AMD, although I dislike their offerings ...

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
2
81
I have to say the recent Phenom debut is a total disappointment for me. And if you look at the upcoming 45nm Yorkfield: the benchmark show it literally blew away eveything in the past Q66xx parts. Considering Phenom is having trouble even with a meager Q6600 right now. This is going to be a slaughter. Not to mention the penryne is coming next year that improves IPC even more.

Despite of this, Intel is introducing the QX9770 at a 1k price point which is kind of pretty ridiculous. I was thinking, if Phenom say is 20% faster IPC-wise compare to core, Intel would probably be pricing this thing like couple of hundred less. So that's how important we need AMD right now. If things keep going this way, we might be buying CPUs like the old days, $500 and up a piece and no bargaining!

Personally, I think Intel is too big and deep pocketed as of now and need to be broken into smaller pieces for competition to be fairer. AMD is also to be blamed for their recent troubles. We need at least two if not more competitors in this CPU market.
 

AmberClad

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
4,914
0
0
Your solution to this is to punish Intel's success by breaking it up into several smaller companies? Sounds like a very European-style solution...

I'd prefer to have AMD or AMD's successor (IBM?) up their game to compete on Intel's level. Not to cripple Intel in the name of "fairness".
 

teclis1023

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2007
1,452
0
71
No, no, no! Punishing Intel for finally "getting it right" is not the right strategy.

Instead, look for a way to help AMD get back in the saddle.
 

Griswold

Senior member
Dec 24, 2004
630
0
0
Originally posted by: AmberClad
Your solution to this is to punish Intel's success by breaking it up into several smaller companies? Sounds like a very European-style solution...

Why dont you let your brain formulate the words instead of your ***?

Its getting tiresome to hear these clichés from kids here at AT all the time. :roll:

 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Originally posted by: nyker96
Personally, I think Intel is too big and deep pocketed as of now and need to be broken into smaller pieces for competition to be fairer.

Why should Intel pay for AMD's failures?

 

AmberClad

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
4,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Griswold
Why dont you let your brain formulate the words instead of your ***?

Its getting tiresome to hear these clichés from kids here at AT all the time. :roll:
Personal attacks? Come back when you have some worthwhile opinions to contribute.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Originally posted by: teclis1023
No, no, no! Punishing Intel for finally "getting it right" is not the right strategy.

Instead, look for a way to help AMD get back in the saddle.

If Intel would not have been allowed to compete unfairly during the years where AMD had a clear lead, AMD would be sitting in a much better cash-rich position and would be better able to compete with Intel.

When you have a duopoly where one has ~90% share and the other has ~10% share, it is completely unfair to price according to percentages.

If you needed 1 million processors, Intel would offer you 800,000 @ 120 each, 900,000 @ 100 each, or 1,000,000 at 90 each..

That effectively makes it impossible to buy AMD processors unless you went with 100% AMD.. no matter what the price.

You would not be punishing Intel for its success now.. but you would be punishing Intel for its success when it had a clearly inferior product.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
Originally posted by: Griswold
Originally posted by: AmberClad
Your solution to this is to punish Intel's success by breaking it up into several smaller companies? Sounds like a very European-style solution...

Why dont you let your brain formulate the words instead of your ***?

Its getting tiresome to hear these clichés from kids here at AT all the time. :roll:

I'm far from being a kid and completely agree with her.

If you think it's tiresome, then leave.

 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Originally posted by: teclis1023
No, no, no! Punishing Intel for finally "getting it right" is not the right strategy.

Instead, look for a way to help AMD get back in the saddle.

If Intel would not have been allowed to compete unfairly during the years where AMD had a clear lead, AMD would be sitting in a much better cash-rich position and would be better able to compete with Intel.

When you have a duopoly where one has ~90% share and the other has ~10% share, it is completely unfair to price according to percentages.

If you needed 1 million processors, Intel would offer you 800,000 @ 120 each, 900,000 @ 100 each, or 1,000,000 at 90 each..

That effectively makes it impossible to buy AMD processors unless you went with 100% AMD.. no matter what the price.

You would not be punishing Intel for its success now.. but you would be punishing Intel for its success when it had a clearly inferior product.

So you are only allowed to be successful if you have superior product?

 

harpoon84

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2006
1,084
0
0
brxndxn, I see you like to rehash the same arguments over and over again.

Intel suffered when Netburst was hitting a wall. I suggest you look over their financials during 05 to early 06. After K8 was introduced, Intel lost about 10% marketshare to AMD, and profits were way down. Don't forget, 10% overall share meant AMD *DOUBLED* it's marketshare in the space of 1 - 2 years.

AMD was very successful when K8 was on top, marketshare was around 25% and steadily growing, they were making a profit, things were going well. They were selling every chip they could make, at a relatively high price point ($300 for a X2 3800+, remember?). Even if Intel was squeaky clean, there was nothing more AMD could have done to take advantage of the situation, they were simply capacity constrained.

They just never saw Core 2 coming, and coupled with the poorly timed acquisition of ATI, is what has lead them to their current plight. I find it funny how fanboys like to put ALL the blame on Intel for AMD's failures, because frankly, if AMD had an answer to Core 2, they would be in a MUCH more healthy position right now.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
Originally posted by: Phynaz
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Originally posted by: teclis1023
No, no, no! Punishing Intel for finally "getting it right" is not the right strategy.

Instead, look for a way to help AMD get back in the saddle.

If Intel would not have been allowed to compete unfairly during the years where AMD had a clear lead, AMD would be sitting in a much better cash-rich position and would be better able to compete with Intel.

When you have a duopoly where one has ~90% share and the other has ~10% share, it is completely unfair to price according to percentages.

If you needed 1 million processors, Intel would offer you 800,000 @ 120 each, 900,000 @ 100 each, or 1,000,000 at 90 each..

That effectively makes it impossible to buy AMD processors unless you went with 100% AMD.. no matter what the price.

You would not be punishing Intel for its success now.. but you would be punishing Intel for its success when it had a clearly inferior product.

So you are only allowed to be successful if you have superior product?

Apparentaly. And by whose measure would be the question.

This all seems rather anti-capitalistic, anti-business. Reward those who don't succeed by punishing everyone else including the consumer of next year's products. (Wait a minute, isn't that GW's no child left beghind philosophy?)

I have to assume the OP just doesn't get how the world operates (either thru ignorance or stupidity, same conclusion regardless).
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
Originally posted by: Griswold
Originally posted by: AmberClad
Your solution to this is to punish Intel's success by breaking it up into several smaller companies? Sounds like a very European-style solution...

Why dont you let your brain formulate the words instead of your ***?

Its getting tiresome to hear these clichés from kids here at AT all the time. :roll:

Wow, what an entirely, uhm, childish attack...

Way to score big on the credibility meter with the "kids here at AT". We are sure to seek out your advice next time our miniscule brains quiver at the big thinking stuffs.
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
2
81
Guys, I'm expressing a few frustration bones in me, not putting out any serious judgements on the world or these two companies. So let's not be too serious and stay away from the personal attacks, sounds nasty and bit childish. Just talk about opinions not people.

Anyways, I feel intel is too big an entity for any company to be able to run against it fairly. For instance, Intel can keep 2-3 major architectures developments simultaneously, while a smaller rival like AMD have to bet on something, if wrong, it's tough for them to recover from their mistakes. Intel on other hand can make a few mistakes and still bounce back (as in P4s etc). I just feel a smaller intel cannot wage the type of attrition-based price wars on rival AMD, but have to rely more on chip design etc. to compete, which can be better on the long run.

Secondly, I do think AMD should take a hit for putting out mediocre products like HD 2x00 or phenom etc. Just with Intel's cash flow I'm afraid they'll just kill off AMD all together which is definitely a bad idea for all of us who had gone through the years with Intel completely on top. As to how this could be done better, maybe AmberClad or some other people are right that breaking up Intel not been the best way to solve this, however, my gut feeling is that they do need to implement something to balance out the competition.
 

eye smite

Junior Member
Oct 25, 2007
18
0
0
It does my heart good to see yesterdays review from the cry baby on this website taken off. Tom's Hardware gave a much better review with no rantings of a child because his ice cream fell off the cone. I think most of you are expecting break through miracles from amd, and you need to remember something. If it weren't for amd trouncing intel for 3 solid years you'd still be on that huge cow patty of a cpu called the pentium 4. You're also not paying attention to the numbers and comparing apples to oranges. The Athlon X2 has stayed in a very close range of numbers with core 2 dual cores. You're expecting that the athlon x2s should have turned in numbers like that orange, the core 2 quad core. How bout a dose of realism.

Now, AMD has released the first true quad core on the market with plans for a tri core and an 8 core cpu months away. Was the athlon64 the best it could be when it came out, NOOOOOOO. If it was they would have left it on socket 754 instead of continuing to evolve the chip to socket 939, AM2 and then socket F. AMD rushed this to market a bit quicker than they should have because all you cry baby's want it NOW. MINE MINE MINE, like a room full of 2 year olds. You think that AMD won't ramp the clock frequency and evolve this chip along the way giving you more of your expectations in the process? Are you that daft? I got news for cry babies, I converted to amd with the K6-2 with 3dnow. Intel burnt me one time too many with the pentium with mmx and then the p2's. Guess what they're going to burn you all again when penryn launches cause none of your motheboards or even ram will be able to work with it. No backwards compatibility, keep those current intel systems you have in good shape, you'll be using them as is for quite some time. With my aging am2 board, I'll be able to slot a phenom in if I want to with no issues as asus already has a bios upgrade for my board. I most likely won't though and stick with that system as is. Sometime next year as prices level out and products begin to mature a bit, I'll build a phenom system fresh. I have thought about building a core2 system just to see how well it performs for me and haven't gotten myself to commit to that. There has to be real justification for me in investing money in intel based products and with them announcing that current parts will not work with future cores all I can say to intel is..............blow oats.

Parting thoughts:
AMD is in a nice position to really market all of their products. They will meet or exceed your expectations over time and that's the bitter pill you have to swallow (keeps hearing 2 year olds screaming mine mine in the background). How many times did intel change the core then core 2 CPU before they settled on what they have now, and they're changing it again. You need to remember that you wouldn't enjoy any of this performance you have now at all were it not for the athlon64 supported by a company that still stands behind their product and will continue to develope and stand behind their product. You can't say that about intel in the past with all the cpu and chipset changes," sorry, you can't upgrade, you'll have to spend all that money again if you want the latest from us". Really, take a dose of realism and look yourself in the mirror, I"m betting you don't meet your own expectations at launch every morning when you get coffee or whatever.
 

Peelback79

Senior member
Oct 26, 2007
452
0
0
So what do we do? Do we scream PRICE GOUGE! and pray to our big government to step in and make Intel make nice nice? Why should we punish Intel for being successful? They didn't get big overnight. They're reaping the benefits of years of R & D and millions spent researching and creating superior products.

If Intel eliminated AMD it would be unfortunate but that's capitalism. And if Intel jacks the prices up, then don't buy. They're not stupid, if no one's buying they'll drop prices. But if you're someone who has to have the latest and greatest then don't complain about opening day prices. The more people who buy at $1000 the more likely the prices will stay there. And please everyone stop saying the word "fair" so much. Yeah, it would suck if AMD went belly up, but it's their own fault. Intel cannot force them to create inferior products.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: Peelback79
So what do we do? Do we scream PRICE GOUGE! and pray to our big government to step in and make Intel make nice nice? Why should we punish Intel for being successful? They didn't get big overnight. They're reaping the benefits of years of R & D and millions spent researching and creating superior products.

If Intel eliminated AMD it would be unfortunate but that's capitalism. And if Intel jacks the prices up, then don't buy. They're not stupid, if no one's buying they'll drop prices. But if you're someone who has to have the latest and greatest then don't complain about opening day prices. The more people who buy at $1000 the more likely the prices will stay there. And please everyone stop saying the word "fair" so much. Yeah, it would suck if AMD went belly up, but it's their own fault. Intel cannot force them to create inferior products.

Yep. And if anything, cpus have become ridiculously powerful as they are. It used to be the case where you needed a $300+ cpu, along with a $100 video card, to play a new game decently. Now you can get away with a $80 cpu, but you need a $300ish video card to do it decently. Doesn't look like it's changing any time soon, either. Meh.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Originally posted by: eye smite
Now, AMD has released the first true quad core on the market

There is no such thing as a "true" quad-core CPU, because there's no such thing as a "false" quad-core. True and false are not accurate adjectives to use. Intel's quad-core CPUs have 4 cores in one package, just like AMD's. They're both quad-core CPUs. I suggest you refer to them as "native" and "MCM" if you want to reference the differences in Intel and AMD's current approaches to quad-core CPUs.

AMD is in a nice position to really market all of their products. They will meet or exceed your expectations over time and that's the bitter pill you have to swallow (keeps hearing 2 year olds screaming mine mine in the background). How many times did intel change the core then core 2 CPU before they settled on what they have now, and they're changing it again. You need to remember that you wouldn't enjoy any of this performance you have now at all were it not for the athlon64 supported by a company that still stands behind their product and will continue to develope and stand behind their product. You can't say that about intel in the past with all the cpu and chipset changes," sorry, you can't upgrade, you'll have to spend all that money again if you want the latest from us". Really, take a dose of realism and look yourself in the mirror, I"m betting you don't meet your own expectations at launch every morning when you get coffee or whatever.

Excuses and fanaticism from an AMD cheerleader.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: Peelback79
So what do we do? Do we scream PRICE GOUGE! and pray to our big government to step in and make Intel make nice nice? Why should we punish Intel for being successful? They didn't get big overnight. They're reaping the benefits of years of R & D and millions spent researching and creating superior products.

If Intel eliminated AMD it would be unfortunate but that's capitalism. And if Intel jacks the prices up, then don't buy. They're not stupid, if no one's buying they'll drop prices. But if you're someone who has to have the latest and greatest then don't complain about opening day prices. The more people who buy at $1000 the more likely the prices will stay there. And please everyone stop saying the word "fair" so much. Yeah, it would suck if AMD went belly up, but it's their own fault. Intel cannot force them to create inferior products.

:beer: to someone who understand how market work. I don't want to see AMD go belly up too but we cannot help it if they cannot come up with competitive product at competitive price. Just because AMD is mediocre right now, we should also bring Intel down to their level so we can all have mediocre product? Yeah, great idea.

AMD can only help themselves, and if they don't, some good company will buy them up and do a better job with it. Let the market decide and leave government regulation out of it.
 

eye smite

Junior Member
Oct 25, 2007
18
0
0
Are you one of those people during the athlon xp days that continuously said that amd would never out perform intell. If so , we excuse your intel cheerleader fanaticism.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Originally posted by: eye smite
Are you one of those people during the athlon xp days that continuously said that amd would never out perform intell. If so , we excuse your intel cheerleader fanaticism.

No, I'm not.
 

eye smite

Junior Member
Oct 25, 2007
18
0
0
What, no witty comments this time disparaging me for being a fan of amd? You disappoint. If you don't like it when people show they're fans of something, tough. It's more a matter of intel earning my contempt years ago and continuing to do so since the days when the pentium name was first introduced. Please tell me netburst wasn't the biggest piece of garbage ever made by intel and site reasons why.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Originally posted by: eye smite
What, no witty comments this time disparaging me for being a fan of amd? You disappoint. If you don't like it when people show they're fans of something, tough. It's more a matter of intel earning my contempt years ago and continuing to do so since the days when the pentium name was first introduced. Please tell me netburst wasn't the biggest piece of garbage ever made by intel and site reasons why.

I've already called a spade a spade.

You're under no obligation to make me like you, and I'm under no obligation to make you like me. It doesn't matter.. but I'm going to call you out on your fanaticism because that's what I want to do, which should matter to you only if you care that many people on this forum won't view you as a particularly good source of factual information and are likely to dismiss you outright.

Netburst wasn't entirely "garbage". Northwood-B and C were fine designs and performed very well at respectable power usage and heat generation levels.
 

eye smite

Junior Member
Oct 25, 2007
18
0
0
I don't care about your views of me or anyone elses. Does your opinion and I stress opinion, make a difference in my daily life? Actually it means less to me than freshly used toilet paper. That being said, netburst was a joke. Higher clock speeds with less work done than amd and much more wattage used, I'd call that a paper weight. You add to that intels documented strong arm tactics for trying to keep the p4 on top as is evidenced by the nearly 1 billion in fines overseas, you have all the makings of a steaming sack of buffalo droppings. Right up there with your opinions.

You have your right to express your opinions just as anyone else in here, but do not get personal. DO discuss the technology and DO discuss your personal beliefs, but DO NOT attack other members for having opinions, or attack them for what you think of them for having opinions. We're trying to run a friendly place here. You need to help try and keep it that way.

Make it so.
Welcome to the forums,

Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr2003
 

Peelback79

Senior member
Oct 26, 2007
452
0
0
First, I'm running a slightly oc'd Orleans right now. The new Athalons were rocking back when I bought my last computer a few years ago. I'm partial to whichever computer company puts out the parts with the best performance. I purposely delayed putting my new rig together because of the phenom. I was hoping that the new AMD quad would start at 2.4, 2.6 and oc steady at around 3.6 to upwards of 4Ghz with some new improvements that would out perform Intel. Now it's out, and the Q6600 is still the better buy. Better stabillity, more oc headroom. It's going to be my processor for the next 2 years at least.

Now, the reasons for the Phenom not performing as expected could be many. Whether you want to play the victim and it's all BIG INTEL's ruining everything for AMD, or just throw insults at each other won't change the current situation. The Phenom wasn't a complete failure (extremely backwards compatible) but it most assuredly wasn't the Huzzah any of us were anticipating. Hopefully the next chip coming Q1 of next year will help add some flame to the torch AMD is carrying into next year. I'm not an Intel cheerleader, again I'll say it would be a shame to see AMD go under. But at the end of the day they're still to blame for any let down and I'm definetely not spending any money on a company because I feel sorry for them because they can't compete.

And to EyeSmite: No, netburst wasn't the greatest thing for Intel. But it sure looks like they learned something from it though. Now what will AMD do? Will they bring us gold or rely on an everdwindling fan base to milk their way through next year. For all our sakes I hope they comeback with a rejuvinated design, even if it does mean using a new socket design.