Another reason to go with AMD

[sillyputty]

Intel's branding faux pas?

Intel hasn't transitioned a chip brand since 1992, and Prudential
Equity Group analyst Mark Lipacis believes the playbook is a bit dusty.

In an Aug. 6 research note, Lipacis said the ramp of Intel's desktop
performance chip Core 2 Duo will be slower than expected due to brand
confusion and tight chip inventories. The biggest challenge with the
transition to Core 2 Duo (code-named Conroe) from the Pentium: Intel's
pricing of the Pentium, designed to clear inventory, is causing
customers to do double takes. Customers are asking, "Why spend $180 for
a Conroe when you can get a Pentium for $80," said Lipacis in San
Francisco.

What does it all mean? According to Lipacis, Intel's transition to make
Core 2 Duo its primary brand is fraught with risks. The big ones:

In addition to the costs associated with the introduction of the new
brand, there is a risk that the new brand will freeze sales of the
older brand or vice versa, said Lipacis.

If Intel doesn't handle inventory correctly, it faces pricing
inconsistencies, an excess supply of old chips and possibly shortages
of the new ones.

Customers may get confused. Intel typically has supported two desktop
brands: Pentium, its performance brand, and Celeron, its value brand.
Lipacis said Intel has at least three brands targeted at the desktop
market: Core 2 Duo, Pentium 4 and Celeron. That's not counting Pentium
D, Pentium 4 EE (Extreme Edition), Core 2 Duo EE and Core Duo. "By
flooding the desktop PC market with so many brands, we fear that Intel
may be complicating, and thereby delaying, the buying process," said
Lipacis.

"Our own empirical observation is that there is a high correlation
between product transitions and earnings misses -- it is no wonder you
don't see many major brand transitions to the scale Intel is executing
now," said Lipacis.

eWeek, August 21, 2006

 

[Andrew]

Intel's branding faux pas?

Why is that a reason to go with AMD? It is just a reason to do some
research before you make a buying decision, as is the same with AMD
numbering conventions. AMD may have ruled the roost over the past few
years, but only an idiot would ignore the Core 2 Duo's right now.

 

[Lou]

Intel's branding faux pas?

Intel hasn't transitioned a chip brand since 1992, and
Prudential
Equity Group analyst Mark Lipacis believes the playbook is
a bit dusty.

In an Aug. 6 research note, Lipacis said the ramp of
Intel's desktop
performance chip Core 2 Duo will be slower than expected
due to brand
confusion and tight chip inventories. The biggest
challenge with the
transition to Core 2 Duo (code-named Conroe) from the
Pentium: Intel's
pricing of the Pentium, designed to clear inventory, is
causing
customers to do double takes. Customers are asking, "Why
spend $180 for
a Conroe when you can get a Pentium for $80," said Lipacis
in San
Francisco.

What does it all mean? According to Lipacis, Intel's
transition to make
Core 2 Duo its primary brand is fraught with risks. The
big ones:

In addition to the costs associated with the introduction
of the new
brand, there is a risk that the new brand will freeze
sales of the
older brand or vice versa, said Lipacis.

If Intel doesn't handle inventory correctly, it faces
pricing
inconsistencies, an excess supply of old chips and
possibly shortages
of the new ones.

Customers may get confused. Intel typically has supported
two desktop
brands: Pentium, its performance brand, and Celeron, its
value brand.
Lipacis said Intel has at least three brands targeted at
the desktop
market: Core 2 Duo, Pentium 4 and Celeron. That's not
counting Pentium
D, Pentium 4 EE (Extreme Edition), Core 2 Duo EE and Core
Duo. "By
flooding the desktop PC market with so many brands, we
fear that Intel
may be complicating, and thereby delaying, the buying
process," said

Lipacis.

"Our own empirical observation is that there is a high
correlation
between product transitions and earnings misses -- it is
no wonder you
don't see many major brand transitions to the scale Intel
is executing
now," said Lipacis.

eWeek, August 21, 2006

Looks like Intel has other problems
http://news.com.com/Intel+lowers+the+boom+on+10+percent+of+employees/2100-1014_3-6112412.html

 

[Big Bad Bob]

Why is that a reason to go with AMD?

ack. attacking "the guy on top" is popular when it's against companies
like microsoft, but Intel's simply doing their best to keep the
technology moving forward while sustaining profitability. And they do
have a competitor (AMD) unlike MS. I'd like to see Intel make it
through what appears to be a bad business decision without too many scars.

 

[kony]

Why is that a reason to go with AMD? It is just a reason to do some
research before you make a buying decision, as is the same with AMD
numbering conventions. AMD may have ruled the roost over the past few
years, but only an idiot would ignore the Core 2 Duo's right now.

It would have to be a shortsighted view in terms of who's
"winning" if they're not going to pay a premium for the
fastest chip made, or replace the system every two years
(which most people don't, puttign aside those who
participate in technical forums for a moment).

There are more and more reasons today to focus less on which
CPU is in a system and more about the rest of the system.
Especially because most boxes are OEM, there can be
significant differences besides which CPU is inside.

The CPU wars should be declared over, not because there is
no winner at any point in time but because there is no loser
for general purpose uses most people do.

 

[Pluvious]

|Intel's branding faux pas?
|
|Intel hasn't transitioned a chip brand since 1992, and Prudential
|Equity Group analyst Mark Lipacis believes the playbook is a bit dusty.
|
|In an Aug. 6 research note, Lipacis said the ramp of Intel's desktop
|performance chip Core 2 Duo will be slower than expected due to brand
|confusion and tight chip inventories. The biggest challenge with the
|transition to Core 2 Duo (code-named Conroe) from the Pentium: Intel's
|pricing of the Pentium, designed to clear inventory, is causing
|customers to do double takes. Customers are asking, "Why spend $180 for
|a Conroe when you can get a Pentium for $80," said Lipacis in San
|Francisco.
|
|What does it all mean? According to Lipacis, Intel's transition to make
|Core 2 Duo its primary brand is fraught with risks. The big ones:
|
|In addition to the costs associated with the introduction of the new
|brand, there is a risk that the new brand will freeze sales of the
|older brand or vice versa, said Lipacis.
|
|If Intel doesn't handle inventory correctly, it faces pricing
|inconsistencies, an excess supply of old chips and possibly shortages
|of the new ones.
|
|Customers may get confused. Intel typically has supported two desktop
|brands: Pentium, its performance brand, and Celeron, its value brand.
|Lipacis said Intel has at least three brands targeted at the desktop
|market: Core 2 Duo, Pentium 4 and Celeron. That's not counting Pentium
|D, Pentium 4 EE (Extreme Edition), Core 2 Duo EE and Core Duo. "By
|flooding the desktop PC market with so many brands, we fear that Intel
|may be complicating, and thereby delaying, the buying process," said
|Lipacis.
|
|"Our own empirical observation is that there is a high correlation
|between product transitions and earnings misses -- it is no wonder you
|don't see many major brand transitions to the scale Intel is executing
|now," said Lipacis.
|
|eWeek, August 21, 2006

Wow.. what a bunch of spin control. AMD is in a WORLD of hurt with the Core 2
series. Not confusing at all.. the Core 2 Duo is such a winner by a landslide it
makes all the other's including P4,Celeron,AMD a moot point. Have you seen the
specs and reviews of the Core2 extreme?!?.. that thing kicks ass! Even the 6600
is better then the AMD FX series.. pleeease.

Pluvious

 

[acne_is_incurable]

Wow.. what a bunch of spin control. AMD is in a WORLD of hurt with the Core 2
series. Not confusing at all.. the Core 2 Duo is such a winner by a landslide it
makes all the other's including P4,Celeron,AMD a moot point. Have you seen the
specs and reviews of the Core2 extreme?!?.. that thing kicks ass! Even the 6600
is better then the AMD FX series.. pleeease.

Go cheap young man. In this case, Intel has started to become cost
competitive, and according to PC World (9/2006), the Core 2 Duo now
holds the top Worldbench 5 spec. As an Intel stockholder, I say buy
Intel now for cost and performance.

I hope AMD catches up though. Nothing makes you paranoid more than
competition. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. That was not a quote
from Andy Grove. But it should be a warning to Intel, AMD, Motorola,
etc., that technology marches to its own beat, and believe me, the bpm
is getting higher and higher.

 

[shegeek72]

Why is that a reason to go with AMD? It is just a reason to do some
research before you make a buying decision, as is the same with AMD
numbering conventions. AMD may have ruled the roost over the past few
years, but only an idiot would ignore the Core 2 Duo's right now.

I'm showing my bias - guilty as charged.

However, the current thinking is AMD is better for gamers (of which I'm
one). But the bottom line is competition is good for the consumer vs.
the softopoly M$ has, as pointed out by BBB.

 

[Andrew]

However, the current thinking is AMD is better for gamers (of which I'm
one).

By anyone who hasn't looked at benchmarks for Core 2 Duo, and as such
shouldn't be trusted to make sweeping statements.

 

[Gojira]

I'm showing my bias - guilty as charged.

However, the current thinking is AMD is better for gamers (of which I'm
one). But the bottom line is competition is good for the consumer vs.
the softopoly M$ has, as pointed out by BBB.

AMD was better at gaming,but even in this they've slipped to second with the
introduction of the Core 2 Duo.But they had a good run,and pushed Intel out
of their complacency,in the end,the consumer wins.I hope they can catch up
again and keep Intel on their toes,it's a lot better for us if there's real
competition.

 

[Fid]

By anyone who hasn't looked at benchmarks for Core 2 Duo, and as such
shouldn't be trusted to make sweeping statements.

How are the Core 2 Duo chips for excess heat, which was a problem in previous
Intels?

 

[Gojira]

How are the Core 2 Duo chips for excess heat, which was a problem in previous
Intels?

They run extremely cool,and use even less power than AMD.Intel really went
all out to make them better than AMD's cpu's.

 

[kony]

They run extremely cool,and use even less power than AMD.Intel really went
all out to make them better than AMD's cpu's.

It's not always entirely true about power because Intel and
AMD use different definitions of max power, and on Intel
chipsets you have the northbridge running a memory
controller which on AMD's platform you don't have (using
that power).

They are markedly better than the old Prescotts were though,
let's hope Intel stays on this high performance:watt path as
they suggested they would

 

[shegeek72]

By anyone who hasn't looked at benchmarks for Core 2 Duo, and as such
shouldn't be trusted to make sweeping statements.

The dual cores are new and I think it's premature to declare Intel the
winner for gaming.

 

[kony]

The dual cores are new and I think it's premature to declare Intel the
winner for gaming.

It's premature to think "winner" means something too, unless
of course there's a false notion that only highest end parts
sell.

The real winner is the one that can deliver the most in the
value segment. Games are not targeted only for high-end
systems, the customer base is too small then.

 

[Rod Speed]

It's premature to think "winner" means something too, unless
of course there's a false notion that only highest end parts sell.

Nope, its a winner in the sense that one is the best to buy for gaming.

The real winner is the one that can
deliver the most in the value segment.

Nope, there can be different winners in different market segments.

Games are not targeted only for high-end
systems, the customer base is too small then.

Irrelevant to which is the winner in that market segment.

 

[Pluvious]

|Andrew wrote:
|
|> By anyone who hasn't looked at benchmarks for Core 2 Duo, and as such
|> shouldn't be trusted to make sweeping statements.
|
|The dual cores are new and I think it's premature to declare Intel the
|winner for gaming.

Wow.. I don't see how you can say that. The Core 2 Duo is blowing away the top
of the line AMD in benchmarks.

Pluvious

 

[Bazzer Smith]

"Computers are likely to overtake human intelligence within the next

100 years." Stephen Hawkins

"Not if micrcosoft is writing the software" - Anon

 

[kony]

Nope, its a winner in the sense that one is the best to buy for gaming.

Nope, "fastest to buy" maybe, but then we'd have to
arbitrarily assume that fastest is better, that the
framerate wouldn't be high enough otherwise- which is
obviously not true, people are in fact gaming right now w/o
Core 2 Duo.

So higher performance might mean longer use, that's
reasonable, though still we'd have to break it down into
whether that was useful long-term, or if ultimately more
needed replaced, that a higher cost CPU must be paired with
higher cost everything else, which gets back to the central
fact that games are not designed to only be playable on high
end systems, with rare exceptions.

Nope, there can be different winners in different market segments.

Sure, and if there's a race and nobody is there to watch,
did they care? Maybe, but not nearly as much as the race
they gambled on instead, the systems actually bought in
volumes an order of magnitude higher.

Irrelevant to which is the winner in that market segment.

Relevant to the extent that the CPU isn't always the weakest
link. Something that is better on paper is not always a real
world benefit. That is not an argument to ignore or
otherwise avoid Core 2 Duo at all, they're good choices in
general, but being able to game is not "winning", gaming is
about being able to hit the necessary performance level, you
don't get an extra lollipop if you hit 200 FPS.

So in some cases Core 2 Duo may offer a necessary
performance level, but all games (or other tasks) are not
the same, do not have same needs.

 

[Rod Speed]

Nope, "fastest to buy" maybe,

Gets sillier by the minute.

but then we'd have to arbitrarily assume that fastest is better,
that the framerate wouldn't be high enough otherwise- which
is obviously not true, people are in fact gaming right now w/o
Core 2 Duo.

Irrelevant to what is best value for gaming.

So higher performance might mean longer use, that's
reasonable, though still we'd have to break it down into
whether that was useful long-term, or if ultimately more
needed replaced, that a higher cost CPU must be paired
with higher cost everything else, which gets back to the
central fact that games are not designed to only be
playable on high end systems, with rare exceptions.

You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.

Sure, and if there's a race and nobody is there to watch, did they care?

You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.

Maybe, but not nearly as much as the race they
gambled on instead, the systems actually bought
in volumes an order of magnitude higher.

You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.

Relevant to the extent that the CPU isn't always the weakest link.

Pathetic, really.

Something that is better on paper is not always a real
world benefit. That is not an argument to ignore or
otherwise avoid Core 2 Duo at all, they're good choices
in general, but being able to game is not "winning",

No one ever said it was, child.

gaming is about being able to hit the necessary performance
level, you don't get an extra lollipop if you hit 200 FPS.

Pathetic, really.

So in some cases Core 2 Duo may offer a necessary
performance level, but all games (or other tasks) are
not the same, do not have same needs.

Gone blind yet child ?