There are corporate strategies…

… that appear to be us not quite convincing at first glance. This put something over a week for the umpteenth time AMD on the day. But we remember: even to launch of the Athlon64 FX-51 and Athlon64 you had held himself back 3200 + with samples of the processor, and there were internationally only the umgelabelten and trimmed to two channels of HyperTransport Opteron 148, the FX-51, directly from AMD as a press copy. A tricky endeavor was to snag an Athlon 64 3200 +. In the end succeeded but, because just the mainboard manufacturer had great interest in promoting in particular the small Socket 754 CPU.

AMD, however, seemed to have it alone on a drumbeat, you probably had concerns, the rating of 3200 + would be not justified enough in many applications over the competition and thus provide criticism with the introduction. The processor really is not faster than the P4 3.2 GHz would be in the power averaged over a wide range of applications – a very bad start in the market. So, it arose Athlon64 all anywhere on the globe FX 51 tests but significantly less to read 3200 + reports were. Could you swim have the CPU but not in the wake of the even more powerful version of FX-51 with? Worldwide, the conclusion with regard to two processors turned out namely consistently positive. Had we miscalculated here simply? After 23 September AMD provided a few more weeks silence to the Socket 754, as later test CPUs were provided. How test a motherboard if no processor operates the stuffed PCBs? Producers, which could provide also a CPU in addition to the Board, were here good cards.

And now, the introduction of the Athlon64 3000 + two and a half months after the start of the Athlon64 era, secretly, silently and softly. No sample, no press release – nothing! It is exactly this CPU, which could bring the Socket 754 life and will bring! It was said so again make calls, write emails and to have a happy knack to be able to get hold of a copy and end with a review, as we released the, was a very positive conclusion, (no, we call it rather public relations) for a product to make ‘Advertising’, which mentioned the manufacturer only in grammars.

Holding back one, improved production efficiency and thus decreasing quantities of Athlon64 3000 + (because it is based governorships 3200 + one half of the L2 cache) also neutral to confront the dwindling supplies in the market and the customers? A costly endeavor would be to stuff bottlenecks, then with artificially castrated CPUs. Or one has concerns with the more favourable to almost EUR 200 CPU McMansions Athlon64 3200 + the market at the end? You would have opposed to occur this problem with a less aggressive pricing. Then not mass would have purchased while the processor, which is now probably purchase it. Should it however been the intention, to keep the internal competition with the leading edge products as small as possible, the broad market would also have been not AMD’s goal. Is it so? Or will you protect a quite different locomotive, namely the fastest Steed on the base A, the could +, at the end against disagreeable and ill-founded competition? With well over 300 EUR, this costs significantly more than the faster Athlon64 and all too soon it should supplant a processor series is always still shiny sale but not from the market. Is the Athlon64 3000 + at the end of the OEM moving to a new technology to make tasty so a more CPU, especially? The management of a company that has managed to be Intel, which is a performance not to do against the industry giant is behind all these decisions. However, the logic remains locked us behind it the one time or another.