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

[Mr Krugga]

My rig bought in Oct 2009:

Core i5 750 - £150
MSI P55-GD65 - £125
Patriot DDR3 1600MHz - £85

Total - £360

I'm not counting all the extra bits that have cost me a few hundred pounds on top of it adding up to £900 or so in total.

Another rig build in Dec 2010:

Phenom II X2 555 unlocked to X4 - £65
MSI 870A-G54 - £65
Corsair DDR3 1600MHz - £40

Total - £170

As you can imagine, there's not much difference between the two, at least in games.


Upgrading to Sandybridge would be pretty cheap, only need the board and the CPU.

Core i5 2500k - £170
Motherboard - £100 ish

Probably around £70 after selling my current rig. Still not sure if it's worth it.

 

[sarge78]

Quick question... Do AMD still license the x86 architecture from Intel? (after all those lawsuits )

If Intel is left alone I see a bleak road ahead

Quite the opposite in fact... It's a bright, shiny road with lots of fluffy bunnies

Personally I think AMD should drop x86 altogether and start creating awesome ARM based SoCs, someone needs to keep nVidia, Apple, Qualcomm et al in check

The cards are stacking against Intel and their anticompetitive business model.

 

[PermaBanned]

Quick question... Do AMD still license the x86 architecture from Intel? (after all those lawsuits )



Quite the opposite in fact... It's a bright, shiny road with lots of fluffy bunnies

Personally I think AMD should drop x86 altogether and start creating awesome ARM based SoCs, someone needs to keep nVidia, Apple, Qualcomm et al in check

The cards are stacking against Intel and their anticompetitive business model.

Apple don't make chips, Samsung do. Didn't they used to use Motorola? But the ARM market is doing fine as is, if Tegra 2 has caught up with the Atom then it's come a long way.

Anyhow, ideally i'd like to see AMD branch off, drop x86 and come up with something completely new. This would probably create compatibility problems but it's the only way we're actually going to move forward.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AFAIK,the newer AMD CPUs being released this year supposedly will be smaller and cheaper to make which should help them.

 

[sarge78]

Apple don't make chips, Samsung do. Didn't they used to use Motorola? But the ARM market is doing fine as is, if Tegra 2 has caught up with the Atom then it's come a long way.

They do now...

Apple just spent a lot buying pa semi and intrinsity (who designed the hummingbird core for samsung) they hold an ARM license and all new chips will be for apple products only (no idea which fab they'll use)
It seems that left samsung up the creak as they've just bought a truck load of tegra 2s... (setback for orion?)

Within 5 years Apple will use risc based chips in macs again.

Edit: yep, cortex a9 chips are superior to current gen Atoms (thats not hard tbh... )

 

[spirits247]

ARM must be rolling in it - all the benefits of designing a chip, none of the headaches of manufacture. They're business model works well.

Is ARM still mainly a British business? It would be nice to have some pride from the Acorn Archimedes days!

 

[DrBombcrater]

ARM must be rolling in it - all the benefits of designing a chip, none of the headaches of manufacture. They're business model works well

ARM isn't particularly amazing, financially, even compared to AMD. The royalty they get per chip is really small (averages out somewhere in the region of 3p I believe).

In Q1 last year (the first figures I could find all three both companies) ARM had revenue of $143m and profits of $58m. AMD's revenue was $1.57bn with profits of £182m. The figures for Intel are $10.3bn and $3.4bn.

ARM, for all the publicity they get, is a very small fish.

 

[Lakeland]

Personally i would rather pay a few extra quid for the extra performance you get with the Intel chips. At the end of the day you get what you pay for.

I'm going to upgrade next year when Ivy Bridge comes out as i hear it is going to amazing.

In reply to the posters who point out that not everyone wants the best performance: That may be true, but the average Joe would rather have an Intel based system because of the name. I know that for a fact as i used to work in a pc store.

Chuggerboom, you do not make up the vast majority of the market. The vast majority of people who buy pc's don't even know what AMD/Intel are, all they care about is how much the PC costs (the cheaper the better), whether it is dual core and if it has more than 2gb ram/250gb hard drive.

Intel cater for you, hence why you buy their processors and think they are best. If AMD were as bad as you are making out, they would not still be developing/trading products.

 

[feeddagoat]

This is one of the best points in the thread to be honest, but you are forgetting that ARM was introduced in 1983. That would make it, oh, about 30 years old? RISC computing did used to be a big thing in the normal PC world, however - don't know what happened there. Between a similarly specced RISC PC and a normal PC then the winner is going to be obvious.

CPU performance is making very little difference in day to day use nowadays, there's nothing you can't do with a Sempron 140 that you can do with a Sandy Bridge. It can do it better, but is that worth it really? It's a moot point, if people are sensible with software (which they aren't, looking at the number of people who use Windows - Wirth's law) then there's no need to splash out on hardware.

If Tegra 2 can compete with the Atom, which it does look like it can, and any existing problems with running normal PC software on ARM platforms are ironed out then it may well be on it's way to offering not just immense power savings, but potential performance increases.

It's a question of resources, i'm sure VIA could make some great chips but they're stuck on 65nm and can't sell enough to fund further CPU designs. nVidia, Qualcomm and the likes have tons at their disposal.

I can see and ARM + Nvidia solution hitting consoles before desktop or mainstream. It seems to be aimed at tablet devices for HD playback and gaming so naturally the next step would be consoles.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4112/anand-goes-hands-on-with-motorolas-atrix-4g-webtop

motorola's nettop that docks with their phones could be a major break through in bringing arm to desktop. If the phone becomes the main processor you could see gaming on netbooks that way too, add docking to a desktop and you have a solution that Apple has been pushing for for years.

For it all to happen you need to see a decrease in x86 userbase. Unfortunately no other OS is ready or in a position to replace x86 especially in terms of raw performance or compatibility. Maybe low end casual with android, iOS, and googles chrome OS will change things especially as phones, tablets and netbooks increase in performance. The adoption of app store development as a way of distribution will also eventually push better quality gaming and programmes such as media editors but only if the hardware is there to support it. Best part is, a lot of it is driven by bedroom warriors that develop into companies. Its interesting that the model isnt that far removed from linux community based development. Never has there been a more exciting time for programmers.

 

[Si105]

That is true. Personally i will go with performance for a few quid more. Look at it this way:

If an AMD system costs £700 and a better performing Intel system costs £750 i would pay the bit extra.

So would most but the difference is usually a lot more... if it was 100-150 thats a better graphics card. So while you sit there inappropriately touching your intel CPU, they'll be enjoying higher framerates.

 

[Lakeland]

That is true. Personally i will go with performance for a few quid more. Look at it this way:

If an AMD system costs £700 and a better performing Intel system costs £750 i would pay the bit extra.

You seem to think your needs are the same as everyone who buys a PC, your thoughts represent a small percentage of the market.

Why would the average PC user spend £50 (using your figures) more on a PC when they will see/feel NO difference in performance whatsoever?

 

[zetec452]

I haven't read the entire thread and this may have been mentioned already.

One of the only reasons Intel are ahead is because they bought the market for x amount of years. Now the playing field is more even (theoretically anyway), AMD should be able to increase their offerings.

 

[Chuggerboom]

Some FEMALE AVATARS wouldn't go amiss

Thank you for pointing that out

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

You seem to think your needs are the same as everyone who buys a PC, your thoughts represent a small percentage of the market.

Why would the average PC user spend £50 (using your figures) more on a PC when they will see/feel NO difference in performance whatsoever?

Because they probably wont know that they wont see/feel any difference but they will get an Intel chip and they've heard of Intel?

Of course more informed people that are aware of their needs and their options may choose differently. The average user will probably be influenced by what they see on TV. It's like buying a vacuum cleaner, I don't know a lot about them but the Dyson adverts make them sound impressive so I may buy one of those over a "Henry" even though they cost more as I believe I'll be getting something better for my money.

I think both companies have their areas of the market and they both do them well. Or at least well enough to not be in immediate danger, only time will tell how that will develop.

 

[paul1985]

Hold on a minute.

First it was that the intel chips are better performance therefore blowing amd away.

Second it was that they are also better bang for your buck.

And now people are saying that Intel have better brand recognition.

Anyone who thinks the last point passes for original comment should be shot. It isn't a justification for amd going under in the slightest.

 

[Dave]

Just skimming through this thread, I must have been a fool for buying the 955 (for bang-per-buck) instead of the i5 this time last year! Although I must say, it was a pleasant surprise to find out that for the CFD software that I use, the Phenom 955 at home is actually faster than my quad-core Xeon workstation at work

Last computer before this was a Core 2 Duo - I'm sure I'll get the upgrade bug again soon, looking forward to Ivy Bridge and Bulldozer

 

[Gashman]

Hold on a minute.

First it was that the intel chips are better performance therefore blowing amd away.

Second it was that they are also better bang for your buck.

And now people are saying that Intel have better brand recognition.

Anyone who thinks the last point passes for original comment should be shot. It isn't a justification for amd going under in the slightest.

well actually, can't deny that intel are more known than AMD, i know numerous people who have no idea 'what' AMD is yet they all know who intel are and that they manufacturer microprocessors, etc. pretty much because of the advertising muscle behind intel, and the fact people like dell, etc. all used to say 'intel inside' on like all of them.

 

[Chuggerboom]

well actually, can't deny that intel are more known than AMD, i know numerous people who have no idea 'what' AMD is yet they all know who intel are and that they manufacturer microprocessors, etc. pretty much because of the advertising muscle behind intel, and the fact people like dell, etc. all used to say 'intel inside' on like all of them.

I used to work in a pc store and a lot of people always went for Intel because of the brand name. Some people on here seem to disagree............That is up to them

 

[Gashman]

I used to work in a pc store and a lot of people always went for Intel because of the brand name. Some people on here seem to disagree............That is up to them

problem is, its all down to the fact intel have the vast resources to monopolize the advertising side of things, AMD can't compete in that respect, though credit to AMD they have got themselves a good foothold in the notebook and server markets in recent years, they seem stronger than intel in the server market and their new zacate processors seem to have strong potential in the mainstream notebook market.

also worth noting for AMDs future is that ATI are doing well at the moment, they are currently untouchable on price/performance in the discreet graphics market, also consume less power so i think as soon as bulldozer arrives on the scene and challanges i7 like its supposed to, think AMD could start eating back into the mainstream/enthusiast desktop market as well.

 

[Chuggerboom]

problem is, its all down to the fact intel have the vast resources to monopolize the advertising side of things, AMD can't compete in that respect, though credit to AMD they have got themselves a good foothold in the notebook and server markets in recent years, they seem stronger than intel in the server market and their new zacate processors seem to have strong potential in the mainstream notebook market.

also worth noting for AMDs future is that ATI are doing well at the moment, they are currently untouchable on price/performance in the discreet graphics market, also consume less power so i think as soon as bulldozer arrives on the scene and challanges i7 like its supposed to, think AMD could start eating back into the mainstream/enthusiast desktop market as well.

From what i have read Bulldozer will be on par with the old i7 chips. Intel have moved on with Sandy Bridge and have Ivy Bridge out early next year.

AMD are years behind. I agree that they have a place but will have to slash their prices to even compete. At the end of the day Intel have got the enthusiast market sown up. People will always pay for performance.