-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Have Intel Killed AMD Off...............
- Thread starter Chuggerboom
- Start date
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 602
- Location
- Disneyland
From what i have read Bulldozer will basically compete with the old i7 chips.
Well Intel have moved on with Sandy Bridge. Which means AMD are lagging behind.
Take into consideration that Intel will have Ivy Bridge out early next year.
You do the maths Einstein...............
Well Intel have moved on with Sandy Bridge. Which means AMD are lagging behind.
Take into consideration that Intel will have Ivy Bridge out early next year.
You do the maths Einstein...............
Bang for buck at the moment is with Intel with the i5 760. It beats anything that AMD has, especially for gaming.
I'd agree with that at various points in the recent past when i5 7xx and Phenom II 9xx have been close to equally priced, which was the case for a long time in 2010, or even the i5 being cheaper which happened briefly! However, right now, OCUK prices, i5 760 is £155 and a Phenom II 955 is only £115. So right now I'd say AMD have the bang-for-buck choice, particularly in gaming.
EDIT: 95thrifles - you've pushed the bang-for-buck comparison a little far there imho
. If you choose a cheap £60 Gigabyte UD2 for the AMD option, you can jolly well choose a cheap £63 Gigabyte H55 UD2 for the Intel option. Reality is there really isn't anything in it mobo-wise - you pay pretty much the same AMD or Intel for the same quality/features - always have. RAM obviously the same so it always comes down to CPU cost only. With the performance advantage of i5, Phenom II has to be a fair bit cheaper for the AMD option to be best bang-for-buck. Currently it is, but there were a lot of times in 2010 where going i5 should have been a no brainer.
Last edited:
I won't fall for that trick.
I've had just as many Intel systems since 1998 as I have AMD systems, so your comment is irrelevant.I think your just trying to cause trouble.
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 602
- Location
- Disneyland
AMD have no choice but to drop their prices as they are getting trounced performance wise. Do you honestly think they would drop their prices if they held the performance crown?
So what if they release faster products, if AMD charge less for a processor that is nearly as good then there'll be a market for it.
It's been that way for a while, I don't see why it's going to change.
:Edit: I have no idea what AMD would do if they held the performance crown, however even if they are just lowering their prices to compete, it works - they are still competing.
It's been that way for a while, I don't see why it's going to change.
:Edit: I have no idea what AMD would do if they held the performance crown, however even if they are just lowering their prices to compete, it works - they are still competing.
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 602
- Location
- Disneyland
I would prefer to pay a bit more for a better product.
Exactly - they dont hold the performance crown, as we all know, so they do drop their prices. Therefore they then compete on bang-for-buck. As always. Simples. What's the problem?
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 221
- Location
- Halifax
"I can't see it competing with Sandy
Bridge at all", too early to tell, unless you fab'd your own.
Also, AMD may be "lagging" behind, but that doesn't necesarilly mean "they're out". You know AMD havnt shown their might with Fusion APU's yet and what they will bring to netbooks/notebooks and other portable devices, so really, assuming AMD are out and not taking into consideration their other projects is rather limited in scope. As long as they play ball in the portable market, they should be able to reduce risk. But hey you may be right about them losing its marketshare further, but too early to tell.
Imo.
Bridge at all", too early to tell, unless you fab'd your own.
Also, AMD may be "lagging" behind, but that doesn't necesarilly mean "they're out". You know AMD havnt shown their might with Fusion APU's yet and what they will bring to netbooks/notebooks and other portable devices, so really, assuming AMD are out and not taking into consideration their other projects is rather limited in scope. As long as they play ball in the portable market, they should be able to reduce risk. But hey you may be right about them losing its marketshare further, but too early to tell.
Imo.
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 602
- Location
- Disneyland
What would you rather have: A Rolls Royce or a Bentley if there was a few quid between them?
Good for you! Go and buy a 980X then
!A lot of people, however, want the best bang-for-buck, performance-per-pond, whatever you want to call it. AMD often are ahead here (hex-core market, anyone?), which is why they are successful, and far from being killed off by Intel.
Careful, he might claim your an AMD fanboy even though your run an Intel rig.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 6,968
how far do you go with this? 1155 is only a little more than 1156, 1366 is only a little more than 1155, then you can start upping your CPUs incrementally and your GPUs too, where do you stop?
You made an incorrect statement that Intel provided best bang for buck via their i5 760, it has been shown that is not the case, I'm not knocking Intel or the i5 760, its a great chip, but its not the best bang for buck solution available
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 6,968
What??? That doesnt even make sense, anyway neither, dont like either, I'll take the cash equivalent for whichevers worth more
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 602
- Location
- Disneyland
For a few quid more i would go Intel any day. It's not like they are hundreds of pounds more is it? I would take an i5 rig over anything AMD have to offer at the moment for a few quid more.
Now Sandy Bridge knocks anything AMD has into a cocked hat with ease. Ivy Bridge will further stomp AMD into the ground.
Now Sandy Bridge knocks anything AMD has into a cocked hat with ease. Ivy Bridge will further stomp AMD into the ground.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 221
- Location
- Halifax
Bentley and RollsRoyce is a matter of preference, I would go with a Rollsroyce phantom over a bentley arnage, afaik the royce is more expensive, because its "badge" is deemed more desirable?? same with intel?? You do know the market leader, in this case its intel is able to establish whatever price it deems suitable, because there is high inelastic demand for desirable brand name (intel). An alternative perspective.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 3,053
- Location
- ireland
I would agree intel are better but AMD have far better bang for buck I got a quad core athlon 640 for 80 pounds tell me that isn't a bargain the modern pc buyer will most likely go for the cheaper products which is where AMD excel in.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 6,514
- Location
- Near Brighton
So, who can find whats wrong with this sentence?
Amd have always been more about bang for buck. Yes intel have the faster processors, but you pay for that. The majority of joe public wont be buying an i7 anyway. Most people stick to cheap dual / quad cores which amd are better at. Its like AMD vs nvidia, they are always cheaper but nvidia have the faster cards.
Last edited:
