Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why only Intel or AMD.....??

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 19, 2010 9:11:47 AM



There are other companies too which produces processors like VIA and Microchip then why do we always hear Intel and AMD only when it comes to buying processors?

More about : intel amd

a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 9:34:49 AM

Intel and Amd have a large sector of the Cpu market saturated.
So it makes it hard for a company like Via to sell there chips/ CPU`s.
That is why they are on the low scale of the Cpu market.

Now if Via Invented a kick ass Cpu with low thermal output, something daft like 12 multitasking cores.
Or say a 8GHz Cpu at a cheap price, then things would change.
Sadly i suspect they dont have enough volume, and production fabs.
You need to put alot of money into a Fab unit to produce silicone CPU dies.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 9:35:33 AM

Because they are the two biggest manufacturers. VIA chips and Microchip almost never come in consumer desktop systems.

I have often used and seen onboard audio chips from VIA, and I hear they are doing some nice things with efficient CPU's for netbooks or something, but that's about it. They are not really part of the performance dekstop chips market.

As for Microchip, excuse me, I have never heard of them.
Score
0
Related resources

Best solution

November 19, 2010 9:37:50 AM

Only AMD and Intel atm have x86 license . read this
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-x86-cpu,7285...

Intel is like the boss. They got x86 license, so only Intel can make processor for our computer and AMD. Intel almost destroy AMD(close the company) but due to court rule in US, there must be at least 2 companies manufacture those( the court doesn't want Intel to rule the market).

There are still alot of companies make processor but not for x86 architecture (our computer), most companies only make for server processor and other digital product. IBM make cell processor for XBOX and PS3, however they can not make processor for laptop and desktop because Intel doesn't allow them or sell license to them. So, only Intel and AMD can make.

why do we always hear Intel and AMD only when it comes to buying processors? because only two companies got x86 license +VIA( VIA is almost gone)

PS+++++ my English is bad, hope you understand.
Share
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 9:39:00 AM

Because they are the only ones making Desktop grade processors at the moment. They own the entire market share.
Nobody can hope to rival them unless they have something AMAZING up their sleeve like a random launch of an entire range of processors all better than the upcoming Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge cores.

VIA are much more in the handheld / netbook market.

Qualcomm are the same.



Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 9:56:29 AM

In theory, couldnt intel cut AMDs liscence? or are they making a mass of money off it?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 10:06:07 AM

Yes, intel may be boss, but it is kind of a seesaw between the two companies. AMD kicked intel's ass with the Athlon 64 vs P4 war, however, intel caught on again with the C2D series...

its always gonna be a seesaw, one company lags behind, they throw their R&D into overdrive for a good while and whop they are ahead for a little while, then other company throws bucketloads into R&D.

I hate intel for their business strategy though, they have some very dirty tricks, especially with the x86 license. They just make it impossible for anyone else to enter the market and kill of anyone who does. Furthermore all the deals they make with various shops to only sell intel based systems... convinced my boss to let it go, and wow, he thanked me we started making a bit more revenue.

People always tend to underestimate AMD, and that really does quite piss me off.

Personally I boycot intel for their anticompetetive practices. Sure they have nice stuff, but to me AMD has much better value, and pretty dam good performance as well, and don't play these dirty monopolistic games.

And now with intel making it impossible to use your old mobo's for the new Sandy bridge. those who bought nice pricy 1156 and 13** boards are basically limited to the chips that are on the market, whilst AMD is really friendly with upgradeability. Would not surprise me if they made bulldozer work in AM3, and would not surprise me all that much if they let it work in AM2+ aswell, although that probably won't happen

They are basically like apple just don't have as much media attention so a lot of people don't know much about how f***ing dirty intel is.

Now go ahead, call me an AMD fanboy, tis a bit true to an extent but I still make my decisions realistically. For me I want to get a lot of value out of my money, and if I were to get better pay I'd probably be more likely to buy Intel CPU's. In the end my decisions will be based on the content of my wallet, but company image does affect my decisions, if you get what im trying to say.

Anyways competition is always good, and the more people buy AMD now, the more overall prices are gonna fall.
Score
0
November 19, 2010 10:24:06 AM

Quote:
^Your theories doesn't make any difference.Bottomline is that intel kicks amd's ass in every department right now.Amd phenom architecture is so dated.Amd only knows how to sell bad underperforming quad core cpus with locked core so that greedy amd fanboys buy them and to add more core to a weak architecture.Thats why a six core phenom cannot beat an quad core iseries.I hate them as much as anything. If intel reduces price of their cpus then amd will become extinct.


:non:  :non:  - Wrong!

Not all people buy into the market at no cost. Value for money is the key term here. Saying someone is a "fanboy" for buying into something is comical. Again, this debate has been tried and tested some many times is unbelieveable...

Intel provide some decent CPU's so do AMD. Whose better than who? Only the person buying is capible of answering that question, so instead of pushing your own self egotistical view on something only yourself finds relevent, offer some good factual advise instead fanboy..

I personally believe AMD is better in the current market at providing the best bang for buck CPU, this doesnt mean there better.. Intel do have the performance market agreed, but AMD seem to provide more of main stream CPU.. This is only my opinion of course and bears no acceptance for anyone

Score
0
November 19, 2010 10:31:53 AM

reccy said:
:non:  :non:  - Wrong!


I personally believe AMD is better in the current market at providing the best bang for buck CPU, this doesnt mean there better.. Intel do have the performance market agreed, but AMD seem to provide more of main stream CPU.. This is only my opinion of course and bears no acceptance for anyone


Exactly. That why AMD survives even though intel is way better. If people didn't like bang for their buck 700$ budget gaming pc's wouldn't exist. Not every one can spend 1000$ on a 6 core cpu the same way not every one can put 3000$ into a gaming pc. :non: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 10:45:31 AM

Exactly, Bang for the buck is quite key, not just pure raw performance. Not everyone is looking for the best of the best, without financial restrictions.

90% of people either do not want to spend or do not care about the best of the best, this is one of the reasons that I sold more AMD systems when working in a store than I sold Intel systems. I think I sold about 80% AMD, just by giving people a short 30 second speech about value for money. I let the customer decide always, and it appears to me that value is really key!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 10:58:54 AM

deadjon said:
In theory, couldnt intel cut AMDs liscence? or are they making a mass of money off it?

Intel an AMD have a complex cross-licence agreement whereby AMD licences Intel's x86 architecture and Intel licences AMD's x86-64 extensions. It's a mutually beneficial agreement and neither company would do well by pulling out (although AMD would be worse off). Without x86-64, Intel would need to develop another implementation that doesn't infringe on AMD's patents. They tried that with Itanium but because it lacked the same level of backwards compatibility it was a failure. In the interim we'd have to go back to using 32-bit processors.
Score
0
a c 81 à CPUs
November 19, 2010 11:01:29 AM

I guess Intel is currently allowing AMD to survive.. Like Dipankar pointed out, if Intel decides to cut down prices on even their LGA 775 processors, AMD will get cornered.. AMD did a great act though by acquiring ATI.. Now if only they could bring the same level of competition on the CPU front.. All the best AMD..
Score
0
November 19, 2010 11:05:25 AM

....don't worry about the bucks..there's plenty of bang in the Phenom's believe me.......I own two of them and they are great.... :bounce: 

Q.....why does the world run on Winows 7.0?

A..... Aero plus Intel graphics. :cry: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 11:19:28 AM

harna said:
....don't worry about the bucks..there's plenty of bang in the Phenom's believe me.......I own two of them and they are great.... :bounce: 

Got one here, love it. Overclocks like a beast as well....
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 11:20:38 AM

EVERYBODY LOVES INTEL vs AMD FLAME WARS.

LETS GET CAPS LOCK ON THE GO...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 11:26:58 AM

Intel had to license a competitor the x86 rights, or they what have been operating as a monopoly, and to some degree still are.
Score
0
November 19, 2010 11:27:06 AM

I love being right...
Score
0
November 19, 2010 11:41:28 AM

Quote:
Amd survives becoz intel allows them to survive.If intel want they can kill amd within a year.They can easily reduce there cpu price (c2d,c2q).Intel enjoys a huge consumer base.Even if they reduce prices they can still make big profit.

Donot think that amd sells cpu at a low price becoz they love consumer.Truth is that amd is obliged to sell their crappy cpus(as compared to superior intel offering) at a low price becoz there cpus doesn't deserve high price tag.

AMD IS ALIVE BECOZ INTEL ALLOWS THEM TO STAY ALIVE.


Please provide proof of this statement..

Opinions dont count as facts im afriad.. No offense but you may have completely missed the point..

Score
0
November 19, 2010 12:03:35 PM

Quote:
What kind of proof you want?
1.Proof of how intel cpus thrash amd cpus in games.
2.Or proof of Amd surviving becoz intel want them to survive.

For the first one go check out reviews.

For the second one no one needs proof.Even a child can understand my point.Intel cpus are superior.If intel reduce prices even budget gamers will start buying them.Thus killing amd.


1 - Some do yes, but not everything is down to games, what about video encoding? etc.. Look outside of the box, Not every single Intel Chip "thrashs" AMD..

2 - Yes, you prove to me that Intel are holding AMD's hand in the market, and if they let go, AMD would go under.. To be honest, i dont see it.

The thing is, im not a child, and a child wouldnt be buying either chip, im an Adult and "your" judgement or view onto something doesnt make it right.. Even if it was, explain/provide proof of why they would kill AMD..

You saying they would has no factual evidence to provide a good case.. More of a case of arguments to be fair.. Along the line of that blue car is faster than the red one..
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 19, 2010 12:18:21 PM

kimyeang88 said:
Only AMD and Intel atm have x86 license . read this
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-x86-cpu,7285...

Intel is like the boss. They got x86 license, so only Intel can make processor for our computer and AMD. Intel almost destroy AMD(close the company) but due to court rule in US, there must be at least 2 companies manufacture those( the court doesn't want Intel to rule the market).

There are still alot of companies make processor but not for x86 architecture (our computer), most companies only make for server processor and other digital product. IBM make cell processor for XBOX and PS3, however they can not make processor for laptop and desktop because Intel doesn't allow them or sell license to them. So, only Intel and AMD can make.

why do we always hear Intel and AMD only when it comes to buying processors? because only two companies got x86 license +VIA( VIA is almost gone)

PS+++++ my English is bad, hope you understand.

What do you mean VIA is almost gone?
Score
0
November 19, 2010 12:18:42 PM

Cyrix made PC processors in the 90's, but they didn't last. The "PC" or long name _IBM PC Compatibles_ uses Intel based chips to begin with, so Intel holds all the cards.

In the old days we had many different types of "home computers" with different processors, and the IBM PC just happened to be one of many.

Even Apple Macs are nothing more than Apple brand PC's (IBM PC Compatibles).

Before AMD vs Intel, In the old days we had Apple vs Commodore64 flame wars, with Atari poking their head in from time to time.
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 19, 2010 12:35:26 PM

Quote:
Amd survives becoz intel allows them to survive.If intel want they can kill amd within a year.They can easily reduce there cpu price (c2d,c2q).Intel enjoys a huge consumer base.Even if they reduce prices they can still make big profit.

Donot think that amd sells cpu at a low price becoz they love consumer.Truth is that amd is obliged to sell their crappy cpus(as compared to superior intel offering) at a low price becoz there cpus doesn't deserve high price tag.

AMD IS ALIVE BECOZ INTEL ALLOWS THEM TO STAY ALIVE.

AMD survives because people buy their CPUs. The government has laws against monopolies and because if intel somehow got past that and caused AMD to leave the market, they would HAVE to buy AMD in order to keep producing x86-64 processors. Cross licencing agreement.
I'm probably going to be called an AMD fanboy or some such ***** by you for saying that. So I'm not going to say anything more to you.
You are as arrogant as that person on TV I saw once who said Canada exists because the USA "lets them live there."
By the way, honest question, why do you always try to start flame wars?

But forget that. What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, why is only intel and AMD the only CPU manufacturer's considered? They are the only ones with competitive processors on the market. People get the processing power they want at the prices they can afford. However, this is only in regards to x86 CPUs. If My explanation puts VIA out of the picture but with them out of the picture, there is no one else who can produce x86 processors anyway due to licensing. There used to be a lot more x86 manufacturer's but they have all gone bankrupt or moved on to other things. Or been bought out like Cyrix by AMD (I think. I know they bought someone.). And like we've said, the two companies will continue to exist because of laws against monopolies and due to their cross-licensing agreements.

VIA's processors are only viable in the low end market that cares about power consumption.

Microship? They make PIC controllers, not mainstream CPUs. These are for specific tasks to be controlled by, well, the PIC. Look up PIC on wikipedia if you want to know more.
Score
0
November 19, 2010 1:07:14 PM

Quote:
^Answer this question.Which one you will buy if a phenom x6 and i7 950 are priced same?If you still say x6 then i would say my pet dog is smarter than you.


But there not in the real world, thats like saying.. Would you buy a Aston Martin DB9 or a Nissan Micra if they were priced the same...

Realisticly Intel has better performaing CPU's but at a higher cost, again as myself and others have stated, not everyone is in the market for the best of the best.

My personaly view on this is AMD is the main stream market holder, whilst Intel has the better performing CPU's...

Score
0
November 19, 2010 1:49:16 PM

Quote:
That is exactly my point if intel reduces prices amd will become extinct.Intel can afford to reduce prices becoz of there huge consumer base.I think i proved my point.


You obviously dont, like speaking to a deaf monkey..

Intel have about 70% of the market at the moment, according to google.. But that doesnt mean if they reduce their prices AMD will go bust.. AMD have more main stream CPU's out there at cheaper prices..

Intel seem more based on performing CPU's at higher prices, i still know alot of customers who would choice AMD over Intel.. Intel havent got the power to reduce their prices otherwise they would of to increase their customer base.. The fact is i know there are laws out their to prevent 1 company monopolising (Spelling) a certain area of a market, but im sure if they could make there main competitor work to the limit they would have, and i dont see Intel doing that..

You have no proof that Intel are holding AMD's hand and that they are holding back on reducing their prices on their chips..

Your word on this matter is complete fictional and a matter of opinion, please provide me proof that Intel could lower there prices to see there main/only competitor go under...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 2:17:16 PM

Intel is the best...blah blah blah...AMD is the best value for the buck...blah blah blah...

You kids keep nattering with each other on and on. Fanbois of the world unite!!!

As for me, I will buy what makes sense at the time I need to buy. If I need an Intel processor, then that is what I will buy. If and AMD processor makes more sense, then that is what I will buy. Did I find a good sale for an Nvidia graphics card? Schweet! Wait, that was for an AMD card...still schweet!

The minute you start branding yourself to one company or the other, you have closed off the possibility of finding great deals, not just because you have stopped looking at the other guy's product, but because you are contributing to the forces of monopolization.

The more your purchases are directed to one company without a good amount of research, the less that company has to work to win your trust. Soon, the other guy goes out of business and you end up paying 2 to 3 times more for the same product the next time you go shopping.

Buy what makes sense, but stop all this senseless BS going back and forth arguing whose kit is better. The best kit is the one you chose, and leave it at that. And the next time you g out there to buy something, do your homework and compare your budget to what is available. You might surprise yourself.

Keep competition alive! Without it, we wouldn't be able to afford half the stuff we see on TG.
Score
0
November 19, 2010 2:35:03 PM


I came to know new facts through this discussion however I do not agree the fact that AMD is surviving just becaz Intel is letting and I am not saying this becaz I hv AMD avatar.

Before buying the present AMD Hexacore I went through all the forums here and everywhere and got a mixed response regarding which is better so I used the most basic technique.... comparison.

I simply opened the tech specifications of all the same level Processors from Intel and AMD and compared them and what I found is that while Intel does become 20 at times when AMD is 18 however when you look at the price it just makes everything clear, AMD is less then half of Intel.

And I think it takes lot of technological advancement to keep the price low while giving the same or nearly same cutting edge technology on which Intel lacks (according to me). I think if it is just upto Intel, they would have simply chosen to reduce the prize of their processor instead of putting in heavy investment they do in its marketing. I am saying this becaz I see intel advertizing on TV at least once every day while I do not remember when did I see AMD last.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 2:35:39 PM

And to respond to the parent poster, there are other processor manufacturers out there. IBM is still continuing to develop the POWER line of processors. In fact, they are the most efficient processors available on the market right now, provided you can afford them at $20,000 apiece. And no, they are not x86. They use their own RISC-based architecture that goes back all the way to the late 70s. Apple used to dabble with PowerPC, a variant of the instruction set, and the Cell processors are an evolutionary offshoot of the same line.

The majority of processors bought and sold on the market are for embeded use, such as the brains that control your car, TV cable box, DVD/Blueray player, etc. Only a very small number of these processors use an x86 instruction set. A large majority are using RISC-based sets (like any number of PowerPC controller chips sold by Freescale and IBM, any or the ARM-based chips sold by a large number of manufacturers for smart phones, etc.). Only a small number of processors are actually sold for use in general computing, and about 98% of those processors come from either Intel or AMD.

For the future, I predict that we will see fewer and fewer general-use processor sold as we find embedded computers become more and more prevalent (and capable). Smart phones and tablet devices will replace laptops for a majority of the users out there. Console gaming systems will replace gaming PCs for a majority of the gaming public. You will still see general-use computers, just they will become more niche and targeted towards programmers, designers and developers.
Score
0
November 19, 2010 2:45:10 PM

reccy said:


The fact is i know there are laws out their to prevent 1 company monopolising (Spelling) a certain area of a market, but im sure if they could make there main competitor work to the limit they would have, and i dont see Intel doing that..

...




This is exactly my point.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 3:03:42 PM

deadmeow said:
Cyrix made PC processors in the 90's, but they didn't last. The "PC" or long name _IBM PC Compatibles_ uses Intel based chips to begin with, so Intel holds all the cards.

In the old days we had many different types of "home computers" with different processors, and the IBM PC just happened to be one of many.

Even Apple Macs are nothing more than Apple brand PC's (IBM PC Compatibles).

Before AMD vs Intel, In the old days we had Apple vs Commodore64 flame wars, with Atari poking their head in from time to time.


ATARI FTW!!! :D 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 3:31:37 PM

Actually for the record, Intel has had over 80% of the total x86 CPU market for quite some time now, and in the last year has increased their marketshare of the highly profitable server segment to something like 94%.

When AMD had the top-performing CPU (K8) and Intel was stuck with the P4, AMD was charging top dollar at the time and Intel had to cut their prices to stay at around 70% marketshare (and ~ 60% server IIRC). Of course, as the EU and other countries found out, Intel also had some sweet deals with OEMS like Dell to keep them buying Intel product, but around the same time AMD was capacity strained in that they were selling every CPU they could make, and it takes years and billions of $$ to bring a new fab on line (this was when AMD still had their own fabs). Yeah this has been debated here and elsewhere but as evidence there is a statement by Hector Ruiz I believe, back in 2006, where he admitted AMD was capacity constrained.

IIRC this was about the only period during AMD's 40-year history that they made any substantial profit.

Anyway, as we all know, Intel abandoned the netburst P4 and went back to the P3 design, improved it and came out with the Core 2 CPUs in the summer of 2006 which seemed to have caught AMD totally by surprise. IIRC Q4 of 2006 was the first of about 12 or 13 straight losing quarters for AMD, during which they bled some $7 billion dollars of value down the drain. However a lot of that was the ATI purchase write-off.

In the most recent third quarter earnings reports, Intel made something like $3B profit and AMD either a small loss or profit, depending on whether you exclude the GF charges. So, IMO, Dip is correct - if Intel were to cut their huge quarterly profits in half for 6 months to a year, by dropping prices across the board, AMD would almost certainly go belly-up or get bought out at garage-sale prices, maybe by Nvidia. Or the UAE maybe. Or Apple or Oracle :p . Technically, as long as Intel still charged enough to make a profit on every CPU sold, they would not be guilty of "dumping" to drive AMD out of business. Practically however I imagine that would put Intel under a very large microscope that they don't want, so it appears they are content to let AMD continue along.

Now if Bulldozer and Llano and Zacate start to threaten Intel's lead and marketshare, things will get interesting (in the Chinese sense of the word) pretty quickly..
Score
0
a c 81 à CPUs
November 19, 2010 4:57:23 PM

Quote:
I laughed for a minute after reading that BS.Intel is the world leader in cutting edge technology.


Do you have any idea as to what is meant by cutting edge technology.?
Score
0
November 19, 2010 5:02:42 PM

Quote:
I laughed for a minute after reading that BS.Intel is the world leader in cutting edge technology.


The BS is that you have nothing to back your statements on, just fictional humour and to which is becoming annoying and dated..

Intel isnt the best out there, both AMD and Intel are on Par to be honest..

Not one have made a super chip which is above the rest and is priced competively.. The 980x is an impressive chip, but its not fantastic and new technology according to the 920/930's.. Its just a bit quicker with more cores..

You show me where Intel are in the next step above AMD in terms of "cutting edge technology" then i'll agree that your right.. But at the moment, you have nothing to back you up and what you say is complete BS..

Start proving your statements..
Score
0
November 19, 2010 5:14:37 PM

kimyeang88 said:
Only AMD and Intel atm have x86 license .

Hmmm, are you sure about that ?
I'm not seeking to start a fight, but my 2nd PC (some 15 years ago, I'm presently at my 5th PC which will soon be retired) had a CPU called Cyrix P133+ and I'm quite sure that was a x86 based CPU as I used Win95 as OS without any special setup.
Doesn't Windows require a x86 based CPU to run ?

Score
0
November 19, 2010 5:40:34 PM

^^ i think that was 16-bit but all the same yeah lol. i would really like VIA's dual-core Nano to kick out that crappy atom :(  BUT intel wipes the floor with AMD when it comes to performance on the big guns :) 
Score
0
November 19, 2010 5:40:39 PM

N.Broekhuijsen said:

People always tend to underestimate AMD, and that really does quite piss me off.
Personally I boycot intel for their anticompetetive practices. Sure they have nice stuff, but to me AMD has much better value, and pretty dam good performance as well, and don't play these dirty monopolistic games.

Amen to that, brother :love: 
You just expressed my feelings, attitude and actions perfectly.
Even at my 5th PC (and 6th soon to emerge) not once have I bought Intel.
Don't get me wrong, if other people buy Intel that's their business and I have no hard feelings about that, but just like you I don't like anticompetetive practices, so I stick with AMD.
Score
0
November 19, 2010 6:16:51 PM

deadmeow said:
Before AMD vs Intel, In the old days we had Apple vs Commodore64 flame wars, with Atari poking their head in from time to time.

Actually, I believe it was ZX spectrum vs. Commodore 64 :D 
Ah, good old C64.... man, I loved that machine :love: 
I had (and used) my C64 for some 9 years. How many can say that about their PC now adays ?

Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 6:25:21 PM

just another rude boi internet poster.

you have some good points that are overshadowed by your for lack of a better word "fanboyism"

You dont have to look far back to see amd was ahead.

I also dont pay 800$ for a cpu so I dont think I'll be seeing any of that intel cutting edge technology.

My next processor will probably be intel. as is my current q6600, That doesnt mean I'm blind and if Amd's hammer rocks and is cheaper/better value I may go to that.

You are just wearing this giant pair of blinders and arguing with you is like arguing with a deaf dumb blind kid who just keeps shouting out semi-fictional statements and random insults.

I do agree with parts of both sides of this argument.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 6:58:03 PM

Quote:
http://techcocktail.com/intel-shows-off-latest-tech-inn...

Intel makes ssd.I have to ask my crystal ball to know if amd makes any.

Reccy Now prove what makes you say intel and amd are on par?

Intel is the first one to adopt 32nm fabrication(980x).

Only thing amd is good at is to sell bad quad cores cpus with locked cores.

Company which will be 2 generations behind intel after sandybridge launch doesn't deserve to be called a competetor.


I think you need to relax a little, on your enthusiastic bashing of anyone non-intel. It's borderline trolling, and is only going to incite a flame war. Prove your points with facts, and tone down some of the dramatics.
Score
0
November 19, 2010 7:00:57 PM

Quote:
http://techcocktail.com/intel-shows-off-latest-tech-inn...

Intel makes ssd.I have to ask my crystal ball to know if amd makes any.

Reccy Now prove what makes you say intel and amd are on par?

Intel is the first one to adopt 32nm fabrication(980x).

Only thing amd is good at is to sell bad quad cores cpus with locked cores.

Company which will be 2 generations behind intel after sandybridge launch doesn't deserve to be called a competetor.


SSD?? Thats nothing new, A few companies make these, doesnt mean its miles ahead of AMD in terms of technology does it??

You obviously dont like AMD's and alot of people do, including myself..

Nothing you have stated is new or mind blowing futuristic next term technology.. the 980x isnt competetive at all, you can build a whole new computer with buying just the chip. Its a solid performance piece and thats it.. Its not gonna to make AMD go bust is it lol :lol: 

AMD have got the middle market pretty well, you either like it or lump it sunbeam... Intel have the performace share..
Sad to see your ignorance cant be turned into constructing intellegence.. :pfff: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 7:23:40 PM

I thought this thread was going to talk about the history of the first x86 companies, and where things have gone until now, sigh
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 7:25:35 PM

IMO AMD stands a decent chance to catch up with Intel with Bulldozer, at least in multihreaded apps - some interesting design choices in it according to what I've read. Unfortunately we don't have any info on it yet, just some vague "50% better throughput with 33% more cores" compared to Magny Cours in server applications. But since the desktop version now appears to coming in Q2 of next year, we won't have to wait too long before the shootout vs. Sandy Bridge happens and we all suffer from sensory or benchmark overload :p .

OTOH, Intel didn't just throw away years of R&D with netburst either - some of it has been brought back to life with Sandy Bridge, according to Realworld Technologies , and the Anandtech preview too. SB looks to be pretty impressive compared to Nehalem (and Westmere which is the 32nm shrink of Nehalem).

So I predict 2 things - 1st, in just one year we will be yammering about Ivy Bridge vs. Bulldozer with the GPU onboard, and 2nd - unless posters here clean up the posts a bit, threadlock is gonna be comin' shortly...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2010 7:44:55 PM

sportsfanboy said:
I thought this thread was going to talk about the history of the first x86 companies, and where things have gone until now, sigh


Hmm, checks the thread title - you're right! :D 

For the history I suggest Wiki, as it is probably not too far off the mark. Somebody posted that it was IBM that forced Intel to second-source x86 CPUs and I believe that was correct. Intel's CEO Gordon Moore, of "Moore's Law" fame, chose AMD as the 2nd source because he was good friends with AMD's CEO at the time (quick somebody remind me who that was :p ). But Intel licensed other companies for x86 as well, esp. when they contemplated going with Itanium to supplant x86, and hence thought why not make a buck or two off what they thought would be an outdated technology. However they had more problems with Itanium than they thought they would (it was based on VLIW and hence required pre-processing to resolve out-of-order code dependencies, IIRC). It had x86 emulation but that was the pits apparently. However Intel didn't want to injure their darling so they didn't incorporate 64-bit processing until AMD did it first and made it into a selling point (plus the K8 was an excellent server architecture at the time and thus a viable alternative to Itanium, Sparc, PowerPC, etc).

Anyway, to get into the modern CPU game it takes probably billions of dollars of R&D (and lots more if you build your own fabs) spread out over years, with various lines of research just in case the main one doesn't pan out as expected. Plus there's marketing and the need to distinguish your product from the competition. So we have Via in the cellphone and tablet niche, where Intel is pointing Atom, and AMD and Intel in the mainstream and server and mobile markets.

Overseas I believe China is working on an x86 emulation CPU (quick somebody remind me of that name too :D ). Other than that, I don't recall anybody else who is or might become a serious competitor. Just takes too much $$ and besides, who wants to go up against Intel with all their economic and IP and other resources?? Other than Dogman1234 that is :D ?? (FYI, he had a thread here last spring about starting up a CPU company to take on Intel, but IIRC he only got as far as choosing the name of his company - Canine Loopus Universal Semiconductors, Inc).
Score
0
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 20, 2010 4:00:20 AM

Houndsteeth said:
The minute you start branding yourself to one company or the other, you have closed off the possibility of finding great deals, not just because you have stopped looking at the other guy's product, but because you are contributing to the forces of monopolization.

The more your purchases are directed to one company without a good amount of research, the less that company has to work to win your trust. Soon, the other guy goes out of business and you end up paying 2 to 3 times more for the same product the next time you go shopping.

Buy what makes sense, but stop all this senseless BS going back and forth arguing whose kit is better. The best kit is the one you chose, and leave it at that. And the next time you g out there to buy something, do your homework and compare your budget to what is available. You might surprise yourself.

Keep competition alive! Without it, we wouldn't be able to afford half the stuff we see on TG.

Well said.

stone-69 said:
Hmmm, are you sure about that ?
I'm not seeking to start a fight, but my 2nd PC (some 15 years ago, I'm presently at my 5th PC which will soon be retired) had a CPU called Cyrix P133+ and I'm quite sure that was a x86 based CPU as I used Win95 as OS without any special setup.
Doesn't Windows require a x86 based CPU to run ?

Yes. Very sure. Plus VIA. From wikipedia:
National Semiconductor distanced itself from the CPU market, and without direction, the Cyrix engineers left one by one. By the time National Semiconductor sold Cyrix to VIA Technologies, the design team was no more and the market for the MII had disappeared.
In June 2006, AMD unveiled the world's lowest-power x86-compatible processor that consumes only 0.9 watts of power. This processor is based on the Geode core, demonstrating that Cyrix's architectural ingenuity still survives.
Although the company was short-lived and the brand name is no longer actively used by its current owner, Cyrix's competition with Intel created the market for budget CPUs, which cut the average selling price of PCs and ultimately forced Intel to release its Celeron line of budget processors and cut the prices of its faster processors more quickly in order to compete.

Quote:
http://techcocktail.com/intel-shows-off-latest-tech-inn...

Intel makes ssd.I have to ask my crystal ball to know if amd makes any.

Reccy Now prove what makes you say intel and amd are on par?

Intel is the first one to adopt 32nm fabrication(980x).

Only thing amd is good at is to sell bad quad cores cpus with locked cores.

Company which will be 2 generations behind intel after sandybridge launch doesn't deserve to be called a competetor.

I can't resist:
AMD makes good Video Cards.I have to ask my crystal ball to know if intel makes anything remotely good for anything but basic tasks.

doesn't deserve to be called a competetor.
Stop your flaming and debate like a human being. If you want to debate on every forum you post in, debate, don't troll.
Let me retort with my own non-human comment: You probably became an addict by posting flame war comments on every thread you came across. Get a life.

aford10 said:
I think you need to relax a little, on your enthusiastic bashing of anyone non-intel. It's borderline trolling, and is only going to incite a flame war. Prove your points with facts, and tone down some of the dramatics.


Also, I should remove this thread from my followed before I get too pissed.
Score
0
November 20, 2010 5:02:49 AM

Quote:
I laughed for a minute after reading that BS.Intel is the world leader in cutting edge technology.



You did not get what I wrote. Let me clarify.... Intel lacks completely at keeping the price low while providing the processors of that level on which AMD is far ahead.

Score
0
November 20, 2010 12:52:15 PM

enzo matrix said:

National Semiconductor distanced itself from the CPU market, and without direction, the Cyrix engineers left one by one. By the time National Semiconductor sold Cyrix to VIA Technologies, the design team was no more and the market for the MII had disappeared.
In June 2006, AMD unveiled the world's lowest-power x86-compatible processor that consumes only 0.9 watts of power. This processor is based on the Geode core, demonstrating that Cyrix's architectural ingenuity still survives.
Although the company was short-lived and the brand name is no longer actively used by its current owner, Cyrix's competition with Intel created the market for budget CPUs, which cut the average selling price of PCs and ultimately forced Intel to release its Celeron line of budget processors and cut the prices of its faster processors more quickly in order to compete.

Hi Enzo
Thanks for the info, but that still leaves me wondering and my question unanswered :
If Cyrix didn't have an x86-licence how could I run Win 95 on my Cyrix P133+ based PC ?
Doesn't windows require a x86 based CPU to run ?

Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2010 9:10:22 AM

Probably the Japanese should enter the market..In 1970s Intel almost went broke because of Japanese entering the ram market..
Score
0
November 21, 2010 9:42:50 AM

Quote:
I never told they will kill amd i told if they want they can do it.But they cannot do it becoz of EU and some court order blah blah blah.


You contradicted yourself.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2010 9:55:00 AM

stone-69 said:
Hi Enzo
Thanks for the info, but that still leaves me wondering and my question unanswered :
If Cyrix didn't have an x86-licence how could I run Win 95 on my Cyrix P133+ based PC ?
Doesn't windows require a x86 based CPU to run ?


I think that Cyrix reverse engineered it without having to use a license.
Yes I see it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrix#Legal_troubles

In a way it was similar to what happened with the BIOS inside the IBM PC and the rise of Clone PC's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaq#Compaq_Portable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Technologies#Histo...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 21, 2010 10:24:26 AM

I think somebody needs to calm down. *cough* Dipankar.
Score
0
November 21, 2010 12:03:18 PM

lol if you had £50 for a CPU, you can get a pentium 4 or a athlon ii x2 255...? prove a point? (i don't hate intel, in fact i have a C2Q right now) :D 
Score
0
!