Why is Anand saying that AMD lost credibilty?

[ndee]

I just read the Final words of the Athlon 64 article. I wasn't in the whole AMD/Intel thingie the last month so a quick recap would be appreciated

TIA

 

[Finnkc]

they haven't (AMD) ...

 

[dullard]

If you read enough of the Anandtech articles you can begin to put together bits and pieces of how they personally feel about each company. AMD hasn't lost much credibility but they have had some bad things happen recently.
(1) Intel was just about to announce 2.8 GHz and AMD was stuck at 2200+. That is a tremendous difference in speed. AMD was not the performance king - it wasn't even close. So the enthusiasts started switching to Intel.
(2) AMD rushed to the press with a 2400+ and 2600+ CPU just 5 days before the launch of the 2.8 GHz P4 (just like Intel rushed to the press with the P4EE just days before the release of the Athlon 64). Unfortunately for AMD these chips weren't ready and it was a paper launch. How bad was the paper launch? The 2400+ and 2600+ were announced on Aug 21, 2002. The 2400+ wasn't in stock at Newegg or any other reliable place until October 1st, while we had to wait until November 1st for the 2600+ (just over 10 weeks delayed).
(3) While we were patiently waiting for the 2600+ to actually be available AMD paper launched the 2700+ and 2800+ (on October 1st). AMD basically was running way ahead of themselves and that lost a LITTLE credibility with people. These chips were available on Nov 14 and 15 respectively.
(4) On Feb 10, 2003 AMD launched the Bartons. However the 3000+ Barton was slower than the 3000+ T-bred on many benchmarks. The later launched 3200+ was no where near the performance of the 3.2 GHz Intel competitor that AMD advertized it to have beaten (note: I'm not claiming the PR rating is based on the P4 but AMD on its website said the 3200+ was the clear winner over the 3.2 GHz P4 and it certainly was not). Lying about performance (especially on the 3200+) is a major hit to credibility.
(5) There are other minor issues when it came to PR ratings as well. AMD was publically stating that their PR tests have been the same from the start and thus are just as accurate (and they had Enron's auditors to prove it - you know what happened to Enron). But when you look at their audit, there were 4 new/updated programs used for the Bartons and one patched program and AMD won't let ANYONE else have the patch. Seems odd to have so many changes when you publically state that no changes have been made. I could go on and on with similar MINOR problems.
(6) AMD launched the Opterons but the 244 Opteron was paper launched and not available in any quantity for two months later. Again paper launches loses credibility.
(7) Wasn't the Athlon 64 first supposed to be out in the beginning of 2002? Pushing it back time after time hurts credibility. Wasn't it also supposed to be 3400+? Where is that?

I'm not saying Intel is innocent either. Intel has had its share of problems and the P4EE paper launch is one of them. But that is just a short list of the things AMD has done which can lead to lowered credibility.

 

[Finnkc]

bah ... business is business ... I still have no beef with AMD at all ... ok so they are slow with paper vs. shipping release dates. Big deal, if they do it all the time then why is it such an issue rather then just taken as "ok the released the chip, so I will be able to buy it 10 weeks from now".

like dullard said both Intel and AMD are guilty of slow or delayed releases ... AMD more so then Intel but I mean why pick at the crumbs here? If it's a solid product then who is to complain it took too long?

btw isn't the Barton 3200xp running 2.8ghz? and not Intel's 3.2 ghz? of course the 3.2 is faster then a 2.8 ... what do people expect?

 

[PrinceXizor]

Originally posted by: Finnkc
bah ... business is business ... I still have no beef with AMD at all ... ok so they are slow with paper vs. shipping release dates. Big deal, if they do it all the time then why is it such an issue rather then just taken as "ok the released the chip, so I will be able to buy it 10 weeks from now".

like dullard said both Intel and AMD are guilty of slow or delayed releases ... AMD more so then Intel but I mean why pick at the crumbs here? If it's a solid product then who is to complain it took too long?

btw isn't the Barton 3200xp running 2.8ghz? and not Intel's 3.2 ghz? of course the 3.2 is faster then a 2.8 ... what do people expect?

I was about to actually debate with you and then I saw your last statement about processors...and decided it wasn't worth it...

P-X

 

[ndee]

dullard: thanks for your time for posting such a big post

Finnkc: MHZ != Performance

 

[DaveSimmons]

Good post, Dullard!

> The later launched 3200+ was no where near the performance of the 3.2 GHz Intel competitor that AMD advertized it to have beaten

That's the one that cost them a lot of my respect for AMD -- we all know (regardless of AMD statements) that the PR rating is meant to be compared again P4 clockspeed when selling to consumers. Up through at least the 2200+ the PR rating made good sense used that way, and you could trust that a PR "x +" rating meant the AMD was faster than a P4 at clockspeed x. By the time of the 3200+ the PR rating became very misleading when compared to the P4 Cs. AMD missed the chance to "get honest" about PR ratings with Barton, but at least they seem to be rating more honestly with the A64.

 

[Hardtarget]

Originally posted by: Finnkc

btw isn't the Barton 3200xp running 2.8ghz? and not Intel's 3.2 ghz? of course the 3.2 is faster then a 2.8 ... what do people expect?

ouch.....

as somebody said, when comparing AMD speeds to Intel MHZ != Performance

 

[Ionizer86]

Barton 3200+ was clocked way to low. At 2.2Ghz, it has less clock than the 2800+ T-Bred at 2.25. AMD felt that the bigger bus along with the extra cache would help it tremendously, but obviously, that's not so. There seem to be many AMD CPUs above 2.0Ghz up to 2.25Ghz, and it looks like the ratings overly empasize aspects other than clock speed.

For example, the next highest Barton runs at 2.16, and despite the mere 33MHz difference, it is rated more conservatively at 3000+.

I found it interesting that at the beginning, for every 66MHz, AMD bumped the PR by 100, which was about right because every 100 "P4 MHz" seemed to be equivalent to about 75 "AMD MHz" but obviously, the chips would slip a little after a while. They tried to make the ratings more fair with the 2400+, which was 200MHz faster than the 2200+ (1.8GHz vs 2.0GHz), but some of the Bartons changed that fairness.

 

[wetcat007]

Originally posted by: dullard
If you read enough of the Anandtech articles you can begin to put together bits and pieces of how they personally feel about each company. AMD hasn't lost much credibility but they have had some bad things happen recently.
(1) Intel was just about to announce 2.8 GHz and AMD was stuck at 2200+. That is a tremendous difference in speed. AMD was not the performance king - it wasn't even close. So the enthusiasts started switching to Intel.
(2) AMD rushed to the press with a 2400+ and 2600+ CPU just 5 days before the launch of the 2.8 GHz P4 (just like Intel rushed to the press with the P4EE just days before the release of the Athlon 64). Unfortunately for AMD these chips weren't ready and it was a paper launch. How bad was the paper launch? The 2400+ and 2600+ were announced on Aug 21, 2002. The 2400+ wasn't in stock at Newegg or any other reliable place until October 1st, while we had to wait until November 1st for the 2600+ (just over 10 weeks delayed).
(3) While we were patiently waiting for the 2600+ to actually be available AMD paper launched the 2700+ and 2800+ (on October 1st). AMD basically was running way ahead of themselves and that lost a LITTLE credibility with people. These chips were available on Nov 14 and 15 respectively.
(4) On Feb 10, 2003 AMD launched the Bartons. However the 3000+ Barton was slower than the 3000+ T-bird on many benchmarks. The later launched 3200+ was no where near the performance of the 3.2 GHz Intel competitor that AMD advertized it to have beaten (note: I'm not claiming the PR rating is based on the P4 but AMD on its website said the 3200+ was the clear winner over the 3.2 GHz P4 and it certainly was not). Lying about performance (especially on the 3200+) is a major hit to credibility.
(5) There are other minor issues when it came to PR ratings as well. AMD was publically stating that their PR tests have been the same from the start and thus are just as accurate (and they had Enron's auditors to prove it - you know what happened to Enron). But when you look at their audit, there were 4 new/updated programs used for the Bartons and one patched program and AMD won't let ANYONE else have the patch. Seems odd to have so many changes when you publically state that no changes have been made. I could go on and on with similar MINOR problems.
(6) AMD launched the Opterons but the 244 Opteron was paper launched and not available in any quantity for two months later. Again paper launches loses credibility.
(7) Wasn't the Athlon 64 first supposed to be out in the beginning of 2002? Pushing it back time after time hurts credibility. Wasn't it also supposed to be 3400+? Where is that?

I'm not saying Intel is innocent either. Intel has had its share of problems and the P4EE paper launch is one of them. But that is just a short list of the things AMD has done which can lead to lowered credibility.

The Intel Prescott has been pushed back a lot, actually, the problem that occured with the PR system, is more to blame on the i875 chipset, because it matches perfectly to a 3.06GHz cpu on a i845 i think...

 

[brigden]

If this thread turns into a AMD PR rating flamefest it'll get locked quick, but I want to add my two cents...

I always thought the PR rating made sense. Now it doesn't. Why do they bother? They should drop it. They NEED to drop it. The last few AMD processors have sucked. What they hell is a 3200+?

I've always been an AMD fan, in fact my CPU is an AMD, but unless AMD get with it I'm going Intel...

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: wetcat007

Originally posted by: dullard
If you read enough of the Anandtech articles you can begin to put together bits and pieces of how they personally feel about each company. AMD hasn't lost much credibility but they have had some bad things happen recently.
(1) Intel was just about to announce 2.8 GHz and AMD was stuck at 2200+. That is a tremendous difference in speed. AMD was not the performance king - it wasn't even close. So the enthusiasts started switching to Intel.
(2) AMD rushed to the press with a 2400+ and 2600+ CPU just 5 days before the launch of the 2.8 GHz P4 (just like Intel rushed to the press with the P4EE just days before the release of the Athlon 64). Unfortunately for AMD these chips weren't ready and it was a paper launch. How bad was the paper launch? The 2400+ and 2600+ were announced on Aug 21, 2002. The 2400+ wasn't in stock at Newegg or any other reliable place until October 1st, while we had to wait until November 1st for the 2600+ (just over 10 weeks delayed).
(3) While we were patiently waiting for the 2600+ to actually be available AMD paper launched the 2700+ and 2800+ (on October 1st). AMD basically was running way ahead of themselves and that lost a LITTLE credibility with people. These chips were available on Nov 14 and 15 respectively.
(4) On Feb 10, 2003 AMD launched the Bartons. However the 3000+ Barton was slower than the 3000+ T-bird on many benchmarks. The later launched 3200+ was no where near the performance of the 3.2 GHz Intel competitor that AMD advertized it to have beaten (note: I'm not claiming the PR rating is based on the P4 but AMD on its website said the 3200+ was the clear winner over the 3.2 GHz P4 and it certainly was not). Lying about performance (especially on the 3200+) is a major hit to credibility.
(5) There are other minor issues when it came to PR ratings as well. AMD was publically stating that their PR tests have been the same from the start and thus are just as accurate (and they had Enron's auditors to prove it - you know what happened to Enron). But when you look at their audit, there were 4 new/updated programs used for the Bartons and one patched program and AMD won't let ANYONE else have the patch. Seems odd to have so many changes when you publically state that no changes have been made. I could go on and on with similar MINOR problems.
(6) AMD launched the Opterons but the 244 Opteron was paper launched and not available in any quantity for two months later. Again paper launches loses credibility.
(7) Wasn't the Athlon 64 first supposed to be out in the beginning of 2002? Pushing it back time after time hurts credibility. Wasn't it also supposed to be 3400+? Where is that?

I'm not saying Intel is innocent either. Intel has had its share of problems and the P4EE paper launch is one of them. But that is just a short list of the things AMD has done which can lead to lowered credibility.

The Intel Prescott has been pushed back a lot, actually, the problem that occured with the PR system, is more to blame on the i875 chipset, because it matches perfectly to a 3.06GHz cpu on a i845 i think...

And why is Intel at fault for the 875 chipset when it was AMD"s PR system's mistake? Honestly, hasn't AMD had newer motherboards since the CPU's were first released?

Also, when has Prescott been delayed? By my understanding, I could be wrong though, the Prescott isn't due out till the end of this year. They never official gave an exact date months back, but said 4th quarter of 2003. All of the Intel Developer forum reviews point to it still being on track for this year...

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

This is very quickly turning into Intel vs. AMD thread.... I'm in before the lock!

Next time you say that you will be on vacation.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[ndee]

Hm, I didn't mean to start an AMD vs. Intel thread. The loyalty that someone can have to a company is amazing. Anyway, I'm all for competition and I really hope the Athlon 64 can live up the "hype" or however you wanna call it

 

[Goi]

Originally posted by: dullard

(4) On Feb 10, 2003 AMD launched the Bartons. However the 3000+ Barton was slower than the 3000+ T-bird on many benchmarks.

How'd you figure the performance of a Thunderbird 3000+? Thunderbirds were never PR rated, and AMD never made any beyond 1.4GHz.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ndee
Hm, I didn't mean to start an AMD vs. Intel thread. The loyalty that someone can have to a company is amazing. Anyway, I'm all for competition and I really hope the Athlon 64 can live up the "hype" or however you wanna call it

I don't think it lost credibility, quite the contrary. Thee are plenty reviews though, go read some and decide for yourself.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ndee
Hm, I didn't mean to start an AMD vs. Intel thread. The loyalty that someone can have to a company is amazing. Anyway, I'm all for competition and I really hope the Athlon 64 can live up the "hype" or however you wanna call it

I don't think it lost credibility, quite the contrary. Thee are plenty reviews though, go read some and decide for yourself.

bleh... work.... nah, I let other guys form my opinion hehe

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Goi

Originally posted by: dullard

(4) On Feb 10, 2003 AMD launched the Bartons. However the 3000+ Barton was slower than the 3000+ T-bird on many benchmarks.

How'd you figure the performance of a Thunderbird 3000+? Thunderbirds were never PR rated, and AMD never made any beyond 1.4GHz.

Sorry typo. I meant T-bred. Thanks for catching it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ndee
Hm, I didn't mean to start an AMD vs. Intel thread. The loyalty that someone can have to a company is amazing. Anyway, I'm all for competition and I really hope the Athlon 64 can live up the "hype" or however you wanna call it

I don't think it lost credibility, quite the contrary. Thee are plenty reviews though, go read some and decide for yourself.

bleh... work.... nah, I let other guys form my opinion hehe

Ok then!

1) AMD ROCKS!

2) The Earth is flat!

3) Aliens Live and Work amongst us!

4) Sandorski is your Master, send your money to Him and you shall live!



Seriously, I'm not sure why that statement was made, seems that other AT bigwigs were hyping up AMD(more accurately Athlon 64/FX) before the review. I think it was primarily due to the Prices of the new cpus, but even that could easily change.

 

[Alkali]

Erm, actually, I would also ask why AMD lost credability.

I mean, to me, (and Im not an AMD fanboy - I want a TEJAS ), AMD offered me 2 perfectly good, fast chips (the XP2200+ and XP3000+), which I bought when they were brand new. How have they let me down? They havn't...

My XP3000+ is as solid as a rock, I don't see why normal consumers and enthuisiasts like me would think AMD lost credability...