AMD executive casts doubt on Intel’s dual-core claim
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 02 June 2005 - 16:41 · 31 comments & 2669 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by joseph- on 02 Jun 2005 - 17:12
- AMD criticize an Intel product? Stop the presses. Next thing you know, Intel will do the same towards AMD. What is this world coming to?
Wait...this just in; water is, in fact, still wet, and the earth actually *does* rotate around the sun.
-
(6 replies)
#2 Posted by xMorpheousx416 on 02 Jun 2005 - 17:26
- Benchies talk.......BS walks. AMD doesn't need to say a thing...they have this round in the bag.
-
#2.1 Posted by CyberWolf on 02 Jun 2005 - 17:57
- actually they dont have it in the bag and here is why.
1. 90% + processors sales are through major vendors, IE HP, Dell, IBM, etc
2. Intels low end unit is starting at half the price of AMD's low end.
3. Its all about marketing, Price talks everything else walks.
4. Worlds leading computer retailer Dell is all Intel.
5. Home builders account for about 1% of the global market share. AMD gives 2 ****s about you.
Its not all in the bag. Its going to be a fight. Unfortunately AMD lacks a marketing department, hence their marketing guy making snide comments every chance he gets.
I personally aint dropping 500+ USD on a processor, no matter who makes it or how it performs. -
#2.2 Posted by [bear] on 02 Jun 2005 - 18:12
- Yeah thats what I was wondering. If AMD has really got this dual core thing right then why do their processors cost 2 times the price of intel's. Im gonna say Intel wins this one with the consumers.
-
#2.3 Posted by ir0nw0lf on 02 Jun 2005 - 18:41
QUOTE 1. 90% + processors sales are through major vendors, IE HP, Dell, IBM, etc
2. Intels low end unit is starting at half the price of AMD's low end.
3. Its all about marketing, Price talks everything else walks.
4. Worlds leading computer retailer Dell is all Intel.
5. Home builders account for about 1% of the global market share. AMD gives 2 ****s about you.
1. Source of this info please.
2. You forgot to add "...and requires a new motherboard/chipset, while the AMD solution does not."
3. If is was all about price, why are people buying Pentium 4 EE and Athlon FX processors?
5. Source of this info please.-
#2.4 Posted by MrCobra on 03 Jun 2005 - 00:21
QUOTE
2. You forgot to add "...and requires a new motherboard/chipset, while the AMD solution does not."
That's been thier *strategy* for years. Big deal if the cpu is lower cost if I have to buy a new MB as well. And when the the Pentium D revision A comes out there's more cost for yet another MB.-
#2.5 Posted by xMorpheousx416 on 03 Jun 2005 - 00:49
- Regardless of a Dual AMD CPU setup, or a DualCore AMD setup, both procs talk to each other thru the Hyper Transport system. A "direct" connection if you will. Dual CPU Intel, or Dual"Core" Intels, use the FSB to talk to each other. Performance will take the price...and if you want it, you'll pay for it. Intel is lowering the price not just to compete, but to give in. Intel is not producing a true dual core, but multi-chip. It's not the same, and the performance numbers are showing it. When it comes down to performance, it won't take long for the major computer builders to not switch from one proc to another, but to add it to their product lines. It would be a smart move to have choices.
You personally, may not be upgrading because you don't see any reason, and that's the majority of the real markets move in upgrading. They do it when they need it. But alot, upgrade constantly, and they want performance for the price they pay.
AMD indeed, has it in the bag. -
#2.6 Posted by MrCobra on 03 Jun 2005 - 09:19
- AMD64 X2 Review: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/index.html
Intel Pentium D Review: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050405/index.html
-
#3 Posted by
Dazzla on 02 Jun 2005 - 17:38
- ...says the VP of marketing...
Just shut your stupid mouth and realise the benchmarks are in your favour. In fact, leave the company, along with the other worthless employees then bring the price of the dual core chips down to really kick Intels ass...
-
#4 Posted by [bear] on 02 Jun 2005 - 17:50
- its actually and interesting topic. Which approach would cost less? Wouldn't amd be able to lower prices by putting both cores on a single die? Never the less I'll admit I'm and intel guy and will probably be checking out the pentium D. Its an interesting round of processors this time around. Nice stuff.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by jonathansmith69 on 02 Jun 2005 - 18:31
- What is a Die?
-
#5.1 Posted by roadwarrior on 02 Jun 2005 - 20:48
- A die is a single piece of silicon. Intel's dual core chips use two pieces of silicon inside the chip package, AMD's use just one. There should be a slight performance advantage to using a single die over using two dies, but that is not always the case. I think Mr. Richard is splitting hairs here.
-
#6 Posted by username on 02 Jun 2005 - 18:48
- Isn't Intel's process more economical though? If one core is bad, the entire die does not have to be scrapped
-
#7 Posted by Ajapi on 02 Jun 2005 - 18:57
- Well, the price argument isn't really valid. Saying "Intel's low end is half as expensive as AMD's low end" doesn't make sense, since AMD's "low end" is much, much faster than Intel's. Also, the price of upgrading to Intel's dual core processors is much higher when you take into account that you might have to get a new motherboard as well. All in all, AMD won this round, wether OEM's realize it or not. AMD has proven to make technically superior products. Now, their inability to market them correctly is a different matter entirely.
-
#8 Posted by malebolgia on 02 Jun 2005 - 19:26
- I'm with you AMD.
-
#9 Posted by djsaad1 on 02 Jun 2005 - 19:36
- I dont know this for sure, but my guess would be that intel and amd make most of their money from selling to manufactures like dell and HP or internet stores that build computers for consumers.. I don't think they are really worried about people like us that build their own computers. With that said, it doesn't matter if you have to buy a new motherboard for the new dual core chips because they are depending on people that are buying whole new computers not just upgrading.
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by GCNaddict on 02 Jun 2005 - 20:00
QUOTE What is a Die?
QUOTE 1. 90% + processors sales are through major vendors, IE HP, Dell, IBM, etc
2. Intels low end unit is starting at half the price of AMD's low end.
3. Its all about marketing, Price talks everything else walks.
4. Worlds leading computer retailer Dell is all Intel.
5. Home builders account for about 1% of the global market share. AMD gives 2 ****s about you.QUOTE 1. Source of this info please.
2. You forgot to add "...and requires a new motherboard/chipset, while the AMD solution does not."
3. If is was all about price, why are people buying Pentium 4 EE and Athlon FX processors?
5. Source of this info please.
anyways, cyberwolf, AMD gives a **** about all of their customers. They still arent as big as intel, and can use every dollar they get. also, ir0nwolf, not everyone is buying an aFX (let alone a p4EE) but the cost of a new mobo drives the cost of the overall solution and the feasibility of it out of town, so you are still right
-
(3 replies)
#11 Posted by ShmengeTravel on 02 Jun 2005 - 20:21
- Intel is going down the tubes. First they don't incorporate true 64bit technology, now they don't incorporate true dual core technology. This is getting ridiculous. I'm sorry if that sounds biased, it's not meant to be, it's just basing off what I gathered over the years.
-
#11.1 Posted by GCNaddict on 02 Jun 2005 - 23:43
- AMD doesnt incorporate true 64bit technology either. they both use partial 64bit: a 32bit processor with a 64bit memory mamagement system
-
#11.2 Posted by ShmengeTravel on 03 Jun 2005 - 00:16
- I dont know if thats true, but intel doesn't incorporate true 64bit technology whatsoever. Their only 64bit technology isn't true 64bit technology. AMD's is.
-
#11.3 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 03 Jun 2005 - 03:02
- Where did you hear that drivel? There is absolutely NO true 64-bit Athlon or Pentium 4, at all. The Athlon64s have x86-64, which is just a 32-bit processor with 64-bit memory management while the Pentium 4s have EM64T which is also 32-bit with 64-bit memory management. There is however a pure 64-bit processor made by Intel, the Itanium 2, which did not meet very kind software-support.
-
#12 Posted by Xellos on 02 Jun 2005 - 22:55
- I don't know about you guys but i'm gonna wait for intel to come out with a PD EE like we all know there gonna do later on
-
(2 replies)
#13 Posted by joysleeper on 02 Jun 2005 - 23:45
- CPUwise, AMD might catch up with Intel, but software support, they have a long way to go.
-
#13.1 Posted by Help on 03 Jun 2005 - 01:56
- software support?? WTF?? you mean processor drivers? what's wrong with them??
-
#14 Posted by bigbadwlf on 03 Jun 2005 - 02:28
- In other news....
Pepsi says, "Coke sucks."
Nothing to see here.
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by ANova on 03 Jun 2005 - 06:26
- And the uninformed fanboys come out in force to defend their precious company.
-
(1 reply)
#16 Posted by kronix2 on 03 Jun 2005 - 13:57
- He does have a point. Intel's dual core product is essentially two dies stapled together.
Although Intel was the first to launch its dual-core processor solution for desktop PCs, Richard commented that a real dual-core processor should be one that integrates two cores onto the same die.
l;k'/kl;