AMD Could Leap Ahead If They Want To

From what I've seen AMD don't have the ambition to leap ahead of anyone, "cheap and cheerful" has been their motto in recent years.
 
Richdog said:
Well, you'd hope that a hex core would be competitive with a quad core in specific multi-threaded apps that made use of all cores...
Click to expand...
Well done Richdog . . . you actually managed to make a post that includes info about some hardware instead of one that just gives your opinion of another forum user and their post style! :D

Seriously though . . . its irrelevant how many cores a processor has when it comes to Multi-Threaded results . . . the important thing for a lot of folks interested in MultiCore processing power is the resulting:

  1. Performance
  2. Price
What does it matter how many cores a processor has as long as it performs well, is priced well, doesn't use too much power, and for the enthusiasts . . . overclocks well! :cool:
 
Hey DragonQ :)

DragonQ said:
I'd imagine 4 cores with HyperThreading is a match for 6 cores actually - I wouldn't be surprised if the i7 beat the X6 in multi-threaded apps at the same clock speed
Click to expand...

Indeed, thanks to the excellent architecture and design of the Intel® Core™ i7 the Hyper-Threading in some applications it performs a bit better than the AMD® Phenom™ II X6 . . . in other applications it doesn't . . . for the sake of avoiding a circular debate can I suggest you dig through this thread:

AMD® Phenom™ II X6 and Intel® Core™ i7 Debate

Win or lose . . . the end user is *always* gonna be paying more though with the Intel® chip . . . a premium worth paying perhaps if the chip actually performs faster in the applications you use . . . a premium maybe not worth paying if the chip is slower in the applications you use . . .

A premium worth paying perhaps if you have its excellent overclocking ability to boost its performance further? . . . A premium worth paying with the knowledge that you can maybe use the chip is a different chipset?

Oh Intel® engineers know their stuff alright . . . the only problem seems to be the Intel® suits really want you to pay for it :cool:

Intel® Core™ i7 970 (3.2GHz)

£704.99 inc
 
Hey mmj_uk :)

mmj_uk said:
From what I've seen AMD don't have the ambition to leap ahead of anyone
Click to expand...
Because you have not seen it can you conclude it does not exist? . . . or instead you don't look very hard?

AMD® have plenty of "ambition" alright . . . it's just seems to be Intel® did not really play fair in the past

Intel® Settles With the FTC

On a level playing field where people are *not* paying other people not to stock the competitors products, and where enthusiasts actually take some time out to check the performance "Facts" and not just instead remain in some Consensus Trance I think you will see AMD® have plenty of ambition!

mmj_uk said:
"cheap and cheerful" has been their motto in recent years.
Click to expand...
Heh the antonym of that would be "miserable and expensive" :p

I kinda know why you would think that about AMD® mmj_uk . . . up until Nov 2009 I shared the same outdated viewpoint . . . however since picking up some modern AMD® last year I was pleasantly suprised by the performance . . . and very happy about the price! :cool:
 
VFM Addict said:
That is true but oc'ers being computer buffs are often turned to by many others for advice. Hence, their market impact is a little bit higher than their purchases alone.

EDIT Big Wayne is right and got there first.
Click to expand...

I agree I have to advise lots of people on a daily basis.

So its for me to decided which one is going to perform and save money!
 
Its not the fact of overclocking that sells its the perceptual. 99.9 percent of people dont overclock. But a proportion of those watch and notice the .1percent that do overclock. Those overclockers seem like experts and seem to know what they are doing and talking about. People turn to them for advice and if they are saying and indicating that such and such product is good because it oveclocks, and "I can get sixteen gigawerts out of this", then many more heads will be turned towards that product.
 
Big.Wayne said:
I kinda know why you would think that about AMD® mmj_uk . . . up until Nov 2009 I shared the same outdated viewpoint . . . however since picking up some modern AMD® last year I was pleasantly suprised by the performance . . . and very happy about the price! :cool:
Click to expand...

There's nothing outdated about my viewpoint at all.

I am talking from experience of having owned an i7 930@4ghz recently and currently running a 1055T 95W @4.2ghz (pending Sandy Bridge).

AMD haven't tried to take Intels crown since the Athlon XP days where they got the jump on Intel with 64bit, more recently they have just been offering cheaper/slower alternatives which is very much a lack of ambition.
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
There's nothing outdated about my viewpoint at all.

I am talking from experience of having owned an i7 930@4ghz recently and currently running a 1055T 95W @4.2ghz (pending Sandy Bridge).

AMD haven't tried to take Intels crown since the Athlon XP days they have just been offering cheaper/slower alternatives, which is very much a lack of ambition.
Click to expand...

is your only definition of ambition to win in performance tests?
 
mmj_uk said:
I am talking from experience of having owned an i7 930@4ghz recently and currently running a 1055T 95W @4.2ghz (pending Sandy Bridge)
Click to expand...
Nice clocks! . . . how would you feel if the Intel® Core™i7 was locked at 2.8GHz?

mmj_uk said:
AMD haven't tried to take Intels crown since the Athlon XP days where they got the jump on Intel with 64bit, more recently they have just been offering cheaper/slower alternatives which is very much a lack of ambition.
Click to expand...
Hmm they also got the jump on Intel® with IMC's . . .

I'm interested though . . . which tasks did you test that were faster on the Intel® QuadCore+HT system? . . . did you notice that any tasks were faster on the AMD® HexCore system?

This "Crown" you speak of is not something I subscribe too myself . . . I'm more interested in getting the best performance for the least money possible . . . and so too are you I take it? . . . otherwise you would be running one of these?

Intel® Core™ i7 970 (3.2GHz)

£704.99 inc

mmj_uk said:
Yes, would a runner have ambitions to finish 8th?
Click to expand...
Not if they were ambitious . . . he/she would intend to come first . . . but would no doubt lose a few races working towards the #1 slot . . . wouldn't make them any less ambitious though would it! :D

As far as I'm aware there is nothing Intel® can do that AMD® cannot . . . it just needs a few million/billion $$$ ploughed into R&D and you got the product . . . it also needs a few million/billion $$$ ploughed into marketing & advertising to repeat the message, to repeat the message, to repeat the message until you have people saying "Intel® are the best" just because they saw the advert and a bunch of dudes in the forums said so . . . .

The big deal here is dollar $$$$ . . . . and the reason that Intel® got the dollar $$$ to plough into R&D and marketing & advertising is they through unscrupulous means maneuvered the situation to maximise the dollar $$$ flowing into their coffers while at the same time minimising the dollar $$$ flowing into AMD® coffers . . . really not a fair or level playing field at all . . .

Take two runners, give one of them steroids, good food, an expensive coach and pay people a to spread the hype about how amazing he/she is . . . . and give the second runner nothing, pay people to *not* help him and pay more people to make his/her life hell, spread rumours, keep them awake at night and put itching powder in their shoes and pants on the race day! :p

There is ambitious and then there is tooo ambitious to the point your actually cheating/breaking the law . . .

So I conclude . . . . AMD® are plenty ambitious, they just need a bit more dollar $$$ spent on R&D and a level playing field! :cool:

mmj_uk said:
Processors are all about [price &] performance [and overclocking ability for the enthusiast].
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
Yes, would a runner have ambitions to finish 8th?

Processors are all about performance.
Click to expand...

so an aim to enter new sectors of the market with ultra-low power all in one cpu/gpu isnt ambition?

that's incredibly narrow-minded.

Processors (plural) are not and never have been all about performance.
 
Well it seems the SB isn't even out yet and it's selling. Wonder if Intel are scared they'll go out of business yet?
I guess the interesting thing will be whether people will stop buying the SB when AMD launch the Bulldozer. If only AMD had released the Bulldozer at the same time or before they'd presumably have stopped all the SBs selling.
 
How would they "presumably have stopped all the SB's selling"... God some tripe really does get posted on here sometimes. :p
 
Richdog said:
How would they "presumably have stopped all the SB's selling"... God some tripe really does get posted on here sometimes. :p
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should've put [sarcasm] tags around that last bit.

gropingmantis said:
Well if AMD go to CES with a Zambezi chip that blows everything out of the water then I doubt people will buy SB when it goes live on the 9th.
Click to expand...

Although this is probably also true, not sure how likely it is that it'll be that good. But it's not impossible and it is about time AMD produced a really good CPU (not that their current ones are bad, but they're more bang-for-buck than all-out-performance).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom