Replies to post #40785 on Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[wbmw]

upc, Re: I cannot imagine why you continue to compare AthlonXP/64 ratings to Sempron ratings, and act suprised that they are not consistent. Are you surprised by the performance of a Celeron 2.6 GHz vs a Prescott 2.6 GHz part?

I'm surprised you don't see the fault in what you write. Intel has long since erred in marketing megahertz for products with non-similar performance, and people on this forum have been saying so for ages. Intel had a product positioning problem when AMD came out with model ratings that all compared with P4 megahertz. Intel worked around the problem by continuing to raise the bar on megahertz, but they had no solution when it came to Pentium M, which offers excellent performance at low megahertz. So Intel finally did the right thing by moving to a completely arbitrary rating system, where different product lines can be differentiated by model number families (300s, 500s, 700s). AMD pioneered this with Opteron and Athlon 64-FX, but then they took two steps backward with Sempron. Rather than moving away from megahertz, AMD is making the same mistake that Intel made with Celeron megahertz - which is devaluing the performance ratings of the premium parts. A Sempron 3100+ seems just as good or better than an Athlon 64 2800+, but it's not. AMD's strategy would have worked if Intel still marketed Celeron megahertz, but they should have changed their strategy prior to Sempron's release.

[Dan3]

Re: [WBMW] Are you surprised by the performance of a Celeron 2.6 GHz vs a Prescott 2.6 GHz part?

He's stunned and horrified and grateful to you for bringing this travesty to his attention.

He's contacted an attorney and has filed a lawsuit against Intel to "stop the madness!"

:-)