AMD To Give Up Competing With Intel On x86? CPU Prices Already Shooting Up

[Makaveli]

Originally Posted by Super XP

IBM will never let AMD go under, absolutely no way. Who on earth want's Intel dictating what CPU technologies will be chosen? I don't so.

AMD will only change there strategy and compete on Price/Performance until they can get something competative out that blows Intel out of the water

Maybe if this was 1990 you may have been onto something but IBM gave up on the Consumer market ages ago.

Originally Posted by lukcic

I support AMD because:

• tried Intel, and for my use AMD was and still is a better choice (example: try to use dism with all patches for windows; Intel based PC will die and will be unusable for a few hours, while AMD finishes 1 hour before an Intel and during the task the PC is usable)

• I don't care for the quantity of game framerates; I play games 2x in a month

• I use Sony vegas for rendering and it truly uses all cores on the AMD platform to the max, while Intel....that's just sad story behind....

• I was thinking buying a laptop, a cheap laptop with the CPU virtualization and I wanted an Intel (I was recommended by I friend who I trust about these things), the problem was that the Pentium mobiles don't have virtualization, while even the cheapest model of any AMD CPU has it. This rises a question "Why would I buy an Intel???"

So here you have my opinion and logical reasons why I support AMD. Now I own a 8-core AMD beast and it does the job damn good!

Originally Posted by de.das.dude

this is also the reasons i use an AMD. fuck i5
AMD just feels a lot faster somehow.

Whatever you two are smoking can I buy some?

[btarunr]

CPU prices all over are expensive, because it's the shopping season. A $250 FX-8150 is going to $280.

[Frick]

Just wanted to say that CPU prices are pretty much the same over here.

[xenocide]

Originally Posted by Makaveli

Maybe if this was 1990 you may have been onto something but IBM gave up on the Consumer market ages ago.

That's only half true. They realized PowerPC-based PC's were never going to make it, and being an OEM was costing them too much money. They still care about Consumers (to the extent anyone can) but have shifted their focus to indirectly benefit consumers (Game Consoles, Phone Parts, etc.)

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Also to add, Bulldozer will likely come into its own when it transitions to the 22nm. Every other fab AMD uses is completely shit. 90 nm (Athlon 64) was good, 65 nm (Phenom) sucked, 45 nm (Phenom II) was good, 32 nm (FX) sucked. 22 nm is likely to be good.

Of course it won't be able to hold a candle to Ivy Bridge but if you're looking for a cheap processor that's "good enough," AMD has that market pretty well cornered.



This too. AMD has virtually no brand recognition because they refuse to advertise except on their website (e.g. Ruby) and games (powered by AMD). Neither are effective at reaching the masses and they must change that. AMD's decision to not advertise is the dumbest thing since square wheels.

65nm didn't suck for AMD. You forgot about Brisbane. Just Phenom sucked, not the entire process.

Originally Posted by cdawall

Had to come up with some sort of good reply...



We have already seen AMD shape a lot of things in the past year ever wonder why AMD is pushing "the future is fusion" so hard? That might be the saving grace along with ATi. I am already seeing it how many intel notebooks for $299 can you play a lot of todays games on? The E-350 series chips kicks some major ass in the low budget laptop market. AMD is taking that over. Coming from my sales at BBY experience those laptops are the ones that sell 15-20 per store every Sunday. Thats just BBY, throw in newegg, amazon and other etailers. Those notebooks are damn near bestselling on every single site. Now move up to the A4 chips with integrate 65x0 graphics on them and you have a budget gamer that can play ALL of todays games with decent settings, throw in hybrid xfire with another 65x0 chip and you have all high settings for under $700. Something intel cannot touch. As drivers mature those chips keep getting better. There is no way the influx of fusion chips is by mistake. AMD is trying to take as much low end market as humanly possible. We may loose the high end with AMD's bulldozer fiasco, but if they can stake a claim in low/midrange markets that is the bulk of home computing. Word of mouth travels better than commercials if one housewife get a FUSION sticker and loves it they all go get one. The top 4 selling laptops at my Walmart right now are all AMD based and under $700. All it takes is one salesman to go hey these perform similar this ones cheaper and games play better.

Still behind in compute power.

Originally Posted by cdawall

Flamebait much?

AMD still holds an 18% market share and Intel 80%. Thats commonly available knowledge. Without AMD competing with Intel we will see processor markups again. Competition is good in every way it brings out the best product, best price and more options. Think if there was no AMD when the P4 was released? Who is to say Intel would have gotten there collective heads out of their asses and fixed that to release Conroe? As long as AMD holds its current marketshare through the quarter they could always bounce back. As far as intel's way of doing business yea right thats why AMD won that 1.45 billion antitrust. The only business plan Intel follows is when in doubt cheat, lie and steal. Hell the old P4 commercial specifically quote needing a P4 to use XP...I mean really?

So, how does the past have anything to do with current strategies and markets?

Sorry, pulling the antitrust card is no longer a valid defense. Time to move on.

Originally Posted by lukcic

I support AMD because:

• tried Intel, and for my use AMD was and still is a better choice (example: try to use dism with all patches for windows; Intel based PC will die and will be unusable for a few hours, while AMD finishes 1 hour before an Intel and during the task the PC is usable)

• I don't care for the quantity of game framerates; I play games 2x in a month

• I use Sony vegas for rendering and it truly uses all cores on the AMD platform to the max, while Intel....that's just sad story behind....

• I was thinking buying a laptop, a cheap laptop with the CPU virtualization and I wanted an Intel (I was recommended by I friend who I trust about these things), the problem was that the Pentium mobiles don't have virtualization, while even the cheapest model of any AMD CPU has it. This rises a question "Why would I buy an Intel???"

So here you have my opinion and logical reasons why I support AMD. Now I own a 8-core AMD beast and it does the job damn good!

What are you smoking?

What Intel chips are you comparing to, P4's? Do you perhaps want to compare performance in these apps against a modern Intel owner?

Sorry, but my almost 2 year old Intel system would mop the floor with any current AMD system, let alone a newer SB based system.

[Swansen]

Originally Posted by badtaylorx

perhaps a joint venture between ARM and AMD

i can just see it now......

AMD+ARM=ARMD

xD lol armd, thats funny to me

[Hayder_Master]

Cool, time to put fackin black box agin on Intel K CPU's and sell them as extremes for 1000$.