who would waste their money on that junk :P
Printable View
who would waste their money on that junk :P
I watched it. An interesting combination of good information & marketing exageration about the forthcoming AMD architecture and lies/exageration/FUD about the current generation of Intel CPUs, with no mention that Intel is correcting many of these "issues" in their next generation of CPU (due out shortly after the AMD quad core hits the street).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubben
It's interesting how AMD tries to turn their limited ability to create a fast/large cache into a dig at Intel.Junk? Show me an AMD solution that has a similar or better performance at a similar or better price than either a Q6600 CPU or dual 5335 (or higher) CPUs, then we'll talk about junk. Until then, Intel owns the performance crown in the single and dual socket area. In the >2 socket area, AMD has been, and will probably continue to be, the performance leader, but the market for >2 sockets continues to shrink (as a percentage of total sales).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason1478963
The forthcoming AMD quad-core might be a better architecture than the current Intel quad-core architecture (~9 months old currently), but is it enough better to be worth the price? We'll find out when it hits the street. It should be remembered that Intel can slash the price on their product quite a bit and still make a profit.
Also, it would be interesting to compare the forthcoming AMD quad-core to the next-gen Intel quad-core (single shared L2 cache). IIRC the new Intel quad-core is due out late this year, or early next year. This is probably a fairer comparison to the AMD quad-core (late, and expected to become more so). It's also possible that the releases will come closer than they're scheduled, as AMD has a long history of releasing later than expected (delay already announced for their quad-core), and Intel has one of releasing earlier than expected.
Looks like we have someone with intel shares :icon_lol:
I have endless discussions with my friend about this. We discuss about everything concerning pc's and distributed computing.
Some days I wish I did. Most days, I'm glad I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederic Brillouet
No. I'm just someone who tries to look at the overall picture and compare the two primary products based on their actual merits. I don't give AMD any slack because they're the little guy, nor do I give Intel any because they're so huge. I look at both the current products, and the announced future products. I also look at the company's ability to produce the product, and to gear up to produce new product. Sometimes, I look at the history to see how closely predictions match reality.
Without a doubt, AMD has some significantly better chips on the horizon. Don't forget that Intel does too. Only time will tell which will be better.
I'm thinking that Intel's current lead in fab capabilities (number of fabs, wafer size and process) will keep them from losing much (if any) market share when the new AMD chip comes out. If AMD can come out with a production 300mm wafer at 45nm in the near future, they'll be able to close the price/performance gap quite a bit, and put a hurt on the Intel cash flow.
The big picture is that the average consumer (I don't think any of us fall into that category) is interested in price and performance (not high-end). VERY little else crosses their minds when making a purchase decision. The AMD architecture lead will only matter when it has an undisputed impact on these two values. The shorter Intel design cycle has been able to keep AMD at bay for a while, and I don't see this as changing.
If you think all I have is Junk then I'm sure another Team would be more than glad if I moved my Junk over to their Team ... :icon_mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason1478963
Come on poorboy, we all appreciate your efforts and its all said in good fun :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorBoy