What is Digg?145 Comments
- SirZRX, on 04/28/2008, -2/+71come on AMD, fight back! i know u can.
- LongShlong, on 04/28/2008, -2/+40Slap a 'sport' onto a minivan... Do people buy it? Yes, yes they do.
- mCanada, on 04/28/2008, -0/+36I hope they swim, as the world is better with 2 large chip makers versus 1.
- kevin32x, on 04/28/2008, -0/+34it will kinda suck to see AMD sinks. everything will just seem dull if Intel has 99.9% of the market share for end user cpus. I'd really like to see unveil a new line of cpus that will smoke Intel's core2.
- BigglesPiP, on 04/28/2008, -1/+21They lost ground in the last 2 years. In the previous 3 they dominated.
- darkzealot89, on 04/28/2008, -2/+21Intel Core 2 has just demolished AMD. I think one of the factors contributing to AMD's down spiral was the buyout of ATI. Now AMD is taking ATI down with it, leaving only Nvidia and Intel for all your needs. ::Sigh::
- smotpoker, on 04/28/2008, -2/+17You mean the last 1-2? Up until last year they were still better and cheaper than nearly all of Intel's offerings
Or were you just referring to their sales/marketing? - asskey, on 04/28/2008, -1/+13They've come back from worse, remember when the Athlon came along and totally whooped Intel's behind, forcing them to make a design decision (P4 with Xbox huge clock speeds) that would haunt them for years to come.
- dn11, on 04/28/2008, -2/+11this is BS. AMD is looking at the big picture right now, chipsets, GPU integration etc. and their newest CPUs and chipsets are great for low power consumption and low heat combined with good performance. it isn't all about the GHZZXXZ
- dn11, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8but ATI has gotten way better since AMD took over, and the new integrated chipsets are getting really interesting. I don't think AMD or ATI are going anywhere. AMD realized the importance of CPU and GPU integration before Intel or Nvidia and I think they have a head start. They might still be lagging right now but I think their future road map is potentially a lot more interesting than the same old ghz battle that we've been seeing for years.
- colincornaby, on 04/28/2008, -1/+9Huh? If anything AMD came out with fake 64 bit. With the Itanium, Intel created an entirely new fully 64 bit instruction set. Then AMD came out with their 64 bit extensions for x86, and do you know what Intel did? They started using the EXACT same extensions. So I fail to see how AMD's 64 bit is better than Intel's when they use the EXACT same 64 bit architecture.
Apple even uses AMD's 64 documentation for 64 bit development on Intel Macs. - briansearles, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8Not to mention their chips just being plain old faster.
- asskey, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8The thing that would really suck is if they take ATI under with them.
- dn11, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7woah, you don't know *****
- Lionhart, on 04/28/2008, -2/+9We're you asleep during the radeon 9700 - 9800 era? ATI was king then.
- MISking, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7If a competitor like AMD is not pushing Intel to develop better chips, everyone loses.
- mrsteveman1, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6Maybe you shouldn't feed it so much
- thesauce, on 04/28/2008, -2/+8You have no idea what you're talking about. Opterons are still the best performance for the dollar.
- Lunarbunny, on 04/28/2008, -1/+7Apparently you need to catch up on your nerd metaphors.
- inactive, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6It's basically a special warranty stuck to a certain chip set. If they make it, someone will buy it.
- alarchy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Umm...the Itanium was 64-bit long before the Opteron was.
Anyway, it's not that I don't think AMD has a product - it's that they can't compete with the Intel juggernaut when their product is not discernable from Intel's. Sure, an Opteron based server may be a few hundred dollars less (maybe even a few thousand) - but when you are trying to sell your COO on virtualization and can grab DL380's for a (relative) bargain (with dual quad Xeons and 36GB of RAM) there's really no reason not to.
We see proven track record (at least for us with HP) and solid hardware (multiple VMs good, multiple servers bad) for a reasonable price...performance per dollar isn't always limiting to many firms (especially those with big budgets in relation to actual need). - dark_helmet, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6ATI have been around far longer than nvidia. Back when Nvidia was new, ATI demolished them, Nvidia really only took the lead with the Geforce 3 & 4, but then ***** up with the GeForce 5xxx, ATI's 9700 & 9800 were smaller, cooler, and just as fast. Nvidia have really only been dominating since AMD bought ATI, it really screwed over both companies.
- knowitman, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5He's responding to the number of R-Type badges on stock/base model Civics.
- Blitzenn, on 04/28/2008, -2/+7Yea! I agree! The people who are saying AMD has been dying have had thier head in the sand. AMD not a business CPU? I beg to differ. I started running Opterons in our server environment to save on licensing and cost of the box. Both have proven extremely successful for me. I chose Opterons when Intel did not have a 64 bit multi core competitor. Saved me tens of thousands of dollars on my 'per CPU' license seats AND thousands on out of the box performance. The dollars spent per relative horsepower STILL favor AMD. Its is still chaeper to power a solution with AMD than with Intel processors. I have to look at it with the glasses of how much horsepower can I buy with my IT dollars. AMD has been winning that argument for several years now. I frankly don't undersand any other conversation. I can't figure out how to save money with an Intel machine right now. It still isn't there. Sure they have more horsepower on the high end, but it comes at a very high cost too (too high to make economic sense).
- theOster, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5mmmmmmm hair pie
- colasrtney, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Advanced solitaire card physics co-processor.
- SnowBladerX, on 04/28/2008, -4/+9Make a good CPU and it will market itself . Don't try to market a bad one.
- fuzzynyanko, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5You suck. I torture the crap out of AMD CPUs, and they keep going.
- hosehead16, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4RTFA, they're B3 chips that AMD decided not to add the XX50 designation on for whatever reason.
- Uchikoma, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5You would be misinformed to think that AMD had none to little presence in the server market. AMD Opterons are highly scalable and are capable of taking down current generation Intel equivalents. In the enthuasiast high-end, I'll grant you that they have no competiting product.
Furthermore, I don't know whether this is a trend in tech places (and Digg) or not, but everyone seems to be doomsaying AMD. Personally I hope AMD never falls and stays to keep the competition going. Continuing on that point, AMD's been progressively losing less and less money and if things continue, they'll break even this quarter or the next. They aren't stupid, and as mentioned in a few places, there market share actually went up. We tend to get blinded by the fact that the person with the best processor has the most market share, but lets face it: the common Joe as a group buys a hell of a lot more processors than we do, and they tend to go for the cheapest.
The same applies for video cards: cheaper sell more than the top-of-the-line $500 card. BUT. I would want to see some competition in that range at least... >_< It's been years since someone's given Nvidia a run for their money. - fluidfoundation, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4mmmmmmm floor pie......
- twiztidsinz, on 04/28/2008, -2/+6At least they dont have to worry about the onboard intel graphics!
- meghalc, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5The R-Type actually has a differant faster engine compared to a stock civic! Also, not to mention the interior trim update! You are just stupid and trying to be cool like a minivan guy above you!
- alarchy, on 04/28/2008, -2/+6The worst part for AMD is that they really have nothing to compete with Intel for the high end/server sector. The Phenom is plagued with problems (failing 3rd core, TLB errata, high heat, etc), their dual core chips are very underpowered considered to year+ old Intel chips...and the worst part is they don't have anything on the horizon to trump Intel with. Tri-core phenoms? Not going to cut it.
It's sad, because with AMD pushing awesome technology the consumer really won out - strong chips from both sides, but cheap and fast AMD was where it's at.
And to the comment that AMD is dragging ATI down...many would argue it's the other way around (ATI had to sell because they were in some financial trouble). AMD's ATI branch also has problems competing to this day (3850 and 3870 eclipsed by cheap 8800GTS's that out-perform them...even after more than one year on the market).
