ddpruitt :
AMD know's it has something that may turn the tide, finally they're trying to capitalize.
FYI for those that think AMD can't compete, Intel's share of CPU's is extremely small in the grand scheme. The money's in cheap low end devices, just think of what's running your phone, tablet, game console, etc. The only Intel logo is on your PC.
What does AMD have? So far we have very little on AMDs next CPU and what we do know is it is still based on the same modular design and same process tech. Both are not bad but not performing enough to push Intel and further competition and technology.
AMDs best market currently would be GPUs honestly. Their ULP parts are very slow, much like Atom is, and I have yet to mess with a ULP AMD system using Android to gauge if they perform any better than ARM.
As for the phones and tablets, Intel is well on their way to pushing into that market. AMD hasn't yet. They may have something but I don't see much out of them so I can't say.
Game consoles are a great market but honestly its still much like the consumer PC market. Its doesn't make them the money they need. Servers are the biggest market and currently Intel owns that market as AMD hasn't produced a better performer. AMD and Intel both make way more money there than they do anywhere else.
m32 :
jimmysmitty :
iam2thecrowe :
Good to see AMD finally promoting their product, which is where they are lacking even more than the performance of their cpu's. If they promoted their products more back in the Athlon XP/64 days, when they actually had a superior product, they would be much more successful today.
Back then it wasn't just marketing but also they couldn't FAB enough chips. They shut down one of their FABs here in the US and only had their Dresden Germany FAB which cut their ability to produce.
As for this, pointless. They don't have anything to truly compete with Intel on anything except a price basis and they seem to be trying to rekindle the GHz race when they proved with the Athlon 64 that GHz is not always better. Yet I have seen some people tout
AMDs 4GHz+ status when that 4GHz+ doesn't mean jack in the consumer world if the single core performance isn't there and most consumer apps don't use more than 2 cores let alone 4.
I know your trying to bash AMD but most 'modern' apps use more than 2 cores. Just stick with "Intel is better" instead of misinformation to prove a point.
My biggest gripe with AMD is that they are slacking. Its true. They haven't had a really competitive product in anything but price for a while when it comes to CPUs. Oh and the fanboys. Those annoy me the most just due to their sheer inability to admit anything the company they prefer is bad. I had people saying Phenom I was a good CPU when in reality it was crap. Pentium 4/D? Mostly crap, some gems (805/820) but overall crap. Bulldozer? Not crap but nothing amazing either and a power draw that was insane.
And no, I am not bashing AMD. I am making an observation as they have recently been focusing on clock speed hence the FX 9650, basically a FX-8350 overclocked to 4.8GHz, 5GHz with turbo. Bashing would be stating that they suck and Intel does everything better when in fact, AMD still has one up on Intel and that's in IGPs. Intel is catching up pretty fast but not quite up to AMDs level yet.
And for the record, while my current system is a 2500K (I am sorry but at the time and for $250 it was unbeatable even with what AMD had for the price) my wife has a Phenom II 965BE and HD7970, my HTPC has a Athlon II X2 250 HD5450, and I have a HD7970 Vapor-X hoping that Hawaii XT is worth the upgrade because while a GTX 780 or Titan will boost my gaming performance, they aren't worth the cost.
And remind me of how many consumer end, not specialized programs a professional might use, use more than 2 cores? Or how many games
efficiently use 4 cores? Right now 2 cores is fine for the majority of users. 4 cores is better but not by enough to state more programs use 4 cores as they don't unless they are specialized for a certain market/career field.