Amd is Going Down, Intel Is King Again ** BS **

harlequin6791

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2006
70
0
18,630
0
Before I start let me say I've owned pentiums, athlons 32 and 64bit processors. I prefer AMD because in the past their price/performance was awesome and ya the enthusiast/underdog quality of it all as well. However if Intel remains on top by the time I need to upgrade I'd have no doubt in my mind that I would switch cpu's and go with the best bang for the buck once again.

What makes me laugh the hardest is to see all these fanboys on here ranting about how great AMD is or Intel now is again. How all of a sudden AMD is going to go bankrupt because Intel FINALLY got its bloated pos revamped. Or how AMD is going to drag ATI down with it. No offense but what a bunch of idiotic biased garbage.

Look

In 2000
Amd was the first to break the 1ghz barrier with the Athlon
Nov. 20 Intel Introduces Pentium 4 1st new desktop processor

Apr. 23, 2001
Intel Launches 1.5 ghz Pentium 4 Chip design since the Pentium Pro processor in 1995 (if i remember correctly AMD and Intel during the few years to follow went back in forth in performance winners)


2003
AMD launches the Opterons and Athlong 64 processors (taking back the crown not only in performance but in price and not really looking back until now)

2005
AMD Releases the first true dual core cpu's Opterons and A64's

2006
Jan 05 Intel Releases its version of dual core the Core Duo
Aug Intel Releases the Core 2 Duo which retook the Performance Crown (the price battle continues)


Now with that info you can see how the market changes. One releases a product the other counters with one similar or better of their own. However From 2003 til Recent AMD has dominated in all aspect with the A64. Finally Intel has answered. But for all of your lame fanboys out there saying how this is the end of AMD you really have to be blind to history and the patterns. AMD is already planning on releasing the K8L, possibly next year. 1 year away from Core 2 release... even if it was 2 years later its still a hell of a lot faster than Intel's 3 years it took to repond. Or its almost 6 yr old design in the pentium 4 before the Cores releases.

Keeping that in perspective then AMD's 1 or 2 year wait is a lightning fast response in comparison. It also seems to me that AMD's underdog attitude has it doing more innovative things for the market than Intel. Intel has the money but doesn't seem to be very creative from a lamen point of view.

Also the price for performance comparisons for the Core 2's vs the a64's seems skewed to me. If you take it as an overall system it seems to me the AMD based system is cheaper as a whole by far.

Lower prices processors or comparable now
Lower priced motherboards (ranging from the $70-$150)
Lower priced ram

where as the Intel based all I've seen lately
More expensive processors even tho they were promised to be cheaper due to short supply.
motherboards starting at $150 (and those are the supposed just ok boards)
The ram is more expensive as well currently.

Anyways I'm rambling now. As I said in the beginning if Intel continues to put out a great product when its time for me to upgrade I'd go Intel. But I think by that time AMD will have a strong response to Intel in the next year or two. History has shown that AMD faster with its responses and more innovative in doing so as well.

I'll leave it up to the fanboys to pick apart my posting now. I know my info may not be 100% accurate nor am I a programmer or engineer like many of you. Just some common sense when watching the pattern of development between these 2 companies. Also my spelling and grammar may be off as well due to the fact i'm writing in a hurry while working.
 

clairvoyant129

Distinguished
May 27, 2006
164
0
18,680
0
Before I start let me say I've owned pentiums, athlons 32 and 64bit processors. I prefer AMD because in the past their price/performance was awesome and ya the enthusiast/underdog quality of it all as well. However if Intel remains on top by the time I need to upgrade I'd have no doubt in my mind that I would switch cpu's and go with the best bang for the buck once again.

What makes me laugh the hardest is to see all these fanboys on here ranting about how great AMD is or Intel now is again. How all of a sudden AMD is going to go bankrupt because Intel FINALLY got its bloated pos revamped. Or how AMD is going to drag ATI down with it. No offense but what a bunch of idiotic biased garbage.

Look

In 2000
Amd was the first to break the 1ghz barrier with the Athlon
Nov. 20 Intel Introduces Pentium 4 1st new desktop processor

Apr. 23, 2001
Intel Launches 1.5 ghz Pentium 4 Chip design since the Pentium Pro processor in 1995 (if i remember correctly AMD and Intel during the few years to follow went back in forth in performance winners)


2003
AMD launches the Opterons and Athlong 64 processors (taking back the crown not only in performance but in price and not really looking back until now)

2005
AMD Releases the first true dual core cpu's Opterons and A64's

2006
Jan 05 Intel Releases its version of dual core the Core Duo
Aug Intel Releases the Core 2 Duo which retook the Performance Crown (the price battle continues)


Now with that info you can see how the market changes. One releases a product the other counters with one similar or better of their own. However From 2003 til Recent AMD has dominated in all aspect with the A64. Finally Intel has answered. But for all of your lame fanboys out there saying how this is the end of AMD you really have to be blind to history and the patterns. AMD is already planning on releasing the K8L, possibly next year. 1 year away from Core 2 release... even if it was 2 years later its still a hell of a lot faster than Intel's 3 years it took to repond. Or its almost 6 yr old design in the pentium 4 before the Cores releases.

Keeping that in perspective then AMD's 1 or 2 year wait is a lightning fast response in comparison. It also seems to me that AMD's underdog attitude has it doing more innovative things for the market than Intel. Intel has the money but doesn't seem to be very creative from a lamen point of view.

Also the price for performance comparisons for the Core 2's vs the a64's seems skewed to me. If you take it as an overall system it seems to me the AMD based system is cheaper as a whole by far.

Lower prices processors or comparable now
Lower priced motherboards (ranging from the $70-$150)
Lower priced ram

where as the Intel based all I've seen lately
More expensive processors even tho they were promised to be cheaper due to short supply.
motherboards starting at $150 (and those are the supposed just ok boards)
The ram is more expensive as well currently.

Anyways I'm rambling now. As I said in the beginning if Intel continues to put out a great product when its time for me to upgrade I'd go Intel. But I think by that time AMD will have a strong response to Intel in the next year or two. History has shown that AMD faster with its responses and more innovative in doing so as well.

I'll leave it up to the fanboys to pick apart my posting now. I know my info may not be 100% accurate nor am I a programmer or engineer like many of you. Just some common sense when watching the pattern of development between these 2 companies. Also my spelling and grammar may be off as well due to the fact i'm writing in a hurry while working.

You're right to a degree but you forgot to mention that in 2008, Intel will release a redesigned 45nm Core 2 Duo and a new micro architecture, Nehalem.
 

9-inch

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2006
722
0
18,980
0
ou're right to a degree but you forgot to mention that in 2008, Intel will release a redesigned 45nm Core 2 Duo and a new micro architecture, Nehalem.
...And AMD will be introducimg Direct Connet Architecture V2.0 and enhancements to the core. :wink:
 

harlequin6791

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2006
70
0
18,630
0
My main point was to the idiotic fan boy things about how long AMD is taking for a reply. "why didn't they have an answer to the Core 2?" "wheres AMD performance now?" when in fact it took intel 3 yrs to answer the A64.. and 6 yrs to develop a new processor.

All the rants from the Intel fanboys are extremely premature. Now if it was 2 yrs after the Core 2's release and AMD still hasn't had a product to compete with it. Then I'd say it would be more warranted.

Same goes for AMD fanboys if the tables were turned. However AMD fans had a 3 years being able to see Intel try and fail. So atleast in the past it was a different scenario.

Clairvoyant129 you can assume all the way to 2008 or to 2021 if you really want to. However who is to say the development stays on track or even has the performance gains thats predicted. It could be a flop it could be amazing. That goes for either Intel or AMD.
 

fredgiblet

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
573
0
18,980
0
The one real flaw that I see in your arguement is this. I can't say for sure but I don't remember the performance gap being this big since the days of P3 vs. K6-2.

I love my AMD boxes, but the Core 2 will be hard to beat, it is significantly faster now, has more headroom than AMD's chips for frequency increases, and Intel is closer to both quad-core (which I think is not going to be as great as some people think) and 45nm (which will give Core 2 even more headroom).

I just don't see AMD coming back into the high-end market anytime soon. Of course with the ridiculously fast procs we have now I don't know many people who really NEED a high-end proc anyways (WANT on the other hand...)
 

9-inch

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2006
722
0
18,980
0
AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.
If we are talking x86 processors, definately yes. :wink:

No, they weren't.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/11/HNdualcorechipships_1.html

Intel had them way before AMD did, which is why I got a PD when they came out.

LOL. :lol: You're worthless, but let me refresh your mind: AMD was the first processor manufacturer who've pioneered x86 dual core processors and also was the first one in releasing them.

