According to AMD, Intel Core 2 Duo doesn't exist
Summary: [Update 12:40 PM - AMD updated the website to correct the error. The site literally changed as I posted this blog entry.
[Update 12:40 PM - AMD updated the website to correct the error. The site literally changed as I posted this blog entry. I've also spoken with AMD since then and I've asked them to send me any links to Intel webpages that they feel need to be challenged.] Ed Stroligo of Overclockers.com sent me an interesting post about more marketing shenanigans this week and I've had a chance to ask AMD about this. When looking at AMD's product comparison page for its mobile processor line up, several things struck me as dubious but the most blatant issue is that according to AMD, Intel mobile Core 2 Duo processor doesn't exist.
When I emailed AMD about this, AMD informed me that the bottom of that page - which was lasted updated 6/24/07 per AMD's search function - had not been updated. Upon closer examination, the bottom was only 2 months out of date for AMD since it doesn't talk about AMD's 65nm mobile processor that was launched in May of this year. But Intel's Core 2 Duo mobile processor had launched nearly a year ago so that's clearly a very convenient omission that makes it appear as if Intel doesn't have anything better than a Core Duo processor that doesn't support x64 64-bit extensions.
Another problem was that AMD makes it sound like AMD's CPU supports 802.11n and Intel's CPU doesn't. But the CPU has absolutely nothing to do with what type of wireless technology a computer can use and Intel can at least claim that they have an in-house 802.11n solution whereas AMD uses a third party wireless solution on AMD-based computers.
Another thing I notices was the fact that AMD seems to have re-branded their NX (No Execute) feature as "Enhanced Virus Protection Capability" whereas Intel merely has the XD (Execute Disable Bit). NX and XD are essentially identical features that enable things like Microsoft Windows' DEP. AMD's reasoning for this name change is that AMD had NX first and Intel "emulated" AMD. While it's true that Intel copied the NX feature verbatim, AMD copied the various incarnations of SSE. This is all due to the cross licensing agreement between Intel and AMD to have better interoperability and one could easily argue that AMD would be damaged far more than Intel if this cross licensing agreement wasn't in place. [Update 4:50PM - AMD says that they've always marketed their NX feature as "Enhanced Virus Protection]. Intel says they didn't "emulate" AMD because their Itanium product had the XD feature before AMD put NX in to their CPUs. As far as I'm concerned, this feature is a wash with no advantage for either side. However, calling this a "Virus Protection" feature is inaccurate since this is an execution protection feature.]
AMD's response was, "This is a web content management error that is being quickly remedied, it's not some new marketing push. To Characterize it as such would be wrong". Well I'm not here to figure out what AMD's reasons and excuses are, but the facts are what they are and the product information page on AMD's website is clearly misleading.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
More AMD rants?
Well as a result, they just fixed their page
So who appointed you
AMD did
LU #, He is doing his job.
]}:)
The same person that named you ...
WTF are you on about?
Then why are you attacking george for ...
Wrong, George
Unless you don't know what "literally" means, your blog post apparently had no effect. Because AMD was fixing it as you were posting, so the public was not served by your blog entry.
While you are at it
http://www.intel.com/design/intarch/pentiumiii/pentiumiii.htm
I don't think that the Pentium 3 is "ideal for high performance applied computing. It supports highend communications, transaction terminal, and industrial automation applications" anymore.
and
http://www.intel.com/design/pentiumii/prodbref/
I don't think the Pentium II "offers great performance for today's and tomorrow's applications." is accurate anymore either.
Seems that marketing information have gotten outdated on those pages as well.
Thanks in advance.
OMGoodness!!!!!
The problem was that AMD's webpage was selectively out of date
I undestand plenty well
AMD has had outdated information on their website much like most of the corporate websites on the Internet.
Let's pick on AMD who is one of the least offenders and allow the large repeat offenders go free without a word.
Good Job hooking the minnow and allow the 25 pounders go free.
how does AMD assemble their
if they do a bunch of static pages youcould almost make a case that what they was did "willful" omissions
Who knows but I doubt they are using interns...
Trying to blame it on links to stale pages is really a stretch :)
Those pages on AMD's website...
Those pages on AMD's website are certainly static just like most web pages are. And, there surely is a legitimate out-of-sync between them and updates that occur on SPEC.ORG. But, I don't believe for one second that everyone in AMD's marketing department is completely oblivious at all times that there are might be updated scores on SPEC.ORG and that AMD's marketing website is out of date as a result. This should surprise no one. AMD is not providing a real-time database query! SPEC.ORG IS.
It's a marketing page. Get over it. Only an idiot expects to find 100% complete and objective information in a marketing document or on web page. That's why the date of the information sampling is prominently displayed on it.
There is no news here. Move along. Move along...
Offer
So cry me a river Geoge.
Follow-up, please
Can you follow up on two things in this blog post.
1. Please either link to or provide the text that "makes it sound like AMD's CPU supports 802.11n and Intel's CPU doesn't." That way we'll know if they actually lied about it or if your bias made you *think* they lied about it.
2. Please find a law, *any* law, that states that AMD cannot rename their NX to a more marketing-friendly name like "Enhanced Virus Protection Capability." I recall Intel used to sell something called a "486," but decided the next generation of chips should have a catchy marketing name... something like "Pentium." And I don't remember anyone whining about it at all.
Find something else...
George, there are REAL stories out there to follow. AMD not posting competitor product numbers in their website is not one of them. We all know that the Duo Core 2's are available...not every site is up to date ALL the time and not every vendor is going to give you a fiar comparision. Caveat Empor.