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

[Destroysall]

I think AMD needs some time. However, Intel cannot compete with their APUs.

 

[Tmanishere]

[citation][nom]waethorn[/nom]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.[/citation]

I hate to sound like an advertiser, but wanted to link this:

http://www.deals2buy.com/deals/1c1gwhdr-lenovo-ideapad-s205-netbook-103834u-amd-fusion-e450

I have s205 E-350 and it is a very nice netbook for the price. I can even play Portal 2 on it (albeit w. lag). Wiki shows E-450 was supposed to come with HD 6320, but I guess the difference is minimal. Anyways, beats whole bunch of tablets for what i do (e-mail, MS word, excel, power point presentation, web browsing, HD video, streaming music library, etc.,).

 

[rohitbaran]

[citation][nom]someonewhoknowsalittle[/nom]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![/citation]
Troll somewhere else.

 

[de5_Roy]

hehe intel canot help but acknowledge llano's and bobcat's success in mobile computing. their hd 3000 igp in mobile sucks compared to llano's. moreover, llanos let users perform gpu-intensive tasks like gaming or playing hd videos without affecting battery life. intel's got nothing on those apus.

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]Why can't they just do a enthusiast version of i7 and use that wasted graphic space on 1 or 2 extra cores?[/citation]
They do have this: it's called Sandy Bridge-E. Of course, it's really a Xeon core; the desktop i7 actually has, even at best, 5MB of cache and 2 cores disabled. (the full thing is an 8-core CPU with 20MB of L2 cache, a quad-channel DDR3 controller, and no integrated GPU)

Yes, that means $999US still doesn't buy you the full die's worth. That's reserved for the multi-thousand-dollar Xeons.

 

[pedro_mann]

Notice how Mr. Bliemer acknowledged that Llano is competitive but then shoved it into the price box and basically claims it is inferior from a performance standpoint? Kind of a low end offering? Well as I type this comment on my A6-3410 with 6GB RAM, I have 2 VM's completing other tasks + the host OS and not skipping a beat, also graphics are far superior than intel integrated. So I guess for a low end crappy laptop chip I am doing pretty well. I kinda smell some BS from this marketing guy.

(Side note, I can't feel any heat on the bottom of the laptop, runs 24/7 with no extra fan, just an extended battery to give it a little lift for breathing room.)

 

[SteelCity1981]

Intel is like to its investors, if we say good things about AMD and how they are kicking our ass in the low end segment with their APU's then it won't look like we are a Monopoly to the U.S. gov. lol

 

[waethorn]

[citation][nom]tmanishere[/nom]I hate to sound like an advertiser, but wanted to link this:http://www.deals2buy.com/deals/1c1 [...] usion-e450I have s205 E-350 and it is a very nice netbook for the price. I can even play Portal 2 on it (albeit w. lag). Wiki shows E-450 was supposed to come with HD 6320, but I guess the difference is minimal. Anyways, beats whole bunch of tablets for what i do (e-mail, MS word, excel, power point presentation, web browsing, HD video, streaming music library, etc.,).[/citation]

Ya something is a typo somewhere. The E-450 is one speed notch higher than the E-350 (1.66GHz vs. 1.60), has slightly faster graphics (hence the 6320 GPU model) and has a 1333MHz memory controller (in place of the E-350's 1066MHz controller - both of which are built into the APU itself since they don't have separate Northbridges anymore). The memory controller on the E-350 is single-channel. I would imagine the 450 is the same since it's just a step-up in the same series. Llanos are dual-channel. My own laptop is a Lenovo x120e. It's awesome. Not to mention that every AMD processor supports hardware VT and nested pages support, meaning Windows 8's client Hyper-V will run on it. I push mine hard, but it sells for only $519 fully configured now (05962RU config). Bought mine for $30 more at the beginning of the year. Best laptop for the money that I've ever bought (and I've spent far more before too). Very happy!

 

[law shay]

I bought an APU A6 3400M based laptop (A6 is roughly i7 equivalent) at S$899. My apartment-mate bought an i7 based ultrabook at S$999.

My cheaper laptop is equipped with 8GB of RAM while his is only 4GB. His video card is NVidia 310M.

When running Crysis, we see difference. His laptop has hiccups here and there to handle everything (at native resolution) at Medium setting. Mine can handle everything (at native resolution) at some medium and some high setting.

It is not scientific test. Yet, AMD rocks.

 

[law shay]

[citation][nom]law shay[/nom]I bought an APU A6 3400M based laptop (A6 is roughly i7 equivalent) at S$899. [/citation]

Sorry, correction. i5.

 

[Guest]

"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."

Funny, I can play TF2 on mostly high settings, and watch all kinds of full HD video on my MacBook Pro, and it only has a HD3000. And the OS X versions of Source games are known to run worse than the Windows versions on the same hardware.

Maybe your software setup had some issues?

 

[koolkat574]

I remember that when I used to use the AMD Athlon 1100 desktop my dad built. It ran at a whopping 1.1ghz and had an Nvidia Geforce (I don't remember exactly) with 64mb of VRAM. I used that computer until 2006 and then moved to laptops until I built my i5-2500k system about a month and a half ago. I loved AMD back in the day, and it's sad to see them seemingly throwing in the towel in the desktop market- although, I don't think anything will ultimately change, despite the fact that they said they were shifting focus away.

 

[de5_Roy]

took a quick look at newegg's laptop prices and noticed that the cheapest 4 core, core i7 laptop was $680. the cheapest llano quad core a6 3400m laptop was $430. the llano laptop gives to over 2 ghz turbo, and a quad core cpu with a strong igp under $450. intel doesn't even offer quad core until core i7-m and its igp is far inferior compared to llano's. then there's virtualization support, direct x 11, better hd video post processing that puts llano in a better position. the priciest llano laptop is $750 and you get blu-ray drive with it and 2 gb more system memory. intel can't even come close in terms of price, features igp performance. cpu performance alone isn't enough.

 

[blibba]

"This is the battle Intel and AMD alike have to battle on how to convince consumers that integrated solutions are sufficient."

Wat

 

[srgess]

[citation][nom]jdwii[/nom]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.[/citation]

Believe it or not but Arm will be on desktop at this rate, Android os is not certain like windows but, have all we need for everyday use, and for the gaming part i am impressed on the graphic if you consider the evolution over what 4-5 year, compared to PC x86 wich have been there over 20 years +So imagine now how many tablet like Asus Prime quadcore board you could put into a pc case, sound weird but would def be a beast , just need programmer to step up and make this happening.

 

[rawful]

[citation][nom]srgess[/nom]Believe it or not but Arm will be on desktop at this rate, Android os is not certain like windows but, have all we need for everyday use, and for the gaming part i am impressed on the graphic if you consider the evolution over what 4-5 year, compared to PC x86 wich have been there over 20 years +So imagine now how many tablet like Asus Prime quadcore board you could put into a pc case, sound weird but would def be a beast , just need programmer to step up and make this happening.[/citation]

I do not believe you really understand the difference between ARM architecture and x86. Nor the difference between a PC and a tablet. I also do not believe you know the history of ARM, or RISC processing, or OpenGL vs DirectX. There are a HUGE number of gaps between a current PC and a current Tablet. Just because it is good enough to browse the web, play comparatively simple games, and watch video does not mean it is approaching PC level performance or usability. Do you realize exactly how many ARM chips you have to put into one machine to make it match a single Sandy Bridge core? Also, to make older software run on ARM would require x86 emulation, which is just more processor overhead on an already vastly underpowered architecture.

 

[hector2]

Except for price, Intel's competition is really not AMD anymore. It's ARM.

However, they are also driven to continuously lower the cost of their die by coming out with newer processes that create smaller transistors and a smaller die size. By doing that, we also get higher performance and lower power

 

[demonhorde665]

i pretty much read this article as "intel says they will price low end products competively , high end will see the same old price"

 

[nezzymighty]

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]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.[/citation]

I like this point. I think that was AMD's whole intent of not incorporating graphics in FX. Intel may begin to drive prices even higher as time goes on in the i5 and i7 product line, especially if AMD will not be able to fix FX with future revisions. Sucks for everyone that Intel prices will drive up because AMD could not deliver what the industry had hoped... what left to see is how fast the prices will drive up, and to what level...

 

[Guest]

Sorry, but processors are like potatoes. Sometimes you can't have several smaller ones, you need one big one. If we could slot in a whole bunch of processors into a motherboard, AMD might be a viable alternative, you do get more bang for your buck with their processors, but their performance ceiling is ridiculously low. Intel's CPUs are big, more expensive potatoes, whereas AMDs are tiny cheap potatoes. And since I only have one potato slot that doesn't care about the potato size, I'm going with the Intel potatoes every time.


Unrelatedly to the whole Intel VS AMD thing, your email address validator is broken. Does not support pluses in addresses, when they are actually supported by some email providers.

 

[Device Unknown]

Intel Could care less about AMD. AMD's IP profits from Intel and vise versa. http://deviceunknown.com/?p=171 Outlines how there wont be x86 within 10 years anyway

 

[attriedes]

I own the Acer iconia tab w500 with the amd c-50 excellent processor with the gpu does everything I need from a tablet and my old lady can play the Sims on it and I'm posting from it now on here. I'm a was a firm believer of Intel in my laptops but will be buying a new apu laptop when I buy my next laptop. I have an hp hdx 16 that been a great laptop. How ever tho Intel could not live with out NVidia in there or amd powering the graphics side of it my laptop is a core two duo 2.26 and a NVidia cuda card. And desktop wise I have my new azome a8big boy with an Asus 5670 graphics card and run skyrim full bore so why would buy a $200 Intel chip when ill need a $200 graphics card do what my apu and card do for a single $200

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]Device Unknown[/nom]Intel Could care less about AMD. AMD's IP profits from Intel and vise versa. http://deviceunknown.com/?p=171 Outlines how there wont be x86 within 10 years anyway[/citation]
Given that the market, even counting the non-enthusaist "mainstream" doesn't seem too keen to take a massive leap backwards, I feel that the claims of "ARM is going to kill x86 any day now" (which have been going around for a few years, BTW) are entirely overblown. ARM's per-clock performance is 50% (or less) that of modern x86 CPUs (on a par with, say, a Pentium 4 or Intel Atom) *AND* you can't get them clocked past 2 GHz.

So sure, ARM may be good for very-low-power applications: that's where the engineers have spent all their resources. But performance-wise, even an AMD C-50 absolutely demolishes the best ARM has to offer today. Scale that to the i5 2500Ks we're all taking for granted on our rigs, and it's beyond pure butchery. We're talking twice as many cores, with about 2.5x the per-clock performance, with 1.65x the clock speed of the fasted ON-PAPER ARMs; that's over eight times the power, and we're not even at the top-end of x86 CPUs that've been out for months, and comparing it to an ARM that's only been in press releases. Bump that to 16.5x once you take into account that the fastest ARM devices out there only clock in at 1 GHz.

To put it metaphorically, ARM can't play Crysis.

 

[harna]

...well here you have it in a nut shell. The AMD purchasers are happy and over the moon. The Win-Intel crap-tology was thrown back over the counter at the retail staff and those customers went off to become Mac-aholics. Oh it's a sad world.

a Mac-Aholic: Lives in a non-accelerated world with an Intel processor for which AMD nor Nvidia have no cure. An environment also safe from Android apps.

...I had not thought of that analogy, but I can live with the idea of Intel as a potato...lol I always wondered what OC stood for...it must be for "Over Cooked."

 

[oxiide]

[citation][nom]jdwii[/nom]LOLHA 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.[/citation]
If you built a system based on assumptions about a technology that you didn't look up benchmarks for first, the joke's kind of on you isn't it?