Help support AMD please

[amdskip]

I like my VIA chipsets thank you very much. Go AMD!

I just got my XP2000 up and running and my motherboard just got back from RMAing so my duron 750 sever is going back up too, whoot, whoot!

 

[lung]

If AMD were to make a chip that I felt that would be worth buying I would. Supporting them just because their sales are dropping is just plain ludicrous though. I base my purchases on quality of the product, not the sales numbers of the company.

 

[AmdInside]

Looks like AMD's stock price went down almost 33% today. So sad. You can tell by how good the AMD Athlon processors are that there are passionate people at AMD. It would be sad if AMD is forced to lay off people. I used to work for Intel and I was treated very well so it is not easy sounding anti-Intel but I know how Intel saw AMD and the many tricks they used to maintain their control of the chip industry. Until AMD releases Hammer, AMD is going to have it rough and it will get no sympathy from Intel.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: lung
If AMD were to make a chip that I felt that would be worth buying I would. Supporting them just because their sales are dropping is just plain ludicrous though. I base my purchases on quality of the product, not the sales numbers of the company.

I've never blamed AMD. I think they make a high-quality product. If I were to blame them for anything, it would be for not supporting their CPUs with rock-solid motherboard chipsets like Intel has done. VIA, SiS, and nVidia have done more to keep me away from AMD than anyone.

 

[AmdInside]

Don't forget to recommend AMD based systems as well. Most companies profits come from OEM deals. Remember many major OEM's systems that use AMD processors use the NVIDIA nForce chipset so it will be stable.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

Homebrew,

I dont' recall saying AMD should ignore the enthusiasts. My point remains that massively purchasing a $53 chip hurts AMD's ASP and further puts them into more debt, and does NOT help them in any way.

As far as buidling AMD systems, it has been a LONG time since I last built an AMD system for a client outside of a direct request. Far and away, clients ask for Intel over AMD, even when told of the possible savings with an AMD setup. Call it public perception, but its my line of work, and i build what the client requests. I put both offers on the table, and 95% of the time, they choose Intel, probably over name.

I have built both systems, and will continue to do so, but even though I know both chips are very competitive with each other in terms of performance, most of the time that means nothing to most people.

That's where AMD needs to conquer. Catering to the enthusiasts is all fine and dandy, but public perception and being able to sell to teh public is where they need major work.



Mike

 

[CrazySaint]

Originally posted by: KF


Nobody really buys a product to help a corporation. I would not consider buying an Intel processor when I can get an 1.4G AMD for $55. I don't know why anybody would.

Then I'll tell you why someone would buy an Intel processor when you can get a 1.4GHz AMD for $55. They might do it because its easier to make a silent system (yes, I read Insane3D's "silent Athlon system" thread). They might do it because can buy a 1.8GHz CPU for < $150 that will OC high enough to beat any CPU AMD has out (by "out", I mean one that you can buy today from newegg or googlegear). They might do it because they're about to build their system and they don't want to worry about chipping the core, or frying the CPU if the HSF fails or falls off (I know these things are relatively rare, but they do happen, and newbie computer builders do worry about them). That's why somebody would consider buying an Intel CPU. Now, I'm not in any way saying that "Intel is better than AMD" or whatever, and at $53 the 1600+ is an incredible value, especially when you factor in that most can OC to 2200+ speeds. If the 1.8As weren't regularly OC'ing to 2.5-2.7GHz+ then I wouldn't even consider buying one (mine arrived today, my motherboard should get here tomorrow) because of the price.

 

[MasterHoss]

AMD is doing fine. Don't worry. They aren't going anywhere.

 

[Pocatello]

Apperently, not going anywhere is what causing AMD to lose market share to intel. AMD needs to win the general public over, gain more OEM sales, but none of this stuff is really happening.

 

[KF]

Originally posted by: CrazySaint

Originally posted by: KF


Nobody really buys a product to help a corporation. I would not consider buying an Intel processor when I can get an 1.4G AMD for $55. I don't know why anybody would.

Then I'll tell you why someone would buy an Intel processor when you can get a 1.4GHz AMD for $55. They might do it because its easier to make a silent system (yes, I read Insane3D's "silent Athlon system" thread). They might do it because can buy a 1.8GHz CPU for < $150 that will OC high enough to beat any CPU AMD has out (by "out", I mean one that you can buy today from newegg or googlegear). They might do it because they're about to build their system and they don't want to worry about chipping the core, or frying the CPU if the HSF fails or falls off (I know these things are relatively rare, but they do happen, and newbie computer builders do worry about them). That's why somebody would consider buying an Intel CPU. Now, I'm not in any way saying that "Intel is better than AMD" or whatever, and at $53 the 1600+ is an incredible value, especially when you factor in that most can OC to 2200+ speeds. If the 1.8As weren't regularly OC'ing to 2.5-2.7GHz+ then I wouldn't even consider buying one (mine arrived today, my motherboard should get here tomorrow) because of the price.

OK, you laid out the case. I have read these things on Anandtech, of course, like most that post here, and having read it all, I conclude the $55 XP makes the most sense.

Silence. 2.8G Intels need more air to keep them cool than 1.4G Athlons, and the noises are not that different from comparable Intel vs AMD units to my ears.

Silent, I don't want. Silent is bad. I want my computer to make a certain (small) amount of noise. A little of the right kind of noise masks more annoying noises. If you get fanatical about noise, your ears just adjust, and it still sounds noisey. I put a big 120mm fan that has a low, air-rushing noise blowing into my case. My perception of noise decreased, because the quieter little 60mm CPU fan, though quieter in db, makes an annoyingly high pitched sound. When I shut my computer off at night (occasionally), I get woken up during the night by all kinds of noises I don't normally hear when the low noise masks it. My ears become super sharp. A dog is barking two houses down the street. Sombody bangs a door in the house. It goes on and on. This is the effect the "silent" people are up against and don't seem to know it. They are deluding themselves. I am realistic. I do hate noise, but I live in a noisey world. The crickets outside this fall drowned out my computer. Now if I could kill all those SOBs, I'd be happy

$150 is way more than $55. Sure I've paid more for CPUs than $150, but now I don't have to, and like just about everyone I don't need to. 1.4GHz is beyond anything I have any need for. I used to think my PR166 Cyrix was lightening fast when it beat anything Intel had for a brief period of time and believe me 1.4GHz is d*mn fast.

Having the fastest CPU out is frivolous beyond reason. In a few weeks, it won't be. In a year, when your CPU looks pathetic next to what is out, you will realize how pointless it was to make the attempt. So why bother?

No one has to worry about chipping the core of an Athlon. They have little bumpers on them that compress to precisely the size of the core at maximum squeeze. That keeps the pressure across the core even. People that chip the core either remove the bumpers or use an oddball round-based HS (remember the "classic" Golden Orb?) that misses the bumpers.

The CPU burning up? That was a nice touch Intel added, but I have lived with CPUs that needed to have HSs to avoid castastrophic failure since the 486, so I put a little .001 for this factor when I do the evaluation. It is about worthless. If AMD offered a CPU with heat shutdown for 50 cents more, I'd take the one without and use the 50 cents for something else. They have a setting in the BIOS if you want the computer to shut down when the fan stops. I keep that disabled just so I won't have to worry if I switch to a fan that doen't plug into the mobo header.

In short when all things are factored in, that $55 Athlon is the only thing that makes sense. It just that a lot of people have a misshapen sense of proportion. No one is 100% sensible. They are entitled to their mistakes. I don't begrudge them. But they are wrong.

 

[Chadder007]

I kinda regret buying an Intel P4 1.6A now.....it was a bit higher priced than the Athlon of course but oh well. Im sure Ill buy an Opteron when they come out...if they perform as good as they are saying. I just hope they don't become another Cyrix.

 

[Macro2]

Newegg has 2400+s in stock, go for it. I suspect 2600+s by next week.

 

[Macro2]

Looks like Newegg already sold it out. Not there. Was there this morning.

 

[AmdInside]

Unfortunately, I am going to be broke until after Christmas but come January, I am going to pick up an nForce 2 motherboard and an Athlon processor.

 

[spanner]

The only way AMD will get anywhere is to out get a better PR department. Their current one really sucks. Another thing they need to do is take VIA and their buggy chipsets out of the equation.

 

[grant2]

I dont' recall saying AMD should ignore the enthusiasts. My point remains that massively purchasing a $53 chip hurts AMD's ASP and further puts them into more debt, and does NOT help them in any way.

You've got to be kidding me... you really think amd is "further into debt" when they get $53 a chip they'd otherwise trashbin?

Gee, I wish i could get "further into debt" by having someone buy all the empty cereal boxes & scrap paper that I throw out...

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: KF

In short when all things are factored in, that $55 Athlon is the only thing that makes sense. It just that a lot of people have a misshapen sense of proportion. No one is 100% sensible. They are entitled to their mistakes. I don't begrudge them. But they are wrong.

No, they just don't have exactly the same weighting of requirements and prefernces that you do.

Since I work full-time and am well-paid "ease of installation" is weighted much higher in my calculations than for a student, and "cost" is weighted much lower. Knowing that if I go with an intel chipset I'll have a much lower chance of problems with souncards and NICs has value to me, and stability has more value than the money I'd save by overclocking. For my mix of requirements and preferences intel is currently a better buy.

People should buy the CPU that best suits their needs, but should not think it's the only right choice for everyone else.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

Grant2,

Every single $52 1600+ from a person that will buy an AMD chip takes away from teh $70 1700+, $80 1800+, etc Demand.

If you really want to help amd, dont' buy the $52 chip, buy the $120+ 2100+ or higher.

This is the same with any "bargain" deal. Most often, companies lose money on the lowest end product. How much money would Ford make if people only buy the cheapest, most stripped down Focus rather than the Fully Loaded Eddie Bauer Exploder? There is no money for AMD to make on the $52 chip. And as far as selling them, if newegg has them, AMD has already sold them. So its newegg's issue now.


Mike

Edit2: Let's look at the latest financial numbers.

500Million revenue. Let's say (guessing) that 100million of this was flash business.

Let's say iwth that 400million revenue on CPU's, they sold 5 milliion chips. That's a PER chip ASP of $80

now let's take most of those chips, and say they're the $52 1600+. So 1million @ 80ASP, 4 Million @ 52ASP

all of a sudden we're looking at AMD's quarterly revenue dropping to 280Million just for the CPU's. Production costs would likely remain the same, as would other costs. Quarterly revenue drops to 380million rather than 500 million.

Increased purchases of AMD's $52 bargain chip lowers revenues, and increases their overall loss. It might not seem that way at first glance, but it has a very significant negative of hurting their bottom line.

 

[Windogg]

Fanboys are so silly. I don't buy a product because it's to "cool" thing to do. I don't care if its AMD, Intel, VIA, ATI, NVidia, or whatever. I buy the best product for the situation at hand.

AMD stands to lose more if their MirrorBit flash is replaced with Intel StrataFlash or products from Atmel, STMicro, SST, etc. They do make more than CPUs you know. Low cost suppliers in that market coupled with the growing need for flash memory in devices like cell phone, home entertainment products, and set top boxes can make or break AMD's bottomline.

Base arguments on fact and not silly emotions.

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: Windogg
Fanboys are so silly. I don't buy a product because it's to "cool" thing to do. I don't care if its AMD, Intel, VIA, ATI, NVidia, or whatever. I buy the best product for the situation at hand.

AMD stands to lose more if their MirrorBit flash is replaced with Intel StrataFlash or products from Atmel, STMicro, SST, etc. They do make more than CPUs you know. Low cost suppliers in that market coupled with the growing need for flash memory in devices like cell phone, home entertainment products, and set top boxes can make or break AMD's bottomline.

Base arguments on fact and not silly emotions.

I agree with that,I am a hardware whore & will buy whatever's fast and I can afford.

I could not care less who makes it as long as it suits my needs.

 

[AmdInside]

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: Windogg
Fanboys are so silly. I don't buy a product because it's to "cool" thing to do. I don't care if its AMD, Intel, VIA, ATI, NVidia, or whatever. I buy the best product for the situation at hand.

AMD stands to lose more if their MirrorBit flash is replaced with Intel StrataFlash or products from Atmel, STMicro, SST, etc. They do make more than CPUs you know. Low cost suppliers in that market coupled with the growing need for flash memory in devices like cell phone, home entertainment products, and set top boxes can make or break AMD's bottomline.

Base arguments on fact and not silly emotions.

I agree with that,I am a hardware whore & will buy whatever's fast and I can afford.

I could not care less who makes it as long as it suits my needs.

I wasn't trying to come off as a fan boy. AMD Athlon processors are excellent processors, in some ways, better than the Pentium 4 since it can achieve better performance at a much lower clock rate. I don't want to suggest anyone to buy a bad product. I am just stating that AMD could use some support. I don't think anyone here would want to go back to spending $400 for the low end processors and $800 for the high end.

 

[blade2]

i think Intel are more of a household name, well in the UK anyway i think, Intel always have adverts on the computer, not direct adverts but like adverts for Dell have the stupid Intel melody thing and intel have a new advert about how a new computer can revolutionise life and its crap. anyway point is intel is more of a household name, im sure if you were to ask people who are not computer savvy or up to date, about Intel or AMD they would say yeah Intel, AMD who are they?

anyway i just got new Athlon 1900 system after my old Pentium 2 but i am a firm AMD supporter now

 

[CrazySaint]

Originally posted by: KF

Originally posted by: CrazySaint

Originally posted by: KF


Nobody really buys a product to help a corporation. I would not consider buying an Intel processor when I can get an 1.4G AMD for $55. I don't know why anybody would.

Then I'll tell you why someone would buy an Intel processor when you can get a 1.4GHz AMD for $55. They might do it because its easier to make a silent system (yes, I read Insane3D's "silent Athlon system" thread). They might do it because can buy a 1.8GHz CPU for < $150 that will OC high enough to beat any CPU AMD has out (by "out", I mean one that you can buy today from newegg or googlegear). They might do it because they're about to build their system and they don't want to worry about chipping the core, or frying the CPU if the HSF fails or falls off (I know these things are relatively rare, but they do happen, and newbie computer builders do worry about them). That's why somebody would consider buying an Intel CPU. Now, I'm not in any way saying that "Intel is better than AMD" or whatever, and at $53 the 1600+ is an incredible value, especially when you factor in that most can OC to 2200+ speeds. If the 1.8As weren't regularly OC'ing to 2.5-2.7GHz+ then I wouldn't even consider buying one (mine arrived today, my motherboard should get here tomorrow) because of the price.

OK, you laid out the case. I have read these things on Anandtech, of course, like most that post here, and having read it all, I conclude the $55 XP makes the most sense.

Silence. 2.8G Intels need more air to keep them cool than 1.4G Athlons, and the noises are not that different from comparable Intel vs AMD units to my ears.

Silent, I don't want. Silent is bad. I want my computer to make a certain (small) amount of noise. A little of the right kind of noise masks more annoying noises. If you get fanatical about noise, your ears just adjust, and it still sounds noisey. I put a big 120mm fan that has a low, air-rushing noise blowing into my case. My perception of noise decreased, because the quieter little 60mm CPU fan, though quieter in db, makes an annoyingly high pitched sound. When I shut my computer off at night (occasionally), I get woken up during the night by all kinds of noises I don't normally hear when the low noise masks it. My ears become super sharp. A dog is barking two houses down the street. Sombody bangs a door in the house. It goes on and on. This is the effect the "silent" people are up against and don't seem to know it. They are deluding themselves. I am realistic. I do hate noise, but I live in a noisey world. The crickets outside this fall drowned out my computer. Now if I could kill all those SOBs, I'd be happy

You make a fair point here, though you need to differentiate between people who want a silent PC and a silent environment. Even if my PC is silent, I will never be in a silent environment because my air conditioner is always running and I always have my headphones on playing music (except for when I'm playing games, of course). So I don't really care if my PC is absolutely silent, just so long as its not loud enough to notice (even without the headphones). I have two computers that are within 3 feet of my head, and even though they aren't dead silent, I don't notice them. I actually have to look at the power LED or screen output to make sure they're on.

$150 is way more than $55. Sure I've paid more for CPUs than $150, but now I don't have to, and like just about everyone I don't need to. 1.4GHz is beyond anything I have any need for. I used to think my PR166 Cyrix was lightening fast when it beat anything Intel had for a brief period of time and believe me 1.4GHz is d*mn fast.

Having the fastest CPU out is frivolous beyond reason. In a few weeks, it won't be. In a year, when your CPU looks pathetic next to what is out, you will realize how pointless it was to make the attempt. So why bother?

First off, the 1.8A is down to $140 at newegg now with free shipping. Plus if you buy the XP 1.4Ghz, you'll still have to spend about $20 on a good HSF (especially if you OC), so its really ~$75 and $140. As for the speed, yes, buying the latest CPU just to have the latest CPU is silly. And yes, 1.4GHz is more then most people actually need (a super heavy gamer might need more, and graphics professionals need more). In my particular case, I'm upgrading a PII-350, so I'm "splurging" a bit on CPU power to make up for putting up with this thing for the last two years (I've had it nearly 5, but it didn't really start showing its age until the last 2 and a half years or so). Also, for many computer enthusiasts, getting a fast/highly OC'able CPU isn't about having the latest thing, but about having the fastest CPU they can get. Just like many car enthusiasts spend many hours and thousands of dollars getting the fastest car they can.

No one has to worry about chipping the core of an Athlon. They have little bumpers on them that compress to precisely the size of the core at maximum squeeze. That keeps the pressure across the core even. People that chip the core either remove the bumpers or use an oddball round-based HS (remember the "classic" Golden Orb?) that misses the bumpers.

I'll concede this point.

The CPU burning up? That was a nice touch Intel added, but I have lived with CPUs that needed to have HSs to avoid castastrophic failure since the 486, so I put a little .001 for this factor when I do the evaluation. It is about worthless. If AMD offered a CPU with heat shutdown for 50 cents more, I'd take the one without and use the 50 cents for something else. They have a setting in the BIOS if you want the computer to shut down when the fan stops. I keep that disabled just so I won't have to worry if I switch to a fan that doen't plug into the mobo header.

Yes, for most experienced computer builders, this is of little if any concern. However, every 2-4 weeks I see a thread along the lines of "I fried my CPU!! Help me salvage the rest of my compter!!!!", so it is a concern for some people.

In short when all things are factored in, that $55 Athlon is the only thing that makes sense. It just that a lot of people have a misshapen sense of proportion. No one is 100% sensible. They are entitled to their mistakes. I don't begrudge them. But they are wrong.

No offense, but unless you're being sarcastic, this sounds very arrogant. Obviously, the 1.4GHz XP is the best CPU for you, but as somebody else stated, not everybody rates CPUs the same way you do.

 

[Jhill]

If AMD dies Intel processors will double.

 

[socketman]

I think AMD will pull through with Hammer. The issue isnt whether hammer will be any good. Ill bet anyone here $100 it will spank Norhtwood and Prescott. The issue is the economy as a whole. If we are still in a recession, not many people are gonna buy CPUs anyway. You can have the best product on planet earth, but if people are worried about their jobs, mortgages and food - then it wont matter.

People who claim they dont care, and will just buy the fastest/best chip are taking a short sited view. If AMD fails, Intel will start charging up the arse for their chips. Why? Because they can. Competition is good. And yes, AMD only has themselves to blame for this situation. But pointing the finger isnt gonna help keep chips prices reasonable. Having two competitors will. I think its way to early to declare AMD is deep poo-poo. Lets see how Hammer does. If Hammer sales suck- then I will cringe in fear along with everyone else.