AMD getting a spanking, how to support the underdog

[easyrider]

It aint about how they feel but about how you feel aint it, lots of people sign up to stuff because they are into it, music (why like one band over another if all they want if your money), politics etc etc etc.

The general consensus here seems to be buy the best as you see it to be.

Thats totally different.

Music is bought because of emotional response.

Hardware is bought for performance.

No one likes a GFX card beacause it is ATI even if its slower than a NV offering.

If you do you are sad and misinformed.

 

[gurusan]

emotions should never be involved with hardware lol

 

[inactionman]

Exactly, you're buying a product, get the one that fits your needs best, and don't get emotional about it! No company has any loyalty to you (not even if you work for them), so don't show them any. The only time I don't do this is if I'm buying from a friend, as I'd rather give them my money than a stranger!

I always tend to buy the most cost-effective products, no matter who makes them (unless I have a major ethical issue with the manufacturer, which is rare).

Besides, the underdog has to innovate to survive, and the market leader eventually gets complacent and uncompetitive, so the underdog gains. This happened to AMD with the Athlon, and recently to Intel with the C2D.

 

[bfar]

Reckon the thread starter works for ATI??

 

[councilofdespai]

Look that is all fair enough but enough times on this forum in the past I have seen flame wars and fanboy accusations and the like. maybe it has gone away now.

 

[benjo plz.]

So er what, when intel are down you buy intel 'cause they're the underdog?

 

[councilofdespai]

No because AMD are small by comparison to Intel regardless of how many items AMD sell. This is why AMD will always take longer to get a new CPU out of the door. Intel were up until recently a monopoly in the CPU space, AMD found them wanting for a while and Intel took some time to respond but AMD were never going to beat Intel but Intel can beat AMD quite easily so long as they have the better product which they currently do. AMDs future could be bleak in the CPU market.

 

[benjo plz.]

If AMD are losing out, it's their fault. How do they think they can sell processors for £400 when £200 ones from Intel are more powerful?

 

[FreeStream]

No because AMD are small by comparison to Intel regardless of how many items AMD sell. This is why AMD will always take longer to get a new CPU out of the door. Intel were up until recently a monopoly in the CPU space, AMD found them wanting for a while and Intel took some time to respond but AMD were never going to beat Intel but Intel can beat AMD quite easily so long as they have the better product which they currently do. AMDs future could be bleak in the CPU market.

Oh please. Intel or AMD are not going anywhere.

Supporting one company just because its the underdog is stupid, they dont care about you.

Buy the best for you money which is C2D, and will be for the next 6 months. 4x4 is a load of **** tbh.

I used to have AMD, So im no fanboy.

CR

 

[Gashman]

for god sake, stop making these stupid bloody threads, AMD aren't dead, conroe isn't a million % faster than K8, conroe WON'T be king forever, jesus just go and make some informative threads rather than proliferating this crap repeatedly, no wonder intel do so well when they have so many people CONSTANTLY going on about this rubbish

 

[councilofdespai]

The thread was about loyalty, ppl have had their say. Dont post if it aint of interest to you.

 

[FrankJH]

If AMD are losing out, it's their fault. How do they think they can sell processors for £400 when £200 ones from Intel are more powerful?

At those prices you are talking about 5-10% of the market if that - as stated elsewhere, the majority are still buying single core or if they are really "with it" the X2 , and you can buy pretty decent whole pc's for around £500 including a tft.

the high street market place is 6 months to a year behind boards like this becuase at the end of the day conroe's even if they are better are still more expensive esp with exp DDR2 ram and mobo's

 

[Well Splattered]

dont give a stuff. ill buy the best my money can get me at the time.

same as

 

[benjo plz.]

the majority are still buying single core or if they are really "with it" the X2

So why would the majority be being x2 and not CD?, also the majority only upgrade their PC's every couple of years, I'd say the people who buy C2D etc are going to be larger than 5-10% of the market because they buy up to date stuff more frequently.

That said, even the highstreet shops seem to be pushing Intel more than AMD.

 

[snarloas1982]

Do you think that AMD care about you?
Do you think that INTEL care about you?
Do you think that ATIcare about you?
Do you think that NV care about you?

They couldn't care less.

All they care about is money so don't be so naive.

You are not helping anyone buying the inferior tech.All you are doing is ripping yourself off.

I jump ship when the price performance options dictate.I couldn't give a stuff who makes what.I buy AMD INTEL ATI OR NV.

I buy what is fastest at the time.

If AMD release a chip faster than conroe I will jump ship again.

Brand loyalty is for losers.

well said!

 

[janesssssy]

I cant even believe some people on these forums are saying "im going to support the underdog" its brinking on stupidity!

as said before, get the best you can and what your buget will allow.

 

[bfar]

So why would the majority be being x2 and not CD?, also the majority only upgrade their PC's every couple of years, I'd say the people who buy C2D etc are going to be larger than 5-10% of the market because they buy up to date stuff more frequently.

That said, even the highstreet shops seem to be pushing Intel more than AMD.

Well to be fair, a lot of people who we're upgrading went for 939 X2's so they could hold onto their DDR memory and even their old mobos. Without memory to buy it was a very reasonable upgrade (1/2 the price of a whole new C2D setup), even though the AMD cpus are a wee bit more expensive.

Brand new systems are different.

 

[Bizarre]

At first glance I thought this thread were titled:

"AMD getting a spanking, how stupid to support the underdog?"

LOL I guess my subconscious mind must have read it first. . .

 

[councilofdespai]

It is a matter of competition, two competing is better than one monopolising as it had been for 20 years, now AMD give us something to compare and contrast Intel to and for a while AMD showed Intel how to do it and made Intel rethink CPU strategy. 64 bit extensions to 32 bit for one was AMDs route, Intel at first chose the true 64 bit route and changed their minds after AMD released Hybrid 64 bit chips. IPCC efficiency on less Ghz was another one of Intels blunders, after chasing the marketing machine for years, IPCC was in actual fact the way to go and AMD got their first. And power consumption, AMD were energy saving before Intel were.

Now we await AMD true quad core route (longer to market but better we hope) than Intels hybrid quad core. Sure AMD are smaller and hence often slower in their designs. smaller in yields and later to shrink their dies but they have been competetive and hence worthy of continued investment.

 

[sajtion]

i supported amd back in the day of athlon xp because they were cheap, stable, overclockable, and a bargain but now i can't find any reason why to go for amd over intel. c2d will rule the mainstream market for next 5 years and that means many applications and games optimized for it. there is no value in amd at the moment when prices are too expensive. i think amd is good for server market now and intel for desktop.