Supplied by 2cooltek
“…dazzled by lofty processor speeds and misguided in
their decisions.”
Everyday there is a barrage of advertising assaulting our senses with reasons
to replace that apparently tired and worn out beige box that sits under the
desk. System builders would have you believe this in order to pull hard earned
dollars from pocketbooks around the world. The power of a new PC holds promise
to unleash a better world of learning and productivity. Too many cling to the
notion that more is better. They are dazzled by lofty processor speeds and misguided
in their decisions.
For most the PC is a mysterious box that brings email, the internet, plays
games, ingests and disgorges the occasional CD and allows printing of family
photos from a digital camera. It doesn’t do much more than that. It’s
not that it can’t do more. It’s just that a lot of users don’t
do more with it. How many of us have really tapped the abilities of the office
productivity suites from Microsoft or Corel? How many of us have truly explored
the world of digital media be it touching up a still picture or editing video?
It’s unbelievable to say this but we typically only use our PCs like
the myth about how we use our brains. The often quoted saying is “we use
only 10 percent of our brains.” The truth of the matter is that we don’t
actually use only 10 percent of our brains while 90% lies dormant. We use only
certain portions of our brain to perform a given task such as walking, talking
or recalling a memory. Unleashing the hidden potential of the mind is the banner
of psychics and motivational speakers. Suppose we were to focus our minds on
the task of being an Olympic Gold Medalist runner. It would certainly be unlikely
that we could instantly run like one.
The PC doesn’t use its brain, the processor, all of the time either.
Typing a document in Word may tax 2 or 3 percent of the processor leaving the
other 97-98% twiddling its digital thumbs. Sending email may produce a usage
spike of up to 10 to 20 percent which disappears as suddenly as it appeared.
Surfing the Internet may put a “horrific” strain of 30 percent on
a processor. This usage changes, of course, between specific software and speed
of processor but it is safe to say that the daily tasks involved in using a
computer do not overload the average processor. It’s only most noticeable
when it comes to the time taken to load a program or playing certain games.
So why the need to go ever faster when a product, a few steps down from the
top, will more than serve the purpose?
“…like they were hand-me-downs from an ugly cousin with
no fashion sense.”
We are trained to want more and sometimes we aren’t a practical when
it comes to this. We own SUVs that can tow boats and climb mountains yet all
they do is run back and forth to work and the grocery store. We strive to own
6 bedroom homes while all we are is a family of 4. We race to stores to be “in”
with this year’s fashions discarding last year’s overpriced duds
like they were hand-me-downs from an ugly cousin with no fashion sense. A 1
GHz processor is ancient and 2 GHz isn’t enough so it’s top of the
line or bust. You can thank marketers for instilling this “need”
into us.
The typical consumer succumbs to the “need” to have a faster PC.
They buy the box. They plug it in and they just…use it. Then there are
the enthusiasts who do tinker “under the hood” of a PC. They spend
a lot of hard earned dollars on such add-ons as performance cooling, extra drives,
exotic cases, better power supplies and neon lighting. The average consumer
would never look at purchasing PC components to this extent but enthusiasts
treat their PCs like exotic race cars. I’ve got a stack of receipts from
my own enthusiast adventures totaling over $5000. It certainly doesn’t
paint the picture that we enthusiasts are tightwads. I bet if any enthusiast
sat down and added up the amount of money they have put into and taken out of
their PC…it would be much more than the cost of a plain old OEM system.
We enthusiasts always find the money to support our desires. Enthusiasts are
also the first to cry foul when a manufacturer decides to do something preposterous
such as lock a processor. According to some this is a villainous decision by
processor manufacturer AMD.
So why is “locking a processor” such a heinous crime?
A processor that is “unlocked” allows the user to change the multipliers.
The multiplier is a number that is “multiplied” with the computer
bus speed to produce the CPU speed. If the processor is locked then this multiplier
cannot be changed therefore the CPU speed cannot be changed. For example a 2
GHz CPU will stay a 2 GHz CPU.
So what?
To an enthusiast this is akin to slapping the proverbial handcuffs on their
fun and ability to get more for their money. Locking the processor is like plucking
the feathers from a peacock. The ability to “strut his stuff” has
been severely hampered.
“Take this ability away and enthusiasts complain.”
The ability to change multipliers or overclock is a way to get to the next
level of processor speed without having to pay for it. In other words why buy
the most expensive processor when a lesser priced processor can be made to perform
at the same or nearly the same level? To enthusiasts it’s all about winning
the performance game; to be king of the hill whether competing against others
or giving themselves the satisfaction of a free boost. Take this ability away
and enthusiasts complain. They think this a foolish move for a company to turn
their backs on a loyal community.
Already AMD is allegedly locking some processors and enthusiasts ask why? Does
locking a processor impede performance? Most certainly not. Identical processors
with the exception that one processor is locked and the other processor is not
will perform equally. It is only the ability to push past the rated speed that
is disabled with a locked processor. The ability to overclock a processor matters
not to the average consumer of which INTEL has dominance over. Both INTEL and
AMD are looking at ways to lock both the FSB and multiplier effectively producing
a CPU that is not possible to overclock.
There is also the rumor afloat that AMD is locking processors in an attempt
to stem the tide of remarked processors. These remarked processors are sold
in already assembled PCs as a sheep in wolf’s clothing. If, for example,
a dubious builder overclocks a processor to a higher processor speed and sells
it for the price of that higher processor speed then it is the consumer who
loses. The processor will naturally run hotter and this can result in reduced
processor life and system instability. Getting what you paid for is a good thing
yes? Remarking and overclocking processors and then reselling them at a higher
price is like paying for an 8-cylinder car and getting only 6-cylinders but
to enthusiasts locking processors means not being able to pay for a 6-cylinder
car and overclock it to an 8. Is it an ethical move by AMD to protect consumers
or an unethical practice by enthusiasts?
“…towards the slaughterhouse of higher priced processors?”
Then again what of the scuttlebutt of locking some processors and not locking
others? Again this doesn’t matter to the average consumer who buys based
on a budget. Here lies the root of, perhaps, where overclocking came from. PC
buyers are on a budget and often they can’t or do not want to pay for
the top of the line processor but overclocking provided a performance boost
without the cost. Could it be so devious of AMD to have a plan in place to herd
the enthusiast towards the slaughterhouse of higher priced processors? You have
to admit it’s a pretty good plan from a profitability point of view. The
threat of higher prices will cause some enthusiasts to panic and some to fight
but somehow they always end up where they were meant to go.
“Most probably won’t know what a processor even
looks like let alone grasp the concept of overclocking.”
Here lay the crux of the dilemma. AMD needs to get every dollar they can to
remain competitive and, perhaps, in the game at all. The person who buys an
off-the-shelf PC will buy in a price range based on what they think they need.
Most probably won’t know what a processor even looks like let alone grasp
the concept of overclocking. They will buy it, they will use it and when they
think it is too slow…they will buy a new one. On the other hand if the
enthusiast who overclocks supposedly represents only a small portion of the
market then why lock the processor in the first place? Surely the AMD loyal
customer is free advertising that will only help spread the good word of AMD.
Is AMD attempting to stop the crooked retailer or gently nudge the enthusiast
in a direction that is best for AMD?
Let’s draw a map of the battlefield and set the rules of engagement.
On the one side there is the processor maker and the other side is the enthusiast.
The processor maker fires the first shot by locking a processor. There is no
doubt enthusiasts are “thrifty” folk wanting more for less. Why
pay the big bucks when you can overclock a less expensive processor to the same
or near same level? This “bonus” is good for the savvy enthusiast
but poor economics for the processor maker. The cost of manufacturing the faster
processors is not much different from the lesser. (Not taking R&D into consideration.)
The larger profit margin is with the faster processor. Therefore, by locking
processors AMD could push the enthusiast market to upgrade. When was the last
time your mother or father overclocked the PC?
Enthusiasts return fire saying AMD is being unfair and turning their backs
on their most loyal and profitable market. AMD want what INTEL has the lion’s
share of; a little “AMD INSIDE” on every PC. The enthusiasts fire
a second volley claiming the prices are too high and they’ll lose customers.
Oh how we’ve heard this before.
So who will the AMD enthusiast turn to? Will they cross over to the dark side
of the competition like rats deserting a ship? I think not as prices aren’t
much better over there and in some cases; worse. Will the enthusiast then just
not buy the new AMD processors? I think not either. The greed for speed will
make some enthusiasts sell their grandmother to buy the precious silicon. We
enthusiasts gripe about every price even if the processing power is twice what
it was last year at half the cost…and the same goes for the year before
that.
Then what to make of AMD?
The key to this is looking at the marketplace. There are enthusiasts and there
are the rest who just buy a box. The former represents a much smaller, yet vocal,
piece of the pie. Would you want a market of 10 or 10,000 and the larger market
cares diddly about overclocking. The top of the line AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 processors
are indeed a lofty price but roughly 25 percent less than the top of the line
INTEL Pentium 4/3.2 GHz “Extreme Edition”. The next bump down the
AMD food chain is the Athlon 64 3200+ at 40 percent less than its newest brother
and the very respectable Athlon 3200+ is approximately half the cost of the
AMD flagship. It’s all about producing a product to fit an acceptable
performance level at an acceptable price for the consumer.
It makes logical financial sense to slowly and quietly close off the paths
that may take away from the bottom line. It remains to be seen if this move
will have any long-lasting effect on AMD’s popularity poll and profit
dollars. It is a big thorn in their side that the public are still caught up
in the belief that more gigahertz is better when it is obvious that AMD matches
their competition in performance. AMD wants to take away market share from INTEL.
So for the last year AMD has bit the bullet and played the price game against
a formidable opponent with deeper pockets. We, the consumer, have been the winner
but the price war will come to an end. It is a battle that cannot be won by
either side. Prices will not inflate nor will we see the deep cuts as often
in the coming future. AMD is banking on 64-bit computing and the desire of the
buying public to always have the latest and greatest. Yes….imagine how
much faster you’ll be able to type on a 64-bit computer?
“…it has enabled for the “bigger, better, faster,
cheaper” prophecy to become reality.”
Moore’s Law is often quoted as the driving force behind the semiconductor
industry. Moore’s law is a bit of an urban myth. In 1965, Gordon Moore,
head of Research and Development for Fairchild Semiconductor wrote an article
for the 35th anniversary of Electronics Magazine where he discovered that over
the period of 1959-65 the number of components on a chip roughly doubled every
year. Moore’s Law is actually a law but a target of the semiconductor
industry. A lot has changed since 1965 and Moore’s Law isn’t as
accurate as it once was but it has enabled for the “bigger, better, faster,
cheaper” prophecy to become reality.
Incidentally, Gordon Moore went on to be co-founder of INTEL.
Moore’s Law continues and for the time being AMD is forced to play the
gigahertz performance game. The gigahertz wars will always be there because
the public, for the moment, is firmly entrenched in the belief that bigger is
better. So little do the public understand about processors. Meanwhile AMD beat
their heads against the wall in frustration that it isn’t all about gigahertz.
It used to be about getting there faster. A faster processor meant faster applications,
faster games and faster productivity. How many gigahertz is enough? Would 5
GHz be enough? Would 10? This is the game that INTEL plays. AMD want to shift
the focus off the gigahertz rating. To them it isn’t about driving really
fast in a sports car that holds two people. It’s about getting there just
about as fast in a bus that holds 40. Processors and their supporting technology
may “mushroom” and it may no longer be about gigahertz but what
the gigahertz can do combined with the rest of the system. Flat out speed is
no longer the absolute determining factor in computing power. It now will become
a battle behind the scenes with such less “flashy” concepts as PCI
Express and HyperTransport. These innovations open up the ability of other technology
to pass data at a faster rate in larger quantities effectively providing an
overall performance boost to the system. We have seen already with GPU throughput
doubling and tripling. Unfortunately, phrases like “now with more on-chip
memory” or “HyperTransport Inside” don’t sell as well
as “5 GHz”. AMD is pushing into this technology to surround their
processor with technology that benefits processor computing power rather than
relying solely upon the processor to tow the line.
There will come a time when Moore’s Law is no longer as applicable and
computing will be about the amount of data rather than the speed of it.
I know of cause and effect. A cause would be a new game and the effect would
be an upgrade in order to play it. I know of my own personal line where a processor
would fall into or out of my budget range but that line isn’t the same
for all. The efforts debating the conspiracies of locking or unlocking of a
processor may be better spent in other areas. Where is the cinematic quality
we were promised in games? Where is this 64-bit OS? Why has hard drive space
increased yet throughput speed hasn’t to match? Why are processors being
slowed down by the rest of the hardware and software? If you want conspiracy
then there are far more devious practices guided behind corporate wall by subtle
hands than the locking of processors. The fact is that without AMD where would
the processor speeds be and for that matter, the prices?
AMD are not being greedy and for that matter neither is the enthusiast but
sadly not everyone can win. AMD is a business and as such they want to make
money and need to make money in order to survive. Market pressure, consumer
demand and competition will even out the playing field of prices. I seem to
recall a similar pricing complaint when the 2800+ and 3000+ were introduced
but how many of us have either of those processors now. It is the unethical
retailer who sells an overclocked processor at a price equivalent to its non-overclocked
match who is being greedy.
“…rain is beginning to fall on the overclocking parade..”
Do you really need 5 GHz of processing power to send email? Will a 10 GHz processor
suddenly allow you to type 100 words per minute instead of 6? Will locking a
processor end the enthusiast community as we know it? It seems like rain is
beginning to fall on the overclocking parade but do not lose hope my enthusiast
friend as all is not yet lost. Rest assured a new way will be found to unlock
a locked processor and entrepreneurs will produce devices to make it easier.
It has been done before and it probably will be done again.
Articles RSS