Shortcuts

Intel?AMD lovefest (from Intel thread)

rated by 0 users
This post has 4 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 250
Points 4,510
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
nECrO1967 Posted: Sun, Jul 20 2008 8:08 AM

Hello all. This is my first post and I just wanted to reflect on the current state of affairs between these two companies. It has to peev off both of them to see that many people right now are pairing Intel CPU's and Motherboards with AMD/ATI GPU's for "bang for the buck" gaming rigs.

 

As for me, I started out in the early 90's as an AMD guy, switched to Intel in the late 90's and back to AMD with the first Atlon's. Now I could care less. I go for the best performance for myself. Right now I am running a Opteron 180 based rig that I will replace later this year with a Core2Quad based system. And for friends and family who don't do any "power" using, I still go with low cost AMD solutions. The competition is good for consumers as it keeps prices down. The rest is marketing BS that keeps power freaks like myself spending money!

 

Well that's my introduction. Looking forward to hanging out here. And to be fair I will post this in the Intel thread as well. :)

I used to carry a hammer in my computer tool kit. Just for fixing the packard Bells though.......

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,814
Points 45,635
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Sun, Jul 20 2008 12:59 PM

Rofl you know the funny thing about it all is AMD was actually started as a INTEL affiliatte. Then INTEl released them and they decided to go solo.

OS:Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit
MB:ASUS Z87C
CPU:Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 4770 ***
GPU:Geforce GTX 770 4GB
Mem:***ingston 16384MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 250
Points 4,510
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
nECrO1967 replied on Sun, Jul 20 2008 4:04 PM

Close. Actually AMD got the right to copy Intel's X86 design because IBM insisted on two sources for every part. After some time AMD won the right in court to keep copying them. That's why Intel came up with the name "Pentium". They couldn't lock AMD out of the process but they could with a trade name.

That's the really amazing thing about AMD, They had to start from scratch starting at the Pentium era and it took them 5-6 years to finally pass Intel in speed and performance. (1Ghz Athlon.)

 

I used to carry a hammer in my computer tool kit. Just for fixing the packard Bells though.......

  • | Post Points: 20
replied on Sun, Jul 20 2008 9:09 PM

 I dont know what exactly you were trying to say. I highly doubt that having producs that sale is really peeving them off at all. AMD knows the ultra performance crowd is going to go with Intel they are not dumb. They dont have anything to compete at the moment. Heck even their own internal benchmarks for their ATI gpu's are run in intel machines. Amd has made a lot of bad business decisions in the last couple of years instead of spending more money into research and development. They do have a lot of smart people working for them so I expect them to turn around eventially.

I am not quite sure if they will ever return to their athlon days of success since intel has been hitting the bullseye every 18 months with a new chip design. But they will probably be in the value segment for some time to come. The problems arise in the fact that intel used to be the more expensive chip and AMD was cheaper. Now, intel offers much more performance for about the same price and that has really hurt them accross all segments of the market. So, I hope their engineers have something revolutionary in the works because I dont see this changing anytime soon especially with intel constantly shrinking their die size so often. More chips per wafer= lower manufacturing cost and those savings are usually passed on to the consumer.

 I wouldnt mind seeing IBM at least buy amd and help in R&D since IBM's R&D is second to none. They have so much money they could buy AMD and pay off all AMD's debts and it would only cost them about 10% of their total revenue to do that. Right now thats the only hope I see for AMD to ever compete with intel and actually make a profit.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 250
Points 4,510
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
nECrO1967 replied on Mon, Jul 21 2008 8:14 AM

I wasn't trying to say anything really. It was just an observation. I would think AMD would be more peeved as the sell motherboard chipsets but Intel doesn't sell Video cards....yet. Perhaps peeved isn't the right word but you have to admit neither can be happy to see their hardware paired with the competitions. Again, just an observation.

I think IBM buying AMD would be a boon as well. You need money and muscle in this business and IBM has both. To spare. My only concern would be if IBM would keep the AMD brand alive and give it the attention needed to survive. Not just buy them and scavenge the good stuff and throw the rest, including the brand, away. Kind of like what NVidia did to 3DFX. AMD has a rich tradition of innovation going back to the 386 days when they fixed Intel's bugs in that chip and got it to run at 40Mhz. (I actually had on of those!)

 

I used to carry a hammer in my computer tool kit. Just for fixing the packard Bells though.......

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (5 items) | RSS