AMD blames lower than expected PC demand for poor results

[DanceswithUnix]

Maybe someone need to do a re-write of the history books and tell everyone that in fact the P4 and NetBurst wasn't a micro-architecturally dead end.

That isn't what anyone is saying, I was pointing out that enthusiasm for Athlon pre-dated the Athlon64 and hardly mention the P4. Perhaps we are misunderstanding your original assertion. Let's wind back a bit:

The reason AMD's Athlon's were so highly thought of probably says more about how bad the P4 and NetBurst were.

Sure, the P4 was bad (and yes I think it was a dead end), but is that the reason that the Athlon was highly thought of? Do you really have to link the two?

Well maybe for you, but personally I am a bit of an architecture nerd, have been since I got a book saying how the Zilog Z80 executed its instructions in the early 80's. I thought that the Athlon was good, that the P4 was misguided, and that is on their own merits. If the Athlon didn't exist, I would still have said the P4 was a mess. Similarly, if Intel had given up with the 486 and the Athlon stood alone, I would have been impressed. I can say that with confidence, having been impressed with chips like the SuperH which were never going to win high end benchmarks but just had some really nice design touches (apart from the use of a delayed branch slot but nothing is perfect).

[Corky34]

I don't think anyone's saying netburst wasn't a mess - they're saying every generation of Athlon was competitive with the contemporary Intel processors. You've even been shown graphs clearly showing Athlon @ 500MHz hammering PIII @ 500 MHz, which is going back WAY before Netburst.

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

?? Are you replying to the right thread? Sounds like you're talking about another discussion somewhere, which might be adding to the confusion!

You seem to be the only one who is confused.

Sure, the P4 was bad (and yes I think it was a dead end), but is that the reason that the Athlon was highly thought of? Do you really have to link the two?

That the thing, obviously we can't know for sure one way or the other, would we have thought so well of AMD's 7th generation x86 CPU microarchitecture if Intel hadn't dropped the ball when it released its own 7th generation x86 CPU microarchitecture?

I would say one of the ways we could answer that is by looking how the 6th & 8th generation x86 CPU microarchitecture from both sides compare against each other, IMHO that gives the best indication of what may have been the result if Intel didn't go down a dead end with their 7th gen.

[kalniel]

So you're saying Intel are fastest except when they're not?

[scaryjim]

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

I think maybe you're reading too much into generations. Athlon spent 18 months competing directly with Pentium III, and beating it handily. Any minute now you'll tell me it's not fair to compare Athlon 64 to Netburst P4s because the Athlon 64 was 8th generation and netbburst was only 7th...

[DanceswithUnix]

I think maybe you're reading too much into generations. Athlon spent 18 months competing directly with Pentium III, and beating it handily. Any minute now you'll tell me it's not fair to compare Athlon 64 to Netburst P4s because the Athlon 64 was 8th generation and netbburst was only 7th...

Indeed. They both knew when 180nm was coming (roughly), they both did the best they could with that node. All this "nth generation" stuff is fairly meaningless, specially when AMD purchased one of their generations by buying NexGen.

[Corky34]

Ahh that must be it then, Athlon doesn't just stick in peoples minds because Intel's offering at the time was a POS, it must be that Athlon was so good that it swept all before it, beating every PIII, every P4 and every Core series CPU.

[scaryjim]

Ah, reductio ad absurdam - a rather tired ploy. Someone disagrees with your premise so you stretch theirs to breaking point in an attempt to discredit their arguments.

... it must be that Athlon was so good that it swept all before it, beating every PIII, every P4 and every Core series CPU.

No-one said that. You know no-one said that. We know no-one said that. Let's all move on....

[DanceswithUnix]

Ahh that must be it then, Athlon doesn't just stick in peoples minds because Intel's offering at the time was a POS, it must be that Athlon was so good that it swept all before it, beating every PIII, every P4 and every Core series CPU.

Core was after it, so very hard to have been swept before it, but otherwise yes that is pretty much it. Might want to add K6 to the list of swept before it

Core2 was impressively tricked out and a stunning comeback, but are you going to say that Core2 was only good because P4 was a POS? How about i7?

Was my sandwich at lunchtime only good because P4 was a POS?

[scaryjim]

No-one said that. You know no-one said that. We know no-one said that. ...

... yes that is pretty much it. Might want to add K6 to the list of swept before it ...

I'll get my coat

[DanceswithUnix]

I'll get my coat

lol. Well "swept all before it" isn't how I would really describe it, but close enough

[Corky34]

So you're saying Intel are fastest except when they're not?

You really are having difficulty keeping track of this thread aren't you.

I think maybe you're reading too much into generations. Athlon spent 18 months competing directly with Pentium III, and beating it handily. Any minute now you'll tell me it's not fair to compare Athlon 64 to Netburst P4s because the Athlon 64 was 8th generation and netbburst was only 7th...

Where are you getting 18 month from?
Pentium III was released in February and Athlon was released some 4 months later in June of the same year.

Ah, reductio ad absurdam - a rather tired ploy. Someone disagrees with your premise so you stretch theirs to breaking point in an attempt to discredit their arguments.

It's got nothing to do with trying to discredit someones argument, its got to do with my initial premise that...

The reason AMD's Athlon's were so highly thought of probably says more about how bad the P4 and NetBurst were.

Was my sandwich at lunchtime only good because P4 was a POS?

Sorry but did I say Athlon was not good, because if I did I would appreciate it if you could point it out, IIRC I have been saying and still say the reason AMD's Athlon's were so highly thought of probably says more about how bad the P4 and NetBurst were.

[DanceswithUnix]

Sorry but did I say Athlon was not good, because if I did I would appreciate it if you could point it out, IIRC I have been saying and still say the reason AMD's Athlon's were so highly thought of probably says more about how bad the P4 and NetBurst were.

Sorry, but did I say my sandwich was not good? It was delicious, nice fresh bread and a very tasty filling, but perhaps I only thought so highly of it because the P4 was a POS?

This is going in circles. I get the impression that for *you* they are linked. To me Athlon was thought highly of due to being an interesting and well executed design and that predates the P4 so they are two completely unrelated things. I suspect neither of us are alone in our stance.

[Corky34]

No, you said it was only good because something else was bad, perhaps you care to point me to where I said the Athlon was not good, instead of just implying that's what I said.

Was my sandwich at lunchtime only good because P4 was a POS?

If your sandwich at lunchtime was more memorable because it was a choice between that or a month old rotten sandwich then maybe what you said in another useless analogy, then perhaps it would have been more accurate.

This is only going in circles because you and it would seem others equate the term highly thought of as meaning something that it doesn't.

You may have thought highly of the Athlon due to it being an interesting and well executed design, but are you seriously saying that the majority of people who bought an Athlon knew how interesting and well executed the design of what they bought was? Or is it more likely that people remember Athlon's because the alternative at the time sucked.

[DanceswithUnix]

The reason AMD's Athlon's were so highly thought of probably says more about how bad the P4 and NetBurst were.

The words "The reason" and "says more about" for me create a causal link. With such a link, the P4 must be bad for the Athlon to be thought highly of. That then implies that if the P4 had been good, then the Athlon would not have been thought highly of.

That is how I read the sentence. If that is wrong, what did you mean?

Personally I just don't see a link, I don't see the necessity for comparison. P4 was bad on its own terms. What happens if you get two rotten sandwiches, does one become delicious through comparison? No, you still have two rotten sandwiches. If like with P3 vs Athlon both options were actually rather good, does one have to be labelled bad?

As for "most people", they carried on buying Intel, they didn't care. Of the minority that bought Athlon, I expect most just took some advice on what to buy and used what they bought thinking no more of it.

[scaryjim]

Where are you getting 18 month from?
Pentium III was released in February and Athlon was released some 4 months later in June of the same year.

According to wikipedia - not always a reliable source but I'll trust it for product launch dates - Athlon launched June 23 1999, while Pentium 4 launched on November 20 2000.

You refuted any comments about Athlon performance v Pentium III by claiming Athlon was 7th Generation v Pentium III's 6th generation. But from June 23 1999 to November 20 2000, Athlon competed directly against Pentium III. Fair enough, I was rounding - it's actually 17 months. But that's still 17 months where AMD had by far the best processor in the x86 market. Which generation those processors belonged to is irrelevant.

I read your earlier statement the same way DanceswithUnix did - as a clear implication that Athlon would not have been highly thought of if netburst had been a better architecture. But Athlon had 18 months of being highly thought of - in certain circles, at least - before netburst was even released. The quality of netburst had little to do with how highly Athlon was thought of.

[Corky34]

The words "The reason" and "says more about" for me create a causal link. With such a link, the P4 must be bad for the Athlon to be thought highly of. That then implies that if the P4 had been good, then the Athlon would not have been thought highly of.

That is how I read the sentence. If that is wrong, what did you mean?

No it's not wrong, if hypothetically when the P4 was released it was more than twice as fast as anything AMD had would people in today's world look back at the Athlon and heap praise on it, appreciate it for being half the speed, commended AMD for making such a slow CPU?

Personally I just don't see a link, I don't see the necessity for comparison. P4 was bad on its own terms. What happens if you get two rotten sandwiches, does one become delicious through comparison? No, you still have two rotten sandwiches. If like with P3 vs Athlon both options were actually rather good, does one have to be labelled bad?

Something can't be good or bad in isolation, it just is, until you have something to compare it with it's impossible to say if something is either better, similar or worse than what you're comparing it to.
Using your much loved analogies, what if you had never eaten a sandwich, never seen a sandwich, didn't even know what a sandwich was, how would you know if your sandwich was a good sandwich?

According to wikipedia - not always a reliable source but I'll trust it for product launch dates - Athlon launched June 23 1999, while Pentium 4 launched on November 20 2000.

You refuted any comments about Athlon performance v Pentium III by claiming Athlon was 7th Generation v Pentium III's 6th generation. But from June 23 1999 to November 20 2000, Athlon competed directly against Pentium III. Fair enough, I was rounding - it's actually 17 months. But that's still 17 months where AMD had by far the best processor in the x86 market. Which generation those processors belonged to is irrelevant.

I read your earlier statement the same way DanceswithUnix did - as a clear implication that Athlon would not have been highly thought of if netburst had been a better architecture. But Athlon had 18 months of being highly thought of - in certain circles, at least - before netburst was even released. The quality of netburst had little to do with how highly Athlon was thought of.

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

I'm also not refuting any comment about Athlon performance, if you want to say it was that fastest thing since sliced bread then go for it, what I'm saying is that (imo) the reason that Athlon was so highly thought of, appreciate, applaud, or any other synonym you would like to choose, is because the alternatives sucked.