AMD blames lower than expected PC demand for poor results

[scaryjim]

I guess when you said "Athlon spent 18 months competing directly with Pentium III" you meant to say P4 then?

Erm ... no. Prior to November 2000, Athlon was NOT competing with P4 because P4 wasn't available to compete with. P3 was the best Intel had. That's what Athlon was competing with.

I'm also not refuting any comment about Athlon performance ...

Really? Then please explain what this comment was meant to mean:

Quelle surprise, a 7th gen CPU from AMD beats (marginally) a 6th gen CPU from Intel.

Because the only way I can read that is that you're saying Athlon's performance advantage over P3 is irrelevant because they were different generations, whereas I'd argue that the performance is relevant because they were direct market competitors.

[Corky34]

Really? Then please explain what this comment was meant to mean:

Because the only way I can read that is that you're saying Athlon's performance advantage over P3 is irrelevant because they were different generations, whereas I'd argue that the performance is relevant because they were direct market competitors.

In what universe is saying what a surprise considered to be denying the accuracy or truth of something?
Tell you what let's compare a Intel Core series with a classic Athlon if, as you claim, generations make no difference.

You can read what ever you like into what I'm saying (it's a free world), there's no need to get all frustrated over the fact that someone doesn't agree with you.
You say the Athlon's are so highly thought of because they were good, I say the Athlon's were so highly thought of because their direct market competitors were late to release a new micro-architecture, and when they did it was a POS.

We disagree, get over it.

[scaryjim]

In what universe is saying what a surprise considered to be denying the accuracy or truth of something?

Never said you denied the accuracy, just that you claimed the difference was meaningless due to a generational difference. You must've missed that.

The generations don't matter to consumers - what matters is what they can buy. There were 18 months when consumers could buy a Pentium III, or buy an Athlon. The Athlon was the better processor for all of that time.

Yet you don't seem to think that had anything to do with the Athlon being well regarded. That's apparently entirely down to the P4 being a mediocre processor compared to the K8 Athlon 64. Those 18 months of Athlon dominance over P3 apparently have nothing to do with it.

[shaithis]

Jim is correct, generations do not matter. If I created a new company today and released a chip into the market would you compare it with todays CPUs or an Intel 8088?

It is the year of manufacture that should be the constant when comparing as you are.

[Corky34]

Never said you denied the accuracy, just that you claimed the difference was meaningless due to a generational difference. You must've missed that.

The generations don't matter to consumers - what matters is what they can buy. There were 18 months when consumers could buy a Pentium III, or buy an Athlon. The Athlon was the better processor for all of that time.

Yet you don't seem to think that had anything to do with the Athlon being well regarded. That's apparently entirely down to the P4 being a mediocre processor compared to the K8 Athlon 64. Those 18 months of Athlon dominance over P3 apparently have nothing to do with it.

Wow you're like a dog with a bone ain't you, I've already said we disagree, you seem to be happy to compare a CPU microarchitecture that didn't change significantly since it was introduced in 1995 with a CPU microarchitecture that came out 4 years later, I don't agree with you, simple.

And FYI you may want to look up the meaning of words before using them, specifically the meaning of "refute"