believe, the top uber chip is NOT what the average joe at home buys. It's why Intel still manages to fork out Celeries at a good pace and why AMD XP's DO sell well.

I keep seeing people comparing the XP 3200 vs. the P4 3.2, which to me is not a fair comparison, and in a way I wish AMD hadn't gone back to their PR system of rating them.

Lets' do two real brass tacks compares. I do some sales, and have yet to see anyone buy the top priced chips, so let's go down to the 'mid-range'... the XP 2500 Barton. Instead of comparing the PR rating, let's look at equal price and equal clocks.

Price first. $90 for the XP 2500 Bart. What's the best intel I can get for that scratch again? 2.6 Celery for 89. or a P4 1.8 for $104. Either of which the XP 2500 blows out of the water in speed.

Ok, clocks. The XP 2500 bart is actually a 1.83ghz chip. Again the P4 1.8 comes up. Again, the Bart beats it handily.

Complaining about the price of a CPU that just came out is just retarded, because nobody but a total moron or technophile from hell would buy an unproven overpriced technology. Yeah, the Ath-64 is $700+... but what's the price on that 3.2ghz Xeon again? Ok, the XP Bart 3200 costs $315, but the P4 3.2 is $394 is it not.

Still sounds like they are winning the price war to me. AMD has a fairly sound strategy, don't aim for the top speed as your cash cow, aim at selling lots of mid-market product.

RE: Except
by hcuar on Fri 7th Nov 2003 18:40 UTC

If you reference the link I provided in a prior post, you will see that a P4 2.4 GHZ 533FSB is a better comparison to the XP 3200+. Which will only run you $174. The P4 2.6 GHZ 800 FSB only runs $176, which spanks the XP 3200+.

I wouldn't call someone buying the latest technology a moron, I would call them fortunate to be able to afford the cost (which is their own choice).

So, as to AMD still winning the pricing war, sorry don't think so. I can buy a "slower" Intel chip for half the price that kicks AMD's *ss. I guess I'm not comparing the price of CPU's that just came out afterall. At least not for Intel.

When AMD "catches" up again, fixes their cooling problems, and once again matches or beats Intel's prices I will give them another looks. Until then, I'm only recommending and buying Intel.

Let the flamewar begin.

Re: hcuar
by Bascule on Fri 7th Nov 2003 19:35 UTC

The current AMD XP 3200+ which supposedly is comparable to the P4 3.2 is way off the mark.

You don't understand the AMD model number system. The model number is not supposed to be equivalent Pentium 4 performance, it's supposed to be equivalent Thunderbird performance.

If you reference the link I provided in a prior post, you will see that a P4 2.4 GHZ 533FSB is a better comparison to the XP 3200+.

It seems that the Athlon XP 3200+ beats, in several instances, the 2.8GHz 533MHz FSB Pentium 4, and sometimes even the 3.06GHz 533MHz FSB Pentium 4.

Which will only run you $174. The P4 2.6 GHZ 800 FSB only runs $176, which spanks the XP 3200

I'm seeing the Athlon XP 3200+ at $300 and the Pentium 4 2.8GHz 800MHz FSB at $205 after shipping (the 2.6GHz 800MHz FSB lost to the 3200+ in several of the benchmarks) So yes, it does appear at this point that an equivalently powered Pentium 4 costs about 2/3 the price of the fastest Athlon.

Re: Bascule
by hcuar on Fri 7th Nov 2003 19:58 UTC

Ok, I concede that probably the best comparison is the P4 2.8GHz 800MHz FSB for the AMD XP 3200+.

I must not have understood AMD's numbering system. According to the number system compares the processor to competitors. However, AMD site claims the performance rating compares other AMD XP processors. Of course they also claim it's faster than the P4 3.0 Ghz 800FSB.

I realize that the 3200+ beat some of the P4 processors in certain circumstances in the 533FSB category, however I would expect their top of the line "performance" processor to compete the top of the line Intel processor.

It also makes me wonder how the P4 3.2Ghz EE processor will perform and at what cost. It didn't seem to affect the cost too much at the Alienware site. Hopefully a lot of cache won't cost a lot of cash.

by Alex (The Original) on Fri 7th Nov 2003 20:32 UTC

I am a strong AMD supporter. What worries me is their marketting. I honestly believe their marketting department suck and I am afraid it may cause their business. A lot of people are not aware of AMD's chips capabilities so they simply stick with P4s. Ads, commercials on TV everywhere for P4 when it launched. Remember OS/2 and IBM's marketting?

Motorola has some plants
by jefro on Fri 7th Nov 2003 21:50 UTC

Hey, AMD. Call Motorola. They are trying to sell their fabs.

What bothers me most
by Mikhail Capone on Sat 8th Nov 2003 17:57 UTC

Is that many people who don't know much about CPU feel like posting about how the clockspeed equals the CPU speed.

"Oh, AMD is stuck at 2ghz and intel is at 3+ghz!"

Maybe they'd understand it better if it was explained this way: imagine a japanese car with a 2 liters engine that revs at 5000RPM at all times versus an european car that has a 3.5L engine that revs around 2500RPM.

Which one has more power/will go faster?

Of course it's not that simple, but Intel has taken the route of inefficient processors with very high clockspeeds while AMD has taken the route of more efficient CPUs.

re: Alex (The Original)
by hmmm on Sat 8th Nov 2003 20:27 UTC

I agree. What also worries me is how whenever they are in the position of beating Intel they start acting like Intel. Similar to any company trying to beat Microsoft, like Sun Microsystems. It wouldn't suprise me a bit if Sun started acting like another Microsoft after taking over the desktop. But I think we all know this will never happen.

Psychology and marketting are extremely important in business today. But so is a passion for your products and technology and business itself. I hope AMD can lose the capitalist tone and be humble enough to compete by offering their customers fair and low prices, exploit their fascinating technology in their marketting department (maybe even teach their customers something about CPUs), and focus the company on the technology, not the money. 64-bit x86 is VERY AWESOME. There are many games we would love to have on our Linux desktop. AMD's technolgoy will help bring them to us by giving us more efficient and powerful computational resources at consumer prices. Prices for EVERYONE!

PS BTW, AMD, if you're listening, EVERYONE would love DP systems. Can we fade out the differences between Athlon64 and Opteron2xx, or make the Athlon64 DP capable, like the Intel Celeron 300a. Its really in your best interest to sell more CPUs, isn't it? 2 per system seems like a good idea to me, at least until the multicore chips start selling.

by Anonymous on Sat 8th Nov 2003 20:41 UTC

AMD has some powerful processors.

Is anyone arguing that AMD sells cheaper processors
by Maynard on Sun 9th Nov 2003 04:53 UTC

Here, besides the very top end, where AMD is kicking Intel's butt in performance right now, AMD is still very much the best buy. The Intel 3.2 Ghz is about the same price, if not more expensive than the Athlon 64 3200+, which is a faster processor too, in addition to those mentioned above.

RE Maynard
by hcuar on Sun 9th Nov 2003 07:30 UTC

What in tarnation are you talking about? The Athlon 64 currently only comes in a 2.2 GHz variety. It runs around $800.00. I think you are referring to the Athlon XP 3200+ which is marginaly cheaper than the Intel 3.2GHz processor. Besides, as I have already pointed out... The Intel processor blows the AMD processor out of the water. (XP versus P4).

Sorry AMD is a crappy deal right now.

by Anonymous on Mon 10th Nov 2003 09:59 UTC

Will the new processors be available?