Indeed as several people have already said AMD need to advertise themselves better. How many PS4 or Xbox One owners know that there is an AMD chip powering there box?
Maybe a sticker saying powered by AMD
Anyway hopefully the rumors are true that an AMD chip will power Nintendo’s upcoming NX video game console. http://venturebeat.com/2015/07/16/mo...nxs-processor/
Part of the problem is Intel, Microsoft and OEM's have created a mess of what a PC should look like. It's now not uncommon now to have 10 different product versions on a similar pc chassis, i.e. HP Envy 15. Lots of gimmicks to no gimmicks to choice from. The latest GUI and cloud options on slightly better dated OS framework or traditional OS on dated framework. It's a cluster of what to make or support and or what experience is important. Rebadged Atoms as Pentiums. It's a crap shoot for the consumer with the house taking the winnings. I am glad I don't own a combination MS/AMD or Intel/OEM product.Originally Posted by scaryjim
Actually, for the vast majority of consumer PCs, they don't - they already have way more performance in the bag then they'll ever need. What they need to go is get more of the major OEMs releasing well-built products with their chips in them. There's still an overwhelming groundswell of opinion amongst the general computer-buying public that you need to have an Intel processor. AMD's biggest problem is consumer inertia. Even if they released a halo product with twice the performance of Intel's enthusiast platform, the average bloke in the street would still equate PC with Intel. Whilst AMD will still push the general PC market and try to get their APUs into mainstream consumer products, I think they've actually made the right choice in focussing on their semi-custom business. Zen will probably make most difference to their server sales, and having a higher performance core to offer the semi-custom business could end up being hugely profitable - after all, that's the line of business that's growing most at the minute. In the future we could easily end up with far more devices containing AMD-made processors than actually have AMD stickers on them: and that white label business could easily float the company.
The non-PC hardware enthusiasts that I work and eat alongside have all heard of AMD and know the company makes CPUs, but they all associate the brand with ho-hum performance unlike Intel whose CPUs are always better.
The reason AMD's Athlon's were so highly thought of probably says more about how bad the P4 and NetBurst were.
IMO AMD, for the last 5-6 years, have been in a similar situation micro-architecturally wise, as Intel was before they brought out the Core series, whether we are going to see a similar or larger jump in performance when AMD release Zen next year is yet to be seen though.
Not really, no. Athlon was already winning against P3, before P4 came out.
I think AMD are playing it too aggressively with Zen though. Core came out as Pentium M first, nice and low power but boy the performance sucked. Then they upped the clock headroom and bought out Core2 having flushed the problems out in laptops. If Zen comes out first for servers and desktops, that is a big ask to hit the numbers first shot.
Not sure what benchmark you're looking at but I seem to remember clock for clock the Athlon was ever so slightly behind the P3, not we can entirely trust Wiki articles but even the Wiki article for Pentium III says the following...
In terms of overall performance, the Coppermine held a slight advantage over the AMD Athlons it was released against, which was reversed when AMD applied their own die shrink and added an on-die L2 cache to the Athlon. Athlon held the advantage in floating-point intensive code, while the Coppermine could perform better when SSE optimizations were used, but in practical terms there was little difference in how the two chips performed, clock-for-clock.
The 1GHz P3 was recalled as unstable, the 1GHz Athlon shipped first. Intel really struggled at 1GHz, hence their push with the 1.3GHz P4 for marketing reasons despite it being slower that the P3. Up until then, there wasn't really anything in it.
so true. maybe a total rebranding might be in order?
Out of the circle of friends I have they've all heard about Intel or seen ad's about "Intel Inside" branding but they know nothing about AMD.
Don't they have these sticker things which the OEM puts on the products though? All of the HP and Dell PCs I've seen with AMD chips have those stickers on.
No one said anything about one particular CPU, well unless the only P3 to ever be released was the 1Ghz CPU.
Yes a single CPU may have had problems, but that doesn't mean the Athlon was already winning against P3 as you said.
Even though they do its not as widely recognised compared to Intel. Well at least where I am anyway (Hong Kong)....most PC parts retailers mainly put/push Intel anyhow as well so that probably doesn't help too.
Hell in a typical computer parts shopping centre there's at least 1 big advertisement about Intel. Rarely do I see AMD ads
I guess that's always been AMD's problem. Even with their GPUs they've been reliant upon advertising using Social Media and YouTube (the Fixer).
Slot 1 vs Slot A, at 500MHz the Athlon was fastest:
It wasn't just the endgame.
The AMD 750 chipset was a bit of a dog though, that muddied the waters somewhat until VIA and later Nvidia started making decent chipsets.
You're comparing a single CPU with four times the amount of L1 cache.
Maybe if you compared something a little more like for like you would see this.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/423/7
Either way we seem to be drifting of the point I initially raise and you contested, that the reason AMD's Athlon's were so highly thought of probably says more about how bad the P4 and NetBurst were.
OK, how about putting it this way... The Mona Lisa is more about me not being able to draw than Leonardo having any talent? No, the fact that I can't draw says nothing about whether Leonardo was a competent artist.
The P4 wasn't good. That says nothing about the Athlon.
So compare the Athlon to the P3, as that is the only other thing we really can compare it to.
The graph you showed is a very odd one, clearly the GPU is frame rate limiting given the 700 and 800MHz cpus are the same performance within the same CPU family.
The P3 there is Coppermine, and should be faster than the generation older Slot A Athlon. That says what a process advantage can do for you, nothing about the talent of the CPU designers.
But we aren't comparing someone who can't draw with some that can, we are comparing two people that drew, using your example, the Mona Lisa and then one of those people didn't draw anything comparable for the next 5 years, while the other carried on drawing great works of art.
As I initially said the reason AMD's Athlon's were so highly thought of probably says more about how bad the P4 and NetBurst were, or are you going to claim that everyone was jumping all over Athlon's and singing there praise before Intel released the P4?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
