Replies to post #28276 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[dougSF30]

I'm afraid that in being a "stickler", you miss the point.

I'm not sure why AMD has stuck by this fiction w.r.t. the comparison basis for PR ratings. It is clear that they have shifted in response to whatever Intel is offering, as they *should*.

Already, we see segmentation. Compare (desktop) Athlon XP 3200+ performance to Athlon64 3200+ performance. For instance, see the Anandtech review on September 23, 03.

Any credibility gap likely exists only in the mind of the overly technical engineer. What matters is whether the ratings are fair within the segments, in comparison to Intel products.

I'll concede that it would be nice if AMD would go as far as saying that AthlonXP (-M) are a different segment than Athlon64 products, and PR numbers cannot be directly compared between the two, and set explicit targets of Prescott for A64 PR, and P4 Celeron for AXP PR. Nice, but probably not necessary, as far as *consumers* go.

Doug

[UpNDown]

Kap, sgolds, on PR rating

AMD always said that model numbers represent relative performance of AMD parts _not_ a comparison with P4 or Celeron.


In one of the annual reports, I believe last year's, they said that the rating was designed to match the competitor's performance. I reported that last year, but don't have a link.

[KeithDust2000]

sgolds, kap, you´re both making the mistake of confusing marketing with technical definitions, these are two entirely different things. What I described is the way it is done, and it is from my, and from AMD´s point of view, the only viable way to protect brand and pricing against an ever accelerating Celeron. You might not like that, but it won´t change a thing, I´m afraid. A quick look at AMD´s pricing structure at the end of the year will be a good indicator of the success of the strategy. It should work pretty fine, as both Athlon XP and Athlon 64 are already more established than Duron ever was.

In the end, what really counts is what the customer gets for his money, and in AMD´s case, that "PR" is more than fair, compared with competing offerings. As long as that is the case, there´s no reason to complain, neither for OEMs, nor for end users, apart from a few geeks at some weird message boards, who know what they are buying anyway :)

In the real world, you won´t see furious customers returning their Athlon XP 2800+, for which they paid less than for a 2.8Ghz Celeron, because it isn´t up to the performance of the much more expensive Athlon64 2800+. They will never know, and this explains, in part, Celeron´s great success. The difference to what INTEL does with Celeron however is that the customer gets a much better deal if he chooses the AMD route. That´s what makes it worth for us offering their products.

And the real world is where these processors are sold. I work in the PC business, and that´s probably why my point of view is purely pragmatic and business oriented. Most customers don´t research their purchases, and those that do will know what they are buying. From an OEM point of view, AMD´s move is not only understandable, but actually commendable. I stressed that many times last year. We will have very attractive products (both in performance and marketing terms) for the high and low end segments of the consumer market, and a second supplier that has finally learned how to play the game according to the rules established by the market leader, making it a much better alternative than it was before, with Athlon XP awkwardly positioned slightly above Celeron and no fully-fledged alternative to P4. The segmentation is now obvious, and allows us a clear positioning of AMD´s products.

This is it from me on the subject, hope this helps some.