• 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...............

Intel will not kill off AMD and we should all be thankful for that having competition is what drives performance increase and innovation.

As for spending extra for better performance, of course i would thats why i went with I7 when it first come (and bought 3 more :)) out it was such a jump from my Q9550.

But there comes a point when you get diminishing returns the top of the range Intel vs top of the range AMD is 5x more expensive but barely twice as fast.

For 90% of people a dual core/cheap quad will be fine for day to day use, its only people like us that like to push there hardware that see any benefit to going highend and as has been said earlier we are a small part of the market to both company's.

Saying that Sandybridge is looking great so far but i will not be buying it until Bulldozer is released, so i can see what i can get for my money.
 
Like I said in post 144 70% of Intel processors sold in Q4 2010 are not any more powerful than AMD processors since they are Core2 and Atom processors!! The Core i3 processors are not necessarily any faster and probably make up a large percentage of the additional 30% of Intel sales.

Even with Sandy Bridge a large percentage of the sales worldwide will be Core i3 and Pentium processors.

By Q3 2011, Intel still expect socket 775 to make up a 25% of their sales.

The highest end Phenom II processors are more powerful than the fastest Core2 processors.

So basically it seems the Phenom II level of performance is still fine for most consumers as most Intel processors sold are not faster.
 
Last edited:
d_brennen said:
So all AMD chips are 125w and all Intel chips are 95w??? Fascinating. Please provide source. And could you calculate how many pence per year I'd save going for a 95w CPU over a 125w??
Click to expand...

Sorry if you are unable to follow the thread but this was in response to a comparison of 2 chips, not every chip ever made. And in fact I was also wrong as I think the i5 650 is a 73W chip not 95W.
The source of this information is the OcUK product pages that were being linked to in the post that I was replying to was replying to (I think).

As for the saving you'd get, I don't know, I don't imagine it'd be much, as you've said, possibly even in the region of pence (guess it'd depend if your PC was on 24/7 doing folding or something). It wasn't a 100% serious comment. The whole thread had sort of drifted off topic into a "which do you prefer" type thread and I don't think people are ever really going to convince someone else that their preference is wrong.
 
It think it's going to be closer than people expect. For the first time in ages, both AMD and Intel will be producing on the same process (32nm). With similar TDP's, clock speeds and transistor counts it comes down to architecture, and Bulldozer likely has the edge here - Doubling the integer modules is probably going to be more effective than hyperthreading, so a quad module (8 core) chip should be better than a quad core Sandy bridge.
 
Chuggerboom said:
Just wondering what you guys think? It seems to me that Intel have showed their power with the new Sandy Bridge chips. And early next year they will be releasing Ivy Bridge.

Taking into account AMD couldn't compete with the core 2 Duo and quads, not forgetting i5 and i7, it doesn't look too good for them.

I know they are releasing Bulldozer some time this year, but will that beat the older i5 or i7? I can't see it competing with Sandy Bridge at all.

I personally think AMD have been killed off. Thoughts guys?
Click to expand...

everyones been saying AMD is dead for the last 10 years.

Whenever Intel brings out a new chip its the same thing. But from what i'm aware businesses still prefer AMD where as Intel remain at the forefront for gaming and mainstream and servers
 
AMD make very good graphics cards though. I guess with the competitiveness in the computer hardware market today you can't be a leader in all areas.
 
Ugh, Chuggerboom with worst posting style of the year so far... Success on the initial troll front, but failing miserably with the recent comebacks.

Shock horror that a forum of people clued up on PC hardware will be buying higher end stuff... Meanwhile, in the rest of the world... People are buying what is energy efficient, or cheap or looks good...
 
Chuggerboom said:
The poor mans choice basically.
Click to expand...

Chuggerboom, obviously you like to dangle on the proverbial nutsack of Intel as you've shown several times on this thread. I don't see AMD users as poor people at all and the intention of this thread showed up pretty quickly.

If you love Intel so much then please buy loads of "I love Sandy Bridge" t-shirts and wear them proudly advertising for Intel so people can slowly kill off AMD :p.

You're an Intel fundamentalist. Hilarious :D.

I don't hold high regard to Intel or AMD. As long as the money I spend does what I want then I'm a happy man. I will relate my experiences to other users or those questioning which people have done so in this thread.

Can we all group hug now?, embrace 2011 and the pressuring economy is looming. Let us not argue about Intel Vs AMD or Nvidia Vs AMD. Marshmallows anyone?.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a SR-2 bundle, quad sli gtx 580's, 4 250gb SSDs, 10 2 tb hdds all watercooled with a 6 30" moniter set up? I am going to guess no and the reason is one, or a mix, of:
1) Can't afford it as it would be stupidly expensive
2) You don't honestly need that much computing power

Also as been said to paying the extra for the performance of Intel is always "I would pay the extra" You might do but other people wont, the choice is made upton the specific circumstances while choosing what cpu to use (price, budget, power, current set up etc). Part of the choice may just be which brand people prefer.

Simply put they are two reasons why AMD CPU's will continue to sell. As for AMD surviving they are in other markets apart from CPU's which I am sure provide revunue for them.
 
I have a feeling this thread will reach 50 pages. Its no use continuing, as OP stated the purpose of this thread was to "have a fun debate", fueled by his/her troll-style intentions to keep the thread up and running.
 
AMD are going nowhere. As pointed out AMD generally has the best bang for buck.

You buy the best that you can afford. Calling someone poor because they buy a AMD CPU is bloody stupidity at the very highest.

Besides, paying 32% more for 13% more performance... those numbers don't add up to me... [As in why would someone pay 30% more for 10% more performance!]
 
sldsmkd said:
I'm more interested in seeing the ARM based NVIDIA chips TBH. It's increasingly looking like x86 is done, and that's not a bad thing. We could do with making a break from a 30 year old architecture.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Existing x86 processors are produced using relatively cheap production processes compared to processors like Tegra2 which need higher quality and more expensive production processes.

TBH,the vast majority of Windows PC will be still be running on x86 processors in the next 5 years. On top of this there are loads of existing x86 PCs worldwide which will run newer versions of Windows fine.

The only reason Microsoft is making a version of Windows to run on ARM devices is because these tend to be more common in the mobile computing market and Microsoft wants more sales.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom