Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is nobody at least rooting for AMD?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 4, 2007 2:13:57 AM

Sure, Core 2 is currently faster than Athlon X2, but if AMD goes under, who is to compete with Intel? What incentive will Intel have to keep pumping out faster chips at a lower price? I don't want to see Netburst happen again. :( 

So I'm hoping Phenom will blow Core 2's socks off. :) 

More about : rooting amd

September 4, 2007 2:21:55 AM

Your not going to find too many people (if any) who want to see AMD go down, if for no other reason than competative pricing.

On the other hand, all AMD has given us to date are a few poorly conceived graphs touting simulations of CPUs running at estimated clockspeeds and a whole truckload of hype. Very few people like it when someone tries to sell them on something by feeding them BS.

Niether simulations nor rhetoric run applications. AMD needs to produce the product, because since Jul 06, they've produced very little to get excited about.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 4, 2007 2:29:33 AM

kingoftherings said:
So I'm hoping Phenom will blow Core 2's socks off. :) 

After 10+ years of happy AMD powered 'pooting I feel the the same, the problem is that Penryn may well kick Phenom in the goolies so hard it drops to it's knees and is unable to get up.
Related resources
September 4, 2007 2:30:57 AM

I'm rooting for them, but rooting for AMD feels like I am rooting for University of Michigan football.
September 4, 2007 2:32:05 AM

Yes, I'm rooting for AMD but my last system was an Intel.
If I had to buy today, it would be an Intel system.

I may be rooting for AMD, but I'm going to buy what makes sense for me.
a b à CPUs
September 4, 2007 2:44:48 AM

Rooting for AMD right now is like rooting that the Cubs will win a World Series.

AMD is to Intel what Pepsi is to Coke. In the long run, I hope AMD comes back. Competition is a great thing.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 4, 2007 2:55:22 AM

enigma067 said:
AMD is selling more processors then Intel is.

NOV 2005
http://news.com.com/AMD+surpasses+Intel+in+U.S.+retail+...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ipfxIgD8DU

Intel is power hungry. Companies who have a lot of servers frown on a power hog.
Pigs costs more to operate.

Even if Penryn out-muscles Barcelona or Phenom, Penryn won't sell the most.
Intel is too expensive and too power hungry.

And those who buy Intel, pay more for it.

AMD is ahead of Intel.

:love:  I'm loving your optimism dude. [:mousemonkey:5]
September 4, 2007 3:03:42 AM

enigma067 said:
AMD is selling more processors then Intel is.

NOV 2005
http://news.com.com/AMD+surpasses+Intel+in+U.S.+retail+...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ipfxIgD8DU

Intel is power hungry. Companies who have a lot of servers frown on a power hog.
Pigs costs more to operate.

Even if Penryn out-muscles Barcelona or Phenom, Penryn won't sell the most.
Intel is too expensive and too power hungry.

And those who buy Intel, pay more for it.

AMD is ahead of Intel.



September 4, 2007 3:03:55 AM

:cry:  :cry:  :cry:  can't hold out much longer.....Must have benchies :bounce:  :bounce:  :bounce: 
September 4, 2007 3:04:47 AM

enigma067 said:
AMD is selling more processors then Intel is.

NOV 2005
http://news.com.com/AMD+surpasses+Intel+in+U.S.+retail+...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ipfxIgD8DU

Intel is power hungry. Companies who have a lot of servers frown on a power hog.
Pigs costs more to operate.

Even if Penryn out-muscles Barcelona or Phenom, Penryn won't sell the most.
Intel is too expensive and too power hungry.

And those who buy Intel, pay more for it.

AMD is ahead of Intel.


WRONG. You spew fanboy fud. #1 sign of a fanboy, fact twisting and source misquoting.

Your not quoting the source right. AMD is selling more processors, IN THE RETAIL MARKET. Make no mistake, Intel sells more processors.

Also, although AMD sold more units, Intel actually sold more in dollars. Which means that AMD gained ground through its yardsale of products such as the X2 3600.

