Suckers?

[Mark of Cain]

How many people have been sucked in by the plays of AMD at the Sydney PC Expo? Seems at least one,

http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=article&dId=199&dPage=6

Compared to

http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/amd_axp_2100.shtml

Seems that there is somewhat of an inconsistency there, and someone got majorly sucked in....

PS. Doesn't seem to be a section to comment of the actual sites and their "reviews", so I had to post this here....

[Wiggo]

Now what makes you say that? :?:

[Acid]

I think he means the packaging difference. Maybe the prototype they had on display had brown packaging and the final ones have the green packaging. It was definately a 2100+ core though.

[Wiggo]

That was my thought to but I was waiting for his reply.
That piece can be any colour they want it to be.
That was more than likely a pre-production CPU using the old coloured substrate.
But I really was interested in his thoughts though. :D
<center>:cheers:</center>

[Acid]

That was my thought to but I was waiting for his reply.
That piece can be any colour they want it to be.
That was more than likely a pre-production CPU using the old coloured substrate.
But I really was interested in his thoughts though. :D
<center>:cheers:</center>

he posted the same thing on the OCAU forums.

the core is a 2100+ ... who cares about the packaging? makes absolutely no difference.

[Wiggo]

And went to all the trouble of registerin' too.

[Albinus]

the core is a 2100+ ... who cares about the packaging? makes absolutely no difference.

Exactly. AMD is simply choosing multiple vendors for the packaging, makes good redundancy sense :smokin:

[Anonymous]

My thoughts...

Based on the fact that Sydney is a pissy little show, with CeBIT the next week, I think some people where suckered in. Why is that they would have a 2100+ there, and yet it hadn't officially been released as yet? Why would engineers changed the substrate used between the engineering samples and the final product (can anyone say QA)?

What proof do people have that it was actually a 2100+ core, apart from the fact that it had a little sign next to it saying that is what it was?

[JealousMidget]

I would venture to guess that you have little/no engineering experience. When you do prototyping, colors are the last thing on the list. You want to make sure the thing works and if you're in a really nice mood, you may give some consideration to how the manufacturing guys are gonna reproduce it, en masse. Even though I wouldn't call the 2100+ a prototype, since more or less just a 1600+ on steroids. It makes more sense than you apparently know, that the substrate would be the same color as the "previous" model, due to the fact that it would be readlily available. The color of the substrate is inconsequential, as long as it maintains the same electo-mechanical properties of the working model. :p

JM

[Darthtanion]

WOW... I guess that means that the Athlon XP 1800+ that I bought a couple of weeks ago is a fake then since it's brown in color instead of green! :rolleyes:

It is a show model to indicate where AMD is heading. 2100+ core? Yep, but will have the older coloring because it has probably been in existence for some time now. And if you don't think that AMD (and Intel too for that matter) doesn't have working examples of the next 2-3 generations of processor, then you're in need of some education.

[Wiggo]

Yep just like AMD showed off a Thoroughbred 2800+ at CeBIT 2002 and guess what?
The color is still the older brown colour as seen here.
<center><img src="http://www.clubic.com/images/auto/img16979.jpg">
The color of the substrate means absolutely nothing as it could be pink if they wanted it to be. :D
:cheers:</center>

[localizer]

mmm....Pink

[Shepps]

Can i have a multi coloured one :D