1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

I went from AMD to Intel

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Laurijan, Nov 18, 2007.

  1. Laurijan

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,235 (0.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Location:
    Oulu, Finland
    Hi!

    I recenty ordered a AMD 64 5000+ Black Edition (2x512Kb L2 cache) dual core CPU for about 125€ and when I got it I realized that a Intel Q6600 quad core (4x2Mb L2 cache) costs "only" about the double. So I couldn´t resist to send the AMD back and to buy an Intel.
    How can AMD leak back so much in L2 Cache - no wonder that they are in trouble. For example the just released 5000+ Black Edition CPU they hope to make them big bugs which is only having 1Mb of L2 Cache - not worth bying as enthusiast even with an unlocked multiplier. AMD not having a qual core CPU ready to sell by now on the western worlds markets is a shame too.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2007
  2. Spunky

    Spunky New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    67 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Location:
    Orlando, Florida, USA.
    Everyone is disappointed in AMD right now, except for the loyal fanboys. Intel is pushing on ahead. I mean shit, the QX9650 is ridiculously powerful, and leads me to wonder whether or not AMD will ever recover.
  3. Judas

    Judas

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,032 (0.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Well i am not to disappointed AMD have fallen some what behind, but they will rise once again
  4. von kain New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    782 (0.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Location:
    athens/greece
    fanboysm aside the truth is that amd have disappoint us the main reason is that for a couple of years it doesn't deliver.amd turn from faster than intel on cheaper and that it isn't good for us because the competition (intel) tries not to make an a lot faster cpu but a cheaper .it will make qx9650 but the main target will be on price tag 5xxx 7xxxx
  5. Laurijan

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,235 (0.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Location:
    Oulu, Finland
    AMD is loosing a lot of money every day for not getting the Phenom out worldwide even when it is availible it will be seen if it can cope with the performace/price ratio of the Q6600
  6. Judas

    Judas

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,032 (0.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    21
    If you are disappoint ,then fine.But dont use the word US, i am quite happy with my 6000+ ;)
  7. von kain New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    782 (0.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Location:
    athens/greece
    you are completely right i can't speak for everyone,but what are you feeling about the new amd marketing idea of price-centric instead of speed-centric ?
  8. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,011 (11.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,404
    i have an FX-62 in my AM2 rig, and its quite nice. Price is stupid here in aus, but AMD chips are good for low power situations (cool and quiet really does rape intels speedstep)

    AMD are cheap and low power in the low-mid range, but high end performance intel is king.

    Edit: power as in wattage, not performance.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2007
  9. Kasparz New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    287 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Being faster and cheaper in low/middle end segment is called loosing money?
  10. Laurijan

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,235 (0.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Location:
    Oulu, Finland
    How then can it be that AMD is in a financial crises
  11. von kain New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    782 (0.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Location:
    athens/greece
  12. Laurijan

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,235 (0.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Location:
    Oulu, Finland
    Finally some good news
  13. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,245 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    963
    Srry, vk, but you misunderstood the news. Why does AMD need the cash NOW? Because it cannot get the bank loans, and stuff needs to be paid for... so it has gone, cap in hand, for additional equity from investors to tide it over.

    Remember, this was NOT an investor buying existing shares, but a "private placement" to ensure the company had enough capital so it would look financially stronger. ALL OTHER INVESTORS lose out... because now the same profit is now shared amongst MORE shareholders, so the return on equity goes down.

    quote: to make an investment in R&D...

    Read as follows:

    They need some money to go and buy a company so they can get some more ideas and products, like they did with the ATI purchase. In fact, this recent increase in shares may actually be a way of helping to fund their ATI purchase. They borrowed a lot of money from banks to buy ATI. They thought they could repay it, because on paper, AMD had made a lot of profit over the last 5 years... but they HAVENT made that money this year, those loans need repaying, so AMD desperately needs cash to pay back the banks for financing the ATI acquisition.

    AMD is in a terrible mess. And the recent private placement to the middle eastern investors just goes to show it.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2007
  14. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,011 (11.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,404
    what lemonade said is true. they did that because they are losing money, the ATI buyout cost them and isnt paying off like it should have.
  15. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,245 (2.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    963
    The California-based company was likely to welcome the investment after reporting its fourth consecutive quarter of losses last month in the face of competition from rival Intel, the world's biggest chipmaker, the paper said.

    Still the deal could attract the attention of the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, which vets acquisitions by overseas investors, particularly in technology and defence companies, on national security grounds, it said.

    A spokesman for Advanced Micro Devices declined to comment on a deal, and said that, contrary to the Financial Times report, the company's work did not include government contracts.

    AMD has been strapped for cash since its $5.4 billion purchase of Canadian graphics chip company, ATI.

    Just look at this shareprice :eek:
    [​IMG]
  16. Laurijan

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,235 (0.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    344
    Location:
    Oulu, Finland
    Nice info guys/girls
  17. largon New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,778 (0.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    432
    Location:
    Tre, Suomi Finland
    If they had not bought ATi then they had no GPU core to be strapped on Fusion. If they had no Fusion to counter Nehalem CGPU-variant (with the integrated GPU), then AMD would eventually get kicked from the budjet sector too.
  18. keakar

    keakar

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,376 (0.89/day)
    Thanks Received:
    292
    Location:
    just outside of new orleans
    i dont know why its so hard to understand the reason AMD cant keep up?


    AMD is not a small company but it relative terms to intel they are very small. because of this it is the buisness model of AMD to compete head to head with intel buy reverse engineering intels products to see how they are built then Amd builds a competing product that is simular but hopefully better and designed to be better priced and with more OC potential. the flaw in this buisness model that intel is taking advantage of is that if your competitor keeps advancing their own product line too fast, you dont have time to keep up because you need time to reverse engineer it and design your own competing product, but by that time their is newer tech to compete with. when intel had a smaller line of processors it was easier to keep up. AMD needs time to reorganize its whole buisness model as stand alone and forget all attemps to "match" intels cpus. once they do this it will be like ford vs chevy and not david vs golioth.
  19. 3991vhtes

    3991vhtes New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,786 (1.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    121
    Location:
    My house.
    Intel :nutkick: AMD
  20. Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16,421 (5.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,356
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    When Phenom is released it wont have to compete with the Q6600.......in January Intel releases its dual core Penyrn's and Quad core Yorkfields....all at 45nm.

    Ohhhh and of course you cannot compare the impact of 1 or 2MB L2 cache on AMD against Intels 4 or 8Mb cache as they are different architectures, AMD needs less, it's not actually the cache that really makes the fundementall differences between the 2 architectures. For example, AMD has/had much better memory architecture with an "on die" memory controller which is much more efficient and faster than Intels, memory controller which is located in the Northbridge chip, there are still things that AMD's current (read old) architecture still trumps Intel on, just not enough of them unfortunatly, however, you may be surprised to see in the SM2 thread that there is an A64 6000+ that beats several E6600's in that test.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2007
  21. Chewy

    Chewy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,289 (1.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    148
    Location:
    Halifax, Canada
    atm intel is even kicking butt in the budget section of the price wars... and consuming less power all across the board I think.

    Why pay $150 for an amd 5000+ cpu when you can get a an e6750 for $200, and a good mobo to go with it for $140.. I think even the lower end c2d's fair well against amds low end in both power consumption and price/performance. but than amd hasent released any new tech to the market in a while, just revisions? and the black box chips are mainly a shamble the 5400+ black box is a disgrace.. runs to hot cant overclock to save itself, uses a good amount of power and costs as much as a e6750 yet performs slower both @ stock speeds.
  22. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    Because the good mobo to go with the 5000+ can be had for $70. $220 vs $340. AMD is still ahead in the budget market, if only because of mobo prices. If companies start releasing kick-ass budget Intel boards, AMD is doomed.
  23. [I.R.A]_FBi

    [I.R.A]_FBi New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,664 (2.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    540
    Location:
    c:\programs\kitteh.exe

    endorsed, im even feeling like picking up one soon, if my fortunes change.
  24. DR.Death

    DR.Death New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,757 (0.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Location:
    Canada
    i would not be amazed if AMD sells ATI in the near future because they are not making anny money of eather of them
  25. hat

    hat Maximum Overclocker

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    16,892 (6.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,060
    Location:
    Ohio
    They have less cache because they don't need it. AMD cpu's link with the system is so much faster than Intel's setup they don't need that 2-4MB cache per core. However, AMD is lagging behind--bad--in the arcitecture of the core itself.
    Crunching for Team TPU

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page