What is Digg?180 Comments
- zoziw, on 12/02/2007, -0/+118I hope that AMD can turn things around. Some decent competition for Intel can only be a good thing.
- Wacer, on 12/02/2007, -1/+61I like the writers last sentence. "[Note: I currently have significant holdings in Intel(INTC)]"
At least the person was honest about their bias. - MutatedNantuko, on 12/02/2007, -0/+45Sadly, if AMD fails, the race for fastest/most efficient CPUs will slow. No competition breeds complacency and, unfortunately, high prices.
- CharlesSaint, on 12/02/2007, -5/+45How can you be losing to "rapidly losing ground", I wonder?
- osirisx01, on 12/02/2007, -0/+33It will really be something if AMD can pull of a GPU/CPU integration.
- ToadLeg, on 12/02/2007, -1/+26It does make sense to merge them, just as things like the cache and math coprocessor were merged years ago, but I don't think it's time to yet - the main problem being heat dissipation. Eventually the entire motherboard, including RAM and GPU, will be integrated into a single chip, but not for a few more years.
- astrosmash, on 12/02/2007, -9/+30Please don't point out the faults of the illiterate high school kids who post these stories. It hurts their self esteem. And without them, Digg would have no content.
- meez, on 12/02/2007, -2/+22Agreed. I miss the days when AMD had a very firm grip on the CPU market, Core2Duo blew that out of the proverbial water.
- akkibaba, on 12/02/2007, -0/+20If you don't care about "AMD or whatever" , why bother to come here and rant? Ignore it and move on for *****'s sake.
- postal21, on 12/02/2007, -0/+20Could be worse...
Remember when Cyrix was the major competition for intel? :D - purpledrank, on 12/02/2007, -2/+22AMD really has lost it ever since the core2duo cpu's came out. I hope AMD can come back a bit and provide incentive for intel... But who knows?
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 12/02/2007, -0/+18When one specific company wins, consumers lose. So I assume you must work for Intel? Otherwise you should be sad to see Intel "winning".
- MioTheGreat, on 12/02/2007, -7/+23Why? They serve their purposes very well as seperate entities. The CPU is a general purpose processor that can do everything, albeit slowly.
The GPU, on the other hand, can only do a handful of tasks, but it can do them damned fast.
It makes no sense to merge them. You'll just end up with a chip that's all around worse than two seperate ones. I mean, maybe it would make sense for smaller integrated devices, or lower-power laptops, but it will not help them in the area of pure performance, which they are losing in. - colincornaby, on 12/02/2007, -2/+16Did Apple actually pick the best supplier of processors for once?
- NeMoD, on 12/02/2007, -2/+16the losing is more rapidly than the other losing
- mrfreeziexp, on 12/02/2007, -5/+19this is nothing. For years now there's always been someone say "AMD is doomed, Intel is too far ahead." But they keep on producing procs, and they always catch up, a lot of the times passing Intel. Just wait until they release a CPU/GPU combo..
- mrmacky, on 12/02/2007, -2/+16Well as long as AMD makes me feel like I'm not buying into a monopoly I'm happy.
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 12/02/2007, -0/+13AMD's "retarded tricks" are a matter of opinion.
- Sirsri, on 12/02/2007, -0/+13CPU/GPU integration is a different concept. Rather than having 8 general purpose cores, you could have 6 general purpose cores and 2 graphics cores or the like, all in one package. This would get around some of the challenges such as power consumption and memory bandwidth. Whether those cores would be as powerful as a stand alone GPU is questionable, (though certainly possible), but for much of the mobile market GPU/CPU integration is a big deal.
More generally, rendering in the next few years is going to shift from z-culling/raster graphics to ray tracing. GPU's aren't particularly good at ray tracing becuase random memory access in the style of a CPU is very costly. A CPU/GPU integration could combine the floating point power of a GPU with the CPU style memory access to provide real time ray tracing. As it is, it looks like 16 CPU cores is about enough for real time ray tracing in some limited applications, 8 cores at double the current speed could do just as well, and if some are specialized for ray tracing we'll be in good shape, and it could retain backwards compatability with current DX9/10 type stuff. - NewPunk, on 12/02/2007, -2/+14I currently work for a large computer retailer in Canada (Futureshop) and we have more computers from HP and ACER with AMD CPUs than with Intel CPUs. However, stock for the Intel based laptops and desktops is always lower (they get sold faster) than AMD based computers.
In my experience however, most people just use the computer for the internet, work, music and some movies. AMD X2 desktop processors and AMD Turion X2 laptop processors are more than capable of handling those tasks and they cost less than the Intel equivalents. So AMD is still doing well, even if their products are not as good as the competition they still have major deals with HP and other computer manufacturers to keep their chips in computers for the next few years I'm sure. - Zarchon, on 12/02/2007, -0/+11And learn to type, it's not like you are posting from you cell phone.
- Dochtuir, on 12/02/2007, -0/+10What?
- astrosmash, on 12/02/2007, -6/+16Oh oh. Someone's feeling are hurt, I see.
Way to go, guys. - tcpip4lyfe, on 12/02/2007, -2/+12Buried because I own stock in AMD. I don't need to be reminded how much money I've lost. :(
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 12/02/2007, -1/+11I was honestly sad to see how the Phenom performed. It was really AMD's big chance to bounce back. And in my opinion, they seriously disappointed. I've been an AMD "fanboy" for so many years and it's a shame to see this happen. Although their HD38xx series video cards are absolutely amazing. I'm very impressed by what ATI pulled off. So, it's not all bad...
- XxN3RDC0R3xX, on 12/03/2007, -0/+9who the ***** cares about tech news? i don't know.. maybe the people reading the TECH NEWS website, perhaps?
- ToadLeg, on 12/03/2007, -2/+11"AMD lost the low end too"
Sorry, no:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 5000+ 2.6 GHz Processor with 1024KB L2 Cache and 64-Watt Socket AM2 (ADO5000DSWOF) - $100
http://www.amazon.com/AMD-Dual-Core-Processor-64-W ...
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 Conroe 2.13GHz 2M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor - BX80557E6400
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Conroe-2-13GHz-shared- ... - $164.00 + shipping
Here is a performance comparison between the two processors:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx ...
These are two low end dual core processors, with about the same performance. The Intel processor costs about $170 while the AMD processor costs about $100. I don't understand why people who have no idea what they're talking about - have never looked at a performance comparison or cost comparison - think that Intel is better at the low end just because they're better at the high end. The best reason I can think of is that it's just Intel's marketing campaign, and that people buy their computers from Dell without looking at how much they actually cost. - NSMike, on 12/02/2007, -0/+9Indeed, it did end the competition, but I think the Core 2 Duo was actually a direct result of AMD thoroughly kicking Intel's ass for a while there. Hopefully AMD pulls something out of their ass again soon.
- inactive, on 12/02/2007, -0/+8I wonder if Intel really wants AMD to go under. Worst case scenario for them is that AMD gets bailed & bought out by a Chinese company. If that ever happened, it would be a price war Intel could never win. Of course, congress will probably do everything its its power to prevent such a purchase but you never know.
- ToadLeg, on 12/02/2007, -2/+10We'll just have to wait a few months until AMD comes out with some faster processors. This is by no means the end of AMD. They