Intel: AMD is Still a "Serious Competitor" ... on Price

Status
Not open for further replies.

rozz

Distinguished
Sep 18, 2010
367
0
18,810
22
oh.. he's just saying that so the government doesnt step in to stop AMD from leaving the market and making intel a monopoly..
 

exban224

Distinguished
Mar 2, 2011
185
0
18,710
17
[citation][nom]rozz[/nom]oh.. he's just saying that so the government doesnt step in to stop AMD from leaving the market and making intel a monopoly..[/citation]
i do agree.
if amd can claim that intel are making a monopoly of the market they have themselves to blame for bull-dozer.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Why can't they just do a enthusiast version of i7 and use that wasted graphic space on 1 or 2 extra cores? That would also help to differentiate the increasingly blurry lines between i5 and i7. Or better yet remove them and lower the price of the cpu.

I'm pretty sure they would've been doing that if AMD had been more competitive. Now it just feel like intel is too comfortable and decided not to push cpu performance as much as they can. Instead they decided to work on screwing AMD on low end graphic card sales and squeeze the last breath of air out of them.

Karma will get them though. ARM's SoCs is catching up real fast. And Intel's SoC approach will only weaken its position against it as it loses its performance edge partly thanks to its lost focus on pure CPU performance.
 

SpadeM

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2009
284
0
18,790
2
Bulldozer as it is now reminds me of the first Athlon 64 (for younger readers check this platform preview http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64_8.html). The Athlong 64 lost in benchmarks to intel and even the previous Athlon XP (kind of like Bulldozer is doing now) and it also had "new and useless consumer tech" like the x86-64 instruction set (or bulldozer modules now). But we all know how things turned out a year later. All I'm sayn is that ppl should give AMD the benefit of the doubt, a thing that intel through mr. Pat Bliemer is doing.

PS: I do understand bragging rights but as a side note, I think it's a bad decision to increase performance withing a CPU and leave other sectors behind. I don't want Intel to make a hexa core sandy bridge or ivy bridge cpu that is 5 times faster then the 2600K at the same price, if they're still selling me a platform that has no nativ usb 3, full sas/sata 6, pci 3 or newer ddr+ssd combo tech thing, ready to take advantage of that power. I'm all for progress, but on all playing fields.
 

rawful

Distinguished
Nov 10, 2011
125
0
18,680
0
Somehow I feel like Intel and AMD both know what they are doing better than anyone leaving comments about them.
 

DavidC1

Distinguished
May 18, 2006
441
32
18,810
0
[citation][nom]SpadeM[/nom]Bulldozer as it is now reminds me of the first Athlon 64 (for younger readers check this platform preview http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64_8.html). The Athlong 64 lost in benchmarks to intel and even the previous Athlon XP (kind of like Bulldozer is doing now) and it also had "new and useless consumer tech" like the x86-64 instruction set (or bulldozer modules now). But we all know how things turned out a year later. All I'm sayn is that ppl should give AMD the benefit of the doubt, a thing that intel through mr. Pat Bliemer is doing.[/citation]


WTF are you blabbering about? Athlon 64 on the real part kicked ass: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-3200_7.html#sect0

Athlon 64 before launch: low performance
Athlon 64 on a real launch: high performance

Bulldozer hype before launch: game changing performance
Bulldozer performance after launch: has to go all out just to outperform their own CPU

Why can't they just do a enthusiast version of i7 and use that wasted graphic space on 1 or 2 extra cores? That would also help to differentiate the increasingly blurry lines between i5 and i7. Or better yet remove them and lower the price of the cpu.
Anonymous, there's no point in doing that. The 70-80% of the people are more than subsidizing the minute extra cost graphics might add. More because Intel is a production powerhouse.

About ARM: What you said about integrated graphics is counter to what you said about Intel's SoC approach.

I thought ARM was all about performance too. Look at their claims with A15 and Nvidia with their 8+ core claims coming in the future. When they scale up to try to compete in performance, they will lose all the power efficiency advantage. Just look at how other RISC vendors go against Intel.
 

jdwii

Splendid
If you talk about mainstream gaming you can elegantly do it already based on GT2 [Intel HD 3000] solutions that we have.
LOL

HA HA Intel is so funny, Can they even play 24fps videos now? Ha i built a Intel machine thinking their 3000HD graphics where enough for sims 3 and small games like that but it skipped so badly. I can't even watch a blu-ray movie on it without dropped fps. I wonder how good the 4000HD graphics will be? Well the 4000HD graphics only be on more expensive cpu's for 150+$ or will they make them for their lower-end cpu's as well? Most people who have I5 or better probably have a video card through nvidia or Amd. As i always say i want my graphics card to be even with my CPU in performance. I don' t want a crappy GPU with a I7 and i don't want a 6990 with a Dual-core Athlon.

People use graphics more and more they are probably getting used more then CPU's now a days. For things like GPU acceleration and such.
 

jdwii

Splendid
I thought ARM was all about performance too. Look at their claims with A15 and Nvidia with their 8+ core claims coming in the future. When they scale up to try to compete in performance, they will lose all the power efficiency advantage. Just look at how other RISC vendors go against Intel.
Arm will never make it on the desktop and laptop market if no programs even work for it that's made today on windows. Just think how pissed people will be to see all their games or old programs will not work. Not to mention a Arm core is like a Atom. Slow. Who needs a 8 core Atom(Arm). Look at the 8 core BD that even sucks just think about a 8 core arm.
 

waethorn

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
300
0
18,780
0
It made me laugh when he mentioned "Intel HD graphics" and "gaming" in the same sentence.

Any time Intel talks about their chips being "good enough for 99.99% of what average people do", I cringe. Their chips are a major compromise over what you get with a decent GPU, and AMD is basically throwing that functionality in for free when you buy a low-mid range APU, meaning that you get more for your money. Programs like IE9, Flash, Office 2010, Windows Live Photo Gallery, Windows Media Foundation with H.264, etc., all use GPU acceleration, and those programs cover "99.99%" of what people like to use their computer for, not to mention that Windows Aero doesn't suffer any with the extra GPU cores. And Intel tries to compare their lackluster DX10 parts to AMD's APU gfx cores.... Intel doesn't get graphics, and I wouldn't like to see a tablet with an Intel processor in it, considering that most people use tablets for media consumption. This is probably why AMD is working with ARM to get ARM cores combined with their Radeon GPU cores into a new APU. The next real heterogenous computing platform is going to be provided by AMD. As of right now, AMD's new offerings of RAM is an awesome option because they're creating as close as is possible to a single-vendor solution for validated systems. I think of it more like a console-ification of PC building. What I'd like to see next from AMD is to create some kind of PC certification system with Microsoft. If a system builder builds a system with certain "class-A" components with AMD branding (including the new RAM), it should also pass WHQL certification for logo testing with Windows. It would need to have pre-certified drivers, but AMD should include the component cross-compatibility validation so that WHQL tests pass automatically.
 

someonewhoknowsalittle

Distinguished
Jul 2, 2010
66
0
18,630
0
Look, anyone who is just a regular home user who does some video and audio editing, plays some 3-D games, reads his emails, does some instant messaging, browsing and watches 1080p movies will be very happy using a 2500k or 2600k. We don't need anything faster and we don't need AMD at all. Ivy Bridge is great but unnecessary. We already have enough power to do whatever we want to do in a perfectly good amount of time. AMD? It was nice to have known you. You'll be remembered like Studebakers, Hudsons, Olsmobiles, American Motors and Pontiacs.
 

waethorn

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
300
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]megasamsung[/nom]I would like to see APUs take advantage of "Stream".[/citation]

They already do. An E-350 supports GPU compute in AMD's "AVIVO" Video Converter, and is already supported with GPU acceleration through IE9, Office 2010, Flash, Windows Live Photo Gallery and Movie Maker, various Corel software, various Cyberlink software, vReveal, etc. Llano's do too, only much faster.
 

waethorn

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
300
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]SpadeM[/nom]Bulldozer as it is now reminds me of the first Athlon 64 (for younger readers check this platform preview http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] 4_8.html). The Athlong 64 lost in benchmarks to intel and even the previous Athlon XP (kind of like Bulldozer is doing now) and it also had "new and useless consumer tech" like the x86-64 instruction set (or bulldozer modules now). But we all know how things turned out a year later. All I'm sayn is that ppl should give AMD the benefit of the doubt, a thing that intel through mr. Pat Bliemer is doing.PS: I do understand bragging rights but as a side note, I think it's a bad decision to increase performance withing a CPU and leave other sectors behind. I don't want Intel to make a hexa core sandy bridge or ivy bridge cpu that is 5 times faster then the 2600K at the same price, if they're still selling me a platform that has no nativ usb 3, full sas/sata 6, pci 3 or newer ddr+ssd combo tech thing, ready to take advantage of that power. I'm all for progress, but on all playing fields.[/citation]

Windows 8 already shows that Bulldozer is no slouch. The operating system is much more heavily threaded than Windows 7.
 

waethorn

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
300
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]DavidC1[/nom]WTF are you blabbering about? Athlon 64 on the real part kicked ass: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] html#sect0Athlon 64 before launch: low performanceAthlon 64 on a real launch: high performanceBulldozer hype before launch: game changing performanceBulldozer performance after launch: has to go all out just to outperform their own CPUAnonymous, there's no point in doing that. The 70-80% of the people are more than subsidizing the minute extra cost graphics might add. More because Intel is a production powerhouse.About ARM: What you said about integrated graphics is counter to what you said about Intel's SoC approach. I thought ARM was all about performance too. Look at their claims with A15 and Nvidia with their 8+ core claims coming in the future. When they scale up to try to compete in performance, they will lose all the power efficiency advantage. Just look at how other RISC vendors go against Intel.[/citation]

Intel already touts power efficiency. The problem is that they tout it like it's the last word in processing. If they actually put decent GPU cores into their CPU what happens with their power efficiency then? Just to note, Intel put's far more transisters into their x86 cores than they do into their GPU cores. It works out to only about 20% for graphics. AMD is using about equal percentages for both. Guess which part chews through the most battery life in your laptop though? I'll give you hint: which one would require a 400W or higher PSU in a desktop?

ARM is trying the same thing: focus on power-efficiency above all else, let performance scale according to new fab limitations. You have to remember that GPU power is what is driving a lot of consumer apps now: games, and especially multimedia for content consumption. Intel's graphics suck. No argument there. The thing with ARM is that their graphics are designed for OpenGL ES 2.0, a very low-end subset of OpenGL. In relateable terms, about equivalent to DirectX7. Intel's graphics, while shitty, are now at DX10 levels. AMD's are DX11, and far better than Intel. Let's just say that Windows 8 sells on a good chunk of computers next year and average consumers snatch it up like they did iPad's (you're talking PC's though, so we're talking a whole lot more), which processor is going to be the best for their multimedia content consumption that Metro apps will bring to the table? ARM with their incompatibilities with legacy software, Intel with their overpriced chips that offer half-decent multimedia (cuz Atom's suck balls), or low to mid range AMD APU's?
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
1,759
5
19,865
37
[citation][nom]rozz[/nom]oh.. he's just saying that so the government doesnt step in to stop AMD from leaving the market and making intel a monopoly..[/citation]
Except that AMD is NOT leaving the desktop processor market. AMD is simply shifting their primary focus from desktop to mobile. At no point has AMD ever stated that they are leaving the desktop market. AMD simply said that they are no longer trying to compete against Intel in any market and are shifting their primary focus to the mobile market....which coincidentally happens to be the market they're gaining share in.....

[citation][nom]rawful[/nom]Somehow I feel like Intel and AMD both know what they are doing better than anyone leaving comments about them.[/citation]
Somehow, I feel you're exactly right.
 

Tmanishere

Distinguished
Jun 23, 2009
198
0
18,690
4
[citation][nom]rawful[/nom]Somehow I feel like Intel and AMD both know what they are doing better than anyone leaving comments about them.[/citation]

Best comment ever. I'm curious to see what the future will bring.
 

Reynod

Administrator
I bought a little E-450 powered notebook for one of the son's for university.

It is a great little machine and he also does quite a bit of gaming on it.

Surprisingly good graphics and quite low power.

AMD in that market segment seems to do well and it is growing.


 

someonewhoknowsalittle

Distinguished
Jul 2, 2010
66
0
18,630
0
AMD is pressing ahead with the strategy they pursued with BD. PD will only be 5-10% slower than BD on heavily threaded tasks. AMD techs say that Windows 9 will take more advantage of the capabilities of the heavily threaded PD than Windows 8. Plus, wait till you see BS which follows PD!
 

vider

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2008
151
1
18,685
0
[citation][nom]waethorn[/nom]They already do. An E-350 supports GPU compute in AMD's "AVIVO" Video Converter, and is already supported with GPU acceleration through IE9, Office 2010, Flash, Windows Live Photo Gallery and Movie Maker, various Corel software, various Cyberlink software, vReveal, etc. Llano's do too, only much faster.[/citation]

I would like to add an extra two cents to that comment, the APU's are already in use various available emerging applications.

As a fun fact, an ACER Aspire ONE netbook with the "HD INTERNET / AMD" (AMD C-50/60 + Radeon HD 6250/6290, codename "Bobcat") sticker on it, can be used to process video contend on the go in real time, that is applying various video effects and can perform actual video encoding acceleration
 

waethorn

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
300
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]reynod[/nom]I bought a little E-450 powered notebook for one of the son's for university.It is a great little machine and he also does quite a bit of gaming on it.Surprisingly good graphics and quite low power.AMD in that market segment seems to do well and it is growing.[/citation]

E-450 is out now??

I haven't seen it in notebooks yet. It's been announced on desktop motherboards (not mini ITX form factor yet AFAIK), but nobody has them in stock yet.

AMD RAM will be a good match for it, since the E-450 raises the memory clock speed to 1333MHz and the low-end AMD RAM is called "Entertainment RAM" and runs at 1333. Entertainment is exactly what the Brazos platform excels at too.

"Performance RAM" matches the E2 and A4 processors while the Radeon edition RAM matches the A6 and A8's native memory controller clock speed.
 

waethorn

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
300
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]vider[/nom]I would like to add an extra two cents to that comment, the APU's are already in use various available emerging applications. As a fun fact, an ACER Aspire ONE netbook with the "HD INTERNET / AMD" (AMD C-50/60 + Radeon HD 6250/6290, codename "Bobcat") sticker on it, can be used to process video contend on the go in real time, that is applying various video effects and can perform actual video encoding acceleration[/citation]

AMD has a few HD "levels" that they like to spell out. I believe the "HD Internet" platform is what they refer to as "Smart HD", while the Vision platform is called "Brilliant HD". Vision has extra processing options for HD video that makes the picture even clearer than the HD Internet platform. The Z-01 is a lower-power version of the C-50, but it's their current tablet chip. I don't think I'd want something below Vision specs for any computer though, especially a tablet. If I got a tablet, I'd want it to replace my laptop but not be a compromise as a docked system. I don't want to have a separate desktop computer if a tablet can offer enough juice as a docked system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY