[RESOLVED] AMD Name Game.

I was just looking at some of the subjects on the Windrivers.com site and noticed the article about AMD possibly using the Cyrix way of naming their processors ( 1.4GHz T-Bird becomes 1900+ as it compares to a Intel P4 processor). I read many of the TalkBack replies to the article, of which I would guess 99% of are against AMD doing this. I would have to agree with most of the arguments against doing this naming scheme. I think AMD has lost sight of what their processors are capable of and are concentrating too much on what Intel is doing. It's called advertising. The reason people (meaning average consumers) are buying Intel is because there is very limited awareness of AMD Processors. No advertising means no awareness. Even though the Blue Man Group commercials are the most idiotic commercials ever, they still put the Intel name in the minds of the average consumer. I realize AMD probably doesn't have near the advertising budget as Intel, but if they intend to get the message across to the consumer that their CPU is better, packaging it with a number that is compared to an Intel processor is not the answer. They just need to advertise and get the word out. I also noticed a few wrote that AMD was being hypocritical about megahertz vs. megahertz. When AMD reached 1GHz before Intel it was all about who had the fastest (read MHz) processor, but when Intel went past AMD with the P4 at 1.5GHz to 2.0GHz, AMD said megahertz didn't matter anymore. I just want the people who think AMD was being hypocritical to understand that since Intel went to the inferior design of the P4, a chip that was made specifically for high MHz but low IPC (Instructions Per Clock), MHz doesn't matter anymore. Now the industry is trying to compare one CPU against another based on clock speed and it doesn't work that way anymore. I will say that I am a AMD supporter and I run a T-Bird in my machine, but I didn't pick it because I hate Intel. I don't. I picked AMD because the price/performance (read value) of the T-Bird was far better than the Intel counterpart. I hope AMD will not try this name game as it will only confuse the average consumer. Instead, I hope they will finally understand that the reason Intel sells more is because Intel advertises profusely. To my recollection I can only think of one AMD commercial. It featured a runaway train coming right towards a man in a room. Two computers, one AMD the other Intel, which one to use to stop the train. Intel? Too bad. You chose poorly. SMACK! Why can't they make more commercials like that or any for that matter? What do you think?

They may be getting a lot of critiscm. But you have to realize that AMD is having trouble getting a lot of the market. Even though they may be changing to weird numbers you are still gonna buy from them cuase you know they are better and cheaper. And they will attract a heckload more average consumers this way.

Haha, I wish I had seen that commercial!

------------------
If you say the P3 is faster than the Athlon then I automatically know that you know nothing about computers or are on *ntel's payroll.

I don't know if you've noticed lately, but Intel has quietly start talking about how performance isn't always equal to MHZ at their development conference. I think that this is because their new Itanium doesn't run as fast as the competition, and they have been saying MHZ rules all these years. It's interesting how if you're on top, anything goes, but if not, you have to stick to the facts to make the big guy look bad.

I think that AMD's new scheme will help them a little bit in seen and unseen ways (i've noticed a lot more news articles about AMD recently...). The new scheme will help take out some of the technical information and help to present a clear comparison, for those wonderful users! But there is still no substitute for simple advertising. A combo of both would work well.

This won't help AMD in any way, shape or form. Most avid AMD users know the difference, and it's mostly the loyalists that disagree with what AMD is doing. The general public does not understand the concept of computing or the physics behind it, they don't know and they don't care. All they see is advertising, and Intel provides that. AMD doesn't... There is no "AMD Inside" promotional gimmicks, no commercials...no...nothing.
The gaming community is what made AMD, not the average Joe Blow. Mr Average buys what he recognizes, and mostly Mr. Average doesn't readily recognize AMD. But they recognize Intel. And they don't know the difference between instructions per clock cycles nor do they care. They are consumers who rely on advertising to tell them what to buy...this is the way it has always been. They buy or use the prettiest, latest, trendiest, but more importantly the most advertised thing. Wether it's the best or not has nothing to do with it. Case in point...AOL.

Insofar as the Pent 4 goes, I'm not quite sure it is an inferior chip, I am sure that at the present MHz it doesn't compete with the Athlon...until it finally hit 2GHz. The kicker is that the P4 was meant to be scalable to 10 GHz...this was the plan.
At speeds greater than 2GHz it begins to gain ground and the architecture is taken advantage of. So in essence, and this has always been obvious to anyone with a modicum of electronics knowledge, MHz is NOT the defining factor in computing. The entire architecture of a circuit must be taken into account, hence AMD is the clear winner in computing muscle...at present.
But let's be very frank and honest here, I support AMD, I support Intel....I wish there were MORE consumer CPU's to support. The reason being is that I also, am a consumer....I don't own stock in Intel....I don't own stock in AMD. I don't want Intel to "win" and I don't want AMD to win either.
I have always used Intel, and I have always used AMD. I pray to God there is no "winner".
The only Winner I pray for is us, the consumer...because that's what AMD has really done, it's made the consumer a winner by forcing Intel to compete, lower prices and ramp up production. Let's say AMD did "win"...intel folds and AMD is the top dog. Do you honestly think AMD chips would then always be as cheap as they are now?? Heck no...no competition....no reason for the cutthroat prices....no reason to sink millions and millions into research to provide faster and faster chips. And we the consumer would be in the same boat we were in before AMD. No choice at top dollar.

There is no "Robin Hood" when it comes to consumer products...once the sheriff is dead...the new sheriff is even worse.

So let's face it, you AMD people...and you Intel people....you're all the same...all we want is our comps to work, our games to play, and not have to pay out the yingyang for our hardware.

So is AMD doing the right thing with this??
Nope...and as I said...it's the loyalists that are speaking against it.

------------------
When cometh the day we lowly ones
Through quiet reflection and great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water

Well as time goes on and AMD grabs a larger chunk of the market things have got to change
where as Intel was the IT before and the name alone could sell the product AMD slowly but surely is proving that a monopoly can be broken with perseverence patience and a great product for a good price..
So for the users who do not know to much a comparitive naming of processors is the correct way to go https://forums.windrivers.com/

------------------
Not one being first .not one being last..
The past is the future, the present is past.
The Bible is the worlds number 1 best selling fiction novel....

I agree with what a lot of what was said. We definately don't want anyone to "win" because then I'd be paying more for my chips. On the other hand I use AMD almost exclusively because I think they're a much better value for your dollar. AMD using a name like "1900" to describe a 1500 Mhz chip is a bad idea. Basically it would just confuse uneducated people and make AMD look like they're taking a cheezy advertising idea from the cyrix people.

------------------
Everyone is entitled to make an occasional mistake..................except for skydivers of course.

I never liked the "PR" ratings scheme as this just confused users thinking they were getting something they really were not. I think AMD and Intel both make an excellent product and leave the decisions on what to build for the consumer upto the consumer as far as what the computer is going to be used for and what the budget can handle. AMD should put out more advertising but not necassarily TV ads as there are many other forms of media to use far less expensive that will not eat into the consumers pockets. AMD has Intel beat to a pulp in the price performance ratio catagory hands down. And this coming from someone who owns an Intel system or 2.

------------------
DOS isn't dead it just smells funny

[This message has been edited by Silverman (edited September 10, 2001).]

Personally I am AMD all the way, What got me is reviews, ratings, and of course price. just like most of us as a home user, I buy everything on-line. All the decent ite will have all all three of these and if the site doesn't you should be qualified to do research on the chip anyway if the brand really does matter to you.

oops sorry for my mispellings on the last post.

Names for AMD's processors tell me nothing about the chip since they're hiding the clock speeds. I'd rather buy an iNTEL chip since I know what I'm getting. My whole premise on buying AMD chips is they're less-expensive, packed with excellent architecture, and outperform iNTEL processors at any given clock speed. I've been loyal to AMD since my first 5x86 133 back in the early 90's. That was a badass computer back then. I'm just sorry to see their dropping support and the production of the K6 series in 2003. The K6 is one of my favorite processors to use for Linux-based firewalls and routers. They're efficient and definitely worth buying...


------------------
_ _ _ _ _ _ ______________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _
Windows has caused a critical system fault in 015f:111A380B and must be
restarted. Please insert another quarter to continue playing.

if many of you rmeber AMD was part of the makers fo rthe PR rating many years ago .. they used it but when the K6 came out they only used the PR to what speed the processor was instead of benchmark speeds ... Im personally against it but and it will tarnish my 75% total AMD feeling ... however Intel has shot themselves in the foot this year many times (udma 133, advertising, ram types,) really the only honest set then would be C3 .. kinda scary huh

------------------
woke up fell out of bed, dragged a comb across my head, found my way downstairs and drank a cup, looking up i noticed i was late, grabbed coat and grabbed my hat .. made the bus in seconds flat .. made my way upstairs and had a smoke, somebody spoke and i went into a dream ... i didnt mean to turn you on

Quote:

---

<font face="Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, Geneva" size="2">Originally posted by Jvaguy:
if many of you rmeber AMD was part of the makers fo rthe PR rating many years ago .. they used it but when the K6 came out they only used the PR to what speed the processor was instead of benchmark speeds ... Im personally against it but and it will tarnish my 75% total AMD feeling ... however Intel has shot themselves in the foot this year many times (udma 133, advertising, ram types,) really the only honest set then would be C3 .. kinda scary huh

</font>

---

Not really as VIA/Cyrix look to have got the C3 nearly right this time with the cache and the stronger than usual 'Cyrix/VIA' FPU.



------------------
Yes it is the real deal

If I am going for a fast machine, I would pick AMD, If I were going for a cheap machine, I would choose AMD, but if I was going for a server macine, it would be Intel as they run cooler, and since a server is on 24/7 it needs to be cool.

------------------
If it's not broken....Fix it!
http://www.underauthority.net