AMD's Athlon XP Processor Party/Dumbing Down the Masses

I was downtown at AMD's press conference at the Fairmont in San Francisco yesterday where the details of the company's new AMD Athlon XP processor were officially released. I guess "details," is a bit of an exaggeration. What the little dog and pony show really amounted to was a little spoken word performance by a few acolytes of the Athlon persuasion and a lot of stone throwing at Intel and its processors. Don't get me wrong, I like AMD processors as much as the next guy, but AMD's push into the mainstream seems just a little askew, which we'll look at a few hundred words from now. First, let's get into the "details" that we heard today. If you really want details, your best bet is to check out Tom's evaluation of the processor. And if you're an AMD fan who thinks I'm being a little cynical, bear in mind that they didn't even offer up any sandwiches and that, to a certain extent, it's my job to look at things a little squinty-eyed. Plus, who picks the music for the videos they show at these things? For the past couple of years we've been subjected to accelerated variations on the theme song for "Miami Vice."

AMD says that the new AMD Athlon XP processor (ex-"Palomino") is the world's highest-performance processor for desktop PCs. The XP processor features what AMD calls QuantiSpeed architecture, which is said to deliver up to a 25-percent performance advantage versus competitive processors in real-world applications like digital media, office productivity, and 3D gaming. AMD says the Athlon XP is a higher performing pony than the standard AMD Athlon processor. The new processor includes 3DNow! Professional technology with 52 new instructions to accelerate 3D performance. All you Gen-Xers out there will appreciate the fact that the "XP" moniker is designed to convey the "extreme performance" AMD Athlon XP processors dish out for Windows XP.

AMD is naming the XP processors using model numbers instead of MHz designations. Hence, we have the 1800+, 1700+, 1600+ and 1500+ versions. If the company is trying get away from MHz measurements, than why not come up with names instead of numbers? The number designations that are real close to the MHz rating are going to make it even more difficult for the Radio Shack crowd to figure out which model to buy. AMD says that the model numbers are intended to designate the relative application performance among XP processors, as well as their architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors, but picking names so close to MHz ratings seems designed to confuse Joe Public.

As for technical specs, the AMD Athlon XP processor has 384 kB of on-chip cache, is compatible with AMD's Socket A infrastructure, and supports a 266MHz front-side bus. It's manufactured using the 0.18-micron copper process in Fab 30 (Dresden, Germany). Systems using the AMD Athlon XP processor, including models 1800+, 1700+, 1600+ and 1500+, are supposed to be on the street now from Compaq, Fujitsu-Siemens and NEC-CI. Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard Company, and MicronPC, also are planning to offer AMD Athlon XP processor-based systems real soon now. The AMD Athlon XP processor 1800+, 1700+, 1600+ and 1500+ are priced at $252, $190, $160 and $130 in 1,000-unit quantities, respectively.

Now, on to the interesting stuff. I don't have any type of grudge against AMD and, like many, I'm glad they're around because competing with Intel gives us better processors from both companies. I am a little disappointed to see that little upstart CPU manufacturer that we all know and love believe the whisperings of the PR weasels and marketing wonks in an effort to compete with Big Daddy Intel. AMD spoke today about what it calls "The True Performance Initiative," which it says reflects its commitment to business and home PC users. Basically, this is AMD's response to the fact that some folks don't understand that a higher MHz rating doesn't necessarily amount to a faster processor. So, the company is pushing a new benchmark that sounds as though it's an average of the myriad benchmarks that are available today. It's unclear right now just what this benchmark will take into account aside from such vacuous ideas as "real world performance." The problem I have with this new means of letting consumers know what they are buying is that it honestly assumes a massive amount of ignorance. Rather than figuring out a way to keep them in Dumb Land, how about educating them about what the various benchmarks mean? That's why there are so many of them in the first place. Will you mostly be playing games? Here's a little USA Today-like bar chart that shows you how our processors perform. Will you mostly be using Microsoft Office? Ditto for that. The competition has actually been leading the way in helping consumers understand that MHz doesn't always amount to speed. Aren't there numerous Intel processors of various speeds with the same MHz ratings?

The best bet is to educate the masses on the meanings of individual benchmarks based on their needs. If they still don't understand, it's like talking to the taxman about poetry. Those who choose to remain ignorant will buy what they think is best regardless of what type of marketing you put forth (just look at all the Macophiles). The quality and speed of the processors will speak for itself (probably right here on THG). The new marketing, at least to me, seems a bizarre approach. And, after all, who was tooting their horn when they were the first to reach 1GHz?