• 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...............

Emlyn_Dewar said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

Me too actually! if you are referring to the tasty looking zotac boards that is, will be nice to see some budget itx solutions where you still get acceptable performance. At the moment itx seems to be dominated by either atom ( a bit too slow) or lga1156, with a couple of exceptions (775, but dead socket)

Asus have a m-itx am3 board out, but it uses SODIMMs and is quite expensive.
 
I'm still running a Q6600@3GHz and it is still a very capable chip. I am however getting a bit of an upgrade itch and the only chip at the moment which is interesting me is the X6 1055T which seems stonking value. With win7 most future software is going to benefit more from being multi threaded than pure out and out clock cycles.
 
Chuggerboom said:
I would prefer to pay a bit more for a better product.
Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring the fact the there are plenty of people who would pay less for a slightly lesser product.

Fact is sub £100 processors are the bulk of the market, and the number of geeks who sit talking on forums all day talking the latest and greatest is very small, compared to the purple shirt brigade who just want something relatively cheap but decent.

This is AMDS strategy as they have something up their sleeves that could potentially dominate what Intel have to offer.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...lans_to_Initiate_Production_in_Late_2010.html

This market is HUGE, probably 80% of the ENTIRE market if not more, and AMD will be offering CPU/GPU performance on one incredibly low-power die that low power desktop/notebook/netbook manufacturers will find difficult to resist.
 
Intel annoy me as a business. They are greedy and do not play by the rules. If AMD have a decent enough chip the next time I upgrade, I will most certianly go that route.
 
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 :p.
Click to expand...

Except it doesn't work like that. Most people buy a PC, not a CPU. If the Intel CPU/Mobo is £50 more then that will mean that the PC is ~5-10% more expensive yet >10% faster.

OP: AMD are on life-support and have been for a few years now. If ARM start to make inroads in the PC/server market then AMD are finished unless they eat a large chunk of Intel's pie over the next 18-24 months. Every report that I have read about Bulldozer, including people that have left AMD, suggests that it's a good processor but not a great one so it's unlikely to be the game changer that AMD needs.
Two or three years ago I made the prediction that AMD would be gone by now but money from spinning off it's fabs and a billion from Intel have kept them afloat. They badly need a cash-cow but I just don't where that will come from.
 
The fanboy/enthusiest market is only a small drop in a very large ocean compared to the OEM sector. We would be lucky to make up 1% of the market. AMD and Intel both make their money off the OEMs (Dell & HP etc).

AMD have always had a relatively small marketshare. Before the K6-2 came along Intel had complete ownership. AMD's marketshare back in 2000 was something like 20%, and this was when the K7 was completely dominating the P3 in both performance and price. 2010 marketshare is still 80% to intel, 12% to Intel and 7% to other (most likely VIA) (which is a bit of a shame because in 2008 it was 75% Intel, 20% AMD).

Whether you are in camp AMD or Intel unless you are the director of HP, Dell, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, or any other multinational company which has desktop and server PCs which number in the tens of thousands, your purchase of an Intel or AMD processor for your single PC at home will not make one difference to whether AMD or Intel make money.

Things AMD have done to push Intel
* K6 processor
* K7 "Athlon" processor (Athlon 550-950 processors were awesome)
* 1st to break the Ghz mark (Not really a great performer, but it was cool for epeen rights)
* Athlon XP series (proving efficiancy > ghz)
* Athlon 64 (Intels original foray into 64bit was very expensive for home users, and couldnt run 32bit applications. AMD )
* The Opteron (a lot of business' thank AMD for providing Intel some competition in this area. The first opterons actually performed faster, were cooler, and drew less power)

Things Intel beat AMD in (but probably wouldnt have done if AMD didnt exist)
* Dual core processors (would we even have these if it wasnt for the race between AMD and Intel)
* Core 2 Duo (<- Awesomeness packed into tiny nanometer goodness)
* Intel quad cores (Q6600 = pro)
* I7 (im still at a loss as to why AMD havent figured out their secret, its been 2 years goddamit)

Things Intel Failed at
* RD-Ram - Proving the "Dont believe the hype" should be adhered to
* Itanium - 64bit fail

Reasons why Intel will probably be dominating the next decade
* Intel Marketing - Intel has its fingers in pretty much every pie (HP, Dell, Sony, Xbox etc). Its going to take years to break that dominance

The answer to the OP's original question is no, Intel havent killed off AMD. Intel fanboys have a lot to thank AMD for. If it wasnt for AMD pushing Intel to perform, the processors available to the public would be 5 years behind what it is now, and the processors that are available today to the home market would be only available to the large corporate sectors.

Im pretty sure AMD are quite safe even with their current sales. AMD is currently making roughly $1.5bn per quarter (so just imagine how much Intel are making with their 80% share). I doubt AMD is going to be poverty stricken, I dont think we all need to say a prayer, and i dont think its in any dire situation where the receivers are being called in.
 
Last edited:
Owenb said:
Except it doesn't work like that. Most people buy a PC, not a CPU. If the Intel CPU/Mobo is £50 more then that will mean that the PC is ~5-10% more expensive yet >10% faster
Click to expand...

It wasnt based on a CPU it was based on a CPU/mobo/RAM bundle, which on sites such as this most people consider as a single purchase, Im guessing I cant actually speak for what most of us think, but its like myself, I'm currently running Q9550 on a rampgae formula with 4 gig 1066 and Xfired 4890s, I'm considering and trying to resist upgrading my gfx atm prob to something like a 6950 if I were to (got that itch and feel the need to scratch it but then remind myself that a) a single 6950 prob isnt much/any better than my 4890s and b) my 4890s still max everything out), then in a year or two or three depending on how the market goes I might consider upgrading the core components (cpu/mobo/ram) at that time I doubt I'll be splashing for the high end components as I did previous time round (actually I originally had an E8400 in there and upped that once started doing more enocding etc)as I now have bigger commitments in my life, as such I will look at the best bang for buck once theres either a significant performance increase to be had or my current system starts to struggle
 
AMD Zacate is already appearing in many netbooks and sub-notebooks already and this is because it is cheap to make.

The same goes with AMD Llano - if it is relatively small and cheap to make it will appear in many computers.

The AMD GPUs are relatively small and cheap to make so this why they are profitable.

Much of the increased sales Intel have had in the last few years was due to the success of Atom IIRC which is small and cheap to make.

The market for CPUs has gotten bigger so looking at market share is not an accurate way to gauge sales.

One of the main reasons AMD is making losses is due to them having to run a fab,spend loads on fab research and development and not being able to use other independent fabs. AMD has always been a smaller company than Intel and having to spend so much money on fabs has cost them loads of money and constrained their capacity too. Now that they don't need to do this things should start getting better for them.

Just like with their graphics chips,AMD in the future could go totally fabless with their CPUs too meaning that many of the costs they have to bear ATM will disappear.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article about Global Foundries and AMD on anandtech..

Should be interesting if this turns out to be accurate..

We’ve discussed some of the specifics of Bulldozer in the past, but we still don’t have anything concrete to report in terms of performance. GF reports that 32nm production of Orochi is going well, and Bulldozer should show up later this year, but there was no hands-on time with BD at CES to report on. Estimates however are that it should provide a drop-in replacement on existing AMD servers that should boost performance by around 50%. If the desktop processors can get a similar performance boost, that ought to put Bulldozer into close competition with Sandy Bridge, and there’s no doubt that a 500GFLOPS GPU core (i.e. something similar to the HD 5600 series) will put paid to Intel’s HD Graphics 3000.
Click to expand...
 
Puppetmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Historically speaking AMD have at times been faster than Intel in certain area's :-) It's swings and roundabouts.

Chugger> Really need to drop the attitude, you are being a little offensive :-) Just because they quote bang for buck doesn't make these people "fan boys". AMD have not been killed off.
 
Last edited:
The 50% quote is from a while ago and was comparing a 16-core to a 12-core, which means actually only a 13% improvement core-for-core over their existing architecture if the quote is accurate. This is nowhere near enough to challenge Intel at the high-end unless they can realistically storm ahead in the "core war".
 
Last edited:
That article is full of glaring misinformation. The author seems think Orochi has a GPU core, but it doesn't. That's Llano. And Orochi is not late 2011, that's Llano again. Orochi/Zambezi are Q2 2011.

He also seems surprised that no Bulldozer based chips were present at CES. But CES is a consumer electronics show, that's why BD is missing. The fusion chips are a big deal from a consumer electronics perspective, BD isn't. AMD understandably wants everyone's attention on Zacate and Ontario, with maybe a glance at Llano.
 
Scougar said:
Chugger> Really need to drop the attitude, you are being a little offensive :-) Just because they quote bang for buck doesn't make these people "fan boys". AMD have not been killed off.
Click to expand...

I agree but cant workout where he's coming from, its either

a) He didnt mean to use the phrase "bang for buck" in his OP

or

b) He's trolling and trying to make arguments

I'm giving benefit of doubt and hoping its a) And what he meant was he see's the i5 760 as his preferred route ATM, however trying to say everyone should take the same route is a bit ignorant. SB i5 is prob best performance at a reasonable cost, but the AMD 955 is prob the best bang for buck performance wise, you dont lose much in terms of performance but save quite a bit in money
 
Just be thankful that AMD seem to be doing alright by selling cpus cheaper than intel, 'cos if they did go under you'd see a massive price hike for intel products across the board. Competition is what keeps a sane price level, remove that and you have a single player who can do what they want.
Also I don't think you're considering the whole picture, I get the impression you're looking at the enthusiast's market, whereas I would imagine companies would be seriously looking at "ban for buck" for their requirements wrt servers, networks, etc, there must be huge savings to be made there by going with AMD.
 
DrBombcrater said:
That article is full of glaring misinformation. The author seems think Orochi has a GPU core, but it doesn't. That's Llano. And Orochi is not late 2011
Click to expand...

I must have missed that bit.. where's it say that? Only thing I saw was the bit about Globabl Foundries stating that 32nm Orochi production was underway and going well :confused:
 
I think it all boils down to what you like the most. I personally like intel more and would rather splash out a little bit more cash and know i will be satsified. Id rather pay that extra 40 quid and get something i wont regret, then something i might. In the end it goes to personal preference only.

Do you even use all the power an i5 provides? (Not benchmarks) Gaming wise my core 2 duo E6850 can still handle any game.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom