We asked you about Hammer a little while back.
Thanks to all who responded.
Basically, we’re going to break the data into two based on your CPU company preference. A little less than half of you said you were AMD fans. About the same number said you had no preference one way or the other. Very few admitted to being Intel fans (in all likelihood, they saw no reason to answer the poll, so they didn’t).
Since the number of Intel fans was so small as to be statistically insignificant, we’ll leave them out of the picture, and report on what AMD fans said, and what the neutrals had to say.
Scenario #1
AMD comes out with an Athlon FX system. It will run at 2GHz. It will use an Opteron motherboard, and required registered RAM to function.
Assume that it will perform in 32-bit overall at the equivalent of a 3200 MHz Pentium IV, and somewhat better than that for games. Assume that it can be overclocked 10%. Assume there is no 90nm AthlonXP around, and assume that while you can get your hands on Windows x86-64, there is little other x86-64 software for it.
Assume that the initial cost of such a system is:
| CPU | $640.00 |
| Motherboard | $180.00 |
| 2 sticks, 256Mb each registered RAM | $150.00 |
| Total cost | $970.00 |
Question 1: Would you buy this system as is?
a) Yes
b) No
AMD Fans Said:
| Yes | 12% |
| No | 88% |
Neutrals Said:
| Yes | 6% |
| No | 94% |
Believe it or not, these are actually pretty decent numbers under the circumstances. It indicates a more-or-less normal
pattern of early adapters willing to pay sky-high prices for the initial product.
Given that AMD will only be making tens of thousands of socket 940 CPUs the rest of the year, there
seems to be enough demand for the limited supply.
Neutrals were rather less eager to jump on the bandwagon than professed AMD fans. As you’ll see, this is a pretty steady trend.
Question 2:
If you answered no to question 1, why?
a) It costs too much.
b) It’s not fast enough for me to change from my current system.
c) Both a and b.
d) The price and speed are fine; I just don’t have the money now.
AMD Fans Said:
| It costs too much | 33% |
| It’s not fast enough for me to change from my current system | 14% |
| Both a and b | 50% |
| The price and speed are fine; I just don’t have the money now | 3% |
Neutrals Said:
| It costs too much | 26% |
| It’s not fast enough for me to change from my current system | 10% |
| Both a and b | 62% |
| The price and speed are fine; I just don’t have the money now | 1% |
This question proved to be a barometer of cost-consciousness. Many who said “it cost too much” didn’t type “No,” they typed “NO!!” Again, neutrals were
a bit less perturbed about the price than the AMD fans.
These two questions by themselves do little more than indicate that there’s not a ton of people foaming at the mouth to buy this platform three weeks from now, but then, only an especially crazed AMDroid would expect such.
What is more important in the long run is at what point performance and price parameter become acceptable to the bulk of potential buyers.
| Current speed is fast enough | 21% |
| 3700+ equivalent | 13% |
| 4000+ equivalent | 27% |
| 4300+ equivalent | 25% |
| 4600+ equivalent | 11% |
| 4900+ equivalent | 2% |
| More than that | 2% |
Neutrals Said:
| Current speed is fast enough | 17% |
| 3700+ equivalent | 4% |
| 4000+ equivalent | 19% |
| 4300+ equivalent | 22% |
| 4600+ equivalent | 11% |
| 4900+ equivalent | 7% |
| More than that | 19% |
These numbers aren’t quite as good as one might think. Those willing to buy a lower speed Hammer tend to want it cheap,
while those who want higher speeds are willing to spend more. The likely combination in the near future of low speed and
high price will effectively keep most on the sidelines. Fans are more likely than neutrals to jump in early, with many more
neutrals inclined to sit it out for quite a long time.
The mainstream choice looks to be at 4000+ or a bit above, which would most comfortably occur with the beginning over the second
generation of Hammers.
Question 4:
Provided a system like that described above was fast enough, what price would you pay for it?
a) Current price ($970) or more
b) $900
c) $800
d) $700
e) $600
f) $500
g) $450
h) It would have to be cheaper than any of the above.
AMD Fans Said:
| Current price ($970) or more | 12% |
| $900 | 3% |
| $800 | 3% |
| $700 | 14% |
| $600 | 27% |
| $500 | 23% |
| $450 | 6% |
| It would have to be cheaper than that | 10% |
Neutrals Said:
| Current price ($970) or more | 6% |
| $900 | 4% |
| $800 | 6% |
| $700 | 11% |
| $600 | 23% |
| $500 | 21% |
| $450 | 10% |
| It would have to be cheaper than that | 17% |
Though neutrals again are less eager than fans, it’s clear that in both cases, the point
at which most people will jump in occurs at what boils down to a CPU selling price of $150-$250.
Question 5
If you answered yes to any of the purchase questions, would an x86-64 version of Windows also need to be available before you would buy such a system?
a) Yes
b) No, I already regularly use Linux
c) No, I would switch to Linux for this system.
AMD Fans Said:
| Yes | 52% |
| No, I already regularly use Linux | 16% |
| No, I would switch to Linux for this system | 11% |
| No, I would keep using 32-bit Windows until x86-64 came out | 21% |
AMD Fans Said:
| Yes | 58% |
| No, I already regularly use Linux | 14% |
| No, I would switch to Linux for this system | 6% |
| No, I would keep using 32-bit Windows until x86-64 came out | 22% |
This was a rather big surprise. Over 20% of those who voted wrote in and said, “Nah, current Windows is fine,” and not just as an
interim measure, either. In the comments made on the subject, Windows users voiced more than occasional skepticism over the benefits of
x86-64 any time soon. Linux users, on the other hand, tended to cite x86-64 as a big reason for buying Hammer.
There were rather more negative comments about x86-64 than positive ones (though most had nothing to say either way). This is not good
news for AMD for two reasons. First, x86-64 may not be as strong a selling point as AMD thinks it is. Second, it is difficult to see how AMD
will be able to claim any significant performance advantage over Intel over the next couple years without the use of x86-64, so if x86-64 doesn’t take off, neither will AMD.
| CPU | $400.00 |
| Motherboard | $120.00 |
| Total cost | $520.00 |
Be the first to comment