• 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.

Hubris from Intel?

ooStevo said:
I thought AMD already had x86? Or do you mean from yonks ago?
Click to expand...

Yes, Intel licenced X86 to AMD from a deal with IBM who wanted Intel to source a second partner. IBM was worried about supply and the only other big manufacture apart from Intel at that time was AMD.
AMD was licenced to make Intel X86 chips, X86 is an Intel invention, however Intel never kept their side of the bargain, other than licencing X86 to AMD they never actually put any orders in for AMD to manufacture Intel X86 CPU's.
So AMD started designing their own X86 CPU's, they were better than Intel's, by the late 1990's early 2000's AMD had overtaken Intel in market share, not just because the CPU's were more efferent and faster but also because of 64Bit, something we now can't live without, AMD64.
That's when Intel started playing their silly games, i mean it worked, By 2008 AMD was almost bankrupt, Zen was do or die for AMD, now they are back to making frankly the best CPU's again.
 
Last edited:
Intel got AMD64 because the X86 licence was up for renewal, Itainium failed, Intel just couldn't get their version of 64Bit to work properly and no one wanted it, so they agreed to renew AMD's X86 licence in return for AMD64, without it Intel was heading the same way as Cyrix.
 
Last edited:
Ahh the heady days of thunderbird cpu's, and having to be careful strapping down the thermoengine (core cracker) cooler in case you chipped the core and borked the cpu! 1.33ghz single core seemed like a speed demon back then.

G0JNKSr.jpg


:p :D
 
Last edited:
Hopefully it doesn't become like the GPU space. I certainly don't want to be paying the massive Nvidia, (and classic AMD few % less) premium on my CPUs...
People always like to talk doom and gloom, but Intel will be just fine. And we should want them to be. As many major players as possible is what we all need to keep the development race going, and prices in a place for mere mortals.
 
Last edited:
Emlyn_Dewar said:
Hopefully it doesn't become like the GPU space. I certainly don't want to be paying the massive Nvidia, (and classic AMD few % less) premium on my CPUs...
People always like to talk doom and gloom, but Intel will be just fine. And we should want them to be. As many major players as possible is what we all need to keep the development race going, and prices in a place for mere mortals.
Click to expand...

We just have to wait until the lake runs dry.

Now we wait…
 
Emlyn_Dewar said:
Hopefully it doesn't become like the GPU space. I certainly don't want to be paying the massive Nvidia, (and classic AMD few % less) premium on my CPUs...
People always like to talk doom and gloom, but Intel will be just fine. And we should want them to be. As many major players as possible is what we all need to keep the development race going, and prices in a place for mere mortals.
Click to expand...
The RX 7700XT is 90% the performance of the RTX 4070, its £440 vs £570, infact OC vs OC the RX 7700XT is at least as fast as the 4070 because the former just has that much more headroom in it. They are equal cards in terms of specification and performance, the former is £130 or 24% cheaper.
Tech jurnoes like to compare the 4070 to the 7800XT even tho its slower and with 4GB less VRam, because its closer in price and they always want AMD to force cheaper Nvidia cards so people can buy cheaper Nvidia cards, but the fact is again the 7800XT is more a 16GB 4070Ti.

That's my honest opinion, many will disagree and that's fine, but i do wish these tech jurneos would stop pretending AMD aren't trying and succeeding just because Nvidia are being £%%$&*&$%@@&^* and they know the only way to stop that is to pile pressure on AMD until they become unprofitable, because the truth is AMD don't need to be making dGPU's, at all, with the slimer margins and very low marketshare its already not profitable for them, not when you take in to account the billions in R&D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom