Closed

What does Intel have that AMD lacks?

Intel sucks because whenever they release new processors, the new socket types are new too, so if I buy a computer with Sandy Bridge processor right now, I won't be able to use any other parts if I buy a new processor released after a year or so. I'll have to buy a completely new rig if I want to get the latest Intel processor. On the other hand, AMD sucks because though they always make processors to be backwards compatible, they can't beat Intel chips.

Why can't AMD build Phenom II or Athlon II processors that can beat Intel's 2 year old chips? What the f*** is it that Intel has that AMD lacks? Can someone please give me a definite answer?
39 answers Last reply
More about what intel lacks
  1. emmanuelxian07 said:

    Why can't AMD build Phenom II or Athlon II processors that can beat Intel's 2 year old chips? What the f*** is it that Intel has that AMD lacks? Can someone please give me a definite answer?


    ????????

    Just a few billion $$$$$$$ to 1 advantage Intel's way, for product development, manufacturing ,and marketing.

    Hopefully you aren't actually serious !!!
  2. swimswithtrout said:
    ????????

    Just a few billion $$$$$$$ to 1 advantage Intel's way, for product development, manufacturing ,and marketing.

    Hopefully you aren't actuary serious !!!



    Dude, is this really the only issue?
  3. no sh-t son
  4. Lol, the problem here is that AMD's core technology has not changed in a looong time. Therefore they haven't required many socket changes, but on the other hand, they have fallen behind in performance
  5. bearclaw99 said:
    Lol, the problem here is that AMD's core technology has not changed in a looong time. Therefore they haven't required many socket changes, but on the other hand, they have fallen behind in performance


    They've always lagged way behind in performance.

    AMD's only selling point is price.

    Intel/AMD you get what you pay for.
  6. emmanuelxian07 said:
    Intel sucks because whenever they release new processors, the new socket types are new too, so if I buy a computer with Sandy Bridge processor right now, I won't be able to use any other parts if I buy a new processor released after a year or so. I'll have to buy a completely new rig if I want to get the latest Intel processor. On the other hand, AMD sucks because though they always make processors to be backwards compatible, they can't beat Intel chips.

    Why can't AMD build Phenom II or Athlon II processors that can beat Intel's 2 year old chips? What the f*** is it that Intel has that AMD lacks? Can someone please give me a definite answer?


    What are you doing that is so demanding that you need a new processor annually? Probably nothing.

    Oh and Phenom II's do beat Intel's line up from 2008, for less money.

    What's the difference? Intel has more cash revenue, and AMD is trying to compete in markets and with features that Intel doesn't have (backwards compatibility for instance).


    swimswithtrout said:
    They've always lagged way behind in performance.


    Don't be stupid, you damn well know that's not true.
  7. It takes mega bucks to turn sand (silicon) into CPUs. I am kinda surprised that AMD is still in the game and am hoping that Global Foundries will help them catch up and still be profitable.
  8. Quote:
    Francois Piednoel


    You got to love an Intel Performance analysist being quoted saying this

    "Overclocking isn’t going away because overclocking is very important to Intel. If one of our CPUs does not overclock as well as we believe it should, we strive to make corrections until desired performance levels are met. Overclocking is a great way to see tomorrow’s performance today. I’ll say that due to sheer amount of transistors [numbering now in the billions], the many, many buses that must all be synced makes designing for overclocking a pain in the butt sometimes"

    Piednoel is great
    thanks for the reference, Dadiggle
  9. emmanuelxian07 said:
    Intel sucks because whenever they release new processors, the new socket types are new too, so if I buy a computer with Sandy Bridge processor right now, I won't be able to use any other parts if I buy a new processor released after a year or so. I'll have to buy a completely new rig if I want to get the latest Intel processor. On the other hand, AMD sucks because though they always make processors to be backwards compatible, they can't beat Intel chips.

    Why can't AMD build Phenom II or Athlon II processors that can beat Intel's 2 year old chips? What the f*** is it that Intel has that AMD lacks? Can someone please give me a definite answer?


    Yes, but on this logic, the money you spend on new motherboards adds to efficiency granted by the new architecture. Keeping with old motherboards means keeping with old lane speeds, old features, old architectures which means less efficiency and more bottlenecks with future hardware. AMD is a great for budget solutions, but your vision of them as more future proof than intel makes no sense under the premise that you can re-use old motherboards to a greater cost efficiency. AMD is simply more likely to have an expanded range of processors for old architectures for if you are unwilling to increase your performance in smaller (albeit probably less efficient) increments.
  10. Well Sandy bridge has a problem right now (not the CPU though it's awesome).
    So when the new LGA 1155 boards are fixed AMD's new Zambezi "Bulldozer" might become available around that time (perhaps a little later).I think it is completely unfair to make any comparisons until the release of Zambezi.It could be a flop or it could be just good or could also be awesome too.
    Just wait until benchmarks are eventually available.
    Could AMD hit a home run this time around? It's possible as they have several times in their past (AMD 386dx-40,Athlon,Athlon 64 (and X2,FX line).
    I don't expect awesome or a hit run though but who knows.
    Just wait and see.

    Phenom II or Athlon II was never meant to compete with Nehalem ( a big win for Intel) but rather the Core 2 Quad/Duo line.

    Without that chip set failure in the Sandy bridge platform AMD's desktop CPU line was getting too long in the tooth and they would have had to drastically lower their current CPU prices to compete (especially since the Sandybridge i3 line was scheduled to come out in late February of this year (this month)).

    Now this has given them a couple of months of breathing time.
  11. Quote:
    What's the difference? Intel has more cash revenue, and AMD is trying to compete in markets and with features that Intel doesn't have (backwards compatibility for instance).



    Excuse me? If Intel didn't care about compatability, they would have droped Real mode and Virtual 8086 mode support AGES ago to save complexity, and done away with the old 16-bit layers that still exist. Every program ever written for X86 still runs, to this day, without changes because Intel has bent over backward keeping the old stuff on the processor.

    But yeah, it comes down to cash. Intel can afford to constantly R&D, where AMD can only do so many major architecture re-do's. And constantly re-doing the CPU architecture means you need to change sockets, as previous modes of operation may not be supported.

    And to be fair, AMD has had just as many sockets in recent years [AM2, AM2+, AM3, and now AM3+].
  12. My friend's Q6600 beats my Phenom II 940 if you want to travel in time...
  13. One of the problems is that many computers users,
    particularly American computer users, have random access memories
    that last a lot longer than the memories between their ears.

    Case in point:

    Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion in antitrust settlement

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10396188-92.html

    So, please don't rule out cut-throat business practices
    from your competitive analysis equations.


    I do seem to recall (a distant memory?) that AMD was
    the first to market with integrated memory controllers,
    and native 64-bit instructions that also ran
    native 32-bit x86 instructions in hardware.


    Then, there are these very recent points
    published at SemiAccurate:

    http://www.semiaccurate.com/2011/01/31/intels-recall-explanation-doesnt-hold-any-water/


    Either my dogma ate my karma, or
    my karma ran over my dogma.

    PICK ONE!


    MRFS
  14. billion dollar recalls?
  15. p.s. BTW: we don't call this the "Bleeding Edge" for nuthin'! :)

    We've got a P45 chipset still running wonderfully with a recent
    Highpoint RocketRAID SAS controller: >600MB/second
    and no need for any circuit re-do's:

    http://www.supremelaw.org/systems/hitachi/Hitachi.C15K147.ATTO.4xRAID0.JPG


    Moral of this Story: There are very good reasons
    for staying 6 months or so behind that "bleeding edge" --
    particularly if stability is a paramount operational objective.


    MRFS
  16. a better per core per clock architecture.

    If you run any application at the same base frequency in a single threaded (nonhyper-thread) environment, Intel will win a large majority of the time by almost any benchmark that doesn't have cost of the product involved. (Performance/watt, overall performance, performance per sq inch, etc)

    AMD is doing a good job of finding ways to unlevel the playing field so their chips don't look so bad, but they are a good generation (or 1.5 generations) behind Intel. I really hope they close this gap because I like AMD's products in general. I just can't ignore how much more you can do with what Intel is offering (not just desktop computers either... but laptops, cellphones, tablets, coke machines, etc). Intel is even starting to compete in markets where ARM and others were tops without much challenge.
  17. god you're all going to feel stupid in 4 months time when bulldozer is released.
  18. Jesus all the Intel fanboys coming out of the woodwork to proudly defend their chosen products. Intel has amazing engineers but their marketing / leadership is shady as hell, as a company I wouldn't go near them. They change sockets as often as they do to force customers to buy new mobo's which in turn means buying more chipset from Intel. They do this to encourage people to buy new computers rather then upgrade older ones, its pretty simple market strategy.

    AMD's biggest market is the enthusiast crowd, to appease them AMD tries to plan ahead and use universal socket designs and more modular motherboards. AM2 / AM2+ / AM3 are essentially the same socket, the number just determines the compatibility level. And AM3 CPU can be put in a AM2+ socket because the AM3 CPU's memory controller can operate in DDR3 or DDR2 mode thus ensuring compatibility. Someone can upgrade their AM2+ rig to an AM3 CPU and then later buy a new board / memory to take more advantage rather then being forced to purchase it all at once. They did the same thing with Socket-7 back in the day, you ~could~ put a AMD K6-2 CPU into an older socket-7 mobo, it would work but you might not get the best performance. Same idea with socket-478, they used that forever. Putting a newer CPU into an older mobo was still possible even though you might not get the full potential out of it.

    And frankly I'm amazed AMD is still producing CPU's that are worth while. Considering Intel's R&D budget is bigger then AMD's entire yearly income, that testifies to an amazing design team inside AMD. Either Intel is wasting tons of crash, or AMD is making solid products out of nearly nothing. As for who's more innovative, AMD was the first to come with on-die memory controllers and the ones to create x86-64. Intel had to license EMT64 ~from~ AMD, every Intel fanboy using Windows 7 x64 is actually using AMD's IP, go figure the irony. And lets not start talking about Intel + Rambus's attempt to take over the PC world by using dirty tactics to control the memory market (and everything attached to it).
  19. gamerk316 said:
    Quote:
    What's the difference? Intel has more cash revenue, and AMD is trying to compete in markets and with features that Intel doesn't have (backwards compatibility for instance).



    Excuse me? If Intel didn't care about compatability, they would have droped Real mode and Virtual 8086 mode support AGES ago to save complexity, and done away with the old 16-bit layers that still exist. Every program ever written for X86 still runs, to this day, without changes because Intel has bent over backward keeping the old stuff on the processor.

    But yeah, it comes down to cash. Intel can afford to constantly R&D, where AMD can only do so many major architecture re-do's. And constantly re-doing the CPU architecture means you need to change sockets, as previous modes of operation may not be supported.

    And to be fair, AMD has had just as many sockets in recent years [AM2, AM2+, AM3, and now AM3+].


    Your not excused. Read the actual thing I am quoting before you judge the context.

    Quote:
    Don't worry i'll remember to make fun of you when it does and it takes 8 cores to beat 4 core intel's.


    And I'll be there to make fun of you for not understanding how the architecture works, and worrying about architectural details over price and performance (what really matters).
  20. Quote:
    We got to thank Piednoel for Skulltrail


    I got to research skulltrail
    not familiar with term
    right now fixing emachine netbook intel atom with bad mbr/boot sector
    thank you mr hiren boot cd LOL
  21. it comes down to
    in any business there is healthy competition
    in cars it is Ford vs Chevy Mercedes Benz vs BMW etc
    If I was looking to build a great inexpensive mutlimedia encoding computer
    then a AMD 6 core would be my best bet
    if i wanted an rendering machine/3d modeler for business i would get a dual xeon
    for gaming i would get a I7 or I5 or 1090t depending on budget
    for a net book i would get an atom
    It is a good thing that we have these choices.
  22. actually instead of asking Intel vs AMD
    we should be asking
    why isnt there more chip makers?
    years ago i remember ibm pc clones with all kind of weird brand chips
    I remember Motorola as a major chip maker (anyone remember the Motorola 6800 series?)
    it hurts us not to have more competitors out there
    there is sparc and via but nothing viable in the X86 market
    besides intel and amd
    wonder how many backroom deals between the two of them
    we never heard of....
  23. Coding.
    Intel compilers use a chip recognition protocol to turn on certain shortcuts, when intel chips are present.
    A very important compiler is used to break out code for multiple processors.
    Intel is also well known for it's code writing and compiling support to companies like Adobe, and benchmark makers.
    Each time a new inovation comes out on an Intel chip, you see new or at least beta versions of benchmarks. You can bet that Intel staff gave support in the writing of the new code.
  24. king smp said:
    actually instead of asking Intel vs AMD
    we should be asking
    why isnt there more chip makers?
    years ago i remember ibm pc clones with all kind of weird brand chips
    I remember Motorola as a major chip maker (anyone remember the Motorola 6800 series?)
    it hurts us not to have more competitors out there
    there is sparc and via but nothing viable in the X86 market
    besides intel and amd
    wonder how many backroom deals between the two of them
    we never heard of....



    I agree with you..
  25. There are less and less chip-makers because Intel has been forcing each of them out of the business over the years. Usually it rotates around them refusing to license access to their latest CPU's starting with the Pentium IV. Intel refused to license access to the Pentium IV to Via, SiS or any of their previous partners. At the time their idea was they would leverage their popularity of their CPU's to force people to use the chipset / memory of their choice.

    For Intel your only choice was,

    Pentium IV
    Intel Chipset
    RAMBUS Ram

    Then the RAMBUS scandal hit and consumer demand forced Intel to support DDR / DDR2 memory for the Pentium IV. They still refused to license their "exclusive" bus IP so you were still stuck with Intel chipset for any access to the Pentium IV until Via was able to reverse engineer a chipset that was compatible. Afterwords Intel agreed to license it to Via / Sis, it was around now that Nvidia started makeing their own chipsets for AMD cpus. When Intel moved on to the Core architecture they cut off everyone and made sure nobody could reverse engineer how to access them (they patented the act of using the bus instead of just the designs). Via and Intel got into a HUGE argument over this but Via lost and could no longer produce chipsets for Intel CPU's, Sis didn't even try to fight it. NVidia was able to muscle their way into an agreement with Intel and thus you have the current situation in the world. AMD's open to anyone making chipsets for their CPU, but because they are the small guy no one will make chipsets for them without also being able to make chipsets for Intel. Intel won't allow anyone to make chipsets for them except NVidia, and recently they tried to pull what they did with Via "our old agreements don't apply to our shiny new processor", NVidia threatened to pull Intel's access to their IP (required for Intels new GPU-In-the-CPU idea) and eventually they settled. This is also one of the reasons Intel likes to chance socket types, by changing the physical layout they can force companies to renegotiate license agreements for access to the new socket type. IE, you can have access to socket 1156 but not 1366, you can make "value" chipsets but we'll never let you near the "performance" sector", or "you had access to our older design, but the new socket for our current processor requires you to pay us more money. Using this technique they can control the chipset / mobo market to favor who they want or to "maximize" their profits.

    Its for these reasons that I stay away from Intel CPU's, I don't want to support any company that resorts to such cheap, dirty and anti-competitive practices.
  26. king smp said:
    actually instead of asking Intel vs AMD
    we should be asking
    why isnt there more chip makers?
    years ago i remember ibm pc clones with all kind of weird brand chips
    I remember Motorola as a major chip maker (anyone remember the Motorola 6800 series?)
    it hurts us not to have more competitors out there
    there is sparc and via but nothing viable in the X86 market
    besides intel and amd
    wonder how many backroom deals between the two of them
    we never heard of....


    x86 patent. That is all.
  27. Quote:
    Don't worry i'll remember to make fun of you when it does and it takes 8 cores to beat 4 core intel's.


    I almost hate responding to trolls but. . .

    Intel's hyperthreaded 4 core CPUs are as much 8 core CPUs as AMD's bulldozer. Neither company can claim an 8 core chip and anyone who would try to simply doesn't know what they are talking about.

    The difference between the two (in simple terms) is that on the Intel chip they duplicate less circuitry on one of the cores to allow it to run 1 "heavy" thread and 1 "lite" thread. AMD has duplicated enough of the chip to allow it to run 2 "heavy" threads per core. Obviously, that takes more die space. Intel plans to try to go to 4 "lite" threads per core soon (by basically having 4 integer processors per core).

    A "lite" thread is a thread that has been decomposed into very basic instructions (Add, Multiply, etc) as opposed to a "heavy" thread which is one that is composed of any instruction.

    It's very realistic that Intel could keep up with AMD's bulldozer in highly threaded applications if the compiler used is bad/old. However, AMD should see a significant performance jump from being able to handle additional assembly in parallel.

    If Bulldozer fails to significantly close the gap between AMD and Intel products, I will wonder if they will ever do it.
  28. palladin9479 said:
    There are less and less chip-makers because Intel has been forcing each of them out of the business over the years. Usually it rotates around them refusing to license access to their latest CPU's starting with the Pentium IV. Intel refused to license access to the Pentium IV to Via, SiS or any of their previous partners. At the time their idea was they would leverage their popularity of their CPU's to force people to use the chipset / memory of their choice.

    For Intel your only choice was,

    Pentium IV
    Intel Chipset
    RAMBUS Ram

    Then the RAMBUS scandal hit and consumer demand forced Intel to support DDR / DDR2 memory for the Pentium IV. They still refused to license their "exclusive" bus IP so you were still stuck with Intel chipset for any access to the Pentium IV until Via was able to reverse engineer a chipset that was compatible. Afterwords Intel agreed to license it to Via / Sis, it was around now that Nvidia started makeing their own chipsets for AMD cpus. When Intel moved on to the Core architecture they cut off everyone and made sure nobody could reverse engineer how to access them (they patented the act of using the bus instead of just the designs). Via and Intel got into a HUGE argument over this but Via lost and could no longer produce chipsets for Intel CPU's, Sis didn't even try to fight it. NVidia was able to muscle their way into an agreement with Intel and thus you have the current situation in the world. AMD's open to anyone making chipsets for their CPU, but because they are the small guy no one will make chipsets for them without also being able to make chipsets for Intel. Intel won't allow anyone to make chipsets for them except NVidia, and recently they tried to pull what they did with Via "our old agreements don't apply to our shiny new processor", NVidia threatened to pull Intel's access to their IP (required for Intels new GPU-In-the-CPU idea) and eventually they settled. This is also one of the reasons Intel likes to chance socket types, by changing the physical layout they can force companies to renegotiate license agreements for access to the new socket type. IE, you can have access to socket 1156 but not 1366, you can make "value" chipsets but we'll never let you near the "performance" sector", or "you had access to our older design, but the new socket for our current processor requires you to pay us more money. Using this technique they can control the chipset / mobo market to favor who they want or to "maximize" their profits.

    Its for these reasons that I stay away from Intel CPU's, I don't want to support any company that resorts to such cheap, dirty and anti-competitive practices.


    Intel owns X86 via patent; they have EVERY RIGHT to protect their property.

    Frankly, I'd argue that being forced to license X86 to AMD to stay out of anti-trust trouble is too much intervention in the markets; let AMD make its own CPU architecture instead of freeloading on Intel's, and lets see how long they last.
  29. gamerk316 said:
    Intel owns X86 via patent; they have EVERY RIGHT to protect their property.

    Frankly, I'd argue that being forced to license X86 to AMD to stay out of anti-trust trouble is too much intervention in the markets; let AMD make its own CPU architecture instead of freeloading on Intel's, and lets see how long they last.


    You dont know intel licences x86-64 from AMD then?

    What's more - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-86

    For some advanced features, x86 may require license from Intel; x86-64 may require an additional license from AMD. The 80486 processor has been on the market for over 20 years [1] and so cannot be subject to patent claims. This subset of the x86 architecture is therefore fully open.
  30. gamerk316 said:
    Intel owns X86 via patent; they have EVERY RIGHT to protect their property.

    Frankly, I'd argue that being forced to license X86 to AMD to stay out of anti-trust trouble is too much intervention in the markets; let AMD make its own CPU architecture instead of freeloading on Intel's, and lets see how long they last.


    Go do more research, the original patents on x86 have expired as have several of the "additions". AMD has a perpetual license to the x86 instruction that it obtained back when the 80386 existed. That was a minor legal battle between the two, Intel claimed that AMD could on longer produce x86 compatible CPU's because the current generation of Pentiums were significantly different from the original 80386 and thus would require new licenses. AMD's argument was that because it is designing its own CPU's and not clones of Intel's architectures, that its original x86 licenses were all that was required for access to the x86 instruction set. BTW the instruction set hasn't changed since then, its only had additions like MMX / SSE / SSE2 / x64. Eventually they settled out of court with Intel no longer trying to lock AMD out from producing x86. This was about when Intel was failing to engineer their own x86-64 compatible instructions and sought to license x64-64 from AMD. They currently have a cross-license agreement in place, AMD has perpetual access to the x86 instruction set and all future modifications, Intel has access to x86-64 and all its future modifications.

    Quote:
    Its not selling pies at a local school fair. Its a billion dollar industry. You cant try and get into the business with pocket change and avg ideas. If you wanna play with the big boys you got to have balls. Intel is just doing what every other business is doing trying to make money. Theres no charity when it comes to big money. Many chip makers have faltered coz they werent up to the task. Is it so bad that Intel got some of the brighest people working for them? They started it all and they got where they are now with hard work and trillion dollars of research


    Selling pies or selling processors doesn't matter, the basic business laws are the exact same. And thankfully for the world the courts found against Intel. If you want to be dominate in a market you make the better product and develop the better technology. If Intel's products really are better, then they wouldn't have to resort to dirty market manipulation to maintain dominance, it would naturally happen. Frankly Intel wants it to go back to the good-ole-days before Athlon was ever made. Back then they could "produce" a new design every 6 months that was 33mhz faster then their previous "design" and charge out the nose for it all. The competition from AMD, a minuscule company in comparison, has forced Intel to be competitive and release newer innovative products. Without AMD we'd all be paying $500+ for slower CPU's using Rambus memory for x86. For 64-bit we'd be forced to use the shipwreck that is the Itanium and be all kinds of fcked.

    Look at it this way, Intel is the Apple of the PC microprocessor industry.
  31. "Look at it this way, Intel is the Apple of the PC microprocessor industry"
    I would think Intel was the Microsoft and AMD was the Apple....
  32. palladin9479 said:
    Go do more research, the original patents on x86 have expired as have several of the "additions". AMD has a perpetual license to the x86 instruction that it obtained back when the 80386 existed. That was a minor legal battle between the two, Intel claimed that AMD could on longer produce x86 compatible CPU's because the current generation of Pentiums were significantly different from the original 80386 and thus would require new licenses. AMD's argument was that because it is designing its own CPU's and not clones of Intel's architectures, that its original x86 licenses were all that was required for access to the x86 instruction set. BTW the instruction set hasn't changed since then, its only had additions like MMX / SSE / SSE2 / x64. Eventually they settled out of court with Intel no longer trying to lock AMD out from producing x86. This was about when Intel was failing to engineer their own x86-64 compatible instructions and sought to license x64-64 from AMD. They currently have a cross-license agreement in place, AMD has perpetual access to the x86 instruction set and all future modifications, Intel has access to x86-64 and all its future modifications.

    Quote:
    Its not selling pies at a local school fair. Its a billion dollar industry. You cant try and get into the business with pocket change and avg ideas. If you wanna play with the big boys you got to have balls. Intel is just doing what every other business is doing trying to make money. Theres no charity when it comes to big money. Many chip makers have faltered coz they werent up to the task. Is it so bad that Intel got some of the brighest people working for them? They started it all and they got where they are now with hard work and trillion dollars of research


    Selling pies or selling processors doesn't matter, the basic business laws are the exact same. And thankfully for the world the courts found against Intel. If you want to be dominate in a market you make the better product and develop the better technology. If Intel's products really are better, then they wouldn't have to resort to dirty market manipulation to maintain dominance, it would naturally happen. Frankly Intel wants it to go back to the good-ole-days before Athlon was ever made. Back then they could "produce" a new design every 6 months that was 33mhz faster then their previous "design" and charge out the nose for it all. The competition from AMD, a minuscule company in comparison, has forced Intel to be competitive and release newer innovative products. Without AMD we'd all be paying $500+ for slower CPU's using Rambus memory for x86. For 64-bit we'd be forced to use the shipwreck that is the Itanium and be all kinds of fcked.

    Look at it this way, Intel is the Apple of the PC microprocessor industry.


    How can Intel be the Apple lol
  33. Take a moment and think about Apple's business practices. The light bulb should turn on eventually.
  34. I have always used an alternative to intel cpu's where i could. from cyrix, IDT winchip, AMDk6-2, Athlon xp, athlon64 .... and then the core 2 duo came out and amd had no real competitive answer. Bulldozer needed to be released before sandy bridge, but since this chipset debarcle, amd may still be in with a chance. I've said it before, AMD need marketing/AMD awareness campaign. general consumers dont know AMD therefore dont buy AMD PC's. 1 Global advertising campaign would be all it needs....IF bulldozer delivers. They really needed this back in the athlonxp/athlon64 days when they were beating intel in terms of performance, it is a bit late now.
  35. That is the thing, I'm not a loyal "AMD" fan. I'm a Sun guy, most of my work takes place on SPARC's. I've even built my own SunBlade 2000 (as much as you can "build" something made from Sun) at the house, complete with 2x UltraSparc IIIi 1.13Ghz CPU's 8GB memory (DDR I believe, its Sun propriety pin layout) 2x 146GB 10K FC-AL drives and a (slightly) modified XVR-1200 display adapter in a PCI-X 64-bit 66Mhz slot. Unfortunately while I've been able to compile things like GL-Doom / Quake to work (very well I might add) on the SB2000, any serious gaming requires a x86 platform.

    So when building my x86 rig I had to choose between the two CPU manufactures, and I choose the one that doesn't have a shady history.

    "no they got fined for better customer service."

    You have ~GOT~ to be fcking kidding me. Intel muscled Dell / HP / Compaq into not using AMD products for their budget PCs with threats. Michael Dell even went so far as to testify that on several occasions he tried to put AMD products into Dell's budget computers, the highest selling but lowest profit-margin sector. And each time a representative from Intel threatened him with removed of the "Intel Partner" rebates and cutting their supply of CPU's to Dell and sending those CPU's to the other "Intel Partners" instead. Basically they threatened to do everything possible to ruin Dell if Dell used a single AMD product in any of their systems. They made this same thread to all the other tier 1 OEM manufactures. This is a violation of anti-trust laws in the USA (where Intel, AMD and Dell are based out of). Intel was found guily of using its larger market position to illegally keep AMD out of the business. Maybe where your from in China this is legal, but in the USA its very illegal. Customers wanted AMD products, OEM's wanted AMD products (especially in the budget sector where AMD's lower prices made them an attractive choice), Intel took actions to prevent those customers / OEM's from having AMD as an option.

    And for those who haven't figured it out yet I'm not referring to Apple in the PC business by Apple in the smart-phone business. Where they have been using their market position to try to lock out anything not apple. Fortunately for the world the smart-phone market is sufficiently different from the PC market that Apple won't be able to use evil tactics to much effect and is instead reduced to patent trolling.

    @iam2thecrowe

    That is why I'm still using a AMD Phenom II x4 940BE @ 3.7 Ghgz in my x86 gaming rig. Its coupled with two GTX285's in SLI and all of its watercooled, I have yet to experience any situation where I can't play something at 1920x1080x32@120hz. I'm not a super hardcore FPS player, but I want my games to look good.
  36. king smp said:
    actually instead of asking Intel vs AMD
    we should be asking
    why isnt there more chip makers?
    years ago i remember ibm pc clones with all kind of weird brand chips
    I remember Motorola as a major chip maker (anyone remember the Motorola 6800 series?)
    it hurts us not to have more competitors out there
    there is sparc and via but nothing viable in the X86 market
    besides intel and amd
    wonder how many backroom deals between the two of them
    we never heard of....


    I think I can answer these:

    1. There aren't more high-performance desktop/laptop chip makers because Microsoft Windows on x86 became the dominant software platform and Intel tightly controls x86 licenses. Any new competitors would have to be non-x86, but then they couldn't run Windows software and they would be a very fringe player. There are actually a lot of chip makers out there, but you just never hear of them because their chips are non-x86 and go into things like routers and cable boxes and nobody cares much about who makes the CPU in those.

    2. The Motorola 6800s were a little before my time, but I do remember the 68000s very well. Motorola met the same fate as all of the rest of the high-performance non-x86 chip makers when Windows on x86 became the dominant OS in the early 1990s. They spun off their chip development into a company called Freescale, who mostly makes PowerPC-based chips for high-end routers and switches.

    3. SPARC might even go the way of the dodo as Oracle doesn't particularly seem too keen in selling hardware after they bought Sun. POWER is doing fine in big servers, but any remotely recent POWER-powered system is totally unaffordable for mere mortals. I think IBM seems happy to keep it in their high-dollar server line, so we won't see too much of POWER.

    4. I doubt there are many backroom deals between Intel and AMD, else AMD would never have filed the antitrust lawsuit against Intel. If AMD's hands were dirty too, it would be like the crackhead calling the cops on the drug dealer that shorted them on their purchase.
  37. Quote:
    Intel's Architecture > Amd's

    Currently... yes.


    bobdozer said:
    god you're all going to feel stupid in 4 months time when bulldozer is released.

    Yes/No... who knows. Fact is we don't know. It could be a K8 or it could be a Phenom (K10). Only time will tell.


    Quote:
    Don't worry i'll remember to make fun of you when it does and it takes 8 cores to beat 4 core intel's.

    Same response as above. We just don't know how it will perform... but it does seem promising (architecturally speaking that is).


    AMW1011 said:
    Your not excused. Read the actual thing I am quoting before you judge the context.


    And I'll be there to make fun of you for not understanding how the architecture works, and worrying about architectural details over price and performance (what really matters).

    Subjective opinion based on several outside environmental factors which include any environmental bias, socio/economic class as well as other variables derived from our subjective nurturing &/or operating environment(s).

    For example... I could care less about price/performance. I'm after Top performance period.

    EDIT: I should add that I also compute my consumerist impact on the environment. As such I do factor in Performance/Watt to an extent.
  38. AMW1011 said:
    Oh and Phenom II's do beat Intel's line up from 2008, for less money.


    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=186

    Looks like the original i7-920 consistently eaks out a win over the X4-970

    And in fact the old 920 gives the X6-1100T quite a few licks as well:

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=203
  39. Quote:
    We got to thank Piednoel for Skulltrail


    LOL - actually he stole the idea from AMD - remember the quad-father?? :P
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Processors AMD Intel