Have Intel Killed AMD Off...............

Chuggerboom · 7 Jan 2011 at 00:47

Just wondering what you guys think? It seems to me that Intel have showed their power with the new Sandy Bridge chips. And early next year they will be releasing Ivy Bridge.

Taking into account AMD couldn't compete with the core 2 Duo and quads, not forgetting i5 and i7, it doesn't look too good for them.

I know they are releasing Bulldozer some time this year, but will that beat the older i5 or i7? I can't see it competing with Sandy Bridge at all.

I personally think AMD have been killed off. Thoughts guys?

Uriel · 7 Jan 2011 at 00:51

AMD were still trading when I last checked.

alex24 · 7 Jan 2011 at 00:52

We don't really know until there's more detail on Bulldozer to be honest. I'd be surprised if it was more powerful than Intel's options, but I suspect it will also be cheaper.

The thing is, nowadays, the vast majority of high end CPUs are more than capable enough to play any PC game. There's much more importance in the choice of gfx card and it seems as though consoles may be holding back PC gaming, at least for now. That said, once you get the upgrade itch.....

silvercut · 7 Jan 2011 at 00:59

the phenom x4 quads are probably equavalent to the q9xxx series when it comes to power and cheaper too (bang for buck). Also AMD have buldozer up their sleeve and hopefully they deliver i7 perforamance.

Chuggerboom · 7 Jan 2011 at 01:03

silvercut said:
the phenom x4 quads are probably equavalent to the q9xxx series when it comes to power and cheaper too (bang for buck). Also AMD have buldozer up their sleeve and hopefully they deliver i7 perforamance.

I know that Bulldozer will probably deliver the same performance as the old i7, but Intel have moved on to faster stuff with Sandy Bridge. And early next year they will surpass that with Ivy Bridge.

Liampope · 7 Jan 2011 at 01:13

Intel normally are outright faster though. AMD traditionally compete on bang-for-buck. If bulldozer is priced right for the performance it gives it'll sell. The bleeding-edge performance end of the market may remain intel only as it is now, but that's a relatively small market.

Chuggerboom · 7 Jan 2011 at 01:17

Liampope said:
Intel normally are outright faster though. AMD traditionally compete on bang-for-buck. If bulldozer is priced right for the performance it gives it'll sell. The bleeding-edge performance end of the market may remain intel only as it is now, but that's a relatively small market.

Bang for buck at the moment is with Intel with the i5 760. It beats anything that AMD has, especially for gaming. :cool:

DrBombcrater · 7 Jan 2011 at 01:30

Chuggerboom said:
I personally think AMD have been killed off. Thoughts guys?

AMD will be fine. What you're seeing here is just a repeat of a situation AMD and Intel have both been in before, what I'd term an 'architecture gap'. One company gets a new high performing architecture out the door while the other has to limp along with old designs because their new stuff isn't ready. It happened to AMD when the K7 Athlon/Athlon XP family ran out of steam and Intel took the performance lead back with the Northwood P4s. Then the situation reversed when AMD shipped the Athlon 64 and it was Intel stuck with an old, under performing product range. There are many other examples of the same situation going back decades.

This time it looks more serious simply because AMD got pretty heavily shafted when it became clear the original Bulldozer design just wouldn't work well enough at 45nm, so they had to scrap it and redesign BD for the 32nm process - which turned out to be very late. Delay piled upon delay.

But BD is only a few months away now and unlike previous times AMD has its eggs in more than one basket. Even if BD is not as good as hoped there's still the GPU side and two different families of fusion chips to bring in revenue. AMD won't bleed an ocean of red ink the way it has done in the past.

Rroff · 7 Jan 2011 at 01:34

I don't see AMD going anywhere - tho they can't compete with the solid CPUs intel has been pumping out for the last few years - they are still producing good quality CPUs at reasonable prices and theres always a market for that.

iamtheoneneo · 7 Jan 2011 at 01:40

95thrifles · 7 Jan 2011 at 01:56

Chuggerboom said:
Bang for buck at the moment is with Intel with the i5 760. It beats anything that AMD has, especially for gaming.

I disagree, entriely, a Phenom II x4 955 is £114, Intels i5 760 is £155, cheapest 800 series AMD board is £60 (and there are cheaper 700 series too) cheapest P55 board is £87, RAM is same obv, in total thats £68 min price difference, or another way, allowing £40 for RAM Phenom system is £214 and Intel £282 which is an additional 32% price premium for Intel over Phenom, when we look at actual performance figures (link - had to use 965 granted as there dint seem to be any game results for 955) Phenoms average fps in those 4 games is 108, Intels is 122, thats a 13% performance increase, so 32% more cost for 13% more performance, I wouldnt say Intel holds the bang for buck title at all

Chuggerboom · 7 Jan 2011 at 02:07

95thrifles said:
I disagree, entriely, a Phenom II x4 955 is £114, Intels i5 760 is £155, cheapest 800 series AMD board is £60 (and there are cheaper 700 series too) cheapest P55 board is £87, RAM is same obv, in total thats £68 min price difference, or another way, allowing £40 for RAM Phenom system is £214 and Intel £282 which is an additional 32% price premium for Intel over Phenom, when we look at actual performance figures (link - had to use 965 granted as there dint seem to be any game results for 955) Phenoms average fps in those 4 games is 108, Intels is 122, thats a 13% performance increase, so 32% more cost for 13% more performance, I wouldnt say Intel holds the bang for buck title at all

I don't agree............ for a few quid more you can have better.

J.D · 7 Jan 2011 at 02:28

Chuggerboom said:
I don't agree............ for a few quid more you can have better.

Did you not read the post you quoted???.

32% more expensive for 13% extra performance in gaming. If anyone is wanting a cheaper PC they will sensibly spend on AMD.

AMD are going nowhere

.

fester · 7 Jan 2011 at 02:43

Just to jokingly throw a spanner in the the mix I think Intel and Amd should are more worried about Qualcomm and Arm architectureas they sell more chips than both combined and have got to the stage that they can do 90% of the tasks that 90% of PC's/notebooks or used for ie web surfing , email and facebook/youtube.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_(processor)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7056J320110107

Chuggerboom · 7 Jan 2011 at 02:45

J.D said:
Did you not read the post you quoted???.

32% more expensive for 13% extra performance in gaming. If anyone is wanting a cheaper PC they will sensibly spend on AMD.

AMD are going nowhere .

The poor mans choice basically.

dmxdex2020 · 7 Jan 2011 at 02:47

I doubt they will kill off amd. Amd have got great price for peformance processors.

Nelly · 7 Jan 2011 at 03:03

Chuggerboom said:
The poor mans choice basically.

What makes you think that? it's more like the cost effective choice more like.

Just because people want to save money doesn't mean they are poor, times are hard and people want the best value for money, as long as it does the job that's all that really matters.

Somewhat like your system really . . . . .

Chuggerboom · 7 Jan 2011 at 03:05

Nelly said:
What makes you think that? it's more like the cost effective choice more like.

Just because people want to save money doesn't mean they are poor, times are hard and people want the best value for money, as long as it does the job that's all that really matters.

You AMD fanboys can't handle the fact that Intel are years ahead.

NVid'did'it · 7 Jan 2011 at 03:06

AMD, imo, won't be going just yet, not without a good fight from Fusion.

Xelene · 7 Jan 2011 at 03:07

I'm more interested in seeing the ARM based NVIDIA chips TBH. It's increasingly looking like x86 is done, and that's not a bad thing. We could do with making a break from a 30 year old architecture.