Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 16:21:49 01/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2004 at 15:02:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 07, 2004 at 14:46:30, Martin Andersen wrote: > >>On January 07, 2004 at 14:14:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >> >>>>>I know. Thye'll make me switch over to Intel. >>>> >>>>So you are moving over to Intel because you don't like the name ? >>>>Why ? >>>> >>>>Martin. >>> >>>I think it was a joking comment. "I'm moving to Intel because with AMD I >>>have no idea what I am buying since the product names are highly confusing >>>and misleading." >>> >>>:) >> >>Maybe it was a joke :-) >> >>Seriously, why is the name confusing and misleading ? >>Let's consider you are the boss of AMD, and you want to sell >>Athlons's to the average consumer. Then you will know that this >>consumer only looks at the CPU's speed and rarely anything else. >>So she sees a Pentium4 at 3 Ghz and an Athlon 2.1Ghz, and of course >>she buys the Pentium. > >What is wrong with it is now we are mixing 64 bit processors with 32 bit >processors, and naming them to make it appear they are in the same "family". Where is this going on? Aren't all of the 64 bit Athlons named "Athlon 64"? Besides, why shouldn't 64-bit Athlons be family members with 32-bit Athlons? The architecture is very similar and they're backward compatible. The Athlon 64 is related to the Athlon more than the Pentium 4 is related to the Pentium. >IE I'd take an opteron any day. Or even a FX51. But when the names start >to exclude the fact that it is a 64 bit processor, then I don't like the >naming convention. Then you must have hated the MIPS R4000 and the PA-RISC 8000. Even the name UltraSPARC doesn't indicate that it's 64 bit. -Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.