18 Months Ago...

[epsilon84]

Wow, a year and a half sure is a long time in this industry! EDIT - it's actually 17 months ago, my bad.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/23886/118/

"TG Daily interviews AMD: "Intel's new architecture is too late""

AMD's Randy Allen explains in this conversation with TG Daily why he believes that Intel will need much more than a new processor to be able to slow AMD's growth.

It looks like AMD got too arrogant for it's own good.

It's disturbing to see that Intel could be going down the same road...
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32493/118/

Paul Otellini describes AMD's success as a 'comet passing in the night', while claiming Intel has a '18 to 24 month lead' over AMD.

Here's hoping Intel doesn't get complacent and slow down innovation - though I'm sure a few AMD fans wouldn't mind Intel stepping off the gas a little at the moment, if you know what I mean...

Which brings up an interesting question I have for you guys - would you hope for an Intel technological stumble (ala Netburst) to let AMD back into the game, for a potentially healthier marketplace and competition in the longer term?

OR...

Do you wish Intel to keep going all guns blazing, not letting up on the 2 year 'tick tock' Uarch development cycle whilst putting intense pricing pressure on AMD, which *could* end up spelling the end of AMD as we know it?

Of course the best option is if AMD fights back on its own terms, but it's backed up into a financial corner and the odds look stacked against them at this stage.

Somethings gotta give either way...

 

[intelamduser]

I would like to see us users be able to make use of what is bening built right now.

Having 64 bit has done little or nothing, using anymore than one processor for almost all applications is useless, what is 4 or 8 processors going to do for the average consumer? Software is years behind the curve.

AMD came up with a good product and caught Intel with their pants down around their ankles. Then they decided to rub some salt in the wound just becuase they could.

Intel has more money to spend on R and D than AMD/ATI is worth so AMD would have been better off letting the sleeping giant alone and stick with a one or two markets they could supply. They were doing just fine until they decided they had the ability to kick Intel in the balls by attempting to infriltrate every market they could. They made a pretty good run at it but a couple of mild kicks in the gonads brought Intel out with what appears to be an unrelentless attack that AMD not only never saw coming but could never have even anticipated.

 

[clairvoyant129]

Do you wish Intel to keep going all guns blazing, not letting up on the 2 year 'tick tock' Uarch development cycle whilst putting intense pricing pressure on AMD, which *could* end up spelling the end of AMD as we know it?

Intel's tick tock approach and their pricing pressures is great for consumers because it will mean fast and cheap CPUs for all of us.

 

[epsilon84]

Do you wish Intel to keep going all guns blazing, not letting up on the 2 year 'tick tock' Uarch development cycle whilst putting intense pricing pressure on AMD, which *could* end up spelling the end of AMD as we know it?

Intel's tick tock approach and their pricing pressures is great for consumers because it will mean fast and cheap CPUs for all of us.

The point is that if Intel does 'too' well in the short term, it may have longer term repercussions if they drive AMD out of business or force them to downsize. Would Intel continue to innovate at such a rapid rate with AMD out of the picture?

It appears to me Intel is really trying to put the squeeze on AMD, throwing everything cept the kitchen sink in order to not let AMD reach 30% marketshare. If AMD is rendered uncompetitive due to this 'blitzkrieg' of Intel's, it could be a case of short term gain for long term pain for us consumers?

 

[clairvoyant129]

Do you wish Intel to keep going all guns blazing, not letting up on the 2 year 'tick tock' Uarch development cycle whilst putting intense pricing pressure on AMD, which *could* end up spelling the end of AMD as we know it?

Intel's tick tock approach and their pricing pressures is great for consumers because it will mean fast and cheap CPUs for all of us.

The point is that if Intel does 'too' well in the short term, it may have longer term repercussions if they drive AMD out of business or force them to downsize. Would Intel continue to innovate at such a rapid rate with AMD out of the picture?

It appears to me Intel is really trying to put the squeeze on AMD, throwing everything cept the kitchen sink in order to not let AMD reach 30% marketshare. If AMD is rendered uncompetitive due to this 'blitzkrieg' of Intel's, it could be a case of short term gain for long term pain for us consumers?

Like the poster above explained, AMD should have stuck with markets they could supply and leave Intel alone. In an extreme case they might outsource and become FABless but I don't think AMD will go out of business.

It's going to go back to the way it was before, AMD will supply <10% of the marketshare with low end cheap CPUs.

 

[rtfm]

I agree, having amd and intel in a real battle to overtake each other is good for everyone, consumers get cheaper, faster cpus & Intel and AMD are always under maximum pressure to develop new technology asap.

I think if we only every had intel making cpus, we'd still be stuck with pIII, after all whats the point of spending masses on r&d if there is no competitor. :lol:

 

[Lyngvi]

Which brings up an interesting question I have for you guys - would you hope for an Intel technological stumble (ala Netburst) to let AMD back into the game, for a potentially healthier marketplace and competition in the longer term?

OR...

Do you wish Intel to keep going all guns blazing, not letting up on the 2 year 'tick tock' Uarch development cycle whilst putting intense pricing pressure on AMD, which *could* end up spelling the end of AMD as we know it?

I think I'll go with the blazing guns here, even if it means AMD possibly going down. If that happens I'm sure Intel will still keep innovating and making faster and better CPU's, albeit at a slower rate. Personally I could do with have my new PC not being outdated 3 months after I buy it. I couldn't care less that the Hyperthreading OctoCore CPU won't become mainstream any time soon. Once it does, my Future Quad Core (at 266$) will become obsolete and I'll be forced to upgrade yet again.

Makes you wonder why I'm reading an enthousiast board I suppose :twisted:

Lyngvi.