Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

How Will AMD stay alive?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel i7
  • AMD
  • Intel
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 4:24:42 AM

Well Phenom II does compete with the i7 but ppl still get the i7, the normal public generally get intel, AMD is only with the budget builders who are smart and get more bang for the buck.

So AMD is getting creamed by i7 and it has nothing to compete with and there isn't anything coming soon from AMD except for DX11 cards (ATI) so will we have competition in the future or will Intel be a dictator and drain the money out of us.


no i am not an AMD fanboy i just feel bad for AMD

More about : amd stay alive

August 28, 2009 4:31:48 AM

i hope not if intel wins the battle we will see all proc form intel 1000 $ or more
August 28, 2009 5:10:32 AM

Yes, AMD is going to declare bankruptcy tomorrow morning at 8AM Pacific Standard time. Intel will be only x86 CPU manufacturer and it will ignore AMD's request to be spared. All its employees will be tossed into a large pit so no company will ever dare rise up to the Evil Empire of Intel. Eventually it will take over the world and force us to solder circuit boards for crimes we commit. Those $1000 CPUs will be the least of your worries when we're all under "its" control. It'll be a sad day. Hopefully tomorrow never comes so we'll all be spared!
Related resources
August 28, 2009 6:00:47 AM

Who told you that?!?

We have very specific rules against this sort of thing, and very specific punishments for those who reveal Secret Plans to Outsiders, and I need to inform the Council whose family must "disappear"...
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 6:29:45 AM

What I'm scared of is the i5 release. Depending on the prices of those... AMD is going to have a tough time matching up the price/performance.
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 28, 2009 6:48:14 AM

Yes, I keep hoping something amazing will come along from amd. However since the ati acquisition, they have really turned around the chipset and graphics divisions. I wouldn't count them out just yet-but they need to build on this momentum.

I can pretty much guarantee there will be price drops when i5 is released. which is good for everyone of course.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 7:12:05 AM

h0devil said:
i hope not if intel wins the battle we will see all proc form intel 1000 $ or more

Not true. In a monopolistic scenario, prices go up, yes, but they don't simply go up to unaffordable levels. There is a certain level that maximizes profit for a monopoly, since as prices go up, fewer people buy. If the prices are too high, not enough people will buy CPUs to sustain the company, so they would settle out at a region somewhat above today's pricing, but definitely still in the range of affordability for most people.

(wow - I thought I ignored/slept through most of the stuff in my econ class, but apparently I actually did pay some attention at points)
August 28, 2009 7:27:37 AM

cjl said:
Not true. In a monopolistic scenario, prices go up, yes, but they don't simply go up to unaffordable levels. There is a certain level that maximizes profit for a monopoly, since as prices go up, fewer people buy. If the prices are too high, not enough people will buy CPUs to sustain the company, so they would settle out at a region somewhat above today's pricing, but definitely still in the range of affordability for most people.

(wow - I thought I ignored/slept through most of the stuff in my econ class, but apparently I actually did pay some attention at points)


Well said. I kind of spilled the beans with Intel's future plans. It may have been easier to state some simple Econ 101. It is too often that people assume that because one company is the only maker of a product, that it can charge any amount. That is not true because there are many instances of companies being the single source of a certain good, and that company is not charging an arm and/or leg(except Apple). Realistically, no one is going to pay $1000 for a CPU,
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 11:24:14 AM

I was not aware that AMD is trying to compete with Intels i7 platform.
If they were competing with i7, and they had a processor that perfomed exactly on par with Intels flagship, then the price of processors would be at least 50% higher than they are right now. The price would be less than if Intel was the only company on the planet left making processors, but if AMD was competing toe to toe with Intel, prices would be substantially higher than they are now, you can bet your ass on that.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 12:07:54 PM

Raidur said:
What I'm scared of is the i5 release. Depending on the prices of those... AMD is going to have a tough time matching up the price/performance.


Well look at it this way. PII bests everything but the most expensive I7's. I7 has architectural superiority due to triple channel memory. How is an I5 supposed to compete with PII which outdoes any Core2 and the entry level I7? Core I5 will lose any architectural benefits of the Core I7 that made it a faster chip, and will be overpriced as I've seen. AMD doesn't need to worry about I5, it needs to worry about getting the performance crown again. And who would get the fastest I5 that will be the similar price of the I7 920 when 920 is a hideously faster chip?
August 28, 2009 12:14:22 PM

Upendra09 said:
AMD is only with the budget builders who are smart and get more bang for the buck.

........

non i am not an AMD fanboy i just feel bad for AMD


Yes, you are an AMD fanboy by indicating that only smart people build rigs with AMD. That implies that people who build with Intel are not smart.

Is AMD DOOOOOOOMED? Not yet. But things are looking very bad for them. Their products need to be more competitive so they can charge more for them. Optionally they can reduce costs, but I don't see that happening.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 12:29:03 PM

smart people research and get what they want...

i would bring up the multi-gpu thing, but the verdict is still out for i7 with them ORB results and nvm the i5 stuff.

lets face it, Intel has the best stuff atm, AMD did with its K8 vs netburst, now it's Intel's domain, unless they can pull a rabbit out of the hat and give us the mythical true K10 they were on the horn about since end of P4 and C2 days then it'd be grand.

That said, if they want to compete in the value market, they need to get brand recognition up with everyone, like say sponsor some major university to give cheap improved amd laptops out (maybe a BIG name tech like MIT or something) and then aggressively market that in TVs, and not tech magazines.

Even better, if they somehow managed to make OEMs to churn out quality AMD based parts by leveraging a whole platform without bumpgate issues and other build quality issues then they would maybe win over OEMs for tight design.

But then, that is heading into the waters of a"PC-Console" where every part is the same...
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 2:20:57 PM

@ tech coodrdinator
Yes i know i sort of went back on my word but still i am not a fanboy, it is just that i feel people with normal needs should go AMD, it is the gamers and people with moe money to spend that should go intel, but the normal citizen probably feels that intel is better because they are more popular and have their name on a lot more things than AMD.

Will bulldozer, if it ever manages to come out, have any effect on the reign of intel?
August 28, 2009 3:26:08 PM

Upendra09 said:
@ tech coodrdinator
Yes i know i sort of went back on my word but still i am not a fanboy, it is just that i feel people with normal needs should go AMD, it is the gamers and people with moe money to spend that should go intel, but the normal citizen probably feels that intel is better because they are more popular and have their name on a lot more things than AMD.

Will bulldozer, if it ever manages to come out, have any effect on the reign of intel?



Actually, some benchies suggest gamers might want to go with a Phenom II, the performace on the fastest Phenom IIs in games is good and the price is decent as well. The "normal citizen" probably doesn't even understand what a processor is and would probably tell you that they prefer Dell CPUs.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 4:48:21 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
Well look at it this way. PII bests everything but the most expensive I7's. I7 has architectural superiority due to triple channel memory. How is an I5 supposed to compete with PII which outdoes any Core2 and the entry level I7? Core I5 will lose any architectural benefits of the Core I7 that made it a faster chip, and will be overpriced as I've seen. AMD doesn't need to worry about I5, it needs to worry about getting the performance crown again. And who would get the fastest I5 that will be the similar price of the I7 920 when 920 is a hideously faster chip?


In what way does the PhII beat an i7 920?

Synthetics?



Nope.

Media work?




looking promising here...


But then fails to come anywhere close on the second pass



Well, this shows more promise, but it basically ends up tying the 920 in 2, and getting flattened by the 920 in the other two...

Rendering?





Not even close

Gaming?





Not bad at all here - it is pretty close to the i7s, and could even be argued to perform slightly better than the 920.


Overclocking?
Anand got the 965 to hit 4GHz
Toms got it to 3.8

That's an overclock of around 500MHz or so

Compare that to the i7 920:
Anand got a D0 to 4.3 GHz (1.6 GHz overclock!)
Toms got a C0 to 3.8GHz on reasonable voltage
Anand got a C0 to 3.8GHz

(I couldn't find more than the one for D0, so I'll just use C0 numbers for now)

For the most part, the i7 920 beats the 955 at stock clocks, but it is admittedly quite close in places. However, if you care about overclocking at all, the Phenom appears to only average around a 15% overclock, while the 920 can pull off over 40%. That gives the i7 a clear advantage in overclocking (and don't pull out the liquid helium - we're talking about normal users here). In every case, the i7 should have a larger lead when overclocked than when stock, since it overclocks so much better than the 965.
August 28, 2009 4:52:57 PM

Epic win. CJL, don't bother reasoning using "facts" and "benchmarks". The real question is "Is it fast enough to run minesweeper?"
August 28, 2009 4:57:38 PM

Very Close cjl, but no cigar.

You forgot price. An i7 920 isn't the cheapest CPU around. It is just the cheapest of I7s that is MORE expensive than the MOST EXPENSIVE of Phenom II.

Buck / Eurobuck wise, AMD is pretty good. Ill play it again, i just 170€ for a x4 955. Even at stock settings show me what Intel CPU competes with it.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 4:59:33 PM

Haha, so much ignorance. I7 920 is a hugely downclocked chip. I don't think anyone runs it at stock speed. It was only downclocked to make it's price affordable. 2.6? Come on, that is the frequency of the past. So you shouldn't compare percentage of overclocking, as if you overclock 920 and 975 will be the same performing chips. Anyway, I7 heats as much as PII, but needs less voltage to achieve 4.0GHz. On PII you need about 1.45 for that, while with the I7 you need 1.3 or a little more. That is it's advantage. And those benchmarks only prove my theory. For the largest part 965 was close or better than the I7 920, which by itself is a proof that I5 won't be able to touch neither of these chips (except in gaming, where higher frequency wins).
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:02:36 PM

"but it basically ends up tying the 920 in 2, and getting flattened by the 920 in the other two... "

What the hell are you talking about? When PII had a 3 fps advantage you call that tying, while when I7 has 4 seconds advantage you say PII is "flattened" by I7. Get your facts straight.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:08:45 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
"but it basically ends up tying the 920 in 2, and getting flattened by the 920 in the other two... "

What the hell are you talking about? When PII had a 3 fps advantage you call that tying, while when I7 has 4 seconds advantage you say PII is "flattened" by I7. Get your facts straight.

You know what the difference is in those two cases?

The i7's 4 second advantage is over 20% in that benchmark. In the second pass encoding, it has over a 30% lead. I'd consider that a fairly thorough flattening.

As for the 3fps? The PhII actually had a 6fps lead in Left4Dead (I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that), but despite the fact that 6fps sounds significant, it's only 5% or so. Far less significant than a 20-30% lead.

Don't let the facts stand in the way of your fanboyism though...
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:09:21 PM

radnor said:
Very Close cjl, but no cigar.

You forgot price. An i7 920 isn't the cheapest CPU around. It is just the cheapest of I7s that is MORE expensive than the MOST EXPENSIVE of Phenom II.

Buck / Eurobuck wise, AMD is pretty good. Ill play it again, i just 170€ for a x4 955. Even at stock settings show me what Intel CPU competes with it.

Absolutely agreed. AMD definitely has a strong position in price per dollar. I was specifically responding to a post claiming that the 965 beat the lower end i7s.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:19:12 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
And those benchmarks only prove my theory. For the largest part 965 was close or better than the I7 920, which by itself is a proof that I5 won't be able to touch neither of these chips (except in gaming, where higher frequency wins).



OK, let's look at them again, shall we?

Synthetic:
Sysmark: 4.4% lead in favor of the i7
(I don't think I need to add a total for this category)

Media:
Photoshop: 21.3% lead in favor of the i7
x264, first pass: 1.04% lead in favor of the Phenom
x264, second pass: 31.5% lead in favor of the i7
Windows Media Encoder: 3.6% lead in favor of the Phenom
Overall: 12.04% in favor of the i7

Rendering:
SPECapc 3dsmax: 28.6% lead in favor of the i7
Pov-Ray 3.7: 30.4% lead in favor of the i7
Overall: 29.5% in favor of the i7

Gaming:
Left 4 Dead: 5.3% lead in favor of the Phenom
Crysis Warhead: 0.37% lead in favor of the i7
Overall: 2.46% in favor of the Phenom

Overall for all benchmarks: 11.85% in favor of the i7. That means that averaged over every benchmark here, the i7 still wins by over 10%. Therefore, your claim that "for the largest part, 965 was clos or better than i7-920" is complete garbage.

Nice try though.
August 28, 2009 5:24:09 PM

What's the point of one more "doom thread", honestly? I mean, it would be "meh" in the same way if it were "Intel BK Q1/2010". This one adds nothing to the forum than the other ones currently don't.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:24:27 PM

cjl said:
You know what the difference is in those two cases?

The i7's 4 second advantage is over 20% in that benchmark. In the second pass encoding, it has over a 30% lead. I'd consider that a fairly thorough flattening.

As for the 3fps? The PhII actually had a 6fps lead in Left4Dead (I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that), but despite the fact that 6fps sounds significant, it's only 5% or so. Far less significant than a 20-30% lead.

Don't let the facts stand in the way of your fanboyism though...


What??? Fanboysm??? Is that what you call every person that doesn't lick Intel's blue a** you fanboy? Out of the clear sky you tell me I am a fanboy for posting my opinion that is non Intel pro. You have really given yourself out now. You are a true, hardcore, mega Intel fanboy, by accusing me, and I am totally unbiased towards either company. And my point wasn't that I7 looses to PII, my point was that if it can tie or be better than it now, I5 is pointless. I5 is just a rebranded Core2.
August 28, 2009 5:30:23 PM

Has the definition of "rebranding" changed from "taking an existing product and just changing the name" to "taking a new product with roughly equivalent performance to an older product and giving the new product a new name"?

Because I don't think I got the memo. :) 
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:35:06 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
What??? Fanboysm??? Is that what you call every person that doesn't lick Intel's blue a** you fanboy? Out of the clear sky you tell me I am a fanboy for posting my opinion that is non Intel pro. You have really given yourself out now. You are a true, hardcore, mega Intel fanboy, by accusing me, and I am totally unbiased towards either company. And my point wasn't that I7 looses to PII, my point was that if it can tie or be better than it now, I5 is pointless. I5 is just a rebranded Core2.

You? Unbiased?

:heink: 

As for me, I am not a fanboy. As I said above, I actually do consider Phenom IIs to be a great choice at their price point (which happens to be below the price point of the i7). They are quite fast, despite not keeping up with the i7, and they are quite a bit cheaper than even the i7 920. I have recommended them to friends, and if I were building a budget system right now, I would strongly consider one as an option. Similarly, I helped a friend out with a rig using an 8800GT a couple years ago, but my current rig has 4870x2s. Why? Because Nvidia offered the right price/performance option for him then, and ATI offered better performance in the price range I wanted now.

As for the rebranded core 2 argument? That kind of proves my earlier point - the only people I have seen claiming that it is a rebrand are AMD fanboys (unless the definition has completely changed while I wasn't looking). Rebranding is like what Nvidia has done, where the same basic GPU was first the 8800GT, then the 9800 GT with minimal changes. It is now the GTS 240, and is still the same basic architecture that it has always been. Similar performance does not mean that a part was rebranded - it would need to have basically the same architecture to fall under that description. The i5 is a native quad core, with an integrated memory controller and PCI-E controller, a completely new system interconnect, the ability to turn on and off single cores entirely, and several changes to the execution core itself. It is about as far from a rebranding as you can get.
August 28, 2009 5:39:50 PM

I was looking at some reference stuff:

In 1989 (as far as I can tell), Intel had no major competitor.

Their 386/33 chip was selling for about $350, which by estimates for cost of inflation would be about double today.

Intel was even charging premiums back then for their top-of-the-line chips. I really don't think they would be philanthropic enough to keep reduced rates for all their processors now if they became the monolith in CPUs again.

I have full faith in capitalism...to bring out the worst in everyone.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:58:29 PM

despite not keeping up with the i7

See? Doctor, it's getting worse!
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 6:05:03 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
despite not keeping up with the i7

See? Doctor, it's getting worse!


The Phenom II, in all of the benchmarks that I posted, averaged roughly 12% slower than the i7. Therefore, my statement was accurate.

Unless you can show some other data...
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 6:10:07 PM

Ok, I want no more discussions like this. As long as we agree that we are all healthy and normal human beings scratch those damn CPUs, they are just stupid pieces of metal. And to prove that PII is a bit better (A BIT) in gaming, here are two benchmarks and a thread: http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4... and http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3533&p=8

Thread: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21...

That thread is not about I7's, but to prove Core2 isn't all that great in games.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 6:15:47 PM

now all that we need is something that compares opterons to Xeons then we can tell who wins in the server category.

benchmarks any one?
August 28, 2009 6:16:41 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
What??? Fanboysm??? Is that what you call every person that doesn't lick Intel's blue a** you fanboy? Out of the clear sky you tell me I am a fanboy for posting my opinion that is non Intel pro. You have really given yourself out now. You are a true, hardcore, mega Intel fanboy, by accusing me, and I am totally unbiased towards either company. And my point wasn't that I7 looses to PII, my point was that if it can tie or be better than it now, I5 is pointless. I5 is just a rebranded Core2.



YOU USED NUMBERS TO MAKE ME LOOK SILLY! OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!@#$@#!$$

YOU USE BENCHMARKS TO OBJECTIVLY MEASURE PERFORMANCE YOU ARE A FANBOY!

ONLY FANBOYS USE BENCHMARKS AND OBJECTIVE DATA!
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 6:19:30 PM

No, sorry, only dull people who have nothing better to do than compare two pieces of metal look at benchmarks, But I have to defend against that with my own. Did you read my post? And benchmarks are mostly biased and non objective so you have no idea what you are talking about. And by that you said it yourself: you are a fanboy.


Ok, I want no more discussions like this. As long as we agree that we are all healthy and normal human beings scratch those damn CPUs, they are just stupid pieces of metal. And to prove that PII is a bit better (A BIT) in gaming, here are two benchmarks and a thread: http://www.modreactor.com/english/ [...] 7-920.html and http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdo [...] i=3533&p=8

Thread: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] 514&page=1

That thread is not about I7's, but to prove Core2 isn't all that great in games.
August 28, 2009 6:21:02 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
And benchmarks are mostly biased and non objective


BaronMatrix, is that you?

You can't rationalize with irrational people.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 6:22:03 PM

??? You just need to ease off and rest. I've never heard of BaronMatrix lol.
August 28, 2009 6:26:23 PM

dattimr said:
What's the point of one more "doom thread", honestly? I mean, it would be "meh" in the same way if it were "Intel BK Q1/2010". This one adds nothing to the forum than the other ones currently don't.



Aye... definitely a new thread was not needed. The OP was just trolling.

Starting a new "doom" thread is about as useless as taking benchmark delta percentages and then pretending that you can sum them to create a "score" that actually means something.
August 28, 2009 6:27:22 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
??? You just need to ease off and rest. I've never heard of BaronMatrix lol.


I think you'd really get along with him quite well. You should go over to AMDZone.com, it's quite cozy and I don't think they've posted any evil benchmarks on that site since Core 2 Duo came out.
August 28, 2009 6:29:10 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
YOU USED NUMBERS TO MAKE ME LOOK SILLY! OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!@#$@#!$$

YOU USE BENCHMARKS TO OBJECTIVLY MEASURE PERFORMANCE YOU ARE A FANBOY!

ONLY FANBOYS USE BENCHMARKS AND OBJECTIVE DATA!


You should have included a world of warcraft reference, used more 1337 sp34k and worse spelling. They might get it that way.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 6:39:08 PM

keithlm said:
Aye... definitely a new thread was not needed. The OP was just trolling.

Starting a new "doom" thread is about as useless as taking benchmark delta percentages and then pretending that you can sum them to create a "score" that actually means something.



Sorry that is how i geet alot of info for less questions but my question was valid, i do think AMD needs help, and still Xeons vs opterons anyone? anything
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 6:40:23 PM

Upendra09 said:
now all that we need is something that compares opterons to Xeons then we can tell who wins in the server category.

benchmarks any one?

That one's easy:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx...

The new Xeon 5500 series has no competition. In 2 socket systems, it competes with most 4 socket setups (both older gen intel and AMD). The new AMD 6-core close the gap a bit, but they still can't really compete with the 5500s.
August 28, 2009 6:41:26 PM

radnor said:
You should have included a world of warcraft reference, used more 1337 sp34k and worse spelling. They might get it that way.


AMD are teh best. With my 1337 AMD Quad Father FX I have the ability to megatask. Intel users just multitask on their double cheeseburger quad cores. AMD are too sophisticated to double cheeseburger their processors, instead it is much better to actually have the processors in seperate sockets. This is something that is called PLATFORMANCE and it is better. You see, platformance can't be measured with benchmarks, you won't see it there. You see platformance with the experience and how fluid your computer is, which conveniently is subjective and cannot be measured. Platformance will only lead to one thing, and that is MEGATASKING. Megatasking is better than Intel's multitasking (which by the way was stolen from AMD). Megatasking will allow you to have multiple instances of WoW running so you can level up while working it to anime porn of Hector Ruiz. AMD are the only company that offers this kind of MEGATASKING PLATFORMANCE, and you can only get it with the Quad FX, which by the way will have an quad core upgrade coming out soon so you can go OCTO-CORE all up in that stuff and it only has a TDP of 350 watts. All benchmarks are evil and optimized for evil Intel monopoly. Without AMD Intel would charge $3,000,000 for a 500mhz Celeron. Intel are stealing all ideas from AMD.


I hope that's better:
- More foam from the mouth
- Minor use of 1337
- Double cheeseburger reference (a weeee bit ironic)
- Quad FX reference
- MEGATASKING reference (thank you AMD marketing)
- PLATFORMANCE reference (thank you AMD marketing)
- Used the word "are" instead of "is" after AMD and Intel
- And for my buddy BaronMatrix and I even through in a "teh"
- Denouncement of all benchmarks
- Monopoly reference
- Accused Intel of steeling
- Single paragraph

Sorry, I can't deliver on the bad spelling, it bothers me too much.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 6:46:25 PM

^ lol
August 28, 2009 7:01:44 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
AMD are teh best. With my 1337 AMD Quad Father FX I have the ability to megatask. Intel users just multitask on their double cheeseburger quad cores. AMD are too sophisticated to double cheeseburger their processors, instead it is much better to actually have the processors in seperate sockets. This is something that is called PLATFORMANCE and it is better. You see, platformance can't be measured with benchmarks, you won't see it there. You see platformance with the experience and how fluid your computer is, which conveniently is subjective and cannot be measured. Platformance will only lead to one thing, and that is MEGATASKING. Megatasking is better than Intel's multitasking (which by the way was stolen from AMD). Megatasking will allow you to have multiple instances of WoW running so you can level up while working it to anime porn of Hector Ruiz. AMD are the only company that offers this kind of MEGATASKING PLATFORMANCE, and you can only get it with the Quad FX, which by the way will have an quad core upgrade coming out soon so you can go OCTO-CORE all up in that stuff and it only has a TDP of 350 watts. All benchmarks are evil and optimized for evil Intel monopoly. Without AMD Intel would charge $3,000,000 for a 500mhz Celeron. Intel are stealing all ideas from AMD.


I hope that's better:
- More foam from the mouth
- Minor use of 1337
- Double cheeseburger reference (a weeee bit ironic)
- Quad FX reference
- MEGATASKING reference (thank you AMD marketing)
- PLATFORMANCE reference (thank you AMD marketing)
- Used the word "are" instead of "is" after AMD and Intel
- And for my buddy BaronMatrix and I even through in a "teh"
- Denouncement of all benchmarks
- Monopoly reference
- Accused Intel of steeling
- Single paragraph

Sorry, I can't deliver on the bad spelling, it bothers me too much.


You forgot some things:

- Use of the term "n00b"
- Some reference to Pokemon or Transformers
- A mention about how much more "kewl" your stuff is
- And an ad for your buddy's new website where you can get cool shirts and all

:lol: 
August 28, 2009 7:55:17 PM

Try adding a few high end GPUs in SLI/CrossfireX to see how well the PII can keep with an i7. Even Core 2 Quad has a hard time with multiple GPUs compared to i7. With a single GPU, I guess it may go either way, but with multiple, high end GPUs, i7 is in a league of its own.

Also, AMD PWNSMYLIFE!
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 8:21:41 PM

Intel can make more money with AMD around as long as Intel keeps their "80%" share of market.

So they will likely keep prices at a point where AMD can still make a profit pursuing a price/performance strategy.

And that's a worst-case scenario for AMD. So no, AMD is not doomed.
August 28, 2009 10:20:04 PM

cjl said:
Not true. In a monopolistic scenario, prices go up, yes, but they don't simply go up to unaffordable levels. There is a certain level that maximizes profit for a monopoly, since as prices go up, fewer people buy. If the prices are too high, not enough people will buy CPUs to sustain the company, so they would settle out at a region somewhat above today's pricing, but definitely still in the range of affordability for most people.

(wow - I thought I ignored/slept through most of the stuff in my econ class, but apparently I actually did pay some attention at points)


Let's be a bit more specific. While most economists wouldn't call the x86 (by which I really mean x86 plus AMD64 and Intel 64) CPU market a "natural monopoly," it comes quite close actually. There are substantial barriers to entry for various reasons. (i) There are large fixed costs involved in developing a x86 processor; (ii) AFAIK, the most popular OS out there only runs on x86 (apart from the somewhat esoteric Itanium which, coincidentally, is also produced by Intel). So you either have to reverse-engineer something x86 compatible or you have to pay substantial fees to the license holder(s). Other processors, such as those produced by Sun, IBM, etc., are no close substitutes for x86 processors since they don't work with Windows.

The funny thing is that many people argue that current x86 processor prices are close to competitive-equilibrium prices despite the fact that there are only two firms (maybe three if you count VIA) in the industry. Without making a detailed argument, if AMD (and VIA) go away, we could go right up from the competitive-equilibrium to the monopoly price. Basically, once the current competitors are gone, high barriers to entry would enable Intel to charge monopoly prices. Sure, as you say, Intel would still look at the demand for x86 processors--it's very unlikely that we would see $1000 for a mainstream processor. But nevertheless, I'd fully expect Intel to produce substantially less than the current output of x86 processors (=Intel output + AMD output). Prices would likely rise quite a bit.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 10:35:04 PM

Cryslayer80 is a troll. Don't feed the trolls.
August 28, 2009 10:36:13 PM

jasperjones said:
Let's be a bit more specific. While most economists wouldn't call the x86 (by which I really mean x86 plus AMD64 and Intel 64) CPU market a "natural monopoly," it comes quite close actually. There are substantial barriers to entry for various reasons. (i) There are large fixed costs involved in developing a x86 processor; (ii) AFAIK, the most popular OS out there only runs on x86 (apart from the somewhat esoteric Itanium which, coincidentally, is also produced by Intel). So you either have to reverse-engineer something x86 compatible or you have to pay substantial fees to the license holder(s). Other processors, such as those produced by Sun, IBM, etc., are no close substitutes for x86 processors since they don't work with Windows.

The funny thing is that many people argue that current x86 processor prices are close to competitive-equilibrium prices despite the fact that there are only two firms (maybe three if you count VIA) in the industry. Without making a detailed argument, if AMD (and VIA) go away, we could go right up from the competitive-equilibrium to the monopoly price. Basically, once the current competitors are gone, high barriers to entry would enable Intel to charge monopoly prices. Sure, as you say, Intel would still look at the demand for x86 processors--it's very unlikely that we would see $1000 for a mainstream processor. But nevertheless, I'd fully expect Intel to produce substantially less than the current output of x86 processors (=Intel output + AMD output). Prices would likely rise quite a bit.


They might. But fabs which aren't running at capacity are making less money than fabs which are churning out the chips. Unless they want to permanently shrink their business, a corporation in that position will want to strike a decent balance between price and demand.

At a certain point in the price curve, potential customers will stick with an "obsolete" system rather than buy new. Where that point is becomes a big question. Some have asserted that we're there right now, though I don't agree.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 10:41:12 PM

Shadow703793 said:
Cryslayer80 is a troll. Don't feed the trolls.


And your reasoning for saying that is?
August 28, 2009 10:45:36 PM

archibael said:
They might. But fabs which aren't running at capacity are making less money than fabs which are churning out the chips. Unless they want to permanently shrink their business, a corporation in that position will want to strike a decent balance between price and demand.


Sure that's true...you'd like to have fabs running close to capacity. So I guess what I'm saying is if there really was this doomsday scenario and AMD shuts down, it's not likely that Intel would ramp up its production capacity to replace closing AMD plants. Overall (=market) production would fall.

Look at current profit margins in the budget segment. We know these are not good for the computer manufacturers currently. I assume (I actually doubt Intel and AMD provide exact numbers by market segment) the margins on low-end x86 processors are pretty slim. If AMD were to go down the drain, I'd expect Intel to run a strategy that would bump up the margins in the budget segment.
    • 1 / 18
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest