Replies to post #29172 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[KeithDust2000]

otmm, I think you don´t understand. INTEL´s ratings basically reflect relative performance (as far as that is possible) within a market segment. The numbers are pretty arbitrary (Pentium M and P4 have very different characteristics), and give AMD a chance to give their *roughly* equivalent performing product to the eg. 1.5 Ghz Celeron M / 2.93Ghz Prescott Celeron the same number. It´s a godsend for AMD marketing.

[dougSF30]

OTMM, 3 months? What "new feature or gizmo" do you think Intel is going to "integrate" 3 months from now? (the answer is: none.)

You're missing the main point: Intel is giving up on clockspeed marketing. That means the consumer will focus more on true performance, which is a boon for AMD.

Doug

[Petz]

I can't see the customers, who are OEMs, not you and me, going along with this new scheme. OEMS do not want INTEL taking the credit for the features they put in their products. That gives them NOTHING to differentiate between themselves except PRICE.

This may be what Intel wants, but the OEMs would be FOOLS to go along with it.

If MHz were being replaced by Performance, I would have applauded, but its not.

MHz is being replaced by "features," and the features on a computer have next to nothing to do with the CPU chip family.

In fact, "features" can be created by Intel's marketing department, irrespective of whether it bears any resemblance to reality. AMD will lose that war, no doubt.

"The 745 processor has 'efficeon technology' and 'hypervideo technology'."

"The Opteron 850 has the 'cinematic reality engine', available only from AMD."

All meaningless mumbo jumbo.

Does anyone really care whether 802.11g is being done inside the CPU, inside an Intel or AMD chipset, or some other place on the motherboard?

Petz

[sgolds]

out to make money, Keith, certainly Intel feels they can get a competitive advantage from the naming scheme or obviously they would not have done it. Maybe they are getting too much channel confusion from the mixed message on speed with regards to Itanium & P4, not to mention Dotham.

So Intel thinks they can make a simpler message to the buying public with this scheme. Three product families for desktop, three for mobile. They calculate that with their advertising budget they can brand their model numbers more effectively than AMD, and it should give them a competitive advantage.

However, AMD got a year head start with AMD64 processors and a lot of brand awareness. Intel is playing catch-up again, this time in marketing rather than engineering.

Now it is up to AMD to position their product offerings so that A64 and AFX get benchmarked against 700s, AXP get benchmarked against 500s and AMD makes sure it is understood that they are not aiming as low as the 300 series performance. K8 AthlonXPs have some excellent performance features and should match very well against Intel's 500 series.