AMD Not Competing with Intel Anymore, Goes Mobile

By yxz
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mentor

Gaffney

Posted
Posted

AMD will just always for now at least, be one generation behind Intel. So they still have a market for people looking for a cheap but good preforming computer. I think AMD has been less fortunate because how good the Intel i Processors are doing, they preform great, good prices and their iconic.

  • Glassed Silver
  • Like 1
Grand Master

Glassed Silver

Posted
Posted

This will end very unfavourly for Intel pricing.

Oh and did I mention, that I don't anticipate ARM coming to the desktop?

Intel's new and only "enemy" ARM won't raise a good bar...

(desktop = performance matters the most for me, power per watt is something I neglect on my desk, no battery, no worries... I'll take the faster rendering of my videos etc for the few bucks a power hungry CPU costs me on the energy bills...)

Glassed Silver:mac

Grand Master

Nashy

Posted
Posted

AMD has always been the Nissan of the computer world. Always 2 steps behind the rest, cheaper, and not as reliable. IMO.

Oh well, I've always put more trust in Intel than I ever did AMD.

Grand Master

spaceelf

Posted
Posted

AMD has always been the Nissan of the computer world. Always 2 steps behind the rest, cheaper, and not as reliable. IMO.

Oh well, I've always put more trust in Intel than I ever did AMD.

And yet, the Athlon 64 generation was significantly better than the Pentium 4 for quite some time. After Core 2 Duo AMD never recovered, sadly.

Despite understanding the necessity of what they did, I keep wondering if they'd be better off if they hadn't bought ATI.

Collaborator

fsX

Posted
Posted

I'm guess that by your words intel = Toyota? Well what happens if Toyota starts costing as much as a ferrari ?

Or worse, what happens if Intel processors start suffering from unintended acceleration? What would be the point of Turbo Boost then?! OMG the horror!

Grand Master

Circaflex

Posted
Posted

there will still be a next generation, the article doesnt say they are leaving the cpu scene for good, they are focusing on mobile processors but will still do desktop processors, but with the focus being on mobile i see more and more bulldozers coming out

Experienced

Dusco25

Posted
Posted

So intel will just go up in price.. Now days you gotta hold a gov job to get a dual core intel.. It will only get worse.. I have never owned a intel chip due to the price when AMD had just the same for 25% of the cost... Get ready to pay $1,000 for ****.

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

I'm sorry, can you please go look up how a CPU works? Because you're wrong. More cores = more efficiency.. A CPU can only process ONE thread at ONE time, while the other threads wait and the taskmon assigns processing time for the. A dual core CPU now has TWO threads, therefore it can process TWO threads at ONE time.

It's not that having more cores is the problem, the problem is that programmers are lazy arrogant jerks who would do not choose to programme for multicore CPU's, which negates the purpose of a multicore CPU.. and yes, games are a perfect example to show where innovation in programmig is actually starting to exploit the benefits of multicore CPU's.

Go email Microsoft and ask them why in Windows Vista and 7 that they optimised their OS to benefit from multicore CPU's? And Apple too.

Why don't you go use a single core AMD Athlon 64 3500 or intel P4 and tell us how great a single core cpu is?

Its people like you who would keep us back in the stone age with you "we don't need it" thinking..

AMD's bulldozer CPU's are very multithreaded optimised and this is where they fail. AMD jumped the gun a little too far in the consumer market and should of made their CPUs be better at single threading and not so great at multithreading.

It took extremely little for Microsoft to leverage the successors to the already SMP-aware Windows XP for further cores - Windows NT (upon which the entirety of the current Windows architecture - from the server rooms to the mobile phone space - has its origins) has supported multicore its entire life. The issue pre-XP was that multi-core (in the form of SMP) was not general-purpose; even though P-III-based SMP actually was afforable, due to workstation/enthusiast motherboards like the ABIT VP6, such purchases outside the workstation space (including mine) were outliers.

AMD (with Athlon64- based on the Opteron core) made inroads at making multicore affordable (outside of SMP); however, it still took Intel's massive multiple fabs to make multicore ubiquitous (Core 2 and progeny). No - I am not including the current generation of Intel (or AMD, for that matter) CPUs in that category - I am talking specifically about Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, and Pentium DC/Celeron DC (Conroe/Kentsfield/Wolfdale/Lynnfield and their progeny). And even then, it took three events - none of which AMD had anything to do with - for that ubiquity to take place.