Also, if you'd like to know how much AMD profited from all this progress here is a hint:

ZERO

AMD hasn't made a cent in a while. Gaining marketshare is good, but bankruptcy and 52-week low stock prices are not good.

Also, AMD's optimistic goal for 2008 is to have 1/3 of TOTAL CPU market share.

So, to put things into perspective and reality, the gain of RETAIL market share is good, however, AMD is still a minority player in the CPU duopoly and also is facing impending financial doom if they don't start making profits.
September 4, 2007 3:07:12 AM

I'm wondering if AMD could survive a shift in relationship from active competitor to clear cut second banana that produces CPUs at cut rates. There is a market for cheaper processors but would the public lose confidence and jump off the AMD bandwagon all together? Successfully taking such a demotion would still allow AMD to be in a position to regain their former glory if their R&D team makes the necessary breakthroughs.
September 4, 2007 3:07:39 AM

enigma067 said:
AMD is selling more processors then Intel is.

NOV 2005
http://news.com.com/AMD+surpasses+Intel+in+U.S.+retail+...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ipfxIgD8DU

Intel is power hungry. Companies who have a lot of servers frown on a power hog.
Pigs costs more to operate.

Even if Penryn out-muscles Barcelona or Phenom, Penryn won't sell the most.
Intel is too expensive and too power hungry.

And those who buy Intel, pay more for it.

AMD is ahead of Intel.


It is 2007 in case you didn't notice. And sometimes the power cost is negated by the increase in productivity, customer support, and/or availability.
September 4, 2007 3:43:07 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
WRONG. You spew fanboy fud. #1 sign of a fanboy, fact twisting and source misquoting.

Your not quoting the source right. AMD is selling more processors, IN THE RETAIL MARKET. Make no mistake, Intel sells more processors.

Also, although AMD sold more units, Intel actually sold more in dollars. Which means that AMD gained ground through its yardsale of products such as the X2 3600.

Also, if you'd like to know how much AMD profited from all this progress here is a hint:

ZERO

AMD hasn't made a cent in a while. Gaining marketshare is good, but bankruptcy and 52-week low stock prices are not good.

Also, AMD's optimistic goal for 2008 is to have 1/3 of TOTAL CPU market share.

So, to put things into perspective and reality, the gain of RETAIL market share is good, however, AMD is still a minority player in the CPU duopoly and also is facing impending financial doom if they don't start making profits.
Even I agree, in 2005 AMD was much better than Intel, but now is entirely different.
September 4, 2007 4:28:44 AM

Sparky6string said:
I'm wondering if AMD could survive a shift in relationship from active competitor to clear cut second banana that produces CPUs at cut rates. There is a market for cheaper processors but would the public lose confidence and jump off the AMD bandwagon all together? Successfully taking such a demotion would still allow AMD to be in a position to regain their former glory if their R&D team makes the necessary breakthroughs.


The spot is already taken by VIA. :lol: 



a b à CPUs
September 4, 2007 4:53:18 AM

July '06 has been WAAAAYYY tooooo long for anything new from AMD. I think the ATI merger has severely delayed things at AMD, which isn't good. Hopefully AMD will come out with a good design/chip for the industry, since I work in the industry. I see first hand, at my job, what the competition is doing, so I know more information. I have bought both Intel/AMD chips, but would like the competition to heat up ASAP!!
September 4, 2007 4:56:37 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
WRONG. You spew fanboy fud. #1 sign of a fanboy, fact twisting and source misquoting.

Your not quoting the source right. AMD is selling more processors, IN THE RETAIL MARKET. Make no mistake, Intel sells more processors.

Also, although AMD sold more units, Intel actually sold more in dollars. Which means that AMD gained ground through its yardsale of products such as the X2 3600.

Also, if you'd like to know how much AMD profited from all this progress here is a hint:

ZERO

AMD hasn't made a cent in a while. Gaining marketshare is good, but bankruptcy and 52-week low stock prices are not good.

Also, AMD's optimistic goal for 2008 is to have 1/3 of TOTAL CPU market share.

So, to put things into perspective and reality, the gain of RETAIL market share is good, however, AMD is still a minority player in the CPU duopoly and also is facing impending financial doom if they don't start making profits.



Well AMD must be doing much better than Intel because AMD sells way more graphics cards (non integrated) than Intel does..... :o  :ouch:  :o 

September 4, 2007 5:04:41 AM

AMD is still strong.Just because INTEL has a faster cpu,doesn't make it the best choice.Pound for pound,AMD still has the stuff to make it work.I've had both systems before,and I always found AMD to be cheaper than INTEL.AMD still games like a hot damn,and does everything I need it to with room to spare.Not to worry,AMD is going to be around for a long time yet.

Dahak

M2N32 SLI DELUXE MB
ATHLON64 X2-5600+
EVGA 7950GT KO
THERMALTAKE 850WATT PSU
2X1GIG DDR2 800 MEMORY
WD SATA2 80/250GIG HD
RAIDMAX SMILIDON GAMING CASE
ACER 22IN WIDE SCREEN LCD
XP MEDIA CENTER EDITION
September 4, 2007 8:33:07 AM

I've bought intel and nvidia products but hell I'd hate to see AMD/ATI go down!!

They make the cheaper stuff, that most of my relatives and friends buy. Tbh I see AMD as the lightside and Intel as the darkside, AMD mayl still win yet..

dark side is cooler though :) 
September 4, 2007 9:31:36 AM

VIVA AMD!

no one wants them to go down, just like no one want apple(i hate apple) or unix or sun microsystems or novell etc etc. to die cause then microsoft would be all we had left.
September 4, 2007 9:46:58 AM

Umm, did I get off the bus at the wrong year? Who in their right mind quotes a COMPUTER article dated from almost 2 years ago? All I can say is WOW. You know back in the 1970s there was this really small company called Microsoft! It's just a matter of time until IBM buys them out. IBM wants Bill Gates to write some DOS stuff for them, and they're thinking their best bet is to just flat out buy him. I'm rooting for IBM on this deal!

/sarcasm

You guys are so freakin' dumb! AMD isn't selling more processors, because they're more concerned with quality! If I buy an AMD processor it will surely last twice as long as an Intel chip! Never mind when it gets outdated. I want that chip to work for as long as I can imagine I'd own it! Now.. does anyone have a 8086 handy?

/sarcasm off
September 4, 2007 10:48:43 AM

Things do look very bad for AMD right now but I think they can bounce back in the game (they don't have to beat Intel, but coming at close second will shake Intel a bit). Remember the old days with 386 and 486 when they would copy Intel and even the awful K5 CPU they had? AMD has had it rough before and I'm optimistic they will gain market share (again,i'm not saying they will beat Intel but maybe that's not necessary).
Go AMD, GO!!!!!
a b à CPUs
September 4, 2007 11:52:58 AM

I just want to see Intel get what they deserve ... a massive kick in the pants.

I hope the ATrust suit sees them paying up bigtime ... the evidence is overwhelming ... despite their efforts to "lose" e-mails etc etc.

Knocking them down a notch and giving AMD a break to recover might see us all benefit in the end.

I think it would be good to see three platform solutions - this means NVIDIA making their own CPU.

The current situation means that if AMD goes belly up we won't see any innovation from Intel ... well maybe 50 Mhz spped bumps every 6 months lol.

I'm more annoyed by getting stuck with socket 939 a while back ... losing a simple upgrade path whether your on one platform or the other hurts bigtime when the mobo, cpu, and RAM all have to go at once.

Intel's latest socket (depending on chipset) has been a pleasant ride for many ... much like A . 462 / 478. Socket 939 and 423 have been sad.

I just hope my current AM2 mobos like the quad coming on the 10th ... or my love affair with AMD is going to be sour.



September 4, 2007 12:31:14 PM

I'm rooting for AMD, yeah!

If they don't make it Intel will sit on their fat asses and refuse to innovate and develop whilst charging an arm and leg for last years chip with two extra SSE instructions and 50Mhz increase, slap a new name on its butt like Ultracore.

But, its hard to root for AMD since they have had sooooo loooong to get their act together even before Intel released the cores. They had the whole netburst generation to bring innovation down to bear on Intel's mistake.

All they did was keep bragging, racking in the dough and adding "accessories" to their aging architecture. They got caught with their pants down stupid.

I like rooting for the underdog, not so much a stupid underdog.


a b à CPUs
September 4, 2007 1:05:12 PM

AMD makes sense from a money/performance standpoint. All systems I have been building lately have been AMD based systems. I am now using AMD myself.

I am supporting AMD as much as possible so if they go down its not by my doing... =P

Antec 900 Gaming Case
Antec 700 Watt PSU
Gigabyte GA M55SLI-S4 Rev.2 mobo
AMD 6000+ AM2 CPU
4G OCZ 6400 800Mhz SLI Memory
EVGA 8800GTX ACS3 768MB Video Card
250G & 200G SATA WD HD
2 Sony DRU 710A DVD Drives
1 Sony DRU 835A LS DVD Drive
Media Center 2005 OS
September 4, 2007 1:16:49 PM

If AMD do get a lot of money from the ATrust suit I think they should invest it in buying Nvidia at whatever cost.

It would eliminate one of their biggest competitors in the gpu market and possibly the future cpu market.

They would also be guaranteed income from the gpu market. As the only other real competitor would be Intel. That wouldn't be enough alone to keep them a float but it would help.

Nvidia also has a lot more partners than ATI ever did. So it would be much easier to get their product into the OEM markets. And maybe they will do a better job hitting Intels IGP market. At the moment they havn't achieved anything with the accuisision of ATI. Granted they also havn't released anything yet.

And best of all could you imagine a gpu made buy ATI/Nvidia. The shader capabilities and massive bandwidth of the ATI card and the pure processing power of the Nvidia card together.

Anyway I want AMD to succeed. Not just because of the competition but because I have always liked their products.

If worst came to worst Samsung will almost definately buy AMD. It makes sense for them to. Samsung are already responsible for almost every bit of memory in a system. Buying AMD would mean that you buy a Samsung PC. Every component would be manufactured by Samsung monitor included. With the exception of the power supply but they can easily produce one anyway. Samsung is also on the path of domination at the moment. They want to be leading in every market sector they are in which makes them the perfect company to take on Intel.

September 4, 2007 1:53:24 PM

Not me! I own Intel stock :) 
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
September 4, 2007 2:48:01 PM

Rodney, I to own Intel stock. Would not like to see AMD go belly up. As when any company that size goes under too many people loose employment.

Lawsuit - In the end, It is the consumer who pays the bill, Company just bump price up. Too many Lawers getting rich - ie Million dollar Micky Dee cup of spilled coffee. Now we Have Hot cups which state COFFEE IS HOT.

Do not think AMD would be allowed to Buy Nvidea. Wouldn't want two GPU companies ruined. Note: I have only bought ATI AIW cards since early 90's, My current card is X1950xt.
September 4, 2007 3:01:33 PM

kingoftherings said:
Sure, Core 2 is currently faster than Athlon X2, but if AMD goes under, who is to compete with Intel? What incentive will Intel have to keep pumping out faster chips at a lower price? I don't want to see Netburst happen again. :( 

So I'm hoping Phenom will blow Core 2's socks off. :) 

Im rooting for them sure .... but the blindness of the hardcore AMD fanbase (notice I didnt use the F-word) sure makes it difficult to root for them.
September 4, 2007 3:12:39 PM

Rooting for AMD is one thing.
Realistically looking at the health of their company is another.

AMD has not released something that excites people since 2005. That's 2 years of duldrums and disappointments. From a financial perspective, they're hurting and have been plagued by some hard losses (which has been reflected in their stock price). Add in the fact that the CEO has more misplaced bravado than that general in Iraq in 2003 and it's hard to remain upbeat about the company.

People want some healthy competition, but right now we don't have any - it's an Intel game. And frankly, the hardware sites have been pretty boring for quite some time (it's easy - buy Intel until Barcy arrives, then evaluate Barcy - that's been the message since middle of 2006).
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 4, 2007 3:31:43 PM

wolverinero79 said:
AMD has not released something that excites people since 2005.

I take it the new logo's aren't doing it for you then? :lol: 
September 4, 2007 3:49:06 PM

zenmaster said:
Yes, I'm rooting for AMD but my last system was an Intel.
If I had to buy today, it would be an Intel system.

I may be rooting for AMD, but I'm going to buy what makes sense for me.

I did buy a AMD X2 at the time before the C2D was out. So it's possible I can by AMD chips. At the time, the X2 did blow away the P4.
There is still life in the X2. I will love to see a X2 in a UMPC system on a chip, for example.
September 4, 2007 3:55:25 PM

rodney_ws said:
Not me! I own Intel stock :) 

While I believe Intel is doing well and not going away anytime soon, how the stock go up anymore? Just get dividends?
Intel is already a very big world company. Maybe there is somthing basic I don't understand about the stock market.
September 4, 2007 3:57:27 PM

Intel processors are presently excellent value for money with the price cuts. AMD still offer good value for budget seekers, but with these Intel price cuts it must be tough for AMD.
I do think that the new AMD 6400+ X2 is rather pointless because it's priced near a Q6600 and comes with no heatsink/fan. Unless someone already has an AM2 board why would anybody want to buy a 6400+ X2 when they can pick up a superior E6750 at a fraction of the price and at least that has a heatsink.
I really do hope these new K10 AMD processors are good, but I have doubts whether these can significantly outperform current C2D's. If K10 is a nice performer and the price is right it could be a good seller.
September 4, 2007 3:58:21 PM

you mean the one with the green donut? :) 
September 4, 2007 4:05:01 PM

I've never built an Intel system, so why start now? Besides most people don't overclock and PC's overall are more than fast enough for what the average Joe does with it these days. So all this Intel love falls on deaf ears around my house, but that may have more to do with a lack of gaming teenagers in the house than anything else.
September 4, 2007 4:14:42 PM

Like everyone else, I wouldn't of been able to have the speed of a X2 6000+ available to me for $170 if it wasn't for the AMD/Intel competition. So sure I am rooting for AMD.

My last Intel was a 486 chip, I have solely built AMD products since then. Its not that I think that AMD was always completely superior to what Intel offered, its just that I was comfortable with the system AMD had in place for their chips (sockets/memory/chipsets). I just never wanted to figure out what fit together on the Intel side. I have built a dozen Intel systems this year though, and they work great, but I still build AMD for my personal use.
a c 99 à CPUs
September 4, 2007 6:20:43 PM

gpippas said:
If AMD do get a lot of money from the ATrust suit I think they should invest it in buying Nvidia at whatever cost.

It would eliminate one of their biggest competitors in the gpu market and possibly the future cpu market.

They would also be guaranteed income from the gpu market. As the only other real competitor would be Intel. That wouldn't be enough alone to keep them a float but it would help.


The DOJ would see that too and blow the whistle on the deal. AMD and NVIDIA have almost the entire discrete graphics market as Matrox is the only competitor left IIRC, and they're little. Sure, Intel sells a lot of IGPs, but AMD and NVIDIA likely outsell Intel in those, too. I know they do for retail units as AMD outsold Intel in that arena and no AMD-powered unit will have an Intel graphics processor, but some Intel units have NVIDIA and AMD graphics hardware.
September 4, 2007 6:34:13 PM

Yes, I'm rooting and waiting on AMD. My FX60 is still chuggin' along and when/if they produce a competitive chip, I'll buy it. I'm only one purchaser but I know I'm not alone... It would take a great deal to make me go Intel again if ever. It's a personal grudge based upon their treatment of me in the past when I was running IT for a small State Agency. I don't care if the Core2Duo is the fastest thing since they split the Atom they'll not get another dime of my money.

Da Worfster
September 4, 2007 7:32:53 PM

Quote:
I think its humorous that noobs think because AMD has been second for what less than a year now that they are going under.



Uhhh, nice try fanboy.

People's fear of AMD going under might having something to do with an operating loss of $611,000,000.

Let me spell that out for you, AMD, by existing in its present form, lost six hundred and eleven MILLION dollars last quarter.


AMD fanboys think that AMD exists to create green powerpoints, however, STOCKHOLDERS feel AMD exists to make money for selling products and services.


You fail.
September 4, 2007 8:17:56 PM

Nope not rooting for Amd. I am an Intel Fanboy.
a c 99 à CPUs
September 4, 2007 8:28:29 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Uhhh, nice try fanboy.

People's fear of AMD going under might having something to do with an operating loss of $611,000,000.

Let me spell that out for you, AMD, by existing in its present form, lost six hundred and eleven MILLION dollars last quarter.


AMD fanboys think that AMD exists to create green powerpoints, however, STOCKHOLDERS feel AMD exists to make money for selling products and services.


You fail.


You and MrsBytch have very salient points. MrsBytch does correctly see the reaction of those who are rabid tech fans as an overreaction. Ever since the original K7 Athlon showed the PIII Coppermine who was boss in a definitive manner (the K5s and K6s were at times faster than Intel chips in certain apps, but not very definitively and not for long), there has been a leapfrogging every so often. The Athlon beat the PIII and the P4 Willamette, but the Athlon XP was beaten by the P4 Northwoods, especially the Northwood "C." Then the K8 came and pounded the P4 Prescott, and this pounding was even more severe when two P4s were put on a single package at a lower clock speed in the Pentium Ds. Then the Core 2 comes along and outruns the K8s. It's cyclical, and MrsBytch sees that.

You see that AMD isn't in the world's best financial position. They did know they were going to be in a bit of a tight stretch with buying ATi, but they didn't predict that Intel would start the price war and drive their books way into the red at the same time, and they are hurting from it, and hurting pretty badly.

However, I think that AMD won't go under because the worst of the stresses we know of are behind them. They have a new and supposedly decently competitive product coming out, which will command a higher price and yield larger margins. ATi should also be past the unproductive-due-to-reshuffling phase that follows a merger or purchase, so they should be able to earn more money for AMD. And AMD will be farther along in ramping the fabs for the new 65 nm process, which will increase throughput and yields. So it doesn't look all doom and gloom for AMD, at least from this perspective. The only thing that can really kill AMD is if Intel decides to start and carry out a price war of attrition, because Intel is far bigger than AMD is. I doubt that will sit really well with Intel's shareholders as everybody saw how negatively the last price war affected Intel as well. Plus, Intel would have to retain the performance and performance-per-watt titles to be able to maximize the effect of a price war. If they decide to sell their slower chips for much less, AMD doesn't have to follow all that much as they can sell their chips on performance and not price.
September 4, 2007 8:31:43 PM

MU, you are much more articulate and patient than I. Thanks for bridging me to the middle ground.
September 4, 2007 8:57:23 PM

Have you seen AMD's Books recently?

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/InvestorRelations/0,...

$500 Million Dollar Quarterly Loss.
$1.5 Billion in the bank.

Quick Math shows out of funds in 3 Quarters.
Operating on loans can get nasty.

They may be selling a lot of processors, but they are being sold at a loss.

I don't want AMD to fold, but if you can't see why people are worried about AMD, accounting may not be your thing.
September 4, 2007 9:51:22 PM

Selling alot of processors doesn't necessarily mean they are making any money, sad to say. All the rats jumping the sinking ship is telling me they should have glued two dualies together and called it a day.

But, this has totally been the most exciting processor release to me in 10 years, EASY. Anyone agree?? I have been surfing for benchies like MAD, I really think it is a sickness. I have even gone to the extent of reading the Reg (which is really good actually) but I am sad to say that it is terminal, I am even checking the Inquirer for news now.

I may not live to see Barcelona benchies, don't know if I can last guys... will check... Inquirer... one... last time....

But, I bet Barcelona after 2.6+ will SMOKE Intel. I wouldn't be surprised if IBM tosses them a lifeline or helps with the ramp even. Hoping...
September 4, 2007 10:21:44 PM

MU_Engineer said:
The DOJ would see that too and blow the whistle on the deal. AMD and NVIDIA have almost the entire discrete graphics market as Matrox is the only competitor left IIRC, and they're little. Sure, Intel sells a lot of IGPs, but AMD and NVIDIA likely outsell Intel in those, too. I know they do for retail units as AMD outsold Intel in that arena and no AMD-powered unit will have an Intel graphics processor, but some Intel units have NVIDIA and AMD graphics hardware.


I think you're a little confused on some numbers (if not, I apologize - I may be misreading your post). Intel doesn't sell a lot of IGPs...Intel sells a TON of IGPs. Intel has just under 40% MSS for total graphics processors (which easily puts them on top), while Nvidia has ~30% and ATI has ~22% with Via and SIS filling in the bottom. In laptops, Intel has easily more than 50%. For discrete graphics processors, it's about a 60-40 split with Nvidia on top (this was not true in the past - AMD has severely hindered ATI).

Retail is one thing, but we've been over this before - US retail market (where AMD had the recent news about leading Intel) is a small fraction of the entire computer market. In fact, I would expect IGPs to be far higher in off the shelf systems than custom systems. Remember that IGPs can be (a very cheap) part of the mobo, where as most of the time, the cheapest discrete graphics card is more expensive than the entire chipset. Remember also that most every server needs some sort of graphics card (if only for the terminal), but almost none of the servers need discrete cards.
a c 99 à CPUs
September 4, 2007 10:28:24 PM

wolverinero79 said:
I think you're a little confused on some numbers (if not, I apologize - I may be misreading your post). Intel doesn't sell a lot of IGPs...Intel sells a TON of IGPs. Intel has just under 40% MSS for total graphics processors (which easily puts them on top), while Nvidia has ~30% and ATI has ~22% with Via and SIS filling in the bottom. In laptops, Intel has easily more than 50%. For discrete graphics processors, it's about a 60-40 split with Nvidia on top (this was not true in the past - AMD has severely hindered ATI).

Retail is one thing, but we've been over this before - US retail market (where AMD had the recent news about leading Intel) is a small fraction of the entire computer market. In fact, I would expect IGPs to be far higher in off the shelf systems than custom systems. Remember that IGPs can be (a very cheap) part of the mobo, where as most of the time, the cheapest discrete graphics card is more expensive than the entire chipset. Remember also that most every server needs some sort of graphics card (if only for the terminal), but almost none of the servers need discrete cards.


My point was that ATi/AMD + NVIDIA would basically have a monopoly on discrete graphics and sell more IGPs than anybody else, making an AMD/ATi + NVIDIA merger hard to impossible to get approved by the regulators. I assume that you think that Intel's IGP sales are high enough to let an AMD-NVIDIA deal go through?
September 4, 2007 10:35:42 PM

My view: If Barcelona is a bit slower, they will probably cost a bit less. And they will run cooler, so it will be enough to win my consumer vote.
September 4, 2007 11:08:22 PM

wolverinero79 said:
Remember also that most every server needs some sort of graphics card (if only for the terminal), but almost none of the servers need discrete cards.

Lots of server boards use the ATI Rage Pro with 8MB of video ram, built into the motherboard (but not integrated into the chipsets). Think of it as an integrated discrete graphics card.
September 4, 2007 11:41:01 PM

We really ought to get back on topic.

Is anyone rooting for amd?



Ignore the muffin-topper.
!