Thoughts/opinions on INTEL kicking AMD ass

[Blackraven]

The battle between two California computer-hardware companies: one in Sunnyvale and one in Santa Clara.

Since the start of last year, it has been known that Intel has been fighting back real hard. The launch of Conroe, the Apple/Intel agreement, the launch of Core 2, plans for upcoming WIMAX launch, announcement of quad-core for desktop use, improvements to the Xeon server line, etc.

with Intel's moves, AMD to a big hit. I mean, look at their state right now. Core 2 beating the hell out of Athlon in benchmarks (64, FX, FX-2, whatever), Turion getting only a small marketshare of the laptop/mobile market (which is Intel-dominated atm), their 4x4 (which I call fake "quadcore") is crap-like shit-attempt which loses badly over Kentsfield, them taking a long time to get to 65nm when Intel is already going to 45nm processes starting this year and even AMD suffering from losses from Q3 06 up to Q1 07.

So yeah....AMD is purely on the losing end. I mean aside from the upcoming "Fusion" platform, has there been any benefit coming from the AMD/ATI merger?

Before, it was the P3/P4 that was taking a beating from Athlon.But.....right now, the numbers indicate that Intel beats AMD in sales and hardware performance. Core 2 beats Athlon 64 even on benchmarks as well as sales.

Heck, even to the ignorant or to lay-people (who are tech-geeks or tech-saavy or with no tech knowledge whatsoever), a simple search of Google or any search engine shows the ff: Intel (202 million results) vs. AMD (110 million results).

Things don't look good for AMD and even with merger with ATI, has it brought anything good for the company?

With Intel enjoying their solid lead, it looks like AMD has went back to the down-end of the computer hardware market. The only area where AMD has some lead is in the server market where Opteron chips are highly-favored but even with this news, Intel is not going to let AMD maintain its lead in that segment.

If AMD doesn't hold on tight, then Intel is going to dominate that market as well and once there, they would regain their lead in the overall computer market (over AMD).

EDIT:
Oh shit.....I just read the rules sticky. Intel vs. AMD threads are not allowed here.

Sorry

Mods/admins, please delete this thread. Thank you.

[dieKatze88]

Originally Posted by Blackraven

The battle between two California computer-hardware companies: one in Sunnyvale and one in Santa Clara.

Since the start of last year, it has been known that Intel has been fighting back real hard. The launch of Conroe, the Apple/Intel agreement, the launch of Core 2, plans for upcoming WIMAX launch, announcement of quad-core for desktop use, improvements to the Xeon server line, etc.

with Intel's moves, AMD to a big hit. I mean, look at their state right now. Core 2 beating the hell out of Athlon in benchmarks (64, FX, FX-2, whatever), Turion getting only a small marketshare of the laptop/mobile market (which is Intel-dominated atm), their 4x4 (which I call fake "quadcore") is crap-like shit-attempt which loses badly over Kentsfield, them taking a long time to get to 65nm when Intel is already going to 45nm processes starting this year and even AMD suffering from losses from Q3 06 up to Q1 07.

So yeah....AMD is purely on the losing end. I mean aside from the upcoming "Fusion" platform, has there been any benefit coming from the AMD/ATI merger?

Before, it was the P3/P4 that was taking a beating from Athlon.But.....right now, the numbers indicate that Intel beats AMD in sales and hardware performance. Core 2 beats Athlon 64 even on benchmarks as well as sales.

Heck, even to the ignorant or to lay-people (who are tech-geeks or tech-saavy or with no tech knowledge whatsoever), a simple search of Google or any search engine shows the ff: Intel (202 million results) vs. AMD (110 million results).

Things don't look good for AMD and even with merger with ATI, has it brought anything good for the company?

With Intel enjoying their solid lead, it looks like AMD has went back to the down-end of the computer hardware market. The only area where AMD has some lead is in the server market where Opteron chips are highly-favored but even with this news, Intel is not going to let AMD maintain its lead in that segment.

If AMD doesn't hold on tight, then Intel is going to dominate that market as well and once there, they would regain their lead in the overall computer market (over AMD).

EDIT:
Oh shit.....I just read the rules sticky. Intel vs. AMD threads are not allowed here.

Sorry

Mods/admins, please delete this thread. Thank you.

AMD made a few bigass mistakes recently though.

1. They stopped caring about power efficiency.
Intel made their desktop chips drop from 45 a year to run to something like 22. Thats ridiculous. AMD said "Fuck power efficiency. We know what you want.

Obviously theyre wrong.

2. They alienated NVIDIA.
AMD's only hope was NVIDIAs great northbridges for their chips. when they aquired ATI, I noticed VERY quickly that Nvidia started making Intel northbridges. Go figure.

3. They went 64 bit too soon.
Nobody in this universe needs a 64 bit desktop computer. what they need is 64 bit memory addressing on a 32 bit chip. Step in Intel EMT. 32 bit isnt broken. Only our programming habits are.

Also, the P3 held up pretty well against AMD. Especially in the mobile market.
It was the P4 that didnt.


Now Im an eletist prick that runs Intel because Ive seen 2 AMD chips flame, and 1 never EVER get below 70C idle even when under clocked to half its speed and applied a new large heatsink.

Fuck that.

Ill stick with my Intel chips thanks.

[kimcicle]

AMD is still a great standby for budget conscious gamers. Before the Core 2 Duo, the P4s were horribly inefficient and expensive to comparable AMD chips. There was a time (2003 / 2004) where I would only recommend AMD builds to friends because of their cost efficiency. For their price, the AthlonXP and Athlon 64 / X2 chipsets would utterly dominate Intel chips in terms of price, performance, and power usage before the new wave of Intel chips came out.

Intel has a huge winner with the Core 2 Duo. It's faster that anything AMD has out now, but also draw less power (sup 65nm process), runs cooler, and overclocks better.

AMD's jump to 64 bit processors was more of a "here's to the future" step. I'm sure if there were more games and drivers made especially for 64 bit users, then it would be a lot more popular.

Intel was on the losing end of the enthusiasts market, but it has a huge stronghold and brand recognition in every other market. I'm sure that they weren't too worried about it since they are still cranking out x and y chips for the baseline Dells and HPs of the world.

[Evi]

Intel just did the smart thing and made their new stuff an assload cheaper than their AMD counterparts, while still beating them out in most benchmarks, and AMD doesn't really seem to be fighting back. Perhaps they are waiting to release something ownage like a high-end quad core that will undercut Intel's prices enough to draw customers over. Until then, I'm sticking with my C2D, and that's what I put in every PC I build.

[Paul]

He asked for a lock, and here it is.

Locked.