[NTLUG:Discuss] is an AMD XP the same as a Celeron????

[Darin W. Smith]

On Wed, 28 May 2003 10:26:56 -0500, Richard Geoffrion <ntlug at rain4us.net> 
wrote:

> what gives?? Why is Intel using their CELERONs to compete with AMD??

The way I see this, is that Intel believes and has evidence that they can 
still charge a premium over comparable AMD chips for their P3 and P4 
"propers" and use the Celeron to compete with AMD because people looking at 
a cheap system will be looking at the AMDs vs. the Celerons (*because* 
Intel has purposely priced their other chips out of the "cheap PC" realm-- 
Intel has effectively created this market comparison).

I've had both a Celeron and an AMD of comparable bus speed, and the AMD 
always beat the Celeron in heavy math.  Integer operations (most Windoze 
apps) were comparable...but then, integer ops are probably comparable 
between the Celeron and any other similar speed chip of Intel's, IMO.

Basically, Intel is using their brand-name as a way to get higher prices on 
their higher end stuff...targeting the server market and those who chant 
"nobody ever got fired for buying Intel" like people used to chant "nobody 
ever got fired for buying IBM."

AMD simply doesn't have the manufacturing capacity or the deep pockets to 
do this.  Intel is using Celeron pricing to force AMD to drop prices to 
hold onto the "cheap PC" market.  This hurts AMD's bottom-line far more 
than it does Intel's.  (If I'm the rich head of a huge company, I might 
spend (or take a loss of revenue of) $3 million to keep a $2 million 
company from taking away $1 billion in market share in a different 
market...use your money to force them to stay in the place they've been 
able to carve out, so they don't carve out more)  It's just a weapon being 
cleverly weilded by Intel to try and keep AMD from getting far enough along 
that it can really challenge them.  It works for now, but if Opteron takes 
off, expect things to change (expect to see P4's at dirt-cheap prices).

I think the market is primed for another round of dirt-cheap high- 
performers, like we had when the K6 got its initial bug fixed and could 
effectively take on the best Pentiums out at the time.  AMD benefitted in a 
big way from that, and they really stand to benefit this time...because 
Itanium ain't all that great.  AMD's strategy is to try to convince the 
smaller techie (gamer, etc.) market to go to 64-bit on the desktop...which 
Intel is ignoring, thinking it is a waste (they are only targeting 64-bit 
at the server market).  The fact that some game-makers are already planning 
for 64-bit is encouraging news for AMD, as they may wind up with a much 
larger installed base of gamers hungry for the next level of realism.

-- 
D!
Darin W. Smith
AIM: JediGrover