Why didnt AMD see this?!?

still_runnin · Aug 15, 2003

I want this to be a very thought provoking question. AMD released the Athlon XP1600+, XP1700+, and 1800+ on 10/09/01 as their first new line of processors. At that time no one new the 1700 and 1800 would become would become the best overclockable CPUs ever made. Im just assuming the guys at AMD are fairly intelligent, but why didnt they see the headroom on the processors when they developed them? If they did, they sure didn't do a great job at using the CPU to their advantage over Intel. They could sell the 1700 already overclocked to 2.1-2.2 Ghz (not extremely overclocked requiring a tornado in the case), call it the XP2900+ or something and sell them for around 300-400 dollars and put tears in the eyes of Intel. Intel came out with the P4 running at 2.2Ghz on 1/07/02 and was selling it for $562. BTW, all of this dates and prices are coming from CPU Magazine. AMD could sell their 1700+ stepped up a notch or two and make a killing selling their processor cheaper yet much faster than the competition. Its unbelievable that it took AMD like a year later to break the 2Ghz barrier when they could have done it since the beginning. Maybe I have it all wrong though. What do you think?

seer33 · Aug 15, 2003

im pretty sure the VERY good oc'ers tbred b's didnt come for a while after that date.

JDXNC · Aug 15, 2003

seer33 said:
im pretty sure the VERY good oc'ers tbred b's didnt come for a while after that date.

Exactly.... the forst 1600-1800's were on the palomino core, which you were VERY lucky to hit 2Ghz on. Now that the tbred b is the current core for these, 2 ghz is almost garentied from the 1700 and 1800.

c627627 · Aug 15, 2003

You think you and a couple of your friends here at overclockers.com make up any significant portion of the market?

Overclockers make up such a tiny fraction of the huge market that they're not going to forgo their marketing plans by not slapping 1700+ labels on 2600+ CPUs.

gulp35 · Aug 15, 2003

Plus when overclocked the processor puts out more heat and therefore has to be cooled better (something the everyday person could not do).

So I believe that AMD decided to produce this chip that would appeal to computer enthusiasts (who buy more CPU's usually) that like to overclock (not something everone does). so if the average oc'er buys 3 1700's processors/year and the average joe buys 1 high end processor, AMD will make the same profits (about) per customer.

I had something else to say but Ihave forgotten. Will post later.

altec · Aug 15, 2003

JDXNC said:
Exactly.... the forst 1600-1800's were on the palomino core, which you were VERY lucky to hit 2Ghz on. Now that the tbred b is the current core for these, 2 ghz is almost garentied from the 1700 and 1800.

The Palomino core was .19 micron and the t'breds are .13 micron, so the t'breds have more headroom. JDXNC is correct, the original 1700 and 1800 chips were nowhere near their predecessors that we love so much today.

cherryp00t · Aug 16, 2003

Palmino was .18 micron ;d

and amd is known for its bang per buck... if they started charging 300-400 per processor then i'd sure would spend my 300-400 on an intel =d

MooMasster716 · Aug 17, 2003

Also when testing processors for stability they require them to meet a certan criteria for stabilkity so you dont have pc crashing after 10 hours of operation, im sure they could have clocked highr but them would have faild to meet this criteria.

ToiletDuck · Aug 17, 2003

Processors actually run better at hotter temperatures. Not so high as they get buggy but better than when ice cold. The transistors in the processor are bigger and closer allowing for the info to travel faster across them.

UberBlue · Aug 17, 2003

If they could have, why would they. It's not good marketing to blow your load with a super fast proccessor if you don't have a better proccessor to back it up with in a few months. Gotta milk it.

Besides, I bet AMD has a small legion of marketing people to figure this stuff out.

What I've always wondered is why you never see AMD advertizing. Why does joe six-pack think intel is the best? because of the countless commercials of people dancing around in neon clean suits and aliens (aliens are smart) rock'n out on a P4 system.

It makes you wonder how things would be if AMD had at some point gotten of their butts and done an agressive marketing campain.

dropadrop · Aug 18, 2003

At the same time as amd was selling palomino xp's intel was selling northwood p4's. Ramping up the speed would have caused the competition to do the same, and the northwood core had alot more headroom then the palomino.

Amd and intel are not in a hurry to beat each other's speeds anymore. If one of them has a hike in speed, the other will soon follow. If they do it too much they will reach the maximum speed of the core and then they won't be able to ramp speeds up untill they refine the manufacturing process.

mjmnam · Aug 18, 2003

ToiletDuck said:
Processors actually run better at hotter temperatures. Not so high as they get buggy but better than when ice cold. The transistors in the processor are bigger and closer allowing for the info to travel faster across them.

i'm pretty sure that lower temps = lower electrical resistance. thus allowing the chip to run faster. less heat is always better.

unless i missed something in physics

OC Detective · Aug 18, 2003

The driving force in the CPU is the core supply voltage - higher core voltage results in a steeper swing for the transistors, higher saturation current and a faster cpu. The downside is extra core voltage means extra heat which needs to be overcome. The reason why it gives better cpu speeds is its ability to overcome necessary but detrimental resistors and capacitances.

Buhammot · Aug 18, 2003

mjmnam said:
i'm pretty sure that lower temps = lower electrical resistance. thus allowing the chip to run faster. less heat is always better.

unless i missed something in physics

From my understanding, and with a little logic, all things run faster when heated. The buggest reason people have supercooled computers is cause they have money. Otherwise unless stability is lost, i would keep it relatively warm.

L337 M33P · Aug 18, 2003

In the case of semiconductors they most definitely do not run faster when they are hotter. As OC detective said the extra voltage allows the transistors to swing output states faster and also help them overclome electrical noise generated by the heat energy. Therefore if you supercool a chip the electrical noise is reduced and you can run it faster.

mjmnam · Aug 18, 2003

Buhammot said:
From my understanding, and with a little logic, all things run faster when heated. The buggest reason people have supercooled computers is cause they have money. Otherwise unless stability is lost, i would keep it relatively warm.

what logic would this be? you shouldn't lump everything together like that. it doesn't work. faster when heated? tell that to the guys who made a p4 do like 4Ghz with that prometia system.

zabomb4163 · Aug 18, 2003

How about 5.5Ghz? The very notion that making processors run hotter helps them is absurd. by your logic the individuals using stock hs's would be achieving the best overclocks and those pouring -200C l2n on their processors would have the worse.
http://www.vr-zone.com/guides/Intel/Northwood/

read the first page on vrzone. every single of them on the first page uses -100C cooling.

on the topic of "why didnt amd...." The processors simply weren't capable of it. processors have different versions just like cars. "why is the 2000 transam faster than the 1980 transam" same logic applies. they make improvments in the process and increase yields. an example being, amd changed the heatspreader on the tbred between the tbedA and tbredB.

Bruno · Aug 18, 2003

There are no heatspreaders on any Athlons.

zabomb4163 · Aug 18, 2003

typo....i intended to say "core" The TbredB transmits heat to the heatsink much more efficiently than the earlier models did.

Fever · Aug 18, 2003

zabomb4163 said:
typo....i intended to say "core" The TbredB transmits heat to the heatsink much more efficiently than the earlier models did.

Not exactly.. It produces less heat to transmit to the heatsink.

Why didnt AMD see this?!?

Registered

Member

Member

c(n*199780) Senior Member

Member

polka dot ninja

Member

Member

Member

Completely NUTS

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads