Former AMD Exec: Even I Wouldn't Buy AMD

[quovatis]

Yep, AMD was much better than Intel products in every way 5 years ago. They were faster, cooler, used less power, and cheaper.

The tables have flipped now, however.

 

[hakesterman]

Sounds like we have a confused and bitter former employee who wants revenge. Sorry Dude nobody is
going to listen to you, look on the bright side you can always go work for Mc Donnalds, you can help them process their food...................

 

[KidHorn]

I don't get why Intel is being prosecuted over the AMD stuff. They paid them $1.25 billion and AMD is satisfied with that. They settled. Why are we wasting tax dollars pursuing this?

I've owned both AMD and Intel processors and in general Intel processors are better, but they also cost more. I've had a couple of AMD systems that for whatever reason would not run certain apps. Almost all would run fine. Just a handful that wouldn't.

 

[mlopinto2k1]

1 opinion out of a billion. Give me a break. Both systems have ups and downs. In ALL aspects. I use an Intel based system.. Q6600 and I have considered purchasing a quad core Phenom chip just to be able to o/c it to 4ghz. I hate this type of crap.

 

[coldmast]

I'm guessing we have a prime example of the Peter Principle.
Henri Richard, sounds like you did a crappy job of promoting AMD; a retail electronics sales associate would most likely have done a better job.

Intel -- collecting internal communication from competitors; how exactly is this supposed to help with your case with the FTC?

 

[cadder]

AMD chips made sense economically 5 or more years ago. We bought Win98 machines for our office about 9 years ago, for less than intel, and they were very fast. As things evolved we upgraded to AMD machines with XP, they weren't so fast. 5 years ago or 9 years ago I WOULD have purchased (and DID purchase) AMD, but today I would NOT buy one. The last AMD machines that we bought were incredibly slow. I'm not sure if something has changed in Windows that AMD hasn't kept up with or what.
Obviously the response from the AMD exec. was influenced by something other than price and performance.

 

[mrmotion]

Hey the P4's werent all bad. My Northwood 2.6 HT was an ass kicker. Its still running today and running very well. It helps to be running linux on it but you get the point.

 

[mitch074]

in 2004... AMD was still prepping up the release of the Athlon64. Main CPUs at the time were AthlonXP on Socket A, and Pentium 4. Only enthusiasts were forking over the cash for s939 dual core Opterons. And, at the time, these top-notch AMD systems were pricy.

On the other hand, Socket A was a fickle platform that required good tuning to show off its full potential: mistiming the RAM would cause 20% performance reductions. Moreover, 'value' systems were often using VIA and Sis chipsets - which were not exactly stable. Last, eventhough an Athlon XP 2600+ kicked a P4 2.8 GHz's arse, a P-rating of 2600 with 1750 MHz as real speed sure looked less impressive than the 2.8 GHz of the Netburst Piece Of Silicone.

A sales executive has trouble seeing the business end of a screwdriver. On the other hand, most BIOSes defaulted to asynchronous FSB:RAM ratios and low timings - to which K7 chips were very sensitive. If he got a bad experience with such a system (which were usually found at Mom'n'Pop shops, not from big OEMs - see why Intel settled), he sure could have written such a message.

However, had I (or most of you) set up a K7-based system (or an early s939 one) and a similarly priced P4 and put him on them to try and use both of them, he'd probably have 'seen the light' - if only for the power bill, noise and weight of the P4 system, but also for the vastly improved performance on the Athlon platform.

 

[omnimodis78]

JANE!!!!! I used to respect your writing, but you've proven yourself to be the cut from the same cloth as most of your colleagues! Your main title is in the present tense, and since you're not putting the exec's comment in quotation marks, the title is misrepresenting the comment and I would say that is grounds for a lawsuit either from AMD or this particular individual.

 

[notty22]

Wow the cult of AMD is spinning out of control. Can we sum up AMD any better ? Right from the horses mouth. LOL
Its a internal document, his thoughts on the company he's trying to sell to the public. This guy is a genius, he saw the future. He saw Intel's roadmap and new his own companies. AMD was sitting on its hiny charging 1000 dollars for fx-57, fx-60/62. http://reviews.cnet.com/processors/amd-athlon-64-fx/4505-3086_7-31641790.html?tag=mncol;txt

 

[Maxor127]

lol... I was new to PCs 2004 and even I knew AMD was better back then. Would be funny if he was a corporate spy that Intel sent to spread misinformation. Otherwise, he was obviously retarded. Maybe AMD had some sort of special program where mentally challenged people would do janitorial stuff and he jumped on a computer.

Maybe if the email was from 2006, when Core 2 Duos came out, I'd take it seriously. Either way, it's irrelevant to the case.

 

[brisingamen]

just because your a buisiness exec doesnt mean you know squat about engineering or programming, . . .

even buisiness executives can me mesmorized by add campaigns.

"the grass is always greener on the other side, ,
neighbors got a new car that you wanna drive,
and when time is running out try to stay alive, . . ." travis.

 

[ethanolson]

AMD exec (before AMD has some serious dual-core awesomeness unleashed) says he wouldn't buy AMD. Intel folks way back in the day didn't want the x86 instruction set to become mainstream because it was pretty difficult to use. But... here we are.

 

[roagie]

Without the full context of the conversation he could be referring to a million different things. Lack of information about the products at the time. Poor advertising campaign efforts led most people not to know of the advantage of AMD processors at that time. He could also have been referring to the lack of MOBO's at the time, this is the same period of time when intel (for the second time) threatened MOBO manufacturers in an attempt to prevent widespread availability of AMD chipset MOBOs.. Could have meant a million things... that being said, that guy is remarkably stupid for phrasing it that way.

 

[hakkafusion]

i wouldn't buy amd.
my centrino pwned my turionx2 in almost every category.
with the exception of many MANY program multitasking.
but that is not what laptops are for anyways.
i can't speak for am64 or fx.
but i much prefer intel stability.

 

[surfer1337dude]

Of course the EX-EXEC would say that....I mean if intel paid me to say that I would (while spending their money on a new AMD cpu XD )

 

[surfer1337dude]

[citation][nom]hakkafusion[/nom]i wouldn't buy amd.my centrino pwned my turionx2 in almost every category.with the exception of many MANY program multitasking.but that is not what laptops are for anyways.i can't speak for am64 or fx.but i much prefer intel stability.[/citation]

Why aren't laptops made for that? You can multi-task on them all you want (I do). As for laptops...wen I bought mine for the price range I could get an athalon64 x2 in it or an intel centrino.....basically for the price AMD is better....but if you dont mind the money intel does have some better products (those 1000+ cpus lol)

ps:
Sorry for double post

 

[Gin Fushicho]

Hey , poor people need computers too , powerful ones. AMD is a good budget CPU that still has needed power.

 

[spoofedpacket]

Before modding up fanboys who can't read, double check the article. He made the statement while working there. Not after he left.

 

[starryman]

Ok well if this guy said it when he was working for AMD... then we got a story. BUT all I see is disgruntled employee.

 

[rawoysters]

Sounds like sour grapes.

 

[Guest]

What the hell 5 years ago the athlon64 was OWNING the pentium 4. Just confirms hes a moron.

 

[ta152h]

I read these comments and I wonder what people are thinking. Or maybe what they're not thinking.

Stop being dweebs married to a company. AMD doesn't love you, they're just a company that sells a product you may or may not have liked. Try to stay cleared head.

The Pentium 4 was not universally worse than the Athlon 64. It just wasn't. It beat it in certain apps, but, overall, I'd have to agree it was slower. Just not drastically, or across the board. It did use more power though, which is a big ouch. But, if you're running a certain ap it did well on, it was OK. But, more to the point, he may have been talking about something completely different. There is no context given, so you can't really say what he's talking about. Surely he knows more than the jerks here that say how little he knows. A lot more.

Now, what if he was talking about the solid chipsets or platform that Intel offered? He'd have a good point. But, very possibly, he was referring to mobile devices too. Intel had a better processor and MUCH BETTER platform for mobile. He never said the Pentium 4 was better, which is what people are assuming. Again, he knows much more than we do, and to assume he'd think the P4 was so much better is remarkably unlikely. He probably had a least a plausible reason for saying what he did. We just don't have the context.

You guys that got upset got played by Jane. Give a tidbit that's inflammatory and leave out important contextual information, and rile up the audience. Give her credit, it's how Bismarck got the French to declare war on them in 1870(c.f. Ems Dispatch), a war the Prussians won easily and to great advantage (they unified Germany with it).

I'm not sure Otto Von McEntegart's motives are quite so grandiose, but, I'm sure she knew she'd get reaction.

 

[surfer1337dude]

[citation][nom]spoofedpacket[/nom]Before modding up fanboys who can't read, double check the article. He made the statement while working there. Not after he left.[/citation]
yes intel does say that....but i want to see documentation. Let me share something with you: The sky is now green and grass is now red. Now go look at the sky and grass....just because they say that doesnt mean its true (if intel found this out back then, then why wasn't there a commercial back in the day?

 

[belardo]

This exec is full of doo-doo. When the K7 Athlons hit the market, they were equal to the PentiumIII, but there were problems with chipsets. Since the T-Birds/XP CPUs and VIA KT-133 chipset and up, AMD systems have been as stable as Intels and performance varies between as fast or faster. An AMD XP 3000 was easily faster than many of the P4 systems, and of course the AMD64 / X2 destroyed all P4/Pentium Ds. (other than video encoding and 3D rendering). But intel's control of the market help keep AMD at bay (Dell). Core2Duo kicked AMD in the nutz, just as AMD market share was taking off.

Now, some problems with AMD systems had more to do with the quality of the computer, not the CPU. IE: A budget buyer would buy a cheap PC with cheap parts like crappy ECS or PCChips mother boards, duh.

[citation][nom]cabose369[/nom]AMD has always been marketed as a value alternative to Intel. Not paying Intel's premium price while being a processor that is more than capable of doing what the average consumer does with their computer.Intel charges customers more for products that are faster than AMD in most cases but the average customer doesn't need to spend that much extra when an AMD would do the same work at a lesser price (often $100 less than a comparable unit). Take it from someone who sells computers for a living, given the choice customers take the AMD's because it's cheaper.[/citation]

Funny, my main PC is an intel C2Q, I'd gladly replace it with a new AMD X4 CPU of today.

But I think your point of view is seriously flawed. Until the Athlon, your statement is true. But AMD has sold high performance CPUs at prices usually lower than intel. Think of intel as usually "over-priced", which they WERE. $1000 for the 2006 Pentium Extreme (3.6+Ghz) when an AMD 64 3500 (2.2Ghz) at $250 was easily faster for desktop operations and games... hmmm, Pay more for a CPU that ran hotter and slower, whats wrong with that picture? Yes, it ran at a faster clock rate, but not faster performance. Even todays $50 Pentium Dual Cores (Core2 tech) at 1.6Ghz are faster than ANY Pentium Extreme.

So no, AMD is NOT always aimed at the low end market. In some games and situations, a stock clocked AMD X4 955 is faster than the Core i7 920. If we go by your logic, Intel Celeron 430 (1.6Ghz) is faster than an AMD X4 955... check the CPU charts here, uh the Celeron is slower.

As of now, AMD does own the $180 and down market in terms of priceperformance. In the sub $100, why bother with intel at all. AMD has quad core CPUs below that price. Their $60 X2 CPUs are up there with many Core2Duos. And with Windows7, it doesn't take much CPU power to get a good running system.

AMD has things simple, they usually have one slot on the market. Intel currently has 3 slots and the confusion of i3 / i5 / i7... some i5 fit i7 boards, and visa-versa.

PS: I own 2 intel systems (desktop & Thinkpad), my next upgrade will be AMD most likely.

Both companies make good CPUs and 90%+ of the home market would be just fine or better with an AMD setup. Which is usually cheaper and includes a MUCH better IGP (on board video) as intel has always sucked for video.