What is Digg?43 Comments
- m00nmaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12No news here, AMD chips have been much better (than previous chips) the last couple of years and if they stay on the ball, they can stay ahead of Intel for awhile. Even moreso now that the new Fab is open. May the competition stay fierce and the prices go lower!
- sphogan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I agree that AMD's chips have been superior to Intel's for probably around the past three years, but will that continue to be the case? Intel's Core Duo seems to compete well against AMD's best and what I've seen with the successor processors Intel has (I haven't personally seen it, just online reviews) are really good.
I feel like the market didn't give AMD the credit they deserved for the past three years, but now AMD is at what I see as their lowest point in the AMD/Intel fight and it's now that AMD is starting to win. Intel is falling the hardest it has and this is the time that they have the best product (the Core Duo). It seems like this fall from grace should have come sooner and that this is the time when Intel should be turning it around. - longofest, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7RTFA dude... a quote from the article...
"Contributing, but less serious factors, were a decline in average selling prices, as well as market share losses to AMD." - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I a big AMD fan (see username), but I don't think they're going to hold their competitive edge against Intel's new cores. This is very old news, basically to the point of being outdated. Things are not looking good for AMD with the release of AM2. From all accounts, it will provide almost no performance advantage over socket 939, and Intel's Core architecture is a serious threat, not to mention Conroe, etc.
- rishimaharaj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The Core Duo is the best mobile CPU on the market, hands down. Get your facts straight.
- Aurarch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5apple made a great choice, if conroe's benchmarks are anywhere near accurate..plus Core is a decent architecture
- rishimaharaj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"it won't get better soon!"
*cough*Conroe*cough* - DirtySnachez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Isn't it wierd that the Core Duo chips outperform the Pentium Extreme (their major/flagship chip). Maybe if they push the Core as their best line, they can quickly recover from this stumble.
AMD still gets my dollars for my Gaming rigs though. - rishimaharaj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Lunix? What's that?
- GoodBrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Good for AMD, and all of us who buy CPUs. A little more data though:
1. AMD is capacity constrained. That means they could sell more chips, if only they could make them. At least for now.
2. Intel is likely to see it's current sagging fortunes reversed with conroe, which will likely meet or exceed anything AMD does in the next 12 months or more.
3. Intel is not capacity constrained, so they'll be able to push out lots of these chips at prices that could make trouble for AMD, at least on the desktop. Bad for AMD, good for us.
4. 64 bit isn't magically going to make significantly faster, certainly not anything approaching 2x as fast, just in case anyone was thinking that. It'll help performance some. A bigger deal is that it'll make it practical to have more than 3-4GB in a system, and those days aren't necessarily all that far off. - neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Intel's new Conroe desktop proc looks promising... benchmarks prove a 25% gain over an overclocked top end AMD FX60.... however those are just preview benchmarks...
currently, the Core Duo is THE best notebook proc... in terms of power consumption and raw speed. - ZapWizard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3For those who don't think anyone read the article:
"Contributing, but less serious factors, were a decline in average selling prices, as well as market share losses to AMD."
"AMD has also managed to increase the average price of its processors and sell more chips into expensive, high-end computers, while gaining share." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I'm sorry but how does an off beat comment from that analyst = digg front page AMD fanboy news? I mean that was probably one of the least partial submissions I've read in a while.
Nevermind that revenue for intel was 9 BILLION for the quarter (more than AMD's market cap I believe). That was the news in this piece - longofest, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3this isn't on the front page yet dude... chill out. it probably will be, but you're jumping the gun.
and for the record, AMD is still taking market share away from Intel, even if you think that it isn't that big of a deal.
I'm not an AMD fanboy... I like AMD for desktops, Intel for laptops, RISC (POWER, SPARC) for servers. that may change when Conroe comes out, but I'm a fan of whatever gets the most power for a reasonable price. For reference, I currently have a G5 Quad and an AMD desktop system, but if I were to get an x86 laptop, I'd get a core-duo based system. - Henwood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why is everyone on Digg so convinced that AMD is better than intel, it's just because they like an underdog and intel are bigger!
- blueblood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i disagree, the reason that they made the switch is cus IBM wasent delivering. also intel is the better choice for the work being done on the mac, mostly editing and the like. not many games on mac
- tonicboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3AMD is doing well, but that success may not last too long, as Conroe is looking very impressive so far. Of course, performance crowns come and go quickly in the chip industry, so who knows how long Intel will stay on top either. Personally, I do like AMD a lot and I have many friends in the industry who work for Intel but admire AMD chips. But, I will buy whatever gives the best price for performance at the time. So, if Intel comes back on top, I have no qualms switching sides.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Personally I think this might be a good time to buy Intel stock. It has been in the tank for a while, and the new and upcoming products are and will compete much more favorably with AMD then Intel's offerings have in the past few years.
I still really like AMD too, they make great stuff, but I don't think the market has fully factored in the new stuff from Intel. - rastorize, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3AMD's fortunes will not last.
The Core Duo's performance per watt is unmatched in the world of PC processors: it's unmatched in the mobile market - and when placed in a desktop chipset...it out-performs Extreme Editions and can keep up with the big boys from AMD...and it's not even Intel's flagship processor. Apple made a VERY wise decision.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/core-duo/index.x?pg=16
And Conroe, in its early stages already shows a 20% increase in performance over an overclocked Athlon 64 FX-60...with just under 5 months until launch, Intel has plenty of time to squeeze even more power out of Conroe - not to mention we haven't even seen an 'Extreme Edition' Conroe yet.
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=7
And what does AMD have to counter Intel in the near future? Another new socket - AM2?? In other words, nothing...at least for now. So I hope AMD and their fanbois enjoyed the last few years...'cause it's coming to an end quickly. AMD will do what AMD always does when they lose the performance crown in the next few months...they'll complain, sue, accuse Intel of malicious sales tactics...and sue anyone else who agrees with Intel...just like a spoiled child who can't get his way and similar to the AMD fanbois on this forum who will bury this comment. Can't handle the truth? - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is also one of the best desktop CPUs as well. Only the really high-end AMDs are significantly faster, and the gap isn't that huge. What is missing from the CD is 64bit
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Contributing, but less serious factors, were a decline in average selling prices, as well as market share losses to AMD."
This isn't implying MORE market share lost to AMD as was previously reported on Digg. This is just commenting on the act of losing market share in general over the last couple of years. You must realize that market share isn't this finite source that AMD will slowly completely sap away from Intel. Intel is still the world's largest chip makers, afterall, and AMD doesn't yet have the resources to be the size of distributer Intel is. - Wilcox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have been selling computers at Best But for about 2 years now. It has been funny to see the transition from Intel to AMD. If you go to Best Buy you will see that about 75% of our desktop computers have AMD chips in them. The price points for the AMD computers are also a lot lower.
- DirtySnachez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder if the extra market share gained with Apples switch to the Intel architecture make up for the lost market share on the AMD/Desktop PC side of things. Only time will tell I guess.
- streak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Most users don't currently need 64-bit virtual addressing, but the instruction set AMD created for 64-bit computing can provide significant performance boosts with just a simple re-compile. A 30% increase is not uncommon. The AMD64 instruction set (later cloned by Intel as EM64T) offers essentially twice the number of registers. This alone should matter a LOT to nearly all users!
- ZapWizard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2People really do need 64-bit programs.
Despite the thousands of heavy duty apps that need 64-bit, for the average user it can mean a lot.
Games is the most obvious, sure there are physics cards now, but there is no AI card. There is no card that handles the actual game engine. 64-bit means simply more of everything, it is just too bad that game designers no longer push the limits, but rather fit the norm, releasing run of the mill Doom3 styles games with enough effects to simply be called "newer"
Photo editing.
Real photo editing with mathatical functions requires a lot of CPU power. More CPU power could allow for smarter applications that take a lot of the manual work out of correcting images.
Movie editing.
Editing movies, especially HD movies, requires a lot of memory and CPU time.
Your graphics card may accellerate the decoding of a movie, but it can't transcode a video, come up with the most effecient or highest quality settings to encode at. - shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If software (other than lunix) was really being developed for 64 bit then AMD would take off. *im sitting on a AMD Athlon 64 3500*
- cdman98, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Apple went Intel for there mobile chips not really for the desktop side (at least immediately). I mean the performance VS heat was a bear with IBM G chips and I’m sure IBM could have given a great Desktop G6 solution but not any good mobile chip in the near future.
Now on the desktop side Intel has some nice stuff coming but until I see both duel core & 64-bit architecture in a desktop chip I won’t buy Intel for my Desktop even in a Mac.
Though I await the 17” MBP. - Bluezdood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ok I am in love with AMD. Seriously, I think they're the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm not sure how well they're going to do against Intel's Core Duo. I would certainly hope they have some type of plan to compete but we'll see. Oh by the way, I have to buy a new laptop since mine died. I have the option of getting a AMD Turion based or Intel Core Duo based. I'm going with AMD once again! The Core Duo is just too dang expensive right now and if I'm going to multi-task or edit video, I'll do it on my Athlon 64 X2 4800 desktop.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"this isn't on the front page yet dude... chill out. it probably will be, but you're jumping the gun."
You can actually check which articles are going on the FP when they are in the staginge "queue." Kevin is my only friend, so the articles he puts in his front page queue show up here:
http://digg.com/users/HackJandy/friends/dugq
Enjoy - blockcentre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0One other note, why are you guys comparing Conroe (a product that's 6 month away) against AMD's current line up? That makes no sense whatsoever. The FX-60 has been around for 3 months now. That's a 9 month window between them. A LOT can change in 6 months. Intel has released Conroe details to try and stop the leak - their loyal customers are jumping ship to AMD and they don't know what to do about it.
- longofest, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1what does the regular person need that needs to be developed for 64-bit systems? Your statement may be true, but there just isn't a point for developers to embrace a new technology when there really isn't a point to yet.
- blockcentre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Intel has been playing catch-up to AMD for some time. What do I mean? Here's a quick list...
AMD releases a 64bit chip for desktops so intel adds 64bit instructions to a P4 and releases it. It was a half-hearted attempt to grab back some market share once they realised that AMD's 64 WAS actually gaining market share. Performance wise, the P4 was in trouble.
AMD releases a dual core product for both their desktop and server space. Intel follows suit however their product gets its ass handed to it. The Intel Dual Core products can't even go close to AMD's X2's in both price and performance.
Microsoft realises that AMD have got a product that matches their upcomming 64bit lineup and one that can take advantage of dual core technology. They launch a massive worldwide distributor roadshow/exhibition in conjuction with AMD to demonstrate 64bit Windows powered by AMD. I know this as I have been to one (i'm a hardware/software distributor). Where are Intel? no where.
Intel are forced to review their profit margins and reduce the price of their products. At this stage AMD has a significant price/performance advantage on them over their entire range of desktop processors and have taken a huge chunk of market share.
The final peice is the FX-60. AMD released it and Intel came back with their FX-60 killer, the 955 Extreme Edition. But it doesn't go to plan for Intel and they get their ass handed to them once again by AMD. Not only is the FX-60 a better product, it's also better value.
Forget the core duo - it's intel's way of getting dual core into the mobile market. Their dual core p4's run just too damn hot and draw too much power. It won't have any impact on the desktop space hence intel's new campaign "don't worry, we have conroe... it'll come out soon and we'll show everyone how good we are..."
Nice in theory but they'll be playing catch up again. Sure it'll be faster than an FX-60, but do you really think AMD are going to sit around and say "oh well, they beat us.."? AMD's quad-core product will be released early 2007. The AM2 will allow AMD to take the current line up to the FX-62 and X2 5200. These will more than compensate for Intel's Conroe as they'll also be based on 65mn and offer larger cache.
It's all just a game of catch up. Intel are going to struggle through the desktop market for the next couple of years and hopefully they can re-focus and come out with some real innovation for competition sake. They are where AMD were 5 years ago. I'm sure they'll bouce back but they'll need to go back to the drawing board and start over. - harshbarj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2People keep bringing up how Intel's next chip will simply kill amid (mainly by pointing to benchmarks from Intel samples to current amd processors. You can flip this argument by comparing current Intel chips to samples of amd's next gen of processors. Only when shipping products are out will we even get a clue as to how these chips will perform (you don't think amd or intel are above tweaking benchmarks).
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@gotamd
Not to worry about the throughput of AM2. 939 has a much wider bus than CPUs will fill for years to come. It's like the jump from AGP to PCI-E. We can expect some huge things from AMD by next year for AM2 like triple and quad cores. - blankoboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Intel may leap ahead - www.leapahead.com
but.......
AMD is leaps beyond them - www.leapsbeyond.com - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7How exactly does "Intel scrapes by in first quarter" translate to "AMD continues to gain marketshare"
From the article:
"AMD, however, has also warned of its own flat to slightly lower sales."
Marked as inaccurate - sets13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0HAHAHA when i clicked on the article and got to the site i was first presented witha full screen AMD add!!! thats awesome
- ice2004, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I see Y AMD stands for Advance Micro Chip gooooogooooo AMD
- streak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The difference here is you could get your hands on an FX-60 months ago and install it in any motherboard of your choosing, not just the motherboard Intel chose for you. Have you ever seen a Conroe processor in person?
- CutthroatMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Heh, people don't want to spend more money for equal performance? Really? Hmmm.... heck of a business idea, giving the people what they want.
Go AMD! - hungarianhc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Even if Intel's conroe is way better, there's no denying that AMD is slowly but surely eating Intel's cake...
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I hate Best Buy...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3way to go choosing intel, apple.
dumb *****.
