11 replies to this topic

[viper666]

After 15 years working in the PC industry I have some real different Ideas,I read all over the net AMD is in trouble really hum. IC it a bit differnet.

There was a time when Amd used the intel chipsets in the wayback,original pentium days.Intel didnt like this so they changed there socket and some legal stuff to stop AMD from using it.Amd got stuck with Via chipset ewwww,lockup crashes ect ,killed AMD due to the bad chipsets not the AMD processors.So finally AMd decided to make there own chipsets people were afraid of them due to the Via chipset problems.Amd couldnt really sell there chipsets(as AMD anyway)So what companys do is look for a name to market that chipset under,some company with a big name,thats known,like maybe Nvidia ,so as the story goes,these chipsets become very popular,and all of a sudden AMD leads in preformance,the crashes are gone.The big I sees all this,and starts to wonder as there sales fall, AMD who already has a great deal going with one of the major Video card makers,buys the other one. they now have some control over the entire video card industry.They are selling chipsets under 2 names.The big I starts to feel the presure and has to pull out all stops,to stop the land slide that is about to happen to them.So they take the very best thing they have and throw it on the table,because they see there in a corner surrounded so to speak(even though they had it for years C2D aka pentuim pro)Thats right whats in the C2D is almost 13 years old,but back then it was only 166-200mh,but very very fasts.it later became Pentium M.Kinda like a 68 Vette and a 06 vette lot of things different but sill the same.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_Pro

There is more to the story,but Im sure this will start enough debate !!!

[Camaro]

Yes this is something I have known about for quite some time, P3's with a better nm process.

[VROSA]

It is amazing to know that the technology of the C2D is so old...
Cores made with better processes, incorporating some tecnologies, but essentially the same thing.

[viper666]

vrosa x64, on Apr 17 2007, 12:15 PM, said:

It is amazing to know that the technology of the C2D is so old...
Cores made with better processes, incorporating some tecnologies, but essentially the same thing.

yup whats even more amazing is they kept as there kinda ace in the whole,they actually down graded it to release pentium II,They didnt release it in its full power state untill AMD put major heat on them. IBM also helped as the Cell was released at the very same time as C2D.

My point was is that

Intel is the one backed in a corner,and they had to play there ace in the hole card to get out,over the history these to companys have,topped one another many times.Intel was forced to play there very best card.They have nothing in reserve as they used 2.

With exception of a few times usually Intel has had the fastest processor over all,atleast they claim so and seem to be able to convince the media,but it normally cost a great deal more,than AMD's.

these days we here alot about PPW (preformance per a watt)thats great,but I look at preformance per dollar spent, AMD pretty much always wins this one !!!!!

[chriso_86]

I don't know, I priced out a system for a friend and the core 2 duo was just as much as a AM2. So right now I think Intel has them beat flat out. But I have no doubt that AMD will come back very soon with a strong righ hook.

[viper666]

I payed $75 for a 1.9 Brisbane thats running in my basement right now @2.9 with a cheepo power supply.On some Wu's it hangs right with my FX60 about 10sec slower,but for $75,what u want.A Intel that can beat it folding processor alone is $200

I had

fx60
quad fx 70
Opty 180

I guy at the other site bought a

6800 extreme
Q6700
6400


he already had an fx60 and a few older fx's

he spent around $5000 ill guess

He didnt catch me and he infact right now is 200000+ points behind me !!!! we were even at the start.

F@H dont read the bench marks posted on the net LOL

Edited by viper666, 17 April 2007 - 08:41 PM.

[bluerip]

Competition is good. Everyone benifits. With out it the progress would slow and the prices would remain higher. Better products for less money. That said, I'm wondering if Intel's shot across bow to stall the upcoming AMD blitz works to some degree what else does Intel have to capitalize on this. Or (also wondering ) does AMD have a hidden ace that can be played. Either way we win.

[viper666]

bluerip, on Apr 18 2007, 10:08 PM, said:

Competition is good. Everyone benifits. With out it the progress would slow and the prices would remain higher. Better products for less money. That said, I'm wondering if Intel's shot across bow to stall the upcoming AMD blitz works to some degree what else does Intel have to capitalize on this. Or (also wondering ) does AMD have a hidden ace that can be played. Either way we win.

thats so true with out pressure from AMD Intel would still be holding it back.I dont think AMD holds anything back,they are small.

What comes next is way back in the way back. Intel had the 166-200 pentium, then they released the 166-200MMX they showed all these benches where the MMX killed the regular 200 and it did on the 3 apps that used it at the time LOL So for $200 more U could run the 3 apps that supported it real fast.Of course I bought one LMAO it looked real good on bench marks but in the real world LMAO

[chriso_86]

Yeah, they have a tendancy to pick the programs that run faster on their stuff.

[DavARei]

It's the same way with ATI and nVidia GPU's.
They use the benchmarks that play to their strength.
.... and point out the weakness in their competition.

[Christopholofigus]

All i have to say is that AMD has come down in price so much that, for the average user, why wouldn't you buy AMD.

[bluerip]

Christopholofigus, on Apr 20 2007, 11:52 AM, said:

All i have to say is that AMD has come down in price so much that, for the average user, why wouldn't you buy AMD.

exactly:bluerip: