• 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...............

If I'm building a budget system for someone else, I always go AMD, as you get far more for your money. The Athlon II X3 especially is a great bargain. For my own system, I tend to go Intel, as I'm into performance and overclocking. Both company's have their place in the Market, although I'm sure intel's is more profitable.
 
Last edited:
given the fact that everyone i know that isnt a pc geek have amd chips in their computers - i think there pretty safe, they have a big market and just because it doesnt fall into the pc geek market doesnt mean its going down.

least we remember whilst amd might be behind this time, intel were struggling badly for years. swings and roundabouts. AMD have also produced a 6core processor that is mega cheap which more then sets them up nicely over intel when 6cores becoming mega popular.
 
AMD have actually gained market share recently if i remember correctly.

The key thing is value for money, the fact you can get a quad core circa £50 that can overclock to at least 3.6ghz is astounding, and fanstatic bang for buck.

I have one of thier six cores (ignore the sig :p) and i got it for £140!, thats amazing value for money, and i havn't even overclocked it yet.

Yes, performance is important and at the moment intel have the crown undoubtably, but if you compare 980x sales to that of the 1055T or 1090T it's obvious where the most sales lie...

There's also something that people seem to often forget when purchasing hardware, and its that it should be tailored to what the user shall use the PC for. The amount of "spec me" threads where the OP goes and buys an i7 for web browsing, office work and "light gaming" is astounding, and it's just a waste of money!

The truth is that you really don't need anything more than a highly clocked dual core for the majority of applications (gamers will disagree, but haters gonna hate).

Progress in the CPU field will only really be appreciated by encoders and workstation environments in the next few years.

Back OT, Bulldozer is begginning to look more promising, but its value for money will likely still be the "be all and end all" of the new architecture!
 
Bang for buck depends entirely on which buck you're spending. AMD seem competitive throughout most of their price range.

A £60-100 CPU is more than adequate for most gamers at the moment. Most home users will need less than that for the foreseeable future.
 
2011 will see some interesting Fusion products from AMD in the notebook/netbook and low cost desktop market. Incase anyone here is too blinded by performance elitism to see, these are by far the biggest markets for x86/64 technology. Top end overclocking gear represents a tiny percentage of PC gear shifted. Intel are market leaders in a shrinking market, for now at least.

As said, there is as much chance of ARM swallowing Intel than AMD vanishing in the short to mid term anyhow.
 
You may wish...............imagine if AMD were killed off. One major player in the desktop market and you pay what they want for their CPU's. Innovation is at the whim of Intel. If they are selling their current range well, why spend loads of money on developing better faster architectures. If not for AMD, you may just be starting to see 64 bit coming to the market. Intel could not see the future for 64bit on the desktop.
I buy both and for 99.9% of tasks and software, performance is indistinguishable. Benchmarking and epeen aside I tend to use AMD in builds because I deal with people who are in the real world cash wise.

andy.
 
AMD will remain as a lot of people don't like Intel...bit like PC(Microsoft) versus MAC(apple) arguments

people will buy AMD just so they don't have to buy Intel same way people buy mac's so they don't buy Microsoft stuff
 
Anti-competition legislation from the EU will screw Intel over as soon as it looks like they might kill AMD, so I don't think we're heading towards a monopoly any time soon.

If Bulldozer wipes the floor with Intel's range, I don't think AMD will be selling it for less than Intel's high end.
 
Is it not stable overclocking where intel cpu's shine best?, also, is it not what you want the cpu for?. I have a AMD 965 and i7-860 and both are the same when i game stock or overclocked. Greatest gaming framerates and geberal allround smoothness experiences for me have always been the gpu.
 
kedge said:
Is it not stable overclocking where intel cpu's shine best?, also, is it not what you want the cpu for?. I have a AMD 965 and i7-860 and both are the same when i game stock or overclocked. Greatest gaming framerates and geberal allround smoothness experiences for me have always been the gpu.
Click to expand...

In general yes, but now you have to pay for the privilege. Be it 99p or £99 it's not a great move IMO, i's alienating the high performance market - a market that pretty much specifically goes for intel over AMD for the greater performance.
 
Chuggerboom said:
Bang for buck at the moment is with Intel with the i5 760. It beats anything that AMD has, especially for gaming. :cool:
Click to expand...

You are having a laugh right? The price rises on this cpu over the last few weeks have been ridiculous. I got one elsewhere a couple of weeks before christmas for £126.99. At the time they were £129 on OCUK on this week only. The next week they had them for £140 but £134.99 on this week only. The next week they went up again to £144.99 and were on this week only again for £139.99. Now they are £154!!

Not everyone wants/needs the fastest. A lot of people need to keep to a budget and that's where AMD has it all covered. The boards are cheaper as well so in effect you actually get more "bang for buck" with AMD. They are not that far behind Intel anyway and hopefully Bulldozer should be a big leap forward.
 
When AMD were last performance-competitive (pre-Core 2 Duo) they charged accordingly. Bulldozer will be the same if it performs well enough.

However, there will be nothing to stop you buying a cheap dual or triple core into an AM3+ board and dropping in a Bulldozer when the prices drop. I'm a serial budget upgrader and my preferred sort of upgrade route just seems closed with Intel at the moment.
 
Last edited:
you also gotta remember not a lot of people can afford to run out and buy an expensive sandybridge mobo... so AMD will still provide a good well balanced cost effective soloution with there cpus/mobos being still cheaper then intel, heck some people still jumping on the Intel quadcore Q series chips....

Having said that I am saving up for a nice sandybridge setup :) But I do hope AMDs Bulldozer prooves better or comes close, its very important that AMD remain around for a life time just to keep intel in check.
 
The OP is missing the point that not everyone requires the VERY fastest CPU available, when it comes to price/performance AMD have a very solid market position.

The high-end CPU's are irrelevant to most people.
 
Wasn't there an article not long ago that showed AMD making some seriously good money over the last 2 years and that Intel were actually losing money?

(Not an AMD or Intel fanboy!)
 
Good trolling/baiting from Chuggerboom there. He can be proud of that effort...

Price wise, AMD really are worth it for people on a tight budget. The money saved on CPU/motherboard can be used for a better graphics card/hard-disk/whatever.

I am more interested in some of the upcoming low power AMD ITX offerings than what Intel have coming out. It's not all about high end, outright speed. :)
 
The whole intel / amd debate annoys me so much. We on here may find places where there is a difference between the chips, in some applications or bench marking Intel are better, I don’t think anyone can doubt that but joe public who go into *insert high street store* and buy a pre built system will never tell the real world difference between an Intel or AMD cpu. As for the bang for buck argument and the counter of it’s the cheap option/ poor mans option – Without going into specific chip to chip comparison AMD do have the bang for buck and in reality they have to as they don’t have the performance to compete on the same price point. As for cheap/poor mans choice, I have never understood this argument as the poster never seems to live in multi million pound house/have lots of cars/a super top end pc etc so budget must have come into for them too and this is where AMD can compete with Intel. I think, from an enthusiasts perspective it would be nice for AMD to be equally competitive or better than Intel again. To get some better competition between them and possibly/hopefully drive some really special new chips.

As for this being the end of AMD, I don’t think so. AMD have eggs in other baskets, are still competitive against Intel chips and if all that fails then I would expect the monopoly commission to have something to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom