Replies to post #39700 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[upc]

I don't think the + is really meant to convey any serious amount of padding. If you can make higher clockspeeds, then you should release parts with higher ratings, and corresponding higher prices, not inflate the ratings. I would agree with you that the ratings should not be overly aggressive, and that most reviewers should concede that they are at least fair. But beyond that, it does not make sense to pad PR numbers meant to be interpreted by a mass consumer.

upc

[pgerassi]

Dear Mas:

Since you mention Celeron-D potential overclocks to 3.6-3.8GHz then why not consider that Athlon-XP potential overclocks to 2.6-2.8GHz now and thus are as fast as Celeron-D of 3.9-4.2GHz. My Athlon XP 2400+ (2GHz@133) overclocked to (2.4GHz@166) and thus became equivalent to P4E of 3GHz to 3.6GHz in normal usage. Celeron-D will not do better. Semperon 2800+ will be a match for Celeron-D of 3-3.2Ghz. So some padding is still there.

Who will want a Celeron-D at $125 when a Semperon of the same rating at $90 will beat it? Especially where the Semperon MB is cheaper for the same or better functionality. Of course the Socket A versions will disapper in early 2005 and only the Socket 754 versions will be left. Celeron-D against equally rated 754 Semperons will lose even more especially given on die DRAM controller and HT speeds. Even greater price differences will be apparent.

And at some future date, probably by the end of 2005, 64 bit functionality is turned on for all Semperons and Celeron-E (if any) is eating the Semperon's dust. During this period, AMD will start the move of the high end to K9.

Pete