• 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.

Big AMD losses

amd are strong in the server market mistake me if i'm wrong.

i just hope they got there pens to the paper designing a all new cpu
 
Problem with the AMD cpu at to moment isnt the cpu, its the poor chipsets, AMD chipsets are rubbish, they are just patched from the A64 days and dont work with current AMD chips properly. AMD need a decent chipset out.
 
I dont believe intel have ever had issues with the Monopolies commisions, because wait for it... They arnt the only CPU manufacturer. Motorola used to be extremely strong in the CPU market, although they did finish production of the superb 68000 series when powerpc came along.

The Sparc family of processors is still going strong.

AMD dont make Intel compatible processors because of the monopolies commisions, they make intel processors because IBM in their wisdom, didnt want to put all its eggs into one basket when they build the first IBM PC's, and basically insisted that Intel would supply blueprints for its 8088 and 8086 processors to AMD, incase intel crashed. At the end of the day though, IBM used 100% intel processors in its PC product line at the time. This trend continued until the i80386, after several years of legal battles won first by intel, then AMD, and finally intel again. During which time AMD developed a processor compatible with Intel's instructionset, but that didnt use intel designs or microcode.

Now intel and AMD have cross license, which pretty much means any design which is critical to the interoperability of the processors can be used, Hence intel were able to release EM64T, and AMD are able to add SSE1/2/3/4 into their processors.

If X86 processors were to disappear, it wouldnt be the end of the world, sure there is some good technology there, but there are plenty of other processor designs that would offer top performing personal computers. It is true that backwards compatibility with a lot of software would be lost. But these days a lot of software is written in high level languages, and could in theory be compiled up for another platform fairly easily. Just not by the end users.
 
Phatzy said:
amd are strong in the server market mistake me if i'm wrong.
Click to expand...

AMD were gaining a foothold in the server market, however the Core 2 based Xeons have make quite a comeback there as well.

Thing is processor design is both very difficult, and very expensive. Intel attempted to make a revolutionary design in the late 90's called Pentium IV. It was expensive to build, slow, and its only really redeeming feature was given enough power, it could clock to the highest frequencys of any comparible processor.

AMD just plod from one design to the next, with each step being a small evolutionary change.

Luckily for intel they had an escape route. As the P4 was always power hungry, the development team for laptop processors had been making evolutionary improvements to the P3 architecture, and their laptop processors were suddenly outperforming P4's. One evolutionary step later, and Core Duo emerged.

AMD cashed in on intel's troubles, (and luckily for intel their huge wallets, and their brand reputation carried them for the whole P4 duration). I realise as some points in P4's history its shere clock speed did allow it to surpass P3 and Athlon XP performance, but P4 was never a good chip, and AMD64 showed that clearly.
 
TiZoR said:
Problem with the AMD cpu at to moment isnt the cpu, its the poor chipsets, AMD chipsets are rubbish, they are just patched from the A64 days and dont work with current AMD chips properly. AMD need a decent chipset out.
Click to expand...
which chipset do u mean, NB or SB?

the NB 7x0 chipset is great, it as some good features.. the SB600 chipset, i've never had a problem with...
 
Would be very nice if AMD could pull it back, it does seem extremely unlikely without some sort of merger or takeover from someone else to inject some money into them, at this rate they are in abit of a spiral where they're losing money because they don't have as much performance & so demand isn't as high & yet they don't have the money to push their performance... shame really
 
drunkenmaster said:
debt does not equal being in trouble, or failure,
Click to expand...

you obviously have never seen my bank account.:p

TiZoR said:
Problem with the AMD cpu at to moment isnt the cpu, its the poor chipsets, AMD chipsets are rubbish, they are just patched from the A64 days and dont work with current AMD chips properly. AMD need a decent chipset out.
Click to expand...


a little confusing given the 6XX and 7XX chipsets over the last 18 months have been fantastic.
 
Last edited:
Corasik said:
I dont believe intel have ever had issues with the Monopolies commisions, because wait for it... They arnt the only CPU manufacturer.
Click to expand...

which is all well and good if your stood there with a dictionary and intend on taking a literal meaning of the word monopoly, in business monopoly is not based on there being a single supplier of a function, product or design. If business was allowed to use the literal meaning of the word as a defense, then Microsoft would never be classed as a monopoly due to linux.

In business, the word monopoly is used to discribe any single company in a given industry/market that exerts an unfair advantage by political and economic means. Intel did this for years by subsidizing the worlds largest pc manufacturers on condition that there inventory sales reflect this gesture and show at least 90% intel CPU equipped PC`s being sold.

using this approach Intel killed Cyrix, IDT, and have seriously hurt AMD. in 2006 intel was caught and are indeed in trouble as they are currently in court with both the European and Japanese monopoly's commissions over these practices and are in court in California but thats more of a private case brought by AMD regarding the same practices.


At the end of the day its simple. Intel, good chips, dirty company, who wont bat an eye lid at being fined a few million for bad practice here and there.
 
Last edited:
Amd are now miles behind:/ they used to be contenders with a lot of marketing and hype RE the A64 line of processors. They have totally lost that level of momentum, and with really, really cheap Pentium Dual Core systems available at similar prices to the X2 line - Intel are taking back the glorified budget market.

Enthusiasts who used to enjoy the price/performance benefit of AMD have now switched back to Intel as they offer similar, if not better value/performance. These consumers are more than willing to switch to Core2 or Quad because they see real performance benefits and high levels of overclockability...

AMD forced Intel to do this, proving the worth while of the company itself to the consumer market. But unfortunately the momentum they have lost is going to be really difficult to regain without some serious PR work and a new line of cpu's to back them up.
 
gareth170 said:
:confused:

amd are not miles behind.. they 9850 isn't far behind the q6600
Click to expand...

But that's AMD's top quad core against Intel's lowest. On a price/performance level, they're not doing too bad. However, AMD can't stand to try and beat Intel too hard at the price/performance game, they'd just invoke another price drop from Intel making the whole thing much harder for them. Until they can get those chips running at decent speeds, Intel has them by the short and curlies...
 
well i did a look around before i posted it, the Q6600 can be had for £130-£140 the 9850 for £140-150.. so id say more expensive, plus the Q6600 has already been out in the market for what, 12 months? so AMD's best effort comes close to giving a 12 month old product a run for its money?
 
Nickg said:
well i did a look around before i posted it, the Q6600 can be had for £130-£140 the 9850 for £140-150.. so id say more expensive, plus the Q6600 has already been out in the market for what, 12 months? so AMD's best effort comes close to giving a 12 month old product a run for its money?
Click to expand...

at a few places ive seen a phemon 9850 for around £150 and q6600 around £170 ...

anyway we all know new products starts off at a high price then after a month or so, the prices drop.. just same as the q6600 did....
 
Last edited:
Nickg said:
well i did a look around before i posted it, the Q6600 can be had for £130-£140 the 9850 for £140-150.. so id say more expensive, plus the Q6600 has already been out in the market for what, 12 months? so AMD's best effort comes close to giving a 12 month old product a run for its money?
Click to expand...

Thats called moving the goal posts.
The fact about price did not stick so ..er..erm. well its been out 12 months already.
 
Thats called moving the goal posts.
The fact about price did not stick so ..er..erm. well its been out 12 months already.
Click to expand...

No, look around, there is definitely a £10+ price delta in favour of the Q6600 everywhere, AND besides that, it has been the price/performance leader for many months. its an additional supporting argument, not a counter argument. I honestly cannot find any good etailors that are selling the 9850 for less than the q6600 go slacr...
 
Nickg said:
No, look around, there is definitely a £10+ price delta in favour of the Q6600 everywhere, AND besides that, it has been the price/performance leader for many months. its an additional supporting argument, not a counter argument. I honestly cannot find any good etailors that are selling the 9850 for less than the q6600 go slacr...
Click to expand...
i have but i can't post the link here...

anyway as i said above nearly all new releases of products start off at the higher price then drop few months after...

i bet the q6600 price was higher than today price..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom