What the Athlon 64 needs to succeed

[Wingznut]

I thought this was a pretty good article...

The Tech Report: A possible recipe for success

NOW THAT WE'VE SEEN AMD's next-generation Hammer chip (now known as AMD64) up close, with real benchmarks, we have a much clearer sense of how the new AMD chips stack up against the competition from Intel. Judging by the benchmarks, Hammer has loads of potential, and it's easy to see why AMD elected to go ahead and release a server version of the chip. The architecture, with an integrated memory controller on each CPU and high-speed HyperTransport links between system devices, is brilliant for a server platform. However, the Opteron's performance in workstation-class applications seems a little shaky versus the Pentium 4 and Xeon. No doubt an Athlon 64 chip, in the form we expect it, would have trouble matching up against the Pentium 4 3GHz/875P chipset combo we tested recently. By this fall, Intel will be hawking processors based on the Prescott core, built on Intel's 90-nanometer fab process and rumored to have a longer pipeline and a larger cache.

With those considerations in mind, I offer my own recipe for what the Athlon 64 needs in order to fulfill its potential and supplant the Athlon XP as a tough, direct competitor to the formidable Pentium chips it will likely face when it debuts.

 

[Ilmater]

Thanks for posting. That's a pretty good read, and fairly insightful.

 

[dullard]

I think that article was a bit too simplistic - too narrow in its views.
Here is my take on the same issue.
1) The Athlon 64 must have the performance we crave. This is basically the whole article, so no need to repeat most of that here. The performance was great on the server side, but lacking on the workstation side. Plus most comparisons were the 244 Opteron which won't be released for months versus the 2nd in line Xeon (Reviewers never seem to use the top of the line Xeon in their testings - note Tom did on about half of his tests though).
2) The Athlon 64 must provide that performance at a reasonable price point. I was pleasantly surprized at the prices of the Opterons. I thought the top of the line Opteron would top out just above $1000 - so seeing $794 was great. But for a good success the Athlon 64 needs to hit the $250 price point. I'm not sure we will see that (unless you go way down in clock speed which then violates #1). Yes I know street prices are lower. But to get the good $200 street price, typically the list price is roughly $250.
3) The Athlon 64 must be presented to the consumer in a way that makes them want the product. The 64 bit capability honestly isn't needed at this point by the vast majority of the consumers. I don't think saying that "it has great 64-bit performance and is backwards compatable with 32-bit" will work as an advertizing slogan. The typical consumer will hear the word "bit" and space out the rest thinking it is too technical. They need to dumb down their approach to consumers. I bet 75% of all comercials I see have nothing to do with the product - yet many of the commercials work.

 

[Wingznut]

Yes, it is simplistic... But I'm pretty sure that was the author's intention.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

a little too simplistic and fairly obvious conclusions I would say. The Opteron and Athlon 64 simply need more MHZ to compete with Intel.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: dullard
I think that article was a bit too simplistic - too narrow in its views.
Here is my take on the same issue.
1) The Athlon 64 must have the performance we crave. This is basically the whole article, so no need to repeat most of that here. The performance was great on the server side, but lacking on the workstation side. Plus most comparisons were the 244 Opteron which won't be released for months versus the 2nd in line Xeon (Reviewers never seem to use the top of the line Xeon in their testings - note Tom did on about half of his tests though).
2) The Athlon 64 must provide that performance at a reasonable price point. I was pleasantly surprized at the prices of the Opterons. I thought the top of the line Opteron would top out just above $1000 - so seeing $794 was great. But for a good success the Athlon 64 needs to hit the $250 price point. I'm not sure we will see that (unless you go way down in clock speed which then violates #1). Yes I know street prices are lower. But to get the good $200 street price, typically the list price is roughly $250.
3) The Athlon 64 must be presented to the consumer in a way that makes them want the product. The 64 bit capability honestly isn't needed at this point by the vast majority of the consumers. I don't think saying that "it has great 64-bit performance and is backwards compatable with 32-bit" will work as an advertizing slogan. The typical consumer will hear the word "bit" and space out the rest thinking it is too technical. They need to dumb down their approach to consumers. I bet 75% of all comercials I see have nothing to do with the product - yet many of the commercials work.

you forgot that AMD doesn't advertise

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks
you forgot that AMD doesn't advertise

They don't advertize on TV, but they do advertize: in press releases, on internet banners, on their own website, places that sell AMD computers must convince their customers to buy AMD, etc... All these things are forms of ads.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: EdipisReks
you forgot that AMD doesn't advertise

They don't advertize on TV, but they do advertize: in press releases, on internet banners, on their own website, places that sell AMD computers must convince their customers to buy AMD, etc... All these things are forms of ads.

The toughest sell is the OEM . . . and if the OEMs are interested enough, they will advertise forAMD.

What the Athlon 64 needs to succeed

"Performance, attractive pricing, and perceived benefits by the consumer" apply to most successful products . . .

 

[kuk]

The toughest sell is the OEM . . . and if the OEMs are interested enough, they will advertise forAMD.

Read: Dell

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: EdipisReks
you forgot that AMD doesn't advertise

They don't advertize on TV, but they do advertize: in press releases, on internet banners, on their own website, places that sell AMD computers must convince their customers to buy AMD, etc... All these things are forms of ads.

I see lots of AMD Me ads in computer magazines also.

 

[Whitedog]

Hammer Me!

 

[Remedy]

AMD used to advertise on TV with the AMD Athlon Bullet train commerical. The train went so fast, you barely notice that the message was intended for AMD's Athlon product back in Summer of 2000.