Intel or AMD? Was going with AMD but now that they are getting ouf the game I'm

[Guest]

I recently read that AMD is backing off the processor war with Intel. Especially within the direct consumer market. I'm looking to build a PC and was pretty set on AMD but now am worried that I will not be bale to upgrade my cpu in the future with this setup. Do you forsee this being a real problem?

 

[WR2]

Not at all. Either way you go you'll get a good processes at a good price.

 

[Herr_Koos]

I recently read that AMD is backing off the processor war with Intel. Especially within the direct consumer market. I'm looking to build a PC and was pretty set on AMD but now am worried that I will not be bale to upgrade my cpu in the future with this setup. Do you forsee this being a real problem?

Source of this allegation? I see no evidence that AMD are backing off. Sure, they won't be able to challenge at the top end for a while yet, but it's not as if they can suddenly change their whole business model to start doing something else...

 

[Guest]

It was an article published by the NY Times back in September. Here's a link:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/so-long-cpu-wars-it-was-fun/

 

[chunkymonster]

With a $99USD quad core, with a bevy of processors squarely aimed at the mainstream, and with more reasonable mobo prices compared to Intel based boards; AMD is not "out of the game". That article reads to sounds more like the authors spin on an AMD marketing campaign than actual proof that AMD is no longer in the processor race. While it is true that AMD has conceded the high end to Intel, and there has been an overall shift from the GHz to multi-core, the current AMD product line has targeted the mainstream/enthusiast market and are seeing results.

The Intel i5 line up is certainly compelling but an AM3 Phenom II X4 965 @ $195USD is nothing to sneeze at either, and is, if not more so, compelling as an i5. Benchmarks be damned!

Case in point...

In most scenarios Core i5 and Phenom II X4 achieved the same performance level and in most cases when one particular CPU was faster than the other the performance difference was practically negligible.

 

[Herr_Koos]

With a $99USD quad core, with a bevy of processors squarely aimed at the mainstream, and with more reasonable mobo prices compared to Intel based boards; AMD is not "out of the game". That article reads to sounds more like the authors spin on an AMD marketing campaign than actual proof that AMD is no longer in the processor race. While it is true that AMD has conceded the high end to Intel, and there has been an overall shift from the GHz to multi-core, the current AMD product line has targeted the mainstream/enthusiast market and are seeing results.

The Intel i5 line up is certainly compelling but an AM3 Phenom II X4 965 @ $195USD is nothing to sneeze at either, and is, if not more so, compelling as an i5. Benchmarks be damned!

Case in point...

In most scenarios Core i5 and Phenom II X4 achieved the same performance level and in most cases when one particular CPU was faster than the other the performance difference was practically negligible.

Agree completely. I for one find AMD's value proposition very attractive. It would be stupid to buy a cheap but inferior product just to spite Intel, but with the Phenom II series, AMD can compete in the mainstream market again.

 

[Cryslayer80]

I look at it this way Herr_Koos:

Low end market - AMD Sempron Sargas 140/Intel Celeron (Wolfdale based)
Mid end market - AMD Athlon II 250/Intel Core2 Duo E7400
Mainstream market - AMD Phenom II 550/Intel Core2 Duo E8400
Upper-mid end market - AMD Phenom 9950/Intel Core2 Quad Q9300
High end market - AMD Phenom II 955/Intel Core I5 750
Upper-high end market - AMD Phenom II 965/Intel Core I7 920
Stupid people market - Core2 Quad Extreme/Intel Core I7 950
Enthusiast market - Intel Core I7 975

 

[pepperman]

It was an article published by the NY Times back in September. Here's a link:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/so-long-cpu-wars-it-was-fun/

It can also be noted that this article is more about notebook cpus, not desktop.

 

[Wisecracker]

It was an article published by the NY Times back in September. Here's a link:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/so-long-cpu-wars-it-was-fun/

A blog reporter for the NY Times who has a degree in philosophy.


<snicker>


I imagine the folks here will be more than happy to share their technical knowledge with you ... if you would care to offer-up your anticipated computing needs and a general budget.

We may or may not get philosophical about it