...And please don't call a PD a dual core when actually it's a nasty hack (two glued cores in one package). :wink:
 

fredgiblet

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
573
0
18,980
0
AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.
If we are talking x86 processors, definately yes. :wink:

No, they weren't.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/11/HNdualcorechipships_1.html

Intel had them way before AMD did, which is why I got a PD when they came out.

You are half right. AMD released the first x86 dual-core processors on April 22...but they were Opterons. Intel released the first DESKTOP dual-cores 5 days before AMD released the X2.

Opteron 22 April 2005
Athlon X2 31 May 2005
Pentium D 26 May 2005
Xeon dual core 10 October 2005

Of course in the end who was FIRST is not as important as who was BEST.
 

pete4r

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2006
226
0
18,680
0
AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.
If we are talking x86 processors, definately yes. :wink:

No, they weren't.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/11/HNdualcorechipships_1.html

Intel had them way before AMD did, which is why I got a PD when they came out.


Judging from that Link you provided, it only said "INTEL'S FIRST DUAL-CORE" or "THE COMPANY'S FIRST DUAL CORE", in your sence, the headline should be "WORLD'S FIRST X86 DUAL-CORE PROCESSOR"?? No??

Also "Intel and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) are both close to launching dual-core processors based on the x86 instruction set. AMD is likely to be first, with the launch of its first dual-core Opteron processors expected on April 21. The date marks the two-year anniversary of the introduction of Opteron, which was AMD's first 64-bit chip. "

whats this all about? in the link u posted. am i reading french?
 

harlequin6791

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2006
70
0
18,630
0
Some of the best desktops run on Opterons.. come on how many gamers out there have opts.. plenty. Getting the same performance but for less than the FX series.

AMD was the one to pioneer the native dual core product where intel either failed or didnt try.

a few other shining points why i respect AMD more currently

AMD did develop the 32/64 bit processor where Intel failed or didnt try once again. Which really would have ran the market if MS got its OS out as it said it was going to.

AMD is the one developing open sockets for 3rd part developers on motherboards.

AMD advances processors without changing the pin configurations everytime making it more cost effective to upgrade for users.

AMD also proved that better performance didnt rely on faster mhz. Even tho Intel tried brainwashing the consumer to believe so.

AMD in general to me has been much more innovative than Intel so far. I am however very impressed with the Core 2 so far. If I was in the market I would definately buy one. I'd even suggest it to others that are upgrading without a doubt. I'm glad they released a solid product with real improvements instead of the hype I've seen in the past. Maybe I'll upgrade this next year to a Core 2 Duo or wait for the next step and see who comes out ahead.
 

joefriday

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2006
2,105
0
19,810
5
AMD didn't have the first dual-cores, buddy.
If we are talking x86 processors, definately yes. :wink:

No, they weren't.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/04/11/HNdualcorechipships_1.html

Intel had them way before AMD did, which is why I got a PD when they came out.

You are half right. AMD released the first x86 dual-core processors on April 22...but they were Opterons. Intel released the first DESKTOP dual-cores 5 days before AMD released the X2.

Opteron 22 April 2005
Athlon X2 31 May 2005
Pentium D 26 May 2005
Xeon dual core 10 October 2005

Of course in the end who was FIRST is not as important as who was BEST.

And actually you're half right. Technically, Intel WAS the first to ship out dual core cpus, as on the 12th of April, 2005, they made the announcement that they had already started shipping to OEMs.

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3496926

I agree with the assessment on who's first vs. who's best, but the Joe Friday in me must set the record straight. Just the facts man.
 

joefriday

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2006
2,105
0
19,810
5
If you want to leghump AMD, that's your prerogative, but this part of your rant is complete BS:
AMD advances processors without changing the pin configurations every time making it more cost effective to upgrade for users.
What, are you living in 2001 still? Socket A was pretty awesome, but since K8 AMD has be pretty crappy on the socket life. Let's see: first there was socket 940, then socket 754, then socket 939, and now socket AM2. That's 4 incompatible socket types since 2003. Since 2003, Intel has had socket 478, and socket 775. There have been three variations for socket 775, the first supported Prescott P4s and Celeron Ds, and second gained support for Pentium D, and the final is a VRM11 update to support Conroe cpus. So, each company has made 4 changes since 2003. The only difference is, I can take a socket 775 Prescott Pentium 4 that I purchased in 2004, and it still works with a brand new socket 775 board. Try that with a socket 939 cpu and socket AM2 motherboard. :roll:
 

9-inch

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2006
722
0
18,980
0
And actually you're half right. Technically, Intel WAS the first to ship out dual core cpus, as on the 12th of April, 2005, they made the announcement that they had already started shipping to OEMs.
...And AMD delivered dual core Opterons before that timeline to OEMs. :)
 

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980
0
AMD did develop the 32/64 bit processor where Intel failed or didnt try once again. Which really would have ran the market if MS got its OS out as it said it was going to.

Last I checked, IA64 was out a LONG time before x64.
 

DrBlofeld

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2006
200
0
18,680
0
Anyways I'm rambling now.........Also my spelling and grammar may be off as well due to the fact i'm writing in a hurry while working.
I agree with you. You should spend more time working though. :oops:
 

thefatguy1978

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2006
20
0
18,510
0
Some of the best desktops run on Opterons.. come on how many gamers out there have opts.. plenty. Getting the same performance but for less than the FX series.

AMD was the one to pioneer the native dual core product where intel either failed or didnt try.

a few other shining points why i respect AMD more currently

AMD did develop the 32/64 bit processor where Intel failed or didnt try once again. Which really would have ran the market if MS got its OS out as it said it was going to.

AMD is the one developing open sockets for 3rd part developers on motherboards.

AMD advances processors without changing the pin configurations everytime making it more cost effective to upgrade for users.

AMD also proved that better performance didnt rely on faster mhz. Even tho Intel tried brainwashing the consumer to believe so.

AMD in general to me has been much more innovative than Intel so far. I am however very impressed with the Core 2 so far. If I was in the market I would definately buy one. I'd even suggest it to others that are upgrading without a doubt. I'm glad they released a solid product with real improvements instead of the hype I've seen in the past. Maybe I'll upgrade this next year to a Core 2 Duo or wait for the next step and see who comes out ahead.
Sounds like an AMD fanboy to me.
 

Mobius

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2002
380
0
18,780
0
Point of fact your honour:

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you are STILL retarded.

Honestly, the thread starter is LITERALLY as bad as all the fanboys. You are ALL lamers, and nothing you say counts for diddly squat, AND NEVER WILL. Your pointless[/b] and stupid blatherings aren't worth the electrons they consume.

Why not go boil your head, or other useful activity, instead of wasting your time, and even worse - MY TIME!

I WANT MY 60 SECONDS BACK!
 

fredgiblet

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
573
0
18,980
0
And actually you're half right. Technically, Intel WAS the first to ship out dual core cpus, as on the 12th of April, 2005, they made the announcement that they had already started shipping to OEMs.

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3496926

I agree with the assessment on who's first vs. who's best, but the Joe Friday in me must set the record straight. Just the facts man.
Shipping is irrelevant, who cares if something is shipping if you can't buy it? The important date is not when a product ships to OEM's and retailers but when it ships to consumers and is available for purchase. You could have still bought an AMD dual-core before an Intel, even if Intel shipped before AMD.

Also, the Opteron went on sale on the 22nd, I have no idea when it started shipping, but it could have easily been before the 12th.
 

harlequin6791

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2006
70
0
18,630
0
Actually if I was a fan boy I wouldnt give Intel any credit now would I? I'm just pointing out the innovations AMD has made i cant really think of anythign that Intel has done until recently. Which I'm quite happy cause I can max out my machine for cheap now.

As far as the Itanium A64. It wasnt a 32/64 bit processor.. it was a 64 bit processor with a limited market because of that factor. It emulate the 32 bit code or extensions not run it natively.

I admit it sounds like a fanboy post. But I'm not running around yelling how Intel is gonna go bankrupt or how they are finished when AMD puts out a better product in the past or future. Instead I sold my pentium and bought an athlon. I'll probably retire my A64 to a gaming rig for my dad when he visits and I'll get a Core 2 Duo for games/work. I have no qualms about jumping ship to the better processor. Which is currently intels Core 2. It only took them 6 years lol and the Intel fanboys prematurely call it the demise of AMD when in fact from what it sounds like they are faster to answer the new competition than Intel has in the past.
 

joefriday

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2006
2,105
0
19,810
5
The point was, I could have purchased a Dell with a Pentium D before I could even get my hands on a dual core Opteron. I think that pretty much sums it up right there on "who had the first dual core cpu for sale".
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY