Case Proven: People that think X2 > Core2 clock for clock

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Crusader
My point was, if you did buy the AMD (or Intel) either way you wont get a crap chip.

For the past years, with the exception of Northwood, Intel has been selling crap chips.
Theres nothing pathetic about using a X2 5000+ unless you are a rabid intel fanboy elitist. Still a great, fast chip..

You're saying its ok to overpay for a chip that:

1) Does less in the performance/watt category (upwards of 40-60% less).
2) Does less general performance (upwards of 20-30% less than a E6600 at stock).
3) Costs upwards of 50% more.

Yet, how is this different when you were buying "crap" Intel chips? I mean P4 Prescotts/Cedar Mills made *ok* machines (they work well and are reasonably fast compared to previous generation AthlonXP's and S754 A64's), but they fell into the same category as #1, #2 but NEVER #3 (except for EE's).

Originally posted by: atom
So, since when is AMD getting a cut from retailer markups? And how is this different from Intel? Intel makes a killing on the EE chips, AMD makes a killing on their FX chips, no surprises here.

I think Viditor can answer this, but its also based on distributor demand. Obviously since retailers like Newegg are selling out at inflated prices, the distributors aren't being retarded and not taking notice. Hence the distributors can mark it up. Since AMD sells directly to the distributors, they are idiots for not noticing the series of markups as well. Also I'm talking about the AM2-5000+, not even an FX chip.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: gramboh
What about that OcHungry nut who claimed that OC'ing on an AMD platform yielded more gains than on an Intel C2D platform? Hilarious stuff, basically saying the MHz did not scale the same on both systems (WTF?).

Just because two systems are overclocked by the same percentage doesn't mean that they achieve the same performance increase, if that's what you're saying. Performance scaling from increasing frequency is almost always non-linear because of inefficiencies mainly located in the memory sub-system.

Note that I'm not saying that OcHungry is right or wrong. I'm just saying that what he's describing is something that can and does happen when comparing different CPUs.

It means nothing...in the end the only thing that matters is which one is faster.

 

[aka1nas]

While that guy was an idiot, I could almost understand it if they were confused and thought you were talking about netburst Xeons at 3Ghz compared to an X2. a 2.2Ghz X2 would smack around a 3Ghz pentium D-based Xeon and I wouldn't expect even an enthusiast to be familiar with Xeon core code names as we don't use them a whole lot around here.

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: Crusader
AMD makes a great chip.
Its Intel that finally caught up.

Before it was insane to consider buying Intel.
Now the situation is merely you could buy either one, and really not go wrong.

I'd only go AMD if my budget for a CPU was less than $150.

I agree ... The only reason I'm currently running an AM2 5000+ based system is that I got
an OEM version of the cpu for free which is tough to beat by any measure!

If I was building a new system right now I'll even go a step further on price & say I'd only go with AMD if I wanted to spend under $100 on the cpu and go with a single core.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The fact is that you should understand bigger numbers = better.

Hmm, according to your methodology, the 3.73 Ghz Presler P4 is twice as fast as an E6300. This is what's confusing people. For 3 years, Intel spent 10's of billions of dollars lying to the American public on national TV, and other worldwide media, that "Mhz is all that matters". <<(not a direct quote of Intel) Now, it's come back to bite them in the ass, hasn't it? I've always thought that turnabout is fair play.

No, thats more due to the fact of trend as well as marketting. General Consumers saw that as processors gain speed, the clock speed also gains. This was held true for over TWO DECADES. Thus, Intel didn't really have to do much to hint that ideology that Mhz = performance without actually saying it. No Intel commercial actually said Mhz = performance.

However, AMD has held the IPC crown since 1999 (shocking but its 7 years now). Although AMD has never publically that stated that AMD Mhz > Intel Mhz, it was strongly hinted with the PR system and most semi-informed people just knew. Now take current affairs. Core2 was a shock. Most people never even remotely imagined (except the NDA's and some uarch people) that Core2 would take the IPC AND Mhz crown. Intel IPC, for the first time maybe EVER, is decisively ahead of AMD IPC. However, 7 years of superior AMD IPC is hard to overcome. Thus, there are people, even regular posters on Anandtech that still believe AMD IPC > Core2 IPC. Now take non-regular AT posters who "think" they know computers. It becomes an ever greater issue of mis-understanding.

Look at newegg.com; AM2-5000+ is supposed MSRP at under $300. However, newegg and many stores are selling out AM2-5000+ at around the $500 mark. The demand is THAT high because there are THAT many people in the dark and still believe past trends. That is why the AMD market will be strong. It literally took years for people to finally realize the importance of IPC in clock speed. And it will literally take years for people to realize that AMD isn't always the IPC leader.

So basically, this is a thread to address all the "AMD is gonna die" people that AMD will be alive and healthy despite charging more for less, as Intel has done for more or less 2 years.

Core2 was no shock. There was warning 3 years before it was released in the form of the Pentium M. It was a logical and easily visible progression to a desktop CPU which achieved similar results (good performance at lower clock speeds)

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Crusader
AMD makes a great chip.
Its Intel that finally caught up.

Before it was insane to consider buying Intel.
Now the situation is merely you could buy either one, and really not go wrong.

Uh no...

Why would ANYONE buy a AM2-5000+ for $500 when you can buy a FASTER E6600 + Good 965 O/C motherboard for the SAME PRICE?

At the low end, anything below the X2-4200 is reasonably priced, its the high end where AMD is making an absolute killing.

My point was, if you did buy the AMD (or Intel) either way you wont get a crap chip.

For the past years, with the exception of Northwood, Intel has been selling crap chips.
Theres nothing pathetic about using a X2 5000+ unless you are a rabid intel fanboy elitist. Still a great, fast chip..

'Crap' is all relative. Compared to C2D, X2s are crap. Compared to P-Ds, X2s rock.

An X2 5000+ is 'pathetic' when you compare it next to a cheaper, faster and cooler E6600, just like how P-Ds and are pathetic when you compare them to cheaper, faster and cooler X2s.

You can't have one rule for Intel and another for AMD. Call it like it is - mid/high end X2s suck big time compared to C2D.

Trying to justify the inflated price by saying it's still a 'great, fast chip' is clutching at straws, really.

 

[Prince13]

Haha. Just bought E6300 Core 2 DUO with ASUS P5B Deluxe Motherboards. When I announce to my friends I have one of the fastest computer chips with me right now. The CORE 2 DUO naming is too complicated for everyone here, so I just say that Intel has come up with Pentium 5. LOOOL. They expect the increase in GHZ! Like they think it must have reached 5 GHZ or something. They ask how fast it is. When I say it's 1.86 Ghz. They are like laughing and say DUDE IT'S ONLY 1.86 GHZ. WE CAN GET 3.6 GHZ P4. I say true, it's lower in MHZ but more in what it can do.

I say it's equal to a P4 3.0 Ghz. LOOL. Now, I hope I am very right when I say that. It can beat a little faster than that actually.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Crusader
AMD makes a great chip.
Its Intel that finally caught up.

Before it was insane to consider buying Intel.
Now the situation is merely you could buy either one, and really not go wrong.

Uh no...

Why would ANYONE buy a AM2-5000+ for $500 when you can buy a FASTER E6600 + Good 965 O/C motherboard for the SAME PRICE?

At the low end, anything below the X2-4200 is reasonably priced, its the high end where AMD is making an absolute killing.

Why is it your concern or worries you so much what chip people buy?
For you to start a thread like this and say stuff like that clearly indicate that you have interest at stake with Intel. Otherwise there is no reason for anyone constantly bashing AMD and promoting Intel.
Guess what? Not to worry why people buy any AMD. AMD chips are in short supply because of high demand. Almost every etailer, retailer, pc builder, and electronic store practically ran out of stock and everything is in back order or gone the minute arrived.
Unfortunately for you (if you have stakes in Intel?s sell) this is not true w/ Intel and the Core 2's sells are not going well at all. I suggest, it?s time to get off your high horse and stop your FUD, Negative remarks, and bashing of AMD. Who cares if Cinebech or wtf benchmark does what? 99% of consumers and PC buyers don?t even know what overclocking means. They just go buy PC and buy whatever they thing does the job good, and does it inexpensively considering the total package.
For you or anyone in Intel camp to imagine that a 1% or even a 20% better bench in such and such brings more sells, Or think that Bashing a chip will stop people from buying it and lures them toward you is just plain dumb, idiotic, and out of touch with the reality.
Yes I criticize Intel and I don?t regret it a bit. Because mine is constructive criticism and I only do it to set things straight and stop your FUD. I bring awareness to readers who are at awe with your lies, falsies and deceptive marketing practice. At the end I know you and like of you will not hesitate to resort to insult, sarcasm and foul language. But then again, I know as long as I have prevented just one person not to fallen into your deception and trapped, that?s good enough for me. You can go on and on w/ your ridicules, insults, and foul language toward me until you run out of your breath and quiet.

Read:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35004

 

[harpoon84]

OcHungry, do you even get the point of this thread?

It's not to bash AMD, it's to bash stupid people who think X2s are faster than C2D clock for clock.

In fact, that sounds a lot like YOU.

LOL

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
'Crap' is all relative. Compared to C2D, X2s are crap. Compared to P-Ds, X2s rock.

An X2 5000+ is 'pathetic' when you compare it next to a cheaper, faster and cooler E6600, just like how P-Ds and are pathetic when you compare them to cheaper, faster and cooler X2s.

You can't have one rule for Intel and another for AMD. Call it like it is - mid/high end X2s suck big time compared to C2D.

Trying to justify the inflated price by saying it's still a 'great, fast chip' is clutching at straws, really.

I wouldnt say Athlons suck big time at all in comparison to Conroe.
They have an ondie mem controller, they have hypertransport both of which are superior to Intels current methods. Yes c2d is faster, but really even if someone overpays on an Athlon they are getting a quality engineered chip. I wouldnt have said the same for any of the P4s. With the possible exception of Northwood.
Netburst was a joke.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Crusader
I wouldnt say Athlons suck big time at all in comparison to Conroe.
They have an ondie mem controller, they have hypertransport both of which are superior to Intels current methods. Yes c2d is faster, but really even if someone overpays on an Athlon they are getting a quality engineered chip. I wouldnt have said the same for any of the P4s. With the possible exception of Northwood.
Netburst was a joke.

LOL congrats you made the idiot of the day, despite stiff competition from hardforums.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Crusader
I wouldnt say Athlons suck big time at all in comparison to Conroe.
They have an ondie mem controller, they have hypertransport both of which are superior to Intels current methods. Yes c2d is faster, but really even if someone overpays on an Athlon they are getting a quality engineered chip. I wouldnt have said the same for any of the P4s. With the possible exception of Northwood.
Netburst was a joke.

I said middle to high end X2s suck compared to C2D, I didn't say the entire Athlon64 line. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

'Mid - High end' as in the X2 5000+, FX-60 and FX62 are poor value compared to C2D.

IMC and HyperTransport does WHAT for the end customer? All that matters in the end is price, performance, and power efficiency. Mid/high end C2D beats Mid/high end X2/FX in all those areas.

P4 was a mixed bag, Willamette sucked obviously, but Northwood was good and Prescott was OK except it ran hot (it's as fast if not faster than Northwood after all).

P4 certainly had it's shortcomings, but it had it's strengths too. Sure, it was slower in gaming, but it was always better than A64 at multimedia encoding, and it multitasks better too (due to HT).

In fact the reason that I ended up using my Northwood rig for 3 years (until the mobo died last week *boohoo* lol, I'm getting an E6400 soon w00t) was mainly because of HT, which allowed me to multitask or run multithreaded software 2 years before dual core chips arrived. Otherwise I would've jumped to dual core long ago.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
OcHungry, do you even get the point of this thread?

It's not to bash AMD, it's to bash stupid people who think X2s are faster than C2D clock for clock.

In fact, that sounds a lot like YOU.

LOL

Just as expected... And take things I have said out of context. going round and around but doesnt get old for these dumb ass junkies.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: Crusader

Originally posted by: harpoon84
'Crap' is all relative. Compared to C2D, X2s are crap. Compared to P-Ds, X2s rock.

An X2 5000+ is 'pathetic' when you compare it next to a cheaper, faster and cooler E6600, just like how P-Ds and are pathetic when you compare them to cheaper, faster and cooler X2s.

You can't have one rule for Intel and another for AMD. Call it like it is - mid/high end X2s suck big time compared to C2D.

Trying to justify the inflated price by saying it's still a 'great, fast chip' is clutching at straws, really.

I wouldnt say Athlons suck big time at all in comparison to Conroe.
They have an ondie mem controller, they have hypertransport both of which are superior to Intels current methods. Yes c2d is faster, but really even if someone overpays on an Athlon they are getting a quality engineered chip. I wouldnt have said the same for any of the P4s. With the possible exception of Northwood.
Netburst was a joke.

Hey bro, don?t even bother w/ these junkies. How Ironic for them to say such things, when Intel ripped them off for 4 years w/ that Netburst junk, some @ $1200, and now that they went and bought their new junks that freezes every other key punch (core 2 has 42 errata?s that can not be fixed yet), they envy you because you went and bought an Opteron 165 for $165. What's worst for these junkies is the fact that K8L is just around the corner and will rape Conroe apart violently. AMD calls it a killer, but I have a better name for it : "Conroe Killer"
read:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35011

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=195099&page=3
Guess what? Intel is hiding the PDF file or the tech data on the conroe's errata
no where to be found.
If you find it post it so everyone can see what's going on (with the freezes and bugs)
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Aug/bch20060824038244.htm

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: harpoon84
OcHungry, do you even get the point of this thread?

It's not to bash AMD, it's to bash stupid people who think X2s are faster than C2D clock for clock.

In fact, that sounds a lot like YOU.

LOL

Just as expected... And take things I have said out of context. going round and around but doesnt get old for these dumb ass junkies.

Why are YOU so worried that people are DOING THE RIGHT THING and recommending C2D instead of AMD because it's the better product. Was it ever any different when AMD was in the lead? Everyone was recommending AMD, and rightly so. Now the advantage goes to Intel, but you get all ****** because your 'team' is getting owned.

You seem to have a special agenda on to try to 'prove' that AMD is competitive in performance, when frankly, it's not.

How many people do you think you have convinced with your BS anyway?

You accuse people of FUD when they are telling the truth, then you go spread more FUD yourself.

Remember the post where you talked about C2D errata? When I pointed out that X2 has errata as well (in fact, more than C2D) that shut you up real quick didn't it?

Edit - LOL I see you just talk about C2D errata AGAIN. Want me to whip out the PDF again which shows X2 has 80 errata? Funny I never hear you mention that X2 has double the errata of C2D.

HAHAHA, here we go...
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content...759.pdf#search=%22amd%20x2%20errata%22

80 errata for X2

Owned (again!).

And no, I don't envy anyone who buys a $165 Opteron 165, because I have an E6400! Why would I envy someone with a slower chip? You probably think all C2D owners envy you and your X2 as well... LOL!

What a freaking joke you are. Thanks for the laughs.

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: harpoon84
OcHungry, do you even get the point of this thread?

It's not to bash AMD, it's to bash stupid people who think X2s are faster than C2D clock for clock.

In fact, that sounds a lot like YOU.

LOL

Just as expected... And take things I have said out of context. going round and around but doesnt get old for these dumb ass junkies.

Why are YOU so worried that people are DOING THE RIGHT THING and recommending C2D instead of AMD because it's the better product. Was it ever any different when AMD was in the lead? Everyone was recommending AMD, and rightly so. Now the advantage goes to Intel, but you get all ****** because your 'team' is getting owned.

You seem to have a special agenda on to try to 'prove' that AMD is competitive in performance, when frankly, it's not.

How many people do you think you have convinced with your BS anyway?

You accuse people of FUD when they are telling the truth, then you go spread more FUD yourself.

Remember the post where you talked about C2D errata? When I pointed out that X2 has errata as well (in fact, more than C2D) that shut you up real quick didn't it?

Edit - LOL I see you just talk about C2D errata AGAIN. Want me to whip out the PDF again which shows X2 has 80 errata? Funny I never hear you mention that X2 has double the errata of C2D.

HAHAHA, here we go...
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content...759.pdf#search=%22amd%20x2%20errata%22

80 errata for X2

Owned (again!).

And no, I don't envy anyone who buys a $165 Opteron 165, because I have an E6400! Why would I envy someone with a slower chip? You probably think all C2D owners envy you and your X2 as well... LOL!

What a freaking joke you are. Thanks for the laughs.

But the problem with you dumb asses is you don?t know which way is left or right?
Show us which one hasn?t been fixed. Again your mission is to create FUD for AMD and make unfounded accusations. This was the plan all along by your master "Intel"
The problem is that it's Intel going down the drain and BK, not AMD.
I think it's time for you to cry, the party is over.
THOSE Conroe?s 42 Errata are still active and are in your home.
GET THE Exterminator buddy.

BTW, arent you glad that you found the AMD's so easy?
You see, AMD has nothing to hide and they are glad that errata's are found so they can be fixed. Now look for Intel's Errata PDF see if you can find the web page.

 

[harpoon84]

Err... learn to READ. That PDF is from September. so your 'mighty X2' has ALL of these issues as well. They may well be fixed in future, but all current X2 chips have the listed errata in them.

You think Intel will BK?

LOL where did you get that from? Sharikou? ROFL

Why do you hate Intel so much OcHungry? Did they fire your ass like they did to Sharikou? Is that where all the bitterness comes from?

 

[OcHungry]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Err... learn to READ. That PDF is from September. so your 'mighty X2' has ALL of these issues as well. They may well be fixed in future, but all current X2 chips have the listed errata in them.

You think Intel will BK?

LOL where did you get that from? Sharikou? ROFL

Why do you hate Intel so much OcHungry? Did they fire your ass like they did to Sharikou? Is that where all the bitterness comes from?

I don?t hate Intel as an entity. I am disgusted by their dumb ass missionaries who float around forums and ridicule anyone that doesn?t use Intel. Above all, I hate these dumb asses that go behind a person's back and bad mouth him/her taking things out of context what was said. Take a good look at your first communiqué' w/ me and judge it for yourself. Then read the OP here and see how many members have been affected by it and disgusted.
I glanced through that AMD PDF file and found no erratum that did not have a fix or the errata were directly related to the chip. Some are software vendors' fix, some are hardware vendor's fix. Thos that involve AMD chip or architecture are fixed.
I don?t like you. I am sure the feeling is mutual. If I said something to you (personally) the first time we met here, I apologies. But I know myself. I don?t usually attack a person unless I am put to that situation.
But I think it's best for both of us not to make a reference of one and the other when we post, be it either of us present or not. You go your way and I go mine. Deal?

 

[The-Noid]

Dude you are such a knob. Please leave the forum, your whole cry in life is to prove that since you bought your AMD processor without reading ahead and getting c2d, that somehow it is INTEL that is at fault. They are a good company, their market share is only growing (read CNBC or any business journal), they have THE FASTEST clock for clock, performance for watt, and easiest to overclock processors out right now. Just becaused you f-ed up doesn't give you the right to insult everyone else and come up with erroneus facts to support your cliams. AMD x2 has 46 known errata, search google. P4 (world's best selling processor of all time) had 102 known errata, you will never notice them. I had an X2-4800 @ 3.2 ghz (under phase) and although it was a great chip, my c2d is MUCH MUCH faster, and also much easier to overclock. For the time being INTEL is better, with K8L there is going to be a 30% increase in speed. If K8L overclocks well there is a chance that AMD will be faster then, until then...YOU MY FRIEND ARE WRONG ON ALL ACCOUNTS, GO TO WWW.AMDFANBOY.COM, and you can talk to all your AMD friends about how this big INTEL conspiracy is all a marketing plow, and INTEL is really going bankrupt.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: OcHungry
You go your way and I go mine. Deal?

Fine. The logout button is at the top of the page and on the right. Hit it and never return. Or just hit the big red X.

This is a forum for helping one another: none of us 'Intel Viral Marketers' that you think we are go around telling guys with great A64 rigs to burn them and get on the Core 2 bandwagon. You clearly think we are all idiots and you are the savior. But you know what? There are 150,000 people on this forum and you can't change us all.

And for the record, an year ago, this forum was flooded with "My Opteron 165 rules/what Opteron steppings to buy etc." threads. Most of us were far, far away from the mythical $1200 Netburst CPUs you speak of. C2D beats K8 in every benchmark out there and you think, "These are irrelevant for most PC users." Assuming K8L beats Core 2 in the same benchmarks an year from now, you will be in here bragging about how AMD raped Intel (your words).

What is your malfunction?

Intel is selling CPUs. Truckloads of them and availability is great. Pricing is well under MSRP. If it's only 1% of us forum-hopping CPUs plugging the Core 2 hype and the general populace is all buying AMD - why did AMD drop prices for all of us? The cheapest X2 3800+ was $400 before Core 2 - now, you have the FX-62 selling for $700. AMD is cutting their profits because the tiny minority of enthusiasts is now heading to Intel? I don't think so.

Take your message elsewhere and stop aggravating the forum members with your baseless arguments. And here's a hint: when 99 out of 100 people disagree with your opinion, they are probably right. But knowing you, you will probably use some example of 14th century scientists vs. the Church.

You are not Newton. You are not Galileo. You are not the savior of the tech masses. Stop talking and start thinking.

 

[dexvx]

But yea, seriously there are a lot of apologists on this Anandtech even. For some reason, its ok for AMD (this is true at the time of posting for High-End X2's and FX's) to offer:

1) Poorer performance/power ratio
2) Poorer price/performance ratio
3) Higher price

Yet when Intel P4's (especially the Prescott -> Pre-Pressler era) does the same thing with #1 and #2, they make "crap" chips. I mean, AMD does it and you still get a "fine" chip. Thats the absolute genius that AMD's marketting has done and thats what will keep AMD afloat and very profitable throughout this year long slump (ETA on K8L, if its even better, in mass consumer production is about 1 year after Conroe's intro). Case proven by these posts (and another thread which I can link from AT).

 

[jbubrisk]

You guys say that X2's are slower than C2D's, but mine is faster. I put this magic pixie dust on it that I got from the Lion when I opened the magical door to Narnia last week when I was seeing if I could OC my computer to 5Ghz so I could brag to my internet friends and then I would feel good about myself and maybe someone would love me.

Anyway, everyone needs to chill out.

But what about mobos? And RAM? People seem to forget to factor those thigns in when talking about "Price vs. Performace". I might be wrong, but aren't Intel mobos more expensive? And what about RAM? I don't know much about it, but there are probably differences in the way people need to build their system. I built my AMD rig with $150 CPU, $150 2Gb RAM, $85 mobo and I OC by about 200Mhz. It does what it needs to do. But to reiterate what someone said before, the CPU's all have advantages. AMD's line for example has the EE (Energy Effiecient) line that I think they're trying to push right now. THAT IS HUGE FOR MEDIUM TO LARGE COMPANIES. COmputers use a lot of power, especially when you have thousands of them running 24 hours a day. Really, how many useful applications are there for a fast consumer chip? At this point, the average person doesn't need anything more than the lowest end chip from either company (so it seems to me). The only people who would really need anything more would be professionals, governments, and scientists. Thats my $0.02
Disclaimer: Any opinions/facts expressed in this post are purely the imagination of my imaginary friend's imaginary magic 8-ball.

 

[jbubrisk]

Originally posted by: dexvx
But yea, seriously there are a lot of apologists on this Anandtech even. For some reason, its ok for AMD (this is true at the time of posting for High-End X2's and FX's) to offer:

1) Poorer performance/power ratio
2) Poorer price/performance ratio
3) Higher price

Yet when Intel P4's (especially the Prescott -> Pre-Pressler era) does the same thing with #1 and #2, they make "crap" chips. I mean, AMD does it and you still get a "fine" chip. Thats the absolute genius that AMD's marketting has done and thats what will keep AMD afloat and very profitable throughout this year long slump (ETA on K8L, if its even better, in mass consumer production is about 1 year after Conroe's intro). Case proven by these posts (and another thread which I can link from AT).

Right... The average consumer probably donesn't give a ####. Go ask some random people on the street. They probably wont know who AMD is. AMD hasn't created a brand image like Intel, in which case "AMD's Marketing" didn't really do anything. I think that large retailers and large businesses really drive the market, in which case the people who actually know who AMD is, don't really matter.

 

[jbubrisk]

BTW, I'm not trying to defend AMD, just think people are being too critical.

 

[dexvx]

^

We're talking about high-end and why anyone should shell out $500 for a X2-5000 or $700 for a FX-62 when you can get a comparable if not faster E6600 + 965 O/C Board (X2-5000+ money reached) + 2GB DDR2-800 (FX-62 money reached). I mean, those are relatively low-margin chips if you count total market share, but they are still selling out very nicely in the retail marketspace.

In the low end, the X2-3800+, X2-4200+, EE X2-3800+ are extremely good deals, as the only real competition is from the Pentium-D 805/915's. In the even lower end, the A64 3000/3200+ are also decent single core deals, as I would not recommend people getting a Prescott based Pentium-4 over those.

Unlike fanbois, I recommend based whats the best available. It just so happens in the high end, AMD is just ripping people off by riding on their previous X2 pwnage train (and the 7 year AMD Mhz > Intel Mhz train).

Originally posted by: jbubrisk
Right... The average consumer probably donesn't give a ####. Go ask some random people on the street. They probably wont know who AMD is. AMD hasn't created a brand image like Intel, in which case "AMD's Marketing" didn't really do anything. I think that large retailers and large businesses really drive the market, in which case the people who actually know who AMD is, don't really matter.

You just defined what marketting is. When people who don't know a product buy a certain product. During the Prescott days, people didn't know AMD much (maybe some dabbled with the cheap AthlonXP). The Intel image was gold, and people just went with the P4 (despite much bickering here). However, when AMD was clearly edging Intel in performance/price and watt, AMD made a point to market that and a lot of consumer reviews tended to agree with it. Now, AMD is just riding on its previous success to continue to market their existing products and it is working; just look at retail sales of their high end chips.