AMD has to think of something, and fast - Their monetary carotid has been cut, and little bandaids like the tri-core phenom and HD3870 are not going to stop the bleeding. - grimward, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I'm actually an unfortunate owner of a P4 prescott series CPU, that sucker pulls 50 degrees with it's stock fan cooler in IDLE mode :D
My new dualcore AMD has 32 degrees with it's stock fan cooler too, and it doesn't make much of a noise either. - Topher06, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4So AMD is trying to propagate the myth that you need a more powerful CPU for business class, when the reality is that most people in an office do nothing more then fire up a word processor, spreadsheet or PowerPoint, browse the internet, and check email's. Lame.
- meghalc, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I heard about amd combining their CPU and GPU like two-three years ago when they merged with ATI. I stilll havent seen anything of that nature. AMD should strictly dedicate their research on MOBILE processors. Mobile Processors are the thing of the future. Everything is giong mobile from a Pocket PC phone to a freakin Windows powered car stereo! Also, get some decent battery life for the AMD Laptops!
- davis2k, on 04/28/2008, -2/+5The only reason Intel is where it's at today is because of the Athlon 64 processor. Intel needed to step up its game when that processor came out and it did. But we need AMD and other processor manufacturers to create competition and keep price points feasible.
- alarchy, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4They're only holding about 13% of the server market share, and the server market is HUGE money - even compared to desktops. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they certainly aren't dominating.
And I agree, people have been doomsdaying AMD for 10 years - and they keep chugging along, but usually because they have some "wow" product that keeps the hope alive (Athlon, Opteron, etc) and sees some good quarters for them. Right now they really have nothing special to combat nVidia and Intel's increasing dominance, which makes this particularly more dire.
Speaking of the common Joe, Intel still has the advantage in name recognition alone. Granted, they might not always have the best product - but people just know about "them there Pentiums 'er whatever." But it's good that AMD has gotten more mainstream placement in the laptop and retail store desktop department, that's the bright side.
I think part of my problem is that my AMD stock really needs a bump...and I'm bitter :) - BoneheadFarker, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4That's still about $3500 less then an equivalent Mac Pro system. Not to mention that Intel really can't talk about AMD's over-rated/over-heated chips after the first and second gen P4 chips...
- coondog35, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3180 degrees
- hosehead16, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I guess you were asleep the whole time K8 dominated Pentium 4.
- andrewpmk, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Sounds like a lame way to jack up the price of processors. Fact is, these "business" processors are identical to their consumer counterparts so basically you are just paying extra for an extended warranty. And we all know how much of a ripoff extended warranties are.
- inactive, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3They may be large, but they cool so damn well. I accidentally neglected to clean a computer a whole year (it was mostly not used and it just didn't cross my mind) and the video card was ***** LOADED with dust. It still works like the day it was bought... (Yeah, I cleaned it all out.)
Plus, If you have a big ass computer it doesn't matter. Huge tower and this huge desktop board helps a lot compared to my old PC where it was hard to fit in. - linksus, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3tbh, if i was AMD i would keep fighting ( like they are now ) but secretly be working on some great groundbreaking tech. however. i would keep this top secret as you dont want intel etc to bring out similar. then again, intel will be doing the same. but not as fast as they would be if they knew what was coming at them.
Maybe its just me wishing? - stix213, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3That's exactly what colincornaby already said: "With the Itanium, Intel created an entirely new fully 64 bit instructions set"
- DifferentAngle, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3They probably also do additional testing on these chips. Every time a chip comes out of the fab they have to test it extensively and they do *a lot* more testing for the server chips, which is part of the reason why they cost so much more.
So they give an extended warranty and they probably do a better job of making sure that they're not buggy. - banmaster, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Why not? The biggest GPU company is Intel. nVidia and AMD/ATI literally don't get a look in when you take a look at marketshare.
- warriorscot, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3They sacrificed allot of the high end graphics card development to achieve that, the early prototypes for DX10 ATI cards were very promising but what was released was less powerful than was expected as soon as AMD came in and refocussed ATI to integrated solutions. And really screwed up ATI and to be honest they were doing really well before the takeover in terms of products and were gaining on Nvidia its hard to count recent failures as just coincidence.
- LeePeyton, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2I would like to see them back in the processor game.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is