Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[Jules2]

Posted by: chipguy
In reply to: avatar who wrote msg# 28721 Date:3/15/2004 2:04:11 PM
Post #of 28794


Why is Intel saying 64-bit is not for desktops?

1) What is the manufacturing cost of an average 1Q04
desktop PC? What cost represents the high end of the
lowest cost 80% of desktop volume? 90%? 95%. Now
how much of these costs is allocated to memory?

2) What is the cost of 8 GB of DDR?

How does 1 compare to 2?

I don't think Intel isn't saying the desktop won't ever
go 64 bit, just that it doesn't make sense economically
or practically right now for the overwhelming majority
of users.

Chipguy.
"It doesn't make sense economicaly"?
I paid a lot less for my Athlon 64-bit chip than Intels high end CPU when I made the purchase. It's performance is on par with Intels best. It runs 32 bit software faster than any equivelent speed/rating chip.

I paid $400.00
Intel wanted much more for a 32 bit chip that could come close to the A54's performance. Intel had NO 64-bit chip to offer!
They still dont.
Dell wanted aprox. $3000.00 for their high end gaming machine with a pee4ee. My machine performs better at a fraction of the price.
FACT: It never makes sense to promote 64 bits when you dont have it, only your competitor does.
FACT: When intel does have a 64 bit chip it will sudenly be "The Future but only for power users" or some other marketing nonsense to try and capitalise on it's high end offering.
Yes, I know Intel has 64 bit Itanic but it's not for the desktop Blah, Blah.
We are INTEL. we will let you know when 64 bits makes economical sense for you! You see we at intel dont beleive you consuming morons have the ability to work with a few numbers. Take that bag off of your head and listen!

AMD listens to it's customers!
AMD is quickly becoming the the tech leader for CPU's
The buying public is very much aware of marketing hyperbol, be it from intel or any other comany.

Regards

jules