Slashdot Mirror
AMD Releases Mobile CPUs
epoh writes "AMD has finally released their new (fast, affordable, slick) line of notebook processors. They are supposed to blow the Pentiums out of the water. Check out the full story. Yum. I want one. " It's a shame the K7 runs so hot. I'm sure it's just a matter of time, though.
It's too bad they'll still be so much slower in floating point calculations since they're based on the K6 family, but that won't matter at all if they're used for the applications that most laptop users will be using. I'd like to see AMD clean up in the notebook market since they seemingly have a very strong product.
When the K6s first came out I was very excited. I knew they were no panacea, but I overclocked my first 166 to a 210 using the newly available 83 MHz bus and I loved that little bad boy.
Is it just me, or is Intel every bit as predatory as Microsoft? Every time I think about that little chip company that could and how much Intel has hurt them it just makes me sick!
Andy Grove is a spawn of SATAN!
; >
IMO I think AMD is better than Intel anyway. Let alone the price. I have a friend that has a pentium II that runs at the same speed as my AMD and my blows his out of the water all day long. I don't have a laptop yet, but when I do I plan on getting one with an AMD in just because I like to root for the underdog, but in this case it's just a better product to me. With Intel I think you only pay for a name and the wild commercials they make. With AMD you are getting some down and dirty fast computing dirt cheap. Rock ON AMD!!!
Good is never enough, when you dream of being great!
Despite my pessimism, I'd love to see AMD suceed. Let's wish 'em the best!
It's good to see that AMD hasn't been put out of the running like so many of Intel's other competitors (like Cyrix). Granted, in many cases AMD has a superior product at a lower price versus Intel, but as stated, consumers most often look for brand recognition over technical statistics. IMO, this has been a crucial time for AMD, a time to decide it's place in the chip market of the future. Will they keep innovating, and releasing fantastic products like the K7? The answer appears to be yes. I sincerely hope that the marketing machine that is Intel doesn't destroy them. With the rapid growth of the computer market over the last few years, I think there is ample room for a lost cost, high performance chipmaker to snag it's piece of the market share from the big boys. Let's just hope they keep setting the pace...
If the CPU were the only thing to run (I know, this will exagerate the differences) a battery could last up to twice as long if either the G3 or G4 spent most of its time chilling in the low range of usage. User driven tasks like word processing allow such idling to take advantage of the PPC doze and nap power conservation modes, which is appearantly how Apple can claim 6 hour battery life on the iBooks. Other tasks would certainly run it down faster by preventing either the processor or the disk from idling.
Start Running Better Polls
Not only does Intel get to stay out of the DOJ antitrust warpath, we, the 'consumer' get better, cheaper chips! I think it was a serious, almost Microsoftian mistake on Intels part to junk the s7 processor scheme.(We'll make them pay for the CPU AND the MB chipset!) While they were bust pushing overpriced PII chips and Slot1 MBs, AMD has been silently stealing away market share with the K6 I/II/III, and then using that share to undercut Intel further.
In addition, I can see them hurting Intel with the incredible Athlon. Even if Intel can get stable, faster PIIIs to market, AMD will have the capacity to one up them monthly in both performance and clock speed for years!
(Forgive my toadiness. I have owned far more AMD-based machines in the last few years than Intel, and they ALWAYS give me more zip for less cash)
.sig: Now legally binding!
Okay I read the article.. I fail to see how this chip will blow Intel out of the water. K6-3s are still more expensive then celerons, and while they edge it out in non fpu related tasks they also loose in fpu related activities. Seems like a fairly balanced scale with the celeron costing a bit less. Hardly an innovative and amazing technology. As a side note... has anyone actually seen the K7 in stores? (Not web) I've been looking around Fry's electronics and see no sign of it. All this clapping of AMD on the back for defeating the "evil Intel giant" is great but all I see so far is no AMD cpus available, and Intel continues to smugly ship their cpus out while slashing prices. I think I'm beginning to see why Intel is not overly concerned about AMD, a few price cuts, AMD's inability to deliver mass quantaties of product, and presto. Any technological advantage of the K7 is nullified.
On the whole, I think that the favorable bias toward Intel has significantly lessened in the private sector. The bias I speak of is merely the blind "Intel is inherently good.. I've heard of them, and my buddy has a Pentium." For simplicity, if you divide the home computer consumers into two groups: informed and uninformed.
I think it's safe to say that most of the informed users realize the decent price:performance ratio that AMD-based systems offer. Either that, or they're already hardcore AMD or hardcore Intel, but they can usually backup their preference with reasons (quality or otherwise).
On to the uninformed clueless folks. The main factor conributing to their increasing lack of Intel bias is the salespeople that tend to not be Intel-pushing maniacs anymore. Comments like, "Well, AMDs aren't as good; they're cheap & have compatibility problems," are less common on a sales floor, as they're usually replaced with, "For a lower cost, you can get equal performance. Same thing, sometimes better, less money." Another contributing factor is that clueless people's friends are no longer saying, in response to, "What kinda computer should I buy?", "Just make sure it's a real Pentium."
There are also more AMD systems for sale, percentage-wise, on any given retail floor. That is, if Joe's PC shop is selling computers, 25-60% of them might be AMD-based, vs. 0-25% 5 years ago.
So where's the problem?
Big companies don't dig anything but `the best'. It is rare to see a highly technical person who is also in direct control of any large portion of a Fortune 500 budget. When the buyer has hundreds of thousands of dollars in a budget that doesn't have much of anything to do with their own pocketbook, they often tend to choose Intel over AMD, because at the moment, most people tend to compare it to Nike vs. Brand X Shoes. It isn't that Brand X shoes won't necessary last as long, or aren't as cool looking, but "everyone knows Nike's are the best." They've used Intel for as long as they can remember, and they also remember when AMDs tended to not be great at all. They also like the Intel guys dancing around in their jumpsuits on TV.. and they're too good to shop at Wal-Mart, so why would they buy AMDs?
So, that's my take on the whole scene: commercial folks don't dig AMD-based systems as much as the wide array of home users do. I'd love to see the breakdown of usage of AMDs across the commercial and private markets, but I think that my evaluation is a functional representation of reality in many instances (and probably common knowledge to most Slashdot folks).