Look at the stats on the processors, for the power and for the price and best power for price are all overwhelmingly Intel. Not to mention less power consumption, and smaller nano-circuits. The greatest power is it's ability to transfer four sets of data simultaneously while AMD is only able to transfer two.
When AMD released it's 64bit, it was ahead of the game. As soon as Intel released it's Duo and then it's Quad-core and Xeon processor line, it blew AMD out of the water.
AMD has been busy manufacturing the processors for the US governments department of defense's supercomputer built by IBM. This large quantity of processors may have held up release dates of their new line. The large amount of money gained from such a contract is undoubtedly what boosted it's stock shares. It does not for having the fastest and cheapest processors.
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
agreed
I think in terms of processor speed, efficiency, and design Intel owns the market right now. It's nice that AMD offers some affordable processors, but the ratio of price to performance on the core 2 series is very good. The best consumer level processors around right now. And the Nehalem looks like a promising way to stay ahead of AMD in the future. I'm glad there is competition and I used to love AMD, but right now Intel chips just make more sense. I think for a while AMD was better, really pushing for the movement over to 64-bit. If they we're equal right now I would buy AMD and support the underdog - it's a shame they're not right now.
Intel ADMITS their processors were inferior compared to AMD!!!
I just read some very interesting information where Intel ADMITS that their technology has been *behind* AMD's processor for the last 5 years (remember, AMD introduced the Opteron processor in 2003). Take a look at these links:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9780925-7.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/28/intel_csi_kanter/
I think it's really interesting that Intel just NOW figured out (over 5 years later) that the integrated memory controller was the future instead of the *outdated* FSB. Intel has been simply double and quad-pumping the FSB in order to acheive high enoguh performance. Intel HAD to make their CPU caches 6MB and 12MB because of the latency involved in using FSB. AMD has not had to change their cache sizes much since 2003 as they realized that it didn't give any additional performance for their processors due to them already being optimzed due to having an integrated memory controller.
Intel simply waited 5-6 years to use AMD's idea of an integrated memory controller and try to think of something BETTER rather than something ORIGINAL. Also, if anyone hasn't noticed yet, AMD actually partners with many different companies, such as IBM, in order to help them produce better processors. Intel does their R&D all "in-house", which it can do since it's about 10 times as big as AMD.
My point: Intel ADMITS that their use of the outdated FSB has hampered their processor performance. So again I ask...if AMD had the BETTER technology, then WHY hasn't their market share increased much? Because Intel wanted the masses to think that AMD is simply an "off-brand" company that knows nothing about how to make a CPU. In a nutshell, Intel HAD to double and quad-pump the FSB in order to keep up with AMD processor performance because it simply had its head in the sand with its pants down when it came to processor technology.
Intel ADMITS their processors were inferior compared to AMD!!!
I just read some very interesting information where Intel ADMITS that their technology has been *behind* AMD's processor for the last 5 years (remember, AMD introduced the Opteron processor in 2003). Take a look at these links:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9780925-7.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/28/intel_csi_kanter/
I think it's really interesting that Intel just NOW figured out (over 5 years later) that the integrated memory controller was the future instead of the *outdated* FSB. Intel has been simply double and quad-pumping the FSB in order to acheive high enoguh performance. Intel HAD to make their CPU caches 6MB and 12MB because of the latency involved in using FSB. AMD has not had to change their cache sizes much since 2003 as they realized that it didn't give any additional performance for their processors due to them already being optimzed due to having an integrated memory controller.
Intel simply waited 5-6 years to use AMD's idea of an integrated memory controller and try to think of something BETTER rather than something ORIGINAL. Also, if anyone hasn't noticed yet, AMD actually partners with many different companies, such as IBM, in order to help them produce better processors. Intel does their R&D all "in-house", which it can do since it's about 10 times as big as AMD.
My point: Intel ADMITS that their use of the outdated FSB has hampered their processor performance. So again I ask...if AMD had the BETTER technology, then WHY hasn't their market share increased much? Because Intel wanted the masses to think that AMD is simply an "off-brand" company that knows nothing about how to make a CPU. In a nutshell, Intel HAD to double and quad-pump the FSB in order to keep up with AMD processor performance because it simply had its head in the sand and its pants down when it came to processor technology.
New products
AMD is out with the new ultra X2 mobile processor while Intel is having problem getting their's out. I have always been a fan of AMD and almost all my laptops and desktops have AMD inside. Go AMD.
AMD offer more performance+price for the money, long live AMD..
AMD offer more performance+price for the money, long live AMD.
A little misleading
What they are saying is that AMD gained back from Intel 2.2% after they lost 7+ percent last year. Net result...Intel is still winning the war.
Finally getting their act together
With an abysmal showing in 2007 it demonstrates that AMD is getting their act together in '08. The new Phenom and Opteron processors are a good competitive price/performance processor. They still have a long way to go in order to catch up to Intel's stranglehold but its a promising statement which requires further innovation and performance on behalf of this underdog.
None of this data matters
This article amazingly ignores the fact that AMD is on the fringe of bankruptcy. Even if they were gaining share (which I don't believe for a minute), they are doing it by selling parts super cheap. Consequently, they are losing astronomical amounts of money while Intel merrily earns about $22 million every day (including weekends). I expect AMD to report another disastrous quarter in a couple weeks. I doubt they can last more than a couple of more quarters.
AMD continues to keep Intel on its toes...
Anyone that knows the WHOLE story between Intel and AMD is that Intel was FAR BEHIND the game for almost 8 years (1999-2007). Some points that I would like to make:
- AMD was the FIRST to reach 1Ghz processor speed. AMD was also the FIRST to use full-sppeed on-die L2 cache on its processors.
- AMD came up with an instruction set all their own called 3DNow! which revolutionized the 3D-gaming world when it was introduced and when software and driver makers utilized its optimizations. When Voodoo graphics used 3DNow! optimizations, revies show that performance sometimes DOUBLED!!
- It's TRUE that AMD's K6, K6-2, K6-3, Athlon, Athlon XP, and first-generation Athlon 64 processors kicked the Intel's Pentium 2, Pentium 3, and Pentium 4 processors for over 6 years...and they ran at a LOWER speed, sometimes even 1Ghz lower...and STILL beat out Intel's processors. AND, this was WITHOUT "Hyper-Threading Technology" (which AMD acutally had a patent on FIRST).
- AMD was the FIRST to bring 64-bit computing to the desktop and server world for x86 processors. Intel simply copied AMD. Athlon 64 processors continued to whup Intel's Pentium 4 until the Core architecture was created...which wasn't until almost 2 YEARS LATER!!
- AMD was the FIRST to produce chips with integrated memory controllers (they've been doing so for over 5 years now). Intel's "Nahalem" chip is NOW going to have an integrated memory controller. Wonder where Intel got that idea from? Uh...could it be AMD?
So in essence, Intel is the one who has been BEHIND the game for so long...and only NOW are they realizing in the last couple of years that AMD was kicking their arse quite badly (they knew it all along, but they just didn't want to admit it). Now I can see why AMD filed the anti-competition lawsuit against Intel...AMD's sales SHOULD HAVE soared between 1999-2007, but they didn't because Intel tried to run AMD into the ground by using illegal, anti-competitive tatics.
In my honest opinion, AMD keeps Intel on its toes, especially with the purchase of ATI. The ATI division is producing some of the most feature-rich gaming processors to date...and they're keeping up with NVidia...at a LOWER cost. What wouldn't surprise me is if Intel would try to buy NVidia to keep up. Yes, AMD is struggling financially right now due to the aquisition of ATI. However, they are still on the cutting edge. Their motherboard are quite extraordinary, and reviews show them to be much more feature-rich than Intel's (and cheaper to boot!). AMD is simply beating Intel with price/performance. Many reviews are showing lower power output in total from AMD-based computers than their Intel counterparts, even with the new Core 2 Duos.
Oh, and the integrated CPU/GPU? That was AMD's idea years ago, NOT Intel's...
Let me tell you something
Sounds pretty clear you're neither and AMD nor an Intel shareholder. If AMD were beating Intel on price/performance they wouldn't need 6 months in red to keep up and they would by far have stopped disappointing their shareholders... or is that too simple to understand? When AMD had better products they gained market share, now that tis is no longer the case Intel is re-gaining again. That's just the way the market goes. Another little tip for you: CPUs don't need to be designed only, they also need to be manufactiured before you can use them. If AMD doesn't have the manufacturing capacity Intel has, it is pretty hard they grow their share beyond a certain amount of Intel's. By the way: is dropping CPU prices (which is what AMD is blaming Intel for) "anti-competitive"??? I thought whatever benefits consumers is by definition pro-competitive! Try and get the big picture my friend. :-)
Post new comment