Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why AMD Is Still In The Race

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the chariots-of-fire-theme-song-cued dept.

Steve Kerrison writes "Despite a woeful inability to provide some of its most loyal customers with stock, and a range of CPUs that, currently, loses out to Intel's Core 2 processors in both price and performance (and who would I be not to mention the diminishing AMD fanboy numbers?), AMD's still got enough tricks up its sleeve to retaliate against Intel in due course. HEXUS.net has an opinion piece on why AMD isn't up the creek. From the article: AMD has been showing off its 65nm wafers for a few months now, which means the Rev G core is on its way. Even if the DDR2 memory controller which arrived with the Rev F only had a small performance benefit, Rev G has a few more improvements than just the die shrink. The latter will enable higher clock speeds and a lower price, plus allow AMD to compete on an equal playing field to Intel, which has been manufacturing 65nm processors since the Pentium XE 955 at the end of 2005."

5 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Need to up the ante by Salvance · · Score: 5, Interesting

    AMD is only in the race if they can continue to innovate like they did with the AMD64 dual cores, while also increasing production. Seriously, can anyone get their top processors? I've read that even reviewers have been unable to get their top FX64 chips.
    Even if AMD goes back to their old copy-Intel ways, the value they have brought to the average is immeasurable. Intel would still be stuck on their old single core processor, instead of making plans for 80 core chips that top out at 1 TeraFlop in 5 years. AMD pushed them to get there. AMD needs to focus on creating something far better, and they need to do so quickly ... 5 years isn't that far away in chip manufacturing terms.

    --
    Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
  2. Give Them Time to React by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Ever since news started filtering out about Conroe, the AMD fanboys have been deserting their old object of worship faster than it takes to cook an Athlon XP. It was a 'no-brainer': Conroe was turning the tables on the Athlon 64, and 'ass mastering' it at lower clock speeds -- with faster versions already on the way.
    Did you just use the phrase 'ass mastering' in an opinion piece that is supposed to be newsworthy? Ok, I would like you to submit to me some examples of AMD fanboys deserting and some hard evidence about Conroe and its 'ass mastery.' The hyperlinks in your article are nothing but damn advertisements.

    And please include a 'value' analysis in your report on 'ass mastering' because the lower range Athlon 64's are much closer to my price range than the lowest priced Conroe. You know, there's a vast market out there for people who just want CPUs that run a word processor and connect them to the internet. Vast.

    Intel has clearly made a huge comeback, and intends to drive home its advantage still further with the Kentsfield quad-core part.
    No way. Intel made a comeback? You mean that whenever one side comes out with a newer chip, they are beating the other side? This completely blows my mind. Completely.

    Look, give AMD time to react. I don't think many people have considered them out of the running even for a second. And don't forget about the AMD/IBM alliance. IBM's research (and that is a lot of $$$ & research) backs AMD.

    I find your opinion article to be largely unecessary and fear mongering -- who said AMD was in trouble in the first place?
    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. CPU is only 1/3rd of the equation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I got a new system right after Core 2 Duo came out. I really liked what the Core 2 Duo offerred, but compatible motherboards and ram are more expensive than going with (Socket 939) AMD. Go anywhere and price:
    A. mid-range Intel Core 2 Duo, 1GB DDR2 RAM, and a decent motherboard
    B. mid-range AMD Athlon X64, 1GB DDR RAM, and a decent motherboard
    Odds are very good that you will save $50+ going with AMD. That may not seem like much, but if you skimp just a little across a whole system you can save $200+. If you want to go SLI then it gets a little trickier. I have had bad experiences with ATI, so I go with nVidia. There are VERY FEW Intel nVidia SLI boards (in fact, maybe like 5 at the max), so there is not much choice there. There are a lot of ATI SLI boards, though. AMD has nothing but nVidia SLI, so there is a large range of options. Also, the increased bandwidth of DDR2 vs DDR doesn't get you any performance boost at all right now; maybe it will in the future. I would have loved to go with Core 2 Duo, but I felt that AMD's platform just had more options.

  4. Self-adjusting? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If AMD falls too far behind, Intel gets greedy and jacks up its prices and/or slows its performance curve. Then AMD becomes a challenger again.

    Of course, that requires AMD to stay in business...

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  5. You can't buy processors in a vacuum by adam.skinner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I recently had to make some hardware recommendations for some friends. While I realise that Intel has better bang for the buck processor-wise, it's not true when you start to consider the motherboard. Intel motherboards are wicked expensive, and less stable than their AMD counterpart.

    The last Intel processor I had was a Celeron 700, years ago. I've been an AMD man for a while now. I was considering advocating, if you will, the new Intel chips until I got motherboard sticker shock.

    In then end, I'd go with an AM2 motherboard and whatever processor you can afford. You're still going to need DDR2 ram, but AM2 looks to have some staying power and it accomidates the whole gambit of processor options.