Intel says WHAT???

[NightCrawler]

AMD still lagging greatly in marketing....they make great CPU though.

They should change marketing strategy.

Comparing a Athlon 64 3.8 Ghz versus a Pentium 4 3.6 Ghz......it would be a lot easier to sell the Athlon 64 3800 with a 3.8 Ghz tag.

 

[Zebo]

Dothan at around 2700 mhz would be sweet. I'd love to see one at 250Mhz FSB on desktop.🙂

Maybe that's thier plan. Sounds very good... either way. Intel will be 80% for a very long time, forever?. You can't compete for joe six pack mindshare with the slim margins AMD has going on. Have to do it slowly over years with superior product year in and year out.


For the marketing camp...
AMD Market with what? They have no more stock to sell. They make no real money.

 

[nowayout99]

Seems like the typical cycle. Intel started to loose steam at the end of the P3, when the original Athlon met Intel tit-for-tat, and beat them in price and performance.

Then the P4 was spreading its wings while the AXP was coughing up at the end (short supply, a few paper launches, and generous PR ratings).

Now Intel is choking again. And they'll come back again. Nothing new to see here.

 

[imported_goku]

I am for the first time actually worried they wont make any faster processors than they are making now. I mean for the past like 2-3 years they have really being hoping around 3GHZ, nothing really faster. I mean they have had faster FSBs but still, they are hoping around 3GHZ, it really concerns me. Adding to the fact intel just canceled the P4 4.0GHZ is just another indicator that everything is slowing down. Just like MS did with NT where instead of having 9X kernel and NT kernel (one for office and one for home) they just combined it and sold 2 different versions with same kernel, one has more features while the other doesn't. So in this case the Pentium M processor in the NT Kernel and the Pentium processor is the 9X Kernel, strange how things repeat them selves in history.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: goku2100
I am for the first time actually worried they wont make any faster processors than they are making now.

Ditto, at least for tasks that are primarily single-threaded. It's really going to cause the software guys to start thinking about actually optimizing their code again, instead of simply grinding it out and expecting CPUs to automatically get "fast enough" by the time that the software is ready for release.[/quote]

 

[tweeve2002]

Originally posted by: magomago
2MB L@ Cache? Wow...won't that lower the yield they get since that is quite a bit of cache to have on a processor~ those that come with defective cache...disable the defective part and sell them as 1 meg p4s?

havent they already done that...Its called the P4 Extreme and it cost $700...I think Intel just wants to up the prices on all the CPUs they make, so they add more cache.

 

[imported_Phil]

The day that I have to evaluate or heat-test a 4Ghz Prescott at work is the day that I confirm that it won't work properly on air cooling alone. Thank heavens they're not releasing it.
With the temperatures of a 3.4Ghz LGA Prescott reaching 68C under full load, I don't want to even think about 4Ghz.

 

[imported_amx]

Originally posted by: rshoemaker
seems like both AMD and Intel have kind of reached the limits of what they can do speedwise with silicon. Be interesting to see what the next big thing is in processors over the next 5 years.

You would be extremly surprized. Ask the people working at intel(good luck) like myself. Intel has stuff cooking inside their R&D labs working on something that might be released many years from now. . Just because AMD was the first to bring 64bit in the PC sector donesnt mean anything. Specially since there is still no 64 bit windows platform out in the market. No real use of 64 bit in the PC area.

AMD just wishes it could be in Intel's shoes.

 

[IamTHEsnake]

The simple minded AMD fans, need to shut up and listen before they post. First start my finding out how business works, a market this massive doesn't change on a dime. There is no way in hell Intel is unable to counter the a64. Like AMX said, they have stuff cooking, just when they want to release it is the problem I would assume. So maybe pushing the release dates forward by using a lot of resources is all it takes.


Geez, some people.....


Idiots.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

No need to start launching Ad Homs that turn discussions into flamefests 😉 However, I too am disturbed by the fact this forum is becoming AMDMB.com v.2.0

 

[Zebo]

Every forums becoming that way.. Success breeds excess😉 Or something like that.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Every forums becoming that way.. Success breeds excess😉 Or something like that.

Well not all so far...fortunately 🙂 ABXZone and Bleedingedge are still excellent places to go for Intel users. Seperating AMD and Intel does seem to alleviate the bulk of the flame wars, and keep posts more on-topic.

 

[ponyo]

AMD had higher marketshare percentage at the peak of the TBird era then they do now. AMD stock was at $30+/ share for a short time during this time.

They still have ways to go before their marketshare % and stock price reach those numbers again.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: amx

Originally posted by: rshoemaker
seems like both AMD and Intel have kind of reached the limits of what they can do speedwise with silicon. Be interesting to see what the next big thing is in processors over the next 5 years.

You would be extremly surprized. Ask the people working at intel(good luck) like myself. Intel has stuff cooking inside their R&D labs working on something that might be released many years from now. . Just because AMD was the first to bring 64bit in the PC sector donesnt mean anything. Specially since there is still no 64 bit windows platform out in the market. No real use of 64 bit in the PC area.

AMD just wishes it could be in Intel's shoes.

Intel has had something "cooking" ever since the release of the original Athlon. I think they burnt whatever it was, so far they've been able to eek out a competitive advantage for a short period(P4c), but they certainly haven't created anything AMD-kill-worthy.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

I'll stay with P4's just because of the RMA process. Even though I rarely have to RMA either chip, its like pulling teeth to get AMD to replace a cpu while intel gladly replaces them with little trouble.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

If AMD stays on top (performance wise and proc design wise in dual core) when the Dresden foundry comes online and their capacity increases greatly than Intel may blink (but just a little, AMDfanbois need to look at marketshare, brand name recognition, sales power, advertising power and most of all revenue and business diversification)

Intel slaughters AMD in many, many, many areas. I own three AMD computers but know that INtel is like Microsoft and AMD is like Linux. Two are more powerful but not better but the eyes and ears of grandmothers everywhere only see WinTel dominance. Oh well. I love AMD simply because they are a pimple on Intel's ass and making them sweat and work and lower prices so we are aren't still working on 2600 PIV's for $1500 per processor

I am an AMD fan who gives Intel full recognition for their great advancements and I have REALISTIC understanding of Intel's supreme dominance but still enjoy having real choice. Intel has given us so much but AMD is moving on up from the dark basement in the Tower of Processors to at least the 2nd or 4th floor.