1. The Great Kentsfield Fire Sale - Amusingly, I actually blame (of all people) *Apple* for this. In the hoopla surrounding their switch from the IBM/Motorola POWER architecture to Intel, lost amidst all that was the non-uptake of dual-dual Kentsfield CPUs (to fit between the Core2Duo-based iMacs and the XEON-based Mac Pro - basically, an Intel-powered Performa). I noticed - I actually *castigated* Apple for what I saw as a major blunder; not long after that, both retail and OEM tray prices for Intel quads would drop by almost half. The eventual floor for Q6600 ($145 USD quantity one for retail) has remained where Intel entry-level quad-cores have been ever since. (In fact, i5-2400 is at that price today.)

2. Virtualization ubiquity - Again, this wasn't driven by AMD - the reason for this lies at the doorstep of three rather unlikely bedfellows - Sun Microsystems (then bankroller of VirtualBox), EMC (who owned VMware) and (amusingly) Microsoft (who had acquired VirtualPC from Connectix by *acquiring* Connectix). Intel had to respond ot the non-uptake of vPro (which was designed with virtualization, and particularly XPMode, in mind) - the followup was the Wolf-pup line of Celeron DC and Pentium DC - all of which included VT-x hardware-virtualization support as standard fare, and at prices no higher than their Conroe and Conroe-L predecessors.

3. Multiprocess ubiquity - The current cycle, which is being driven by the second-generation Core i-series, actually began with an AMD idea - moving the northbridge support glue of a system onto the processor die itself (HyperTransport); however, Intel's followup was to move integrated graphics there as well. None of that was new - however, Intel had the fab capacity to leverage it at basically flat pricing (AMD did not).

Sometimes, being first-to-market with an idea is not enough.

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

So intel will just go up in price.. Now days you gotta hold a gov job to get a dual core intel.. It will only get worse.. I have never owned a intel chip due to the price when AMD had just the same for 25% of the cost... Get ready to pay $1,000 for ****.

You don't have $40USD?

That is what a *new* Celeron-G530 or Celeron E3400 (LGA1155 and LGA775, respectively) costs today. (A used Q6600 costs about the same on eBay - or on Neobay, for that matter.)

.

I have an E3400 sitting on my closet shelf (next to the E1200 it had replaced) *because* I don't sell used CPUs (even though I have bought them in extremis - the current Q6600 is one such) - one or both will likely wind up in new or used LGA775 motherboards and be passed down at no cost to the recipient.

Both are dual-core Intel CPUs (based on Conroe and Wolfdale, respectively) - the E3400 has the additional advantage of supporting hardware-virtualization. Both are x64-ready as well (both have, in fact, run a steady diet of x64 operating systems - including Linux distributions and even OS X).

What you likely really mean is that you can't afford to buy what you really want all at one time (if you go with an Intel-powered system).

Proficient

Dwarden

Posted
Posted

Meh. Mobile is the future. Good thing AMD did this now before it became too late.

irony is that AMD and ATI sold theirs mobile oriented division to exactly these companies they want compete now ...

while it's never too late i hope they don't abandon market they have brand name for so long

Grand Master

ahhell

Posted
Posted

So intel will just go up in price.. Now days you gotta hold a gov job to get a dual core intel.. It will only get worse.. I have never owned a intel chip due to the price when AMD had just the same for 25% of the cost... Get ready to pay $1,000 for ****.

:s

Probably the worst informed post that I've read in awhile.

  • Muhammad Farrukh
  • Like 1
Mentor

BetaAddict

Posted
Posted

So intel will just go up in price.. Now days you gotta hold a gov job to get a dual core intel.. It will only get worse.. I have never owned a intel chip due to the price when AMD had just the same for 25% of the cost... Get ready to pay $1,000 for ****.

Where exactly are you buying your CPUs from? The black market?

If you are one of those people who insist on getting the most powerful processor available at the time of purchasing a given desktop or laptop, then intel will break your bank. The fastest CPU with the greatest amount of L3 cache will always have a $300+ premium over the entry level. But there is no reason to do that as getting an entry level i5/i7 is more than sufficient to handle just about any program or game released within the next couple of years. The current generation of intel chipsets are just that powerful when couple with a mid to high end dedicated graphics card and at least 4GB of ram.

Grand Master

AJerman

Posted
Posted

Couldn't Intel being the dominant in the PC CPU market be construed as a monopoly? Just curious as I'm not sure what does and doesn't constitute one.

Highly unlikely as ARM is poised to break into the desktop computing market soon. Mobile and Desktop markets will merge and there won't be a difference in the chips, just how powerful one is vs another, or rather, how many cores you have. In fact, AMD may just be taking the first step before Intel does, focusing more on lower power solutions. As SMP evolves, it's looking like large numbers of smaller and lower power CPU cores will be the future rather than powerful and power consuming dual and quad cores. I suspect we'll start seeing 25-50 lower power cores working together soon. It allows for a LOT more scalability when you can turn on more cores as you need the processing horsepower, or turn off more cores when you need to save power.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.