Do hardware enthusiasts have to support AMD?
Now intel got considerable perfomance advantage over AMD in desktop processors,no doubt?But now I got a serious question.Last quarter of 2002 saw intel making profit of 1 billion and AMD "loss" of 250 million.And last quarter AMD losses 2 percent of market share whereas intel gains 2 percent market share.
So what will happen in future.Can AMD compete with intel with these losses?If not intel will be the only player and we will see so many bad things for the customer(no explanation is needed,I think).
So what we have to do?Do we have to buy and recommend AMDs closing the eyes to Intel's perfomance advantage and technological superiority?We want AMD in the market,at any cost.Right?
First of all, AMD is pretty safe. They make other useful products such as flash memory and so even if their CPU department takes a fall, AMD won't die.
That said, AMD's CPU department isn't likely to die either. The absolute worst case scenario would be that AMD just centers on the low-end market and drops to the level of VIA. (Well, actually an equally-bad scenario would be that AMD sells it's CPU department to someone like VIA or IBM.)
Besides, Intel wants AMD around too. So long as AMD still has a noticable portion of the market share (even if it becomes just the low-end market share) Intel doesn't look like a monopoly. And Intel definately doesn't want to be a monopoly. It'd be bad for their business. So it actually benefits Intel to make sure that AMD doesn't die, and Intel knows that.
So don't do something silly like recommend products that you yourself wouldn't use. That's just compromising your integrity and there's hardly ever a good excuse for doing that. It's okay to support Intel. The world won't end.
"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
-----------------------------------------------------------
They make other useful products such as flash memory and so even if their CPU department takes a fall, AMD won't die.
--------------------------------------------------
And if u consider the overall sales AMD is generating profit?
The bulk of the "loss" was a) income tax bill, and b) compared to the previous year.
They still make money.
They have their partnership with IBM.
They still do business with UMC.
Hardware enthusiasts can support whomever. There's not enough of us to make much of a difference even if we all agreed!
AMD is not going anywhere.
Unless they make more comments like, "Intel is using their position to lock consumers in to inferior (Centrino) technology." C'mon Mr. Hargrove (et. al.) If Centrino is inferior, then I'd be dancing in the streets (traffic permitting), because that would mean there's something EVEN better! But it isn't. Not yet, anyway.
__________________________________________________
<b><font color=red>Three great virtues of a programmer are: laziness, impatience, and hubris.</font color=red><b>
If every body is thinking without bias who can buy AMD?
Top end customers can always select P4 with no doubt(great perfomance).
Average customers will select P4 2.4c if they think wise(no considerable price difference with (inferior)2800+).
Because there are a <b>LOT</b> of people who want to pay as little as possible for their computer. Heck, I could assemble a sweet little budget box for $600 (or less if I want to cut serious corners) using AMD. It's hard to beat that for people with limited funds.
And since there are an awfully large number of people on such limited funds, AMD has a pretty good market. They just unfortunately don't make much money on that market.
"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
Every smart users that know they will have more fun with there systems even if they get a little more FPS in games.
Do we really care about having 5 to 10% differences in performance for less money. I really don't care!
I personnaly own an Athlon 1800+ (OC to 2400+) and for now, I'm really pleased with the performance... And the money I saved with this purchase will be wisely spand in 6 to 12 months on a cheap XP 3200+.
I think too many people focus on performance. If you have a good/versatile chassis (MotherBoard) you can easily buy hardware as needed.
It's why I bought a good HDDD (IBM DTLA307030) 3 years ago, and it still gives me good performance. even today, I load many games faster then my friends who bought bigger but slower HDD.
The slowest part of a PC qill always be the HDD, not the CPU! So, it's better to have a good HDD than the TOP of the LINE CPU!
So how much money u can save with an AMD CPU now(at present, forget the Past)
AMD Intel
budget system XP1500+($51) Celeron1.7 ($55)
medium system XP 2800+($163) P42.4C (169)
perfomance system XP 3200+(449) P43.0C(395)
I have a severely difficult time believing that a <i>Celeron</i> 1.7GHz is even close to the performance of an AXP1500+. Besides, you can also get an AXP T-Bred 1700+ for only $45, which runs better than the AXP1500+ <i>and</i> costs less. Plus you can pick up a KT333 motherboard for $40, but an i845P motherboard or better will cost at least $60.
So which would you rather have: an AXP1700+ on a KT333 mobo for $85, or a Celeron 1.7GHz on a i845P mobo for $115?
"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
Let's say you are having a heart surgery. And there are only two doctors in the whole world who can treat you. Let's call them Dr. AMD and Dr. Intel. One of doctor who wasn't that good in the past went back to school and got it's education and now is a better doctor then the other, let's call him Dr. Intel. The other doctor who used to have lot of patient got behind and now lost his patient due to lack of service he was providing, let's call him Dr. AMD.
So here's the senario...
Dr. Intel has all the training to do the operation on you. He is the most qualified doctor. He knows what he is doing. He will probably do the operation in less time then Dr. AMD.
Dr. AMD who also has training he may not be upto date with his training But he can also do the operation. He may take little longer then Dr. Intel. He also doesn't have new tools and training like Dr. Intel (SSE2, HT).
Now my question to you. If both of these doctors are going to charge you same money for operation. Who will you go to get the operation done Dr. Intel or Dr. AMD?
I hope this answers "Support AMD for keeping the competition?"
KG
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." - Sarah Chambers
First the CELERY will pretty suck against an XP1500+ CELERY are very slow and they should not call them CPU... They should call them... Cheaper than cheap CHIP for Wall-Mart PCs.
So, if you want decent performance for cheap you MUST buy an AMD chip. So you will pay about the same price and get a lot more punch in games/apps with an XP instead of a CELERY.
But, if today, you have a lot of money to spend. For sure the newest P4C are good and with the newest boards out. The upgradability is good.
But people who bought AMD in the last year are "lucky". I mean, they bought a good performer and when they will NEED to upgrade they will have a good replacment CPU for cheap : the XP3200+. I DON'T say that XP3200+ are the BEST! In 6 to 9 months they will mostly gives these CPUs, because the A64 will be out. Mainly because AMD kept using is socket for a long time!
And, of course, people that buy low-end P4 with a decent MB will enjoy the same advantage in 12 to 18 months. But only, if Intel will support it's "new socket" long enough with new CPU core.
