i just love this back and forth between the amd lovers and the intel lovers...lol it makes for great reading....i welcome all this fighting between the two companys...we the end user end up with the best deal....that is why monopolys arent a good thing and i personally hope amd can come up with something good just so it keep intel honest and they are fighting for our business...and i dont care who you are back in the day for 1299 bucks for a processor...wow that is a ton of money...that is alot now....and everything is alot cheaper now than when the athlons come out
The way it looks to me is AMDs fate will be decided in the server and low end segments.
If intel is out for blood, their manufacturing and process advantage can allow them to go lower in price and maintain the same profit per chip as AMD.
Releasing a low end core 2 duo or a core 2 solo for the ultra low end segment and pricing it aggressively ($75) would be devastating to AMDs marketshare.
The only place they have anything tangible that Intel cant gut is the server segment.
If intel is out for blood, their manufacturing and process advantage can allow them to go lower in price and maintain the same profit per chip as AMD.
Releasing a low end core 2 duo or a core 2 solo for the ultra low end segment and pricing it aggressively ($75) would be devastating to AMDs marketshare.
The only place they have anything tangible that Intel cant gut is the server segment.
I think Intel shot the Core 2 Duo out acidentaly at the perfect time. With AMD having spent alot of money to get ATI, they're down a good ammount of money. This may work out for them in the long run, but I'd guess for the next few months to a year they're going to be hurting until they can get a competitive chip on the market (k8L, maybe?) that will be able to take people's eyes off intel for a while.
Intel definately has the upper hand in the desktop market right now, and with quad core xeons making their way onto the streets, intel may be able to take a little of the server and workstation market away from AMD, although I doubt that will be much.
In the long run, neither company will back down, and neither one will fail any time soon, especialy with both companies now having dell as a supporter.
Intel definately has the upper hand in the desktop market right now, and with quad core xeons making their way onto the streets, intel may be able to take a little of the server and workstation market away from AMD, although I doubt that will be much.
In the long run, neither company will back down, and neither one will fail any time soon, especialy with both companies now having dell as a supporter.
Believe or not Intel first native-quad is rumored to be on second half of 2007. Whether AMD can release their native quad first of Intel it will only close the gap on glued quad.
Intel is really bend on not giving any room for AMD now
Intel is really bend on not giving any room for AMD now
Isn't it that they are winning on UP and DP? MP is I think where they are not competitive right now but IBM in IDF submitted the a new record for TPC-C for Tulsa.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Is woodcrest is less superior the socket F opteron?
Correct me if I'm wrong. Is woodcrest is less superior the socket F opteron?
They are partly getting around the 4s problem by introducing Cloverton. So in essence you can:
2x 4Core Cloverton = 8 cores
4x 2Core Opterons = 8 cores
Most non-idiot IT's would choose the Clovertons because it generally requires less space (2 sockets vs 4 sockets). Its all preliminary, but none of the 8core Clovertons seem to be bottlenecked by the DIB 1333Mhz FSB.
2x 4Core Cloverton = 8 cores
4x 2Core Opterons = 8 cores
Most non-idiot IT's would choose the Clovertons because it generally requires less space (2 sockets vs 4 sockets). Its all preliminary, but none of the 8core Clovertons seem to be bottlenecked by the DIB 1333Mhz FSB.
Regs
Lifer
- Aug 9, 2002
- 16,665
- 21
- 81
And AMD is really hell bent on not sharing any information about their future designs. Makes you wonder. It's almost October and AMD's VP was quoted for saying they'll be demonstrating their new quad core by the end of the year. If someone would like to correct me, than please do.
I find it almost suspicious that AMD seems to be tight lipped of anything they have coming up in the future. I also think it's naive to think all AMD has is a bunch of FX's in pairs of 4's. If that's all they really have for future prospects....then I'll be more than happy to parade down the Avenues of NYC with a blue suite on.
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 30,808
- 2,625
- 126
I dont get it. Some of you keep eluding that AMD is in trouble (since conroe release) but I see signing of new contract w/ AMD on a daily base. How could it be?
Below is another that hit the dust, ink dried.
http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=25293
Below is another that hit the dust, ink dried.
http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=25293
winr
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2001
- 6,081
- 56
- 91
***************************************************************************
Analysts downgrade AMD to sell
Ding dong Dell. Inventory in the well?
By Cher Price: Thursday 28 September 2006, 12:34
FINANCIAL ANALYSTS Think Equity scribbled a note to their clients saying it's switched its position from buy to sell on AMD because it will be hurt by a couple of things in Q3 and Q4.
In the note, it said it thought the Dell supply chain is using AMD CPUs far slower than anticipated - down to Dell, not to AMD, Think Equity reckons.
And that, it reckons, is causing revenue problems for AMD.
Also, says TE, AMD is suffering from INTC price competition, while Intel nexgen chips are "swamping the supply chain".
It reckons INTC will write off loads of its low end stock but if we understand things aright, it's already flushed a lot of the old stuff between February and now. Intel has EOLed heaps of its old gear already and we're already deluged with offers to buy Netbust chips at ridiculous rates.
Nevertheless, every crowd has a silver lining, and TE thinks this is only a short term glitch for AMD. Its target price now for AMD is $20. Yesterday, on the Money Street, INTC closed at $20.39, AMD at $25.32. If TE is right, won't Dell stock be affected?
***********************************************************************
What about the last sentence ? (a short term glitch)
EDIT:
I build both Intel and AMD machines. :sun:
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
Okay, some enlightenment. First of all, that $1299 Athlon was not the 1Ghz Athlon that AMD was doing their best to sell, the new Socket A Athlon. It was a limited production of the Slot A Athlon, for people who refused to replace their motherboards, so they could take advantage of the Socket A chips.
And as far as Intel's pricing before AMD came along, yeah, they were selling their fastest chips for $600-700, in the mid 1980's. $600 in 1984 equates to around $2,000, in today's dollars. AMD would never have succeeded, especially since their chips started out performing worse than Intel's chips, had they not been cheaper.
AMD was behind the curve, until their release of the first Athlons. That's when the tables turned, as far as value. You could pay ~$300 for a 500 Mhz Katmai PIII, or ~$300 for a 600 Mhz Athlon, that blew away the PIII, even if the PIII was overclocked to 600 Mhz. A few months after the release of the Athlons, was when Intel started rethinking their pricing strategy.
This was before Socket-A even existed.
You fail to see 1 point. The cost of computers overall has taken a nose-dive. This has little to do with the Intel/AMD price wars. This has also to do with the supply/demand of computers in general as well. Back in 1984, how many people had a personal computer as opposed to today? How many people were exposed to a computer vs today?
You also fail to see the point that a processor costs a lot cheaper to make now then in 1984. The fab cost of a Conroe is somewhere around $40ish. The fab cost of a 286 was multiple times that. The fact is, Intel has been very consistent in their CPU pricing (near $700+ for high end, $300-700 for mid-range, but budget has been going lower and lower, almost at the $50 mark now). AMD went on the outbound by charging $1299 per 1K with their Athlon 1GHz, and that has been the highest price for decades for a single proc.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
So, what's your point? The simple fact is, Intel had carte blanche on processor pricing, until the Athlon came along. Intel had to reduce the price of their processors, because of the Athlon. It's as simple as that. I was there, buying processors at the time, and long before.
Up until the Athlon was released, if you wanted performance, you had to buy Intel. Just like it was 3 months ago; if you wanted performance 3 months ago, you had to buy AMD, at their price. Now that Intel has released the C2D, the prices of X2 chips have fallen to where they really should have been all along. If AMD decides to stop making processors next month, do you honestly think the price of C2D's will remain where they are today?
You obviously haven't been around long enough to have seen the prices that Intel charged, before AMD came onto the scene.
[/quote]
Why the personal attack? Why try to one-up me with age? I don't understand.
I bolded the parts that made no sense. The guy said until the Athlon was made Intel could charge a premium. So he was talking only about Pre-Athlon era. dexvx rebuttled with the Athlon, which was clearly out of the timeframe.
Faster is nice, but has anyone given thought to the overheating problem. Advancing technology is great, but it does come with imherent problems.
Yes.
I still expect the high end @ $700-1000, mid end @ $300 - $500, mainstream @ $150-300, budget @ $50-150. That is a consistent formula from Intel that has more or less held for 2 decades (except with the introduction of the "budget" line). Its also a formula AMD has held onto, except with the Athlon 1Ghz, which broke that mold by the $1299 CPU.
Some of the posts I've read in this thread have little basis in reality, and seem to have been born of an irrational pessimism regarding AMD's present and future health.
AMD's present situation is certainly far less precarious than that in which it found itself pre-K8, when Intel was enjoying a sizeable lead with its faster and cooler-running Northwood P4s. Since then, AMD have developed a broad fan-base, but most of all, thanks to the success of the K8, have earned real credibility in both the server and desktop markets.
I find the idea of AMD begging Dell to buy their chips a little unbelievable. I'm no businessman, but successful corporations such as Dell are certainly not run as charities. Dell would not have agreed to the contract if they had doubts about AMD's future health, and I'd be willing to bet that their analysts have a better idea of this than we do.
Intel has won the dual core performance crown, but I believe the quad core arena will be a different story. K8L should match Core's performance, but equally as important, will consume sigificantly less power, due to its DICE tech and SiGe process.
That, combined with their HTX and open platform initiative, their Dell contract and their ATi acquisition mean they are far from being in trouble. On the contrary, I'd say their future looks rather promising.
AMD's present situation is certainly far less precarious than that in which it found itself pre-K8, when Intel was enjoying a sizeable lead with its faster and cooler-running Northwood P4s. Since then, AMD have developed a broad fan-base, but most of all, thanks to the success of the K8, have earned real credibility in both the server and desktop markets.
I find the idea of AMD begging Dell to buy their chips a little unbelievable. I'm no businessman, but successful corporations such as Dell are certainly not run as charities. Dell would not have agreed to the contract if they had doubts about AMD's future health, and I'd be willing to bet that their analysts have a better idea of this than we do.
Intel has won the dual core performance crown, but I believe the quad core arena will be a different story. K8L should match Core's performance, but equally as important, will consume sigificantly less power, due to its DICE tech and SiGe process.
That, combined with their HTX and open platform initiative, their Dell contract and their ATi acquisition mean they are far from being in trouble. On the contrary, I'd say their future looks rather promising.
microAmp
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2000
- 5,988
- 110
- 106
And AMD is really hell bent on not sharing any information about their future designs. Makes you wonder. It's almost October and AMD's VP was quoted for saying they'll be demonstrating their new quad core by the end of the year. If someone would like to correct me, than please do.
I find it almost suspicious that AMD seems to be tight lipped of anything they have coming up in the future. I also think it's naive to think all AMD has is a bunch of FX's in pairs of 4's. If that's all they really have for future prospects....then I'll be more than happy to parade down the Avenues of NYC with a blue suite on.[/quote]
I remember Anand posting in an article or blog, a year or so ago I think, saying that AMD got a new PR guy and wasn't going to be as open as the last PR guy. If that guy is still around, then that's why we don't hear about anything new going on.
lopri
Elite Member
- Jul 27, 2002
- 13,310
- 687
- 126
People should get out of short/narrow sight of theirs if they want to see the market. (Although I wouldn't expect much here about economics/politics, etc. This is a tech site in the end, isn't it?)
The reason why Dell could get in bed with AMD is because AMD now has the ability to supply enough chips for them thanks to the new fab(s). Intel-Dell have been in tense relationship (Of course Microsoft being behind, and Apple/AMD/ATI/NV playing supporting actresses) but Dell had to keep themselves low because if Intel cut the supply or anything like that their business would go downhill in no time. So while Intel thinks Dell exist because of Intel, Dell thinks otherwise.
With Microsoft trying to control market and have things their way, Intel had to go through many humiliating moments. (Itanium, AMD64, XBOX360, litigations - yes, I'm 100% sure that there was a 'go' sign from MS to AMD -, etc. there were so many occasions where MS crippled Intel. Intel wasted A LOT of money because MS didn't support it, or tried to keep it in check.) Intel's been resisting through its way and its recent effort was getting in bed with Apple. This of course upset and threatened Dell, which now has to compete with Apple, and Dell wants to show who the real king is. Enter AMD.
Thanks to the expanded capacity as well as the merger with ATI, AMD now can supply enough chips/platforms for Dell, should Intel threaten Dell for cutting short. (Actually Dell already sent a warning sign to Intel before, by replacing their top line with nForce-based systems) Of course Intel won't cut short Dell and AMD will not be the main chip supplier for Dell, but their power game will continue and AMD will keep looking for bigger share than what they currently have. (So do Apple and NV)
So look at it this way.
The bullies: MS, Intel, Dell, Sony, IBM, et al.
The scavengers: Apple, AMD, NV, ATI et al.
See the bigger picture? Tech doesn't just evolve by itself. It goes along with econimics and politics.
The reason why Dell could get in bed with AMD is because AMD now has the ability to supply enough chips for them thanks to the new fab(s). Intel-Dell have been in tense relationship (Of course Microsoft being behind, and Apple/AMD/ATI/NV playing supporting actresses) but Dell had to keep themselves low because if Intel cut the supply or anything like that their business would go downhill in no time. So while Intel thinks Dell exist because of Intel, Dell thinks otherwise.
With Microsoft trying to control market and have things their way, Intel had to go through many humiliating moments. (Itanium, AMD64, XBOX360, litigations - yes, I'm 100% sure that there was a 'go' sign from MS to AMD -, etc. there were so many occasions where MS crippled Intel. Intel wasted A LOT of money because MS didn't support it, or tried to keep it in check.) Intel's been resisting through its way and its recent effort was getting in bed with Apple. This of course upset and threatened Dell, which now has to compete with Apple, and Dell wants to show who the real king is. Enter AMD.
Thanks to the expanded capacity as well as the merger with ATI, AMD now can supply enough chips/platforms for Dell, should Intel threaten Dell for cutting short. (Actually Dell already sent a warning sign to Intel before, by replacing their top line with nForce-based systems) Of course Intel won't cut short Dell and AMD will not be the main chip supplier for Dell, but their power game will continue and AMD will keep looking for bigger share than what they currently have. (So do Apple and NV)
So look at it this way.
The bullies: MS, Intel, Dell, Sony, IBM, et al.
The scavengers: Apple, AMD, NV, ATI et al.
See the bigger picture?
Tech doesn't just evolve by itself. It goes along with econimics and politics.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter