What's Intel's Plan?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I did read your last posts.

I also keep seeing a response from you that is counter to your post above.

Don't presume I'm the average obstinate arguer here. Actually, I'm far more interested in finding new ideas and insights than silly ego arguing!
Click to expand...

I am not presuming you are arguing for the sake of argument. I am assuming that you have an agenda. If so just feel free to state it.
 
Right (now) I am kinda partial to Intel's current product release over that of AMD's. I however will switch to the green team in a heartbeat if they start to produce the performance leading chip. I am very very partial to performance.
Click to expand...

I find myself in a situation where AMD performance is enough for me right now. I was partial to Intel up to the Prescott/Smithfield/Pressler generations, and I felt that there was too much elitist fanboyism on the AMD side of things.

I originally went with a Williamette over an Athlon XP because of the safety (edited for spelling) features in early Intel P4's vs. the heat issues noted by Tom's Hardware with Athlon XP's when the heatsink failed. I stayed with Intel up through the Northwood and held off upgrading further until dual cores arrived in my price range.

Right now, AMD is in my price range for an X2 3800+ and Intel is not. This isn't only because of the price of the CPU at Newegg, but because of the motherboard options. I am an ATI fan, because I loved their All in Wonder cards ever since the 8500 provided both multimedia and gaming performance. Now, I find AVIVO is better than Pure Video in most cases.

So, the whole ATI/AMD merger places me in that camp. I also like the underdog, and while AMD was innovating during the Athlon 64 days, Intel was trying to pawn off space heater processors with poor performance while using their almost monopoly to go back to before Netburst and to start over.

AMD promises Fusion by circa 2010, and now Intel promises the same. The big difference is that AMD has a graphics division that went the distance and delivered good products, while Intel is using it's virtual monopoly to fund a new division that will attempt to play catchup. Expect them to buy Nvidia if they can't manage to do that on their own. Unless, of course, they hold back CPU integrated graphics with the 'it's good enough to view a spreadsheet in Vista' attitude represented by their latest integrated fare.

Just to keep the market viable for AMD, that's where I'll go in this generation. When it comes time for quad cores and both companies have native products out, then I'll see what their corporate practices are. I'm much more conscious of that aspect of a company than I was when I upgraded from a K62-450 to a P4 1.6 Williamette.
 
Yipsl,

That is more than a fair reply. I like that you are taking a stance that is well defined and well presented. I also very much appreciate the fact that you are forthright with your stance.

You have given a rational statement that is well supported by you, and is at no time a backdoor approach. Many here could learn from that (but I will not mention any names :)).

Kudos to you for a good representation of the AMD camp.
 
I did read your last posts.

I also keep seeing a response from you that is counter to your post above.

Don't presume I'm the average obstinate arguer here. Actually, I'm far more interested in finding new ideas and insights than silly ego arguing!
Click to expand...

I am not presuming you are arguing for the sake of argument. I am assuming that you have an agenda. If so just feel free to state it.

Sorry for the late response. New baby here, and a lot of stuff to read off site also.

I couldn't claim to have an agenda. But I do have definite views, and I don't mind sharing them. :)

Along with the more common stuff of just sharing opinions and knowledge, I have a couple of consistent opinions regarding Intel and AMD.

If they aren't already clear, I summarize:

I don't really like the prospect of Intel using semi-legal or illegal (alleged and in trial) tactics to try to keep AMD small. I'd rather see competition that obeys US laws.

So that's a moderate beef I have about Intel. But....I love that Intel finally got it together and put out a decent desktop chip!

I don't at all like that sometimes in the forum AMD chips are mis-represented as not a good choice. It depends individually on the builder and their goals and plans as I see it.

Since I own both Intel and AMD stock, it bothers me that the Intel CEO Paul O. might be arrogant or egotistical enough to sacrifice profits (and thus stock prices!) for a *long* time just for a few points of market share. I do think shareholder pressure will limit this eventually, but it's not a sure thing. (one person even asked for "proof", heh heh).
 
Remember that Intel has been doing integrated graphics for a much longer time than AMD has (and just because AMD bought ATI doesn't mean their technologies all perfectly align yet). I would expect that the GPUs that will be included in a "Fusion" product would not be high end graphics, but would be the graphics processors you'd expect in an integrated graphics package (at least for a generation or two). This would shift cost from the motherboard to the chip.

Intel graphics are not meant for high end gamers, but they're incredibly functional for most business users and many home users. Considering the memory needs of current graphics technology, it would be a poor decision to put an extreme graphics technology into a merged product.
 
There now Hal,

You actually said it. Everyone here knows where you are coming from and can now direct comment to you correctly because of it.

Now if you have any other affiliations (other than being a stock owner) you might want to let folks know about that too.

Once things are on the table and NOT backdoor then a conversation can continue in a manner in which all parties are sure about where they are coming from.

Before this thread was very much beating around the bush without you coming right out and saying what you really meant. You asked for comment and you received it. As it turns out for the most part (as evident in your replies) it was not the comment in which you cared to hear. Many people here will disagree with your stance. That is absolutely OK too.

This thread in combination with your previous Intel bias thread tends to be directed at the members of these forums (in a somewhat negative way). Do not SAY you have no issue with Intel (as an owner) and then speak out of the other side of your mouth about how bad they are. (see previous post for instance)

Bravo for finally taking a clear/concrete stance (albeit controversial).

In these forums it will help you along much quicker just saying what you mean, rather than beating around the bush.
 
I completely agree Wolverine (like your name by the way, as a long time reader of the X-Men/all other spin offs :)).

I believe given thermals of an on chip "Fusion style" CPU/GPU combo that you will NOT see a great deal of speed in the GPU. It might offer a great integrated product for office/2d usage.

Now Torrenza on the other hand may have something to offer since the thermal issues can be separated by chip/MB placement as we do today. Imagine a GPU drop in that smokes todays offerings!!

As part of the On-Topic... You can bet that Intel is surely playing the Market Share game.. In fact they are NOT making any hidden agenda about it. It is right out there in the open for all to see. In fact given 4Q and the server space recovery of market share people are stating they are already causing issue with AMD. At some cost to themselves obviously. Surely this is a calculated risk.
 
Hello Ches. Been a while since I've actually replied to you. :)
What scares me about Fusion is that to upgrade your GFX, you have to change your CPU. That being said, Fusion is a wonderful idea, but it gives me the feeling that AMD is going to focus more on the OEM sector, who would really benefit from this.
 
I couldn't claim to have an agenda. But I do have definite views, and I don't mind sharing them. :)

Along with the more common stuff of just sharing opinions and knowledge, I have a couple of consistent opinions regarding Intel and AMD.

If they aren't already clear, I summarize:

I don't really like the prospect of Intel using semi-legal or illegal (alleged and in trial) tactics to try to keep AMD small. I'd rather see competition that obeys US laws.

So that's a moderate beef I have about Intel. But....I love that Intel finally got it together and put out a decent desktop chip!

I don't at all like that sometimes in the forum AMD chips are mis-represented as not a good choice. It depends individually on the builder and their goals and plans as I see it.

Since I own both Intel and AMD stock, it bothers me that the Intel CEO Paul O. might be arrogant or egotistical enough to sacrifice profits (and thus stock prices!) for a *long* time just for a few points of market share. I do think shareholder pressure will limit this eventually, but it's not a sure thing. (one person even asked for "proof", heh heh).
Click to expand...

There is no nefarious dealings with pricing on Intel's part to illegally make AMD disappear. Your continual knocking on Intel in your many threads is tiresome. The repeated attempts at showing that you are non-biased by purporting to own Intel stock is laughable also. Much like John Kerry trying to show he supported hunters and the 2nd Amendment by the hunting trip he took. ROFLMAO!

Let's see your new topic posts,

What's Intel's Plan?
"The Intel Bias in the Forum"
Heavy MultiTasking X2 4200 Anecdote; Add your own Story
Coming 5Ghz+ IBM processors
Rules of Thumb for Great Performance at Low Prices with the great non-biased quote of "I'd go AM2, and I'd feel good about a AM2 4200, 4400, or Opteron 1212 (overclocked if you need it, but few really do). The X2 3800, and Opteron 1210 are fine on a tight budget. I have nothing against the C2duo 6300, but motherboard costs should be included. "
What is a Basic System that Avoids Weaknesses? which of course mentions AM2 but nothing about C2D
AM2 X2 3800 best price/performance ratio at the moment
Best Low Cost System Right Now I think is AM2 X2 3800 Based
AM2+ (quad cores) drop-in with AM2; *AND* cheap path to AM3

And that is just January. Just admit you are an AMD fanboy. Trying to masquerade as a non-biased "I own both companies' stock, but I'm new here" poster isn't working.

Is Intel losing money? No. Did they price their chips lower than what they COULD price them for? Maybe. The long term goal IS market share. Paul Otellini is not being arrogant or egotistical, and Intel isn't doing anything "semi-legal" or illegal. Volume+small profit per unit=BIG PROFIT. Large companies don't make the bulk of the money on the enthusiast market. The profit margins are higher, because those people WILL PAY to get the latest stuff. Hence the $1K retail price on the top end processors when they come out. Do you think Intel and AMD have the time or resources to dedicate multi-million dollar machinery to churn out a high-end, small market processors, unless they do it in test labs, the upper end parts you see are mostly the result of extra validation testing at higher speeds. They have to balance the cost of the time and machinery to ensure that the parts run at that speed vesus what the end user will pay. Mostly, the higher end parts are for getting 733t cred.

Face it, Intel has a better product RIGHT NOW. They have taped out their 45nm processors and have then running RIGHT NOW. This means that you could see EIGHT core processors from Intel by the end of the year. There is probably no chance of you seeing AMD with an octo-core processor until late 2008/early 2009, but hey, with the competition heating up, they may work at it harder and get it out faster.

If you want to help people with your experiences with your AMD platform, go ahead. But stop with the posting of the anti-Intel topics, it helps no one.

Oh, the answer to your topic title, "What's Intel's Plan?".

Make money. The goal of pretty much every company out there. Otherwise they would be a "non-profit organization" which is false for most of those companies also.


Centurion
 
DaSickNinja,

I again agree. Where did Intel focus their graphics? They are strictly on the OEM as well. This is a rather large segment of the market.

I think it could be a good strategic move on AMDs part (if implemented well).

The problem being (as funny as it sounds) Intels product is NOT as integrated as the AMD would be. Leaving (some/minimal) options for the customer. The ONLY option from a Fusion product as mentioned would be a CPU/GPU upgrade all at once.

Pricing is going to be VERY key here.
 
Nice Post,

You beat me to it... :) I was going to do the exact same thing next (this evening when I had time darn the work)..

On top of that I was also going to go grab the "this site is SO AMD biased" threads of the past and link them too.

Good contribution and WELCOME!!!
 
DaSickNinja,

I don't think focus will change ALL THE WAY to an OEM focus.

That would be detrimental to their other business unit ATI. They need to compete in both arenas to compete at all (now that is).

With the purchase of ATI came the responsibility to maintain market share in the non-integrated graphics market. Also came the responsibility to grow markets by adding an integrated product or two to the lineup.
 
They acquired ATI more for their chipset business so they could make their own instead of relying upon NVIDIA or VIA. Its nice to have it in house but at the same time, ATI basically lost their Intel business in the process
 
Also remember the enthusiasts market is actually expanding... People actually know who ATI and NVIDIA are.

Those brandings carry some weight. If AMDATI focus only on the OEM market they will quickly lose market share in other areas (again possibly detrimental).

Think about it, if AMDATI releases ONLY an integrated product that does not compete in the gaming market (Oblivion/Crisis/... anyone?) they will in effect be shooting themselves in the foot.

Intel does not have these issues since they have never felt the need to compete in other markets outside of "integrated".

NVIDIA and ATI picked up the slack outside of that (enabling Intels procs in essence). AMDATI has that segment to worry about and probably will still be an enabler for Intel products too. Gotta love that.

I actually mentioned this during the merger discussions. What you are in effect are looking at is a "SYMBIOTIC" relationship between Intel and AMD even if AMD does not want too.

There is too much money involved in the Intel enabling side of the house. If the chipset side of the AMDATI, drops for instance the RD600 line, because it supports Intel they in essence lose money. But by making money in that line they also enable Intel :).

This is truly a strange market we are in.
 
Funny thing is...

At first "when the merger was announced" I was thinking how strange it would be. AMD in a "PARASITIC" relationship effectively siphoning off Intels chipset market with there new acquisition of the RD600.

But, in further examination it is truly more of a symbiotic relationship as both would at some point gain from the relationship.

If AMDATI stop making graphics cards supported by the PCIE bus that WILL work for Intel based products then again they short themselves.

By making those same products they again are enabling Intel.

Lets look at it from the reverse now. Does Intel play in the same sandbox as AMD as far as chipset development? Do they produce chipsets for the AMD platform? No. Do they produce graphics products for the AMD platform? No.

I am quite sure that Intel is smiling right now... :)

It is going to be difficult decision time for AMD...
 
There now Hal,

You actually said it. Everyone here knows where you are coming from and can now direct comment to you correctly because of it.

Now if you have any other affiliations (other than being a stock owner) you might want to let folks know about that too.

Once things are on the table and NOT backdoor then a conversation can continue in a manner in which all parties are sure about where they are coming from.

Before this thread was very much beating around the bush without you coming right out and saying what you really meant. You asked for comment and you received it. As it turns out for the most part (as evident in your replies) it was not the comment in which you cared to hear. Many people here will disagree with your stance. That is absolutely OK too.

This thread in combination with your previous Intel bias thread tends to be directed at the members of these forums (in a somewhat negative way). Do not SAY you have no issue with Intel (as an owner) and then speak out of the other side of your mouth about how bad they are. (see previous post for instance)

Bravo for finally taking a clear/concrete stance (albeit controversial).

In these forums it will help you along much quicker just saying what you mean, rather than beating around the bush.
Click to expand...

Before we make too much of it, I don't entirely presume Intel is guilty of illegal acts. I'll wait for the trial to conclude.

Tell me whether it bothered you, yourself, that Intel would use leverage to discourage PC makers from using more than certain limits of AMD chips, etc.
 
You seem to have a lot more interest and energy in it, actually, Centurion, than I do.

I'm more interested in accurate representations, than I am in rooting for AMD.

If you say C2duo is a very superior architecture to the A64, I'll say entirely true.

If you say C2duo is always a better buy, I'll say false, it is for some people, and not for others.

etc.

I'd say I'm more against the fan thing in general, actually.

btw, this thread is getting boring for me.

All the repetative Intel vs AMD stuff is boring.

All the fierce back and forth is....boring.

I'll be turning off notification on this thread, and reading new stuff about new info that I haven't heard of yet.
 
Good then,

We can invite the mods to close the thread...

If the OP of the thread is no longer involved then most certainly ask them to close it.
 
Centurion,

Sorry to see that your post was voted down by Hal.

It seems that in the face of an absolutely excellent example of a post it is easier to abandon a thread.

Hopefully the mods only LOCK the thread and DON'T Delete it.

That way it is here for some time for people to review and understand where the OP is coming from AND where he went.
 
And one final example of the way this thread has gone for the OP:

Tell me whether it bothered you, yourself, that Intel would use leverage to discourage PC makers from using more than certain limits of AMD chips, etc.
Click to expand...

Please define for us the location of your source! Please link for us the information that makes this statement true!

Or you could just close the thread...

You choose!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom