What is Digg?169 Comments
- spoiled1, on 12/17/2007, -0/+131Intel has better processors now only because of AMD, . Having being whooped by AMD during pre-core2duo era, Intel had no choice but to come up with better architecture. Thanks to AMD, we no longer have that overly hyped NetBurst architecture.
I can only hope that AMD can survive through this tough time and stay competitive. - swordedge, on 12/17/2007, -3/+109This guy is flapping his butt cheeks. Liquidate AMD? Is he NUTS? I do not want my processors to suddenly cost 5 times what they do now cause without AMD, that is exactly what will happen as there is not third chip maker right now that is viable.
- skaspud, on 12/17/2007, -10/+93or we could all just start buying AMDs
- tendonut, on 12/17/2007, -0/+56Oh yes, lets just get rid of AMD. Sure, they were leading the processor world in the gaming area for I don't know, 10 years or so. They are finally beaten by Intel for ONE generation and we just throw in the towel? Come on people! Can you imagine a world where Intel has no real competition? We need them around so they can kick Intel's ass and the war starts over again. AMD + Intel = Consumer Wins.
- cave, on 12/17/2007, -2/+44CNET blogs? seriously? Ever heard of the expression... Mental diarrhea?
- evensong, on 12/17/2007, -1/+39The AMD Athlon was probably the best processor I have ever used. It had rock solid stability, low heat (it was 120F stressed on stock cooling), relatively cheap, and had huge overclocking potential (from 2Ghz to 2.7 on stock cooling, under 140F stressed).
That being said, Core2Duo is what I'm currently using and whenever someone asks me what processor they should buy, I always suggest Intel. C2D is the modern Athlon, leaps and bounds better than anything in the past or present.
I hope I may return to AMD once again. Worst thing to happen is to have AMD go under and go through another Pentium 4 era, better known as the Dark Ages of computing. - renegadeafk, on 12/17/2007, -3/+39Actually the price per performance is pretty good, I got a X2 5000+ off newegg for 100 bucks, cheaper and faster than the comparable core 2's at that price.
- MechaFalcon, on 12/17/2007, -2/+36Not that I'm placing the blame squarely on ATi, but it doesn't exactly help that they're taking a whipping from nVidia.
- tendonut, on 12/17/2007, -3/+36I can back that up. At the low end of the price scale, the AMD X2's seem to blow away Intel's competition. *****, on Newegg, the only Intel processor that is under $100 is the Pentium D...I'll take the X2+ 4800 any day. I've bought two of those for two different builds in the past month. Good stuff.
- RoyHobbs, on 12/17/2007, -0/+28The guy who wrote this article doesn't work for Cnet he is a freelancer. Have you read his other *****, this guy is an idiot.
- bhattsan, on 12/17/2007, -8/+33Price for performance compared to intel isn't all that great now. AMD is a great processor, if you're not doing anything too intensive, but otherwise, intel is the more cost-effective one.
- creep303, on 12/17/2007, -1/+23I eated all my processors.
- mrtechbuzz, on 12/17/2007, -0/+20R&D takes years, not months. AMD is still learning how to maximize it's partnership with ATI and incorporate graphics technology into new chips. They are not packing their bags anytime soon.
- annenk38, on 12/17/2007, -0/+20The reason CPU's have been dirt cheap for the past 10 years is AMD. Enjoy it while it lasts. With profit margins near zero, this price war is now coming to its logical conclusion -- the guy with the largest cash reserve wins. Money always wins -- it's the way of the world. I cannot believe this is published on cnet it's easy to take cheap shots at the people who have been making science fiction reality by someone with only rudimentary understanding of technology in question.
- frazw, on 12/17/2007, -0/+18I know everyone wants the best they can get but unless people save AMD by buying AMD, then it won't be long before we are at Intel's mercy with regard to price. No competition = bad deal for customers.
Historically Intel have always been expensive, or at least the more expensive of the two. If they have no competition, they won't want or need competitive pricing. - winmywii, on 12/17/2007, -0/+16We need AMD and Intel to exist to push technology forward and prices down.
- inactive, on 12/17/2007, -1/+15Well I like AMD's CPUs I have a Athlon 4000+ X2 2.01ghz got it to 3ghz with stock cooling and it only costed me $60
- skinrock, on 12/17/2007, -0/+11While reading this, I couldn't help but think of those papers you write in school and reflect back on them a few years later and realize how corny or poorly written they were. Do you honestly think you can summarize AMD's financial future with 2 choices? There's a reason why you're blogging about the choices a multi-million dollar corporation should make, and not actually in any position to make them.
- RayDude, on 12/17/2007, -0/+11I completely agree.
Despite market conditions, AMD is in a good spot. They have once again identified where the market needs to go and determined what the technology needs to be to get there.
When they rolled the north bridge into the processor they eliminated a huge bottleneck of their x86 architecture and showed intel that it had messed up by not doing the same. K7 kicked intel's ass.
But what no one expected was the intel could create a bit of hardware to help their memory latency and make the Core2 competitive memory bandwidth-wise. And then, the 65nm jump and the power savings and other features that core2 inherited from the very pentium III like core architecture absolutely crushes AMDs current line up.
The native four core architecture called Phenom is a dead end for the desktop and mobile markets and AMD knows it. intel knows it too and they are addressing the issue, but I think AMD is in a much better position to take personal computing to the next level. I've been saying this four five years and I thought VIA was going to be the one to do it but they simply don't have the CPU power to compete. AMD does.
Imagine if you will a 45nm Phenom core with two cores removed and a DX10 ATI GPU in one corner and a south bridge with audio, SATA, Gigabit Ethernet, PCI, and USB in the other corner.
Once you have that, you strap some DDR3 outside, put it all on a motherboard the size of a mini-itx board, add a hard drive and DVD burner and poof: a desktop computer for $175.00, a laptop for $300.
The reason VIA can't do this is simply they don't have the horse power in their cores.
Intel can do this, but they are lacking in the DX10 GPU arena. That's where AMD has an advantage, they can do a cheap slower DX10 GPU on chip and using their new crossfire code (just announced) they can enable power users to add a low cost GPU to double the performance of the built in DX10 GPU.
I think AMD is in the position it needs to be in, they just need to overcome these hurdles (bugs, shift to 45nm, etc) and then they'll be back on top in the mainstream.
Raydude - mitchlourens, on 12/17/2007, -1/+12it's gonna suck when Nvidia has complete control of the market and don't release as many chips, and when they do they'll be at much higher prices.
- cactus476, on 12/17/2007, -1/+12I'm still running on a 3200+. I teared the day AMD discontinued the socket A.
- Chronological, on 12/17/2007, -6/+17Why would you reward a company on poor performance? Last upgrade I switched from my 5000+ to Intel.
I understand AMD is the "underdog" but they are in the market to make money also. The X2's use to cost quite a bit when they were beyond Prescott in performance and Intel got smacked around in the desktop/server market. So this time the price for performace I purchased an e2180 with a mild overclock(moving back to intel for upcoming 45nm). - s1mph0ny, on 12/17/2007, -1/+11ATI will eventually catch up. AMD seems to be doing a better job of managing the drivers, which leaves price/performance as the only thing that nvidia has on them.
Even so, the 3870 line is giving the 8800GT line a run for it's money. If the drivers were better, and more people had crossfire compatible motherboards... - tomaburque, on 12/17/2007, -0/+10If AMD goes down expect to pay a lot more for Intel processors.
- TheMachine1, on 12/17/2007, -3/+13Whats this BS about liquidating the company? Unless you own a large share of AMD stock shut the ***** up about what it has to do. Sounds like the comments Dell made about Apple and now long term Apple shareholders like myself can afford to line their bird cages with Dell stock.
- s1mph0ny, on 12/17/2007, -0/+10$2000 video cards here we come...
- evensong, on 12/17/2007, -0/+10Except Sun cannot touch Intel, or AMD for that matter, in terms of production capability. I doubt many companies can come close. I believe I read somewhere Texas Instruments is a distant third.
- Tenoq, on 12/17/2007, -0/+10Except a 2140 is standard clock @ 1.6Ghz. Overclocking doesn't count for 99% of users, and for those that do, requires a greater expenditure on compatible RAM, M/B & PSU. And a serious element of luck, I might add. :p
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 12/17/2007, -7/+16I bought an E2140 for $70 and overclocked it to 3.2 GHz. It now outperforms the E6850, a $300 processor.
Can your X2 5000+ do that? - grgt1994, on 12/17/2007, -1/+10UtopiaInTheSky: Before you get up on your fanboy high horse, shouldn't YOU learn more about processors too. Tom's Hardware CPU charts show the AMD you mention beating the snot out of the Intel you mention. And NewEgg has both processors for within about $15 of each other.
At the mid and low end, AMD owns. Cutting edge is Intel's, for now. - tendonut, on 12/17/2007, -2/+11What about Sun? or IBM? or Motorola?
/sarcasm +1
Actually, if Sun wanted, they might be able to keep up with Intel. They are doing pretty well in the server arena - openartist, on 12/17/2007, -1/+10In the article comments somebody mentioned that this guy holds stock in Intel. I don't know how true that is but it certainly puts perspective on his "suggestions."
- rarson, on 12/17/2007, -1/+10I think people put too much emphasis on the "flop" of Phenom. Yeah, it's not as fast as Intel's chips clock for clock, and they are having some trouble ramping the speeds up. We've seen this before, a lot, from both AMD and Intel. The industry is competitive.
What most people are forgetting, I think, is that AMD had been pretty far behind Intel for a LONG time. The K5 was almost a joke compared to the Pentium, I didn't even know anyone that used them. It seems like a bigger deal than it is because AMD made a really good architecture last generation. So the new one isn't that great... it's still not bad, and AMD will bounce back. It has so far.
Now I realize the acquisition of ATI is a complication, and 6 months ago, I was very worried myself. But ATI has shown it can make some kickass cards (even if they are midrange cards) and with hybrid Crossfire and hopefully CPU/GPU integration, I feel that the ATI acquisition is starting to become a good thing. By the time AMD can get their next ass-kicking CPU designed, ATI will be pulling its own weight and then some.
Now that's really all just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I still feel like this is just another speed bump. - i4mt3hwin, on 12/17/2007, -1/+9Fire Hector. Period. The guy is worthless and they just keep increasing is paycheck. Tbh though, you can't blame this on intel. AMD sat around for a long time with K8 arch.. they finally got around to building K10 and the first batches of processors were plagued with issues. They aren't even planning on launching a new video card chip in 2008.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 12/17/2007, -0/+7I run AMD/nVidia
- Jalh, on 12/17/2007, -2/+9intel right now is good but i been buying always amd
- frazw, on 12/17/2007, -0/+7I meant AMD products not the company itself
- iamaelephant, on 12/17/2007, -3/+10Go away.
- KloroFormd, on 12/17/2007, -0/+7There was no "jazz" in Intel for 10 years before the Core 2 Duo, and I bet you had one of their chips.
- inactive, on 12/17/2007, -0/+6I'm sure the FTC antitrust division would have no problem with that.
- KloroFormd, on 12/17/2007, -3/+9"there is not third chip maker right now that is viable"
What about VIA?
/sarcasm - artgon, on 12/17/2007, -0/+6"But for all of its issues, AMD is still the world's number two microprocessor maker in the world"
Sounds like something written by an 8th grader. - DeFex, on 12/17/2007, -0/+6easy. fire marketing people hire engineers instead.
- KloroFormd, on 12/17/2007, -1/+6I upped the voltage on all my processors, as well as the FSB speed. Gotta love that roasted silicon smell in the morning...
- diggduggjoe, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5The best way to do this would be to offer optimization advice to kernel developers and maintain awesome drivers for the entire ATI line.
- Osjpr, on 12/17/2007, -2/+7All the people buying Intel for marginal performance increases are going to pay much more dearly in the future if AMD loses it's ability to compete with Intel.
- XBSHX, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5Hybrid CPU/GPU's are coming after Phenom.
- winmywii, on 12/17/2007, -1/+6Duplicate comment. buried.
- winmywii, on 12/17/2007, -0/+5I am an AMD fan boy. My next box will have an AMD processor. I'm not a big ATI fan though.
- fistikuffs, on 12/17/2007, -1/+6so will everyone else
-
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is