Intel don't know how to deal with AMD

[Steve]

The Inquirer's Charlie Demerjian reckons that Intel is going about tackling 'the AMD menace' in the wrong way, and doesn't really know what it should be doing. In the first of a two part article, he lets Intel know some (well, a lot) of the things he thinks they're doing wrong.

Intel is now in the midst of a round of hush-hush price cuts. The most recent was a spur of the moment 10% kickback to distributors that made their numbers this quarter, US only.

The problem was it was late, many didn't get it in time to act, and it targeted the wrong components. Since it was a US initiative only, it had the bonus effect of irritating European, Asian and other customers.

[The Inquirer]

Later in the article Charlie points out the shortcoming of Intel's lack of HyperTransport, or similar. Indeed, this is something we've pointed out in Xeon CPU tests... the chips are choked to death on their own motherboards.

[kalniel]

But isn't conroe going to whip AMD's chips quite badly?

Surely that's the best way of dealing with AMD - just produce a faster chip! They've struggled on this current technology but they're past that soon.

[Jonny M]

It doesn't matter anyway. Intel could produce complete garbage but they'd still sell more than AMD.

[kalniel]

True - but that's also because they can gaurentee distribution/stock.

[Silent Shark]

I'm sure AMD will catch up. The Conroe is a new processor, and AMDs equivalents are still evolutions of current gen CPUs. I'm sure next year AMD will have something better than the Conroes.

Caged is right, but AMD have been catching up. I switched to AMD years ago (last Intel was a Celeron 433MHz), because they where by far cheaper and better value. They also ran slightly faster too. If AMD want to really get on full equal terms with Intel, they need a f@^&ing annoying jingle like Intel do.

[dave87]

If AMD want to really get on full equal terms with Intel, they need a f@^&ing annoying jingle like Intel do.

oh so true - I've been with amd since the days of the k6 - because I couldn't afford the premium for a crappier, hotter chip. I think Intel will always do well as they have the links to dell etc and have the capacity AMD currently lacks.

[Lee H]

But isn't conroe going to whip AMD's chips quite badly?

Who's to say AMD have not already got the 'conroe' killer designed and awaiting the right market conditions?

As for capacity issues - AMD have just signed an agreement to help their supplies out so I predict that AMD will gain a bit more popularity because at the moment the design is right, the performance is spot on and of course they're cooler than a snowmans dangly bits

[TheAnimus]

oh so true - I've been with amd since the days of the k6 - because I couldn't afford the premium for a crappier, hotter chip. I think Intel will always do well as they have the links to dell etc and have the capacity AMD currently lacks.

Intel had chips far faster than the K6 range. They also had much higher volume of these chips.

Thing is, my 200mx cost a fraction of that for a 133mhz pentium, and ran on par with a clocked 166mhz intel.

Intel were beeten to 1ghz, this was a blow, but the PIII was a MUCH better chip. Then the XPfoobar came out (foobar is a made up number, to imply its faster than its clock speed), the first p4's were truely awful. AMD had not only beeten intel to 1ghz, but also the new platform.

Intel know they've the infrastructure to outproduce AMD, AMD know this, and they also know that if they tread to much on the giants toes, Intel can produce many mroe chips, at a much lower cost. Sorry AMD fanboys!

[Stoo]

It's got bugger all to do with Fanboys, AMD has been making rather large dents in Intel's traditionally strong server markets, and Intel haven't got anything to answer it for the foreseeable. Producing loads of cheap low end chips will do nothing to stop it, especially now as IT buyers have woken up and are willing to pay the premium for a faster and cooler running product in the server space.

The business desktop market isn't of too much consequence to them.

[Funkstar]

from what i can see, the only area that intel still lord it over AMD is the laptop market.

Admitedly i haven't kept up as much as i could, but do AMD have anything to compete with Core Duo Centrino systems? Both in terms of processing power and power usage.

[Steve]

from what i can see, the only area that intel still lord it over AMD is the laptop market.

Admitedly i haven't kept up as much as i could, but do AMD have anything to compete with Core Duo Centrino systems? Both in terms of processing power and power usage.

Indeed, Centrino, as a platform, is solid. If Intel could deliver the same solidity on its other platforms (given that it uses platform oriented marketing now) then it'd claw back the bits of market share that AMD is nibbling away at.

[8bit]

Given that AMD have enjoyed being the popular choice among the gaming sector of the market for the last while and the fact that laptops are becoming viable games machines now, I don't imagine AMD can afford *not* to pull something out of the bag pretty quickly to answer Centrino and/or Core Duo. I wouldn't be surprised if that was what swung the decision between AMD and Intel for Apple.

Just my £0.02...

[TheAnimus]

dislexia moment above, what i ment to say is AMD know they haven't got the infrastructure to outproduce intel.... but you all knew i ment that.

As for fanboyism, it tends to be, number of people who buy laptops for gaming is nothing compared to buisness/school/soho use. The amount of celeron centrenos that are sold pay hommege to this.

server market yes and no, opterons are what i'd use now, but AMD have been having consistant supply problems. Lots of people use Dell and the likes (lets be honest, how few potential intel customers use sun?) who need a large volume which AMD can't produce. Given that AMD have to be cheaper than intel mips for mips, they don't have the money to splash out on fabricaiton.

Intel have been doign lots of research into pushing silicon, their bigwigs have been stupid, and not listened. The P4.... Crap, the athlon MP was a much better choice for server platforms, but they ran awfully hot compared to the xeons at the time. Intel are in a much better posistion at the moment than they where a year ago. Multicore CPUs are great, and the price are fantastic, £45 for a Intel Celeron D 326 2.533Ghz Skt 775 Fsb 533 256kb Cache EMT 64 Retail What the heck do AMD offer in competition? Nothing close.

[Couger]

£45 for a Intel Celeron D 326 2.533Ghz Skt 775 Fsb 533 256kb Cache EMT 64 Retail What the heck do AMD offer in competition? Nothing close.

Lol not being funny AMD dont offer anything that cheap because the model CPU you mention from INTEL sucks i mean wtf celerons are complete garbage

My work computer has a 2.8ghz celeron and its piss poor constantly freezes whilst doing things such as browsing and listening to music in winamp, yet my second pc at home which has a 2..0ghz sempron works like a dream.....

So there ya have it the reason AMD dont offer anything is cause they aint got nothing that sucks

Sry to say it but Celerons are ****e silicon

[TheAnimus]

yes but if you only have £50?!

Its a great upgrade from a XP1800+ say, which was a popular economy choice when i built a PC about 3 years ago.

[Agent]

My work computer has a 2.8ghz celeron and its piss poor constantly freezes whilst doing things such as browsing and listening to music in winamp, yet my second pc at home which has a 2..0ghz sempron works like a dream.....

I doubt its the CPU causing your problem