Read more.Quote:
Dr Ruiz wasn't feeling in the festive spirit when he spoke about AMD's fortunes recently. Find out what he had to say about Intel.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Dr Ruiz wasn't feeling in the festive spirit when he spoke about AMD's fortunes recently. Find out what he had to say about Intel.
The fact is that at the moment, AMD's line is having its dinner money beaten out of it in both absolute performance and price/performance by Intel. There's no doubt that a lot of what he says about abuse of monopolistic power by Intel's been true, but that's an argument that only stands a chance of winning you friends if you can demonstrate that you have an equivalent or superior product that's being strangled. At the moment, AMD can't - no-one regrets that more than I do (well, maybe Hector does...) but that's the way it is.
very well worded. I'd LOVE to love an AMD again. But right now...I can't :(Quote:
Originally Posted by nichomach
And more scary...my Radeon will prolly become an nVidia next change :(
Regardless of how callously we try to view the market, I think a lot of us are rather keen on the idea of "The Little Processor Company That Could"; but they're not doing themselves any favours. Look at how they've (essentially) ****ed any adopters of Quad FX - that's the sort of thing we're used to ripping Intel about. On the graphics front, the 2900 was underwhelming at best, and the 38XX series are having to compete by being a lot cheaper to offset their relative performance disadvantage. Not good; it's a losing game - Intel can always make cheaper versions of stuff that they have a performance lead with, as can nVidia; but you have to have that performance lead there to start with.
For a long time any pc I built (whether for friend/family, or for profit) was amd, simply because they were the best for price/performance and left intel in the dust.
Around 18 months ago, intel release c2d at a reasonable price, plus (they stole amds crown here) very overclockable, and I could no longer recommend amd chips, this doesn't mean amd chips aren't good, just not good enough.
My last 5 pcs have been amd, soon it'll be time to upgrade, unfortunetly I have an 939 mobo so rather than just put another amd chip in it, I have to upgrade the mobo too. So now I have a choice, and amd looses.
I really hope that in the (near) future amd can come back to what it was, we need the competition to keep the marketplace fresh.
This will take innovation and good ideas, not temper tantrum style rants to the media.
Hardly a professional responce there tbh from Mr Hector..
we all know its swings and roundabouts in the PC world but think he's taking the piss abit there...
He also missed out how Intel slate stuff like socket CPU's, when Intel went to slot they said the socket was dead etc etc, then they swapped back.
Intel slated AMD's naming convention, then they went all arse to cock with there's too..
Possibly he missed them out because Paul Otellini would respond along the lines of "We'd like to thank Mr Slot-whoops-Socket-A for his helpful comments, so reminiscent of his bragging about getting to 1GHz first, before he decided that speed didn't matter anymore..."
Wonder what the future holds for AMD. I agree that if they had some products that atleast competed with similar performance and price to Intel they would be better placed to comment. Maybe they will come back with something...
The only thing that AMD has ever had in its favour is producing chips that offered better 'bang per buck' than Intel. It's now clear that their latest offerings fail to deliver and that Intel offers better value for money, particularly when overclocked. To add to their woes, ATI still lag behind Nvidea in the graphics performance and reliability stakes - I have just ditched a Sapphire HD2400, that was consistently glitchy, despite several software updates - in favour of an Nvidea 8400 GS, which has been rock solid from day 1. (both cards chosen as being fanless; the ATI card ran much hotter...) If they don't get their act together pronto, they are going to find it very hard to keep any market share at all.
I dont think its a case of maybe, its a case of when, if the money lasts...
There going down pretty hard at the mo, Phenom wasnt as good as people were expecting, they bought ATi, the 3800 cards arent as fast as people would like and on the price performance there not in the right ball park, Intel can afford to undercut them and they really are struggling.
Vinegar.
Anyone would think Intel were in it to make money or something :p
I think that's a little unfair; up until Core-based Intel CPUs came out, AMD had a clear lead not merely in price/performance, but in absolute performance, as any comparison of the P4 against A64 (up to and including Pentium-D versus X2) would illustrate. They need to recreate that edge in performance soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenalien
I wouldn't count AMD out just yet, but they're certainly on their back foot at the moment.
We've been here before, and they didn't roll up in a ball and die then, and it's not going to happen now.
It's only thanks to AMD that intel got off it's "MOAR MEGAHURTZ!!!11oneeleven", without them we'd probably still be on the old architecture with intel trying to convince us that their new 6GHz chip is the only way to run word quicker, and it's Israeli division still stuck in the doldrums, perhaps doing embedded stuff.
Get real both HD 2400 and 8400 suck especially the fanless versions.Cards from the last generation at the same price can pretty easy beat them in everything except dx10, but these cart pretty much doesnt support dx10 if you look at the performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenalien
I think intel has forgot the years of P4 when they was far away behind AMD.And they should be thankful to the lucky fact that someone has managed to get the old P3 into multicore and save intel's ass!
Also there is truth in the AMD's words - just take a look at the "new" intel "true" quad-core chips! The performance gain is less than 1% compared to the old quad-core chips so the lack of innovation is pretty noticable.
?Quote:
Originally Posted by sawo
You know this is Intel's 'tock' cycle right? It's only meant to be a die shrink plus SSE4. Intel haven't ever said that these are now 'true' quad cores any more than they did for the 65nm quads they released earlier.
What is with all these random intel bashers just registering and posting nonsense?
i used to hate intel fanboys and now im starting to hate amd fanboys :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel