Look seriously you’re looking at the opposite ends of the market segment right now AMD is focusing on a big problem "no one has money". The i3/i5/i7 are grate CPUs in their defense they are great power houses. But if you’re serious on gamming you already know the CPU doesn’t make that much difference in the low to mid tier gamming segments. In the high end and enthusiast ends where you have 2+ GPUs it starts to matter because you need the CPU and chipset to feed them data. As for a 1 or 2 gpu system an AMD Phenom 2 or even an Athlon 2 is a good match it can feed them enough data and are a good amount cheaper. What a good amount of people are looking for is a good enough system to have fun on. In that case a Athlon 2, 1x or 2x ATI 5600-5700, pair it up to 4-8gigs or DDR3. You have a computer that is good enough to play crysis vary well I might add and is a good competitor.
- Status
jkflipflop98
Distinguished
- Feb 3, 2006
- 1,973
- 421
- 20,170
So many AMD fanboys here. Go ahead and downrate me. Your crappy chips will only fall farther and farther behind.
AMD is dead.
AMD is dead.
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
[citation][nom]siman[/nom]Look seriously you’re looking at the opposite ends of the market segment right now AMD is focusing on a big problem "no one has money". The i3/i5/i7 are grate CPUs in their defense they are great power houses. But if you’re serious on gamming you already know the CPU doesn’t make that much difference in the low to mid tier gamming segments. In the high end and enthusiast ends where you have 2+ GPUs it starts to matter because you need the CPU and chipset to feed them data. As for a 1 or 2 gpu system an AMD Phenom 2 or even an Athlon 2 is a good match it can feed them enough data and are a good amount cheaper. What a good amount of people are looking for is a good enough system to have fun on. In that case a Athlon 2, 1x or 2x ATI 5600-5700, pair it up to 4-8gigs or DDR3. You have a computer that is good enough to play crysis vary well I might add and is a good competitor.[/citation]
Valid claim as long as you're only thinking enthusiasts and gamers.
Not valid when it comes to enterprises, software requiring certified hardware, or consumers who go solely after what they know (everyone knows the intel brand).
[citation][nom]jkflipflop98[/nom]So many AMD fanboys here. Go ahead and downrate me. Your crappy chips will only fall farther and farther behind.AMD is dead.[/citation]
So wrong mate! I'm downrating you, and I'm no amd fanboy.
AMD is not dead as long as their radeons live and their Athlon II's are this cheap.
I've got an amd system for internet gateway/iis with a cheap dualcore, old geforce 6 (for aero) and 6gb ddr2. But I've at the same time got an i7 and 3 ati 4870 gpu's for gaming.
For everything there's a place and for amd the place is big. It's merely not the same place as intel.
Valid claim as long as you're only thinking enthusiasts and gamers.
Not valid when it comes to enterprises, software requiring certified hardware, or consumers who go solely after what they know (everyone knows the intel brand).
[citation][nom]jkflipflop98[/nom]So many AMD fanboys here. Go ahead and downrate me. Your crappy chips will only fall farther and farther behind.AMD is dead.[/citation]
So wrong mate! I'm downrating you, and I'm no amd fanboy.
AMD is not dead as long as their radeons live and their Athlon II's are this cheap.
I've got an amd system for internet gateway/iis with a cheap dualcore, old geforce 6 (for aero) and 6gb ddr2. But I've at the same time got an i7 and 3 ati 4870 gpu's for gaming.
For everything there's a place and for amd the place is big. It's merely not the same place as intel.
@ all Intel fanboys who say that AMD is dead:
AMD has some great competition against Intel below the Core i5 750...or...I think it has even better options at cheaper prices.
Against the Pentium G6950 there's the Athlon II X3 440.
Against the Core i3 530 there's the Athlon II X4 635.
Against the Core i3 540 there's the Phenom II X4 925.
And against the Core i5 650 there's the Phenom II X4 955 and 965.
Also, in a few weeks AMD is going to release Phenom II X6. Depending on how they perform, the 1055T and 1090T might compete with the Core i5 750 and Core i7 930.
Hmm...AMD doesn't seem dead to me.
AMD has some great competition against Intel below the Core i5 750...or...I think it has even better options at cheaper prices.
Against the Pentium G6950 there's the Athlon II X3 440.
Against the Core i3 530 there's the Athlon II X4 635.
Against the Core i3 540 there's the Phenom II X4 925.
And against the Core i5 650 there's the Phenom II X4 955 and 965.
Also, in a few weeks AMD is going to release Phenom II X6. Depending on how they perform, the 1055T and 1090T might compete with the Core i5 750 and Core i7 930.
Hmm...AMD doesn't seem dead to me.
[citation][nom]ezodagrom[/nom]@ all Intel fanboys who say that AMD is dead:AMD has some great competition against Intel below the Core i5 750...or...I think it has even better options at cheaper prices.Against the Pentium G6950 there's the Athlon II X3 440.Against the Core i3 530 there's the Athlon II X4 635.Against the Core i3 540 there's the Phenom II X4 925.And against the Core i5 650 there's the Phenom II X4 955 and 965.Also, in a few weeks AMD is going to release Phenom II X6. Depending on how they perform, the 1055T and 1090T might compete with the Core i5 750 and Core i7 930.Hmm...AMD doesn't seem dead to me.[/citation]
I don't see any AMD items listed to compete against the i7 980 but then Chevy doesn't compete with Ferarri either so...
I don't see any AMD items listed to compete against the i7 980 but then Chevy doesn't compete with Ferarri either so...
nukemaster
Titan
- Nov 23, 2004
- 19,623
- 6
- 74,965
[citation][nom]Shadow703793[/nom]Damn.... quite impressive considering we're just getting out of the bad economic times....[/citation]
+1
+1
[citation][nom]Drethon[/nom]I don't see any AMD items listed to compete against the i7 980 but then Chevy doesn't compete with Ferarri either so...[/citation]
As I said, AMD has great competition BELOW the i5 750, and maybe will have some good options against the i5 750 and i7 930/860.
Intel has the performance crown, but the "crown" doesn't mean anything when the great majority of the people that buy a PC don't care about a CPU that costs so much.
As I said, AMD has great competition BELOW the i5 750, and maybe will have some good options against the i5 750 and i7 930/860.
Intel has the performance crown, but the "crown" doesn't mean anything when the great majority of the people that buy a PC don't care about a CPU that costs so much.
Don't dispair for AMD. They are smaller company that is fighting a difficult war on two fronts (and that takes some balls!). They have been competing head-to-head with Intel for two decades, and doing a damn good job. Intel has had the best CPUs for a good portion of that time, but AMD has taken the lead in no small way on a few occasions, and that's a hell of an accomplishment. Even today, their CPUs are still damn good for the price point.
Their second front is, of course, the GPU war. AMD has been trailing NVIDIA, pretty much since they acquired ATI. But this last year, they grabbed the lead position with their fantastic Radeon HD 5XXX series of video cards. I was a hardcore NVIDIA fanboy and for the longest time. I wouldn't even look at an ATI/AMD card as I regarded them to be plainly inferior. But after reading all of the data and the Tom's reviews on the 5XXX series, coupled with the fact that NVIDIA hadn't put out any new cards in some time, I had to concede that AMD took the lead in that race. In December, I purchased a Radeon HD5850. The drivers were a little shaky, but they've worked that out and now this card is a solid performer... vastly superior in both price and performance to NVIDIA's offering.
Their second front is, of course, the GPU war. AMD has been trailing NVIDIA, pretty much since they acquired ATI. But this last year, they grabbed the lead position with their fantastic Radeon HD 5XXX series of video cards. I was a hardcore NVIDIA fanboy and for the longest time. I wouldn't even look at an ATI/AMD card as I regarded them to be plainly inferior. But after reading all of the data and the Tom's reviews on the 5XXX series, coupled with the fact that NVIDIA hadn't put out any new cards in some time, I had to concede that AMD took the lead in that race. In December, I purchased a Radeon HD5850. The drivers were a little shaky, but they've worked that out and now this card is a solid performer... vastly superior in both price and performance to NVIDIA's offering.
[citation][nom]ezodagrom[/nom]@ all Intel fanboys who say that AMD is dead:AMD has some great competition against Intel below the Core i5 750...or...I think it has even better options at cheaper prices.Against the Pentium G6950 there's the Athlon II X3 440.Against the Core i3 530 there's the Athlon II X4 635.Against the Core i3 540 there's the Phenom II X4 925.And against the Core i5 650 there's the Phenom II X4 955 and 965.Also, in a few weeks AMD is going to release Phenom II X6. Depending on how they perform, the 1055T and 1090T might compete with the Core i5 750 and Core i7 930.Hmm...AMD doesn't seem dead to me.[/citation]
i guess they are just a little late
i guess they are just a little late
[citation][nom]shadow187[/nom]This is horrible. Even though I don't want to admit it, AMD is indeed slacking in their processing. Their main focus is budget, and while that's nice, Intel kills them in applications. Maybe if AMD focused on gaming and increased their processors 25% in that respect, then it'd be justifiable.[/citation]
If AMD spent on R&D what Intel does in a quarter, AMD would be bankrupt in 6 months or less.
Intel's practices of monopolistic behaviour is paying off in a big way, it crushed the little guy into mulch and now they are raking in the dough more than ever. Thats hardly AMD's fault. It takes money to advance in tech and processing, and only Intel owns the money to throw as much as they want at it. What other company can throw billions of dollars at a project and decied its junk and just kill it and still show 2+B profit a quarter(laurabee.)
If AMD spent on R&D what Intel does in a quarter, AMD would be bankrupt in 6 months or less.
Intel's practices of monopolistic behaviour is paying off in a big way, it crushed the little guy into mulch and now they are raking in the dough more than ever. Thats hardly AMD's fault. It takes money to advance in tech and processing, and only Intel owns the money to throw as much as they want at it. What other company can throw billions of dollars at a project and decied its junk and just kill it and still show 2+B profit a quarter(laurabee.)
counselmancl
Distinguished
- Nov 10, 2009
- 123
- 0
- 18,680
I hope AMD has something up its sleeve that can knock the Core I7 off of its throne. If they fall another generation behind, they may drop the consumer product line of their CPUs and just focus on the graphics and server chips. I really hope that doesn't happen.
None from me. I wouldn't say that i7 is overhyped, but I haven't found the need for one. I think by the time the need arises, Intel will have a much better chip out. Gaming industry seems to be making practically everything run fine off of technology that came out several years ago. It is good on some ways, bad in others. But it probably overall makes it a lot easier to develop games and less headache for the programmers I would guess.
[citation][nom]Drethon[/nom]I don't see any AMD items listed to compete against the i7 980 but then Chevy doesn't compete with Ferarri either so...[/citation]
I'd say that Chevy actually does a good job of competing against Ferrari. How many Chevrolets do you see on the road and how many Ferraris do you see?
I would even venture to guess that a Ferrari might not be a reliable vehicle to own. Everything is designed to last 10 years even exotic sport cars unless I guess if u buy it but don't drive it which tends to be the case.
AMD doesn't need to compete with the i7 980 because more people buy AMD chips than people who are wasting their cash on an overpriced chip from intel that nobody really currently needs unless they are doing some hardcore data processing rather than gaming.
I'd say that Chevy actually does a good job of competing against Ferrari. How many Chevrolets do you see on the road and how many Ferraris do you see?
I would even venture to guess that a Ferrari might not be a reliable vehicle to own. Everything is designed to last 10 years even exotic sport cars unless I guess if u buy it but don't drive it which tends to be the case.AMD doesn't need to compete with the i7 980 because more people buy AMD chips than people who are wasting their cash on an overpriced chip from intel that nobody really currently needs unless they are doing some hardcore data processing rather than gaming.
mkramer0820
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2010
- 50
- 0
- 18,630
Some how some of these posts have turned into AMD better Intel better. They are two different companies with two different goals. Intel is a large corporation worth 133.57 billion more than 20x the worth of AMD. Intel's profits do not come from the individual buyer of cpu's it comes from companies where there are 300-10,0000 employeeds. For every single CPU that you buy form AMD there are a lot more companies sticking to Intel for the programs they are using. Yes AMD is just fine for games, but when it comes down to it they will never dominate a market that intel owns. This is why their profits were so good. 6.5 billion AMD vs. 133 billion Intel. For people talking about the stocks this is also why the volume of intel is 66 million, compared to AMD's 19 million. Intel will be a stable company for a long time in the future where AMD will have heavy streaks of up and down until corporations find their chipsets more attractive.
Q4 2009 was their worst quarter, so they fire 10% of their work force. Now Q1 of the next year is their best quarter.
Thats the way big business works. Soon as the numbers are down you fire a lot of people and wow look at your next quarter rock in the 'profits'!
Thats the way big business works. Soon as the numbers are down you fire a lot of people and wow look at your next quarter rock in the 'profits'!
[citation][nom]lkjsdfklj2lkjklsf[/nom]Q4 2009 was their worst quarter, so they fire 10% of their work force. Now Q1 of the next year is their best quarter.Thats the way big business works. Soon as the numbers are down you fire a lot of people and wow look at your next quarter rock in the 'profits'![/citation]
Dude, look at the numbers from Q4'09 and THEN talk. The reason the title says best first quarter ever is because Q4'09 was their best quarter ever.
Dude, look at the numbers from Q4'09 and THEN talk. The reason the title says best first quarter ever is because Q4'09 was their best quarter ever.
I read these comments and realize how little people understand.
Intel doesn't do well when they take market share from AMD. AMD has too little to matter. The reverse isn't true. Intel does well when the market recovers, not when they gain .5% market share from AMD. AMD can do well in either scenario.
So, this tells us the market came back, mainly because companies put off purchases for a while, and now they have a heavy replacement cycle. It's not about the Nehalem's, it's about the Penryn which is still the bulk of what Intel sold in the first quarter. The Lynnfields fell flat on their face and sold much more poorly than Intel anticipated (little wonder why, but somehow Intel didn't know the market would reject them), and the newer chips, although certainly well suited for the mass market, just came out and haven't hit massive volumes in the past quarter.
Intel doesn't do well when they take market share from AMD. AMD has too little to matter. The reverse isn't true. Intel does well when the market recovers, not when they gain .5% market share from AMD. AMD can do well in either scenario.
So, this tells us the market came back, mainly because companies put off purchases for a while, and now they have a heavy replacement cycle. It's not about the Nehalem's, it's about the Penryn which is still the bulk of what Intel sold in the first quarter. The Lynnfields fell flat on their face and sold much more poorly than Intel anticipated (little wonder why, but somehow Intel didn't know the market would reject them), and the newer chips, although certainly well suited for the mass market, just came out and haven't hit massive volumes in the past quarter.
lauxenburg
Distinguished
- Feb 9, 2009
- 540
- 0
- 19,010
well its all thanks to the industries/companies/schools who still have that weird idea in their minds that Intel is the superior company. The school I used to go to ran 100% Intel. I mean, they had Pentium I when I was in the second grade. Sometime later, they upgraded to Pentium II. A couple years later they had Pentrium 4 HTs, then to Pentium Dual Core. I right after the PDCs were installed. My little brother which I have asked to scout out for me says they are usings Core 2 Duos in the media center, and Core 2 Quads, yes Core 2 Quads for the teachers to do attendance with...In the graphic art labs, they uses a combination of some Intel Macs and some Intel Workstations...using....Core i5!
And they are HP more over which means half of them fail because of heat problems within a year. I will never buy HP again.
So, just to clarify. A very true fact is that many institutions have been using Intel since the early 90s and because of this, they have continued using primarily Intel or vis versa.
However, just about all of my friends run AM3 Athlon/Phenom systems, so you can say the "smarter" people are using their money wisely with the AM3 platform. I don't mind LGA 1156 but I do have an attachment to the price point and such of AMD's platform.
And they are HP more over which means half of them fail because of heat problems within a year. I will never buy HP again.
So, just to clarify. A very true fact is that many institutions have been using Intel since the early 90s and because of this, they have continued using primarily Intel or vis versa.
However, just about all of my friends run AM3 Athlon/Phenom systems, so you can say the "smarter" people are using their money wisely with the AM3 platform. I don't mind LGA 1156 but I do have an attachment to the price point and such of AMD's platform.
kelemvor4
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 469
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]2ms[/nom]The more Intel shuts AMD out the more we have to pay for processors. Remember just a couple years ago when processors cost $90 and doubled in speed every 1.5 years? Even though AMD is still around we're already back to paying several times that (just like back in the pre-Athlon days).[/citation]
Those were the days. I wish AMD would come out with something that gave Intel a run for their money again. Lots of CPU improvements on both sides resulted from AMD's Athlon chips. Lately all AMD has are bargain chips.
Those were the days. I wish AMD would come out with something that gave Intel a run for their money again. Lots of CPU improvements on both sides resulted from AMD's Athlon chips. Lately all AMD has are bargain chips.
someoneelse
Distinguished
- Feb 20, 2009
- 126
- 0
- 18,680
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News First credible report of RTX 5090 FE with melted connector appears — third-party cable likely cause- Started by Admin
- Replies: 48
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Tested: Intel's Arrow Lake 140T iGPU mostly maintains an edge over AMD's older 880m
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 20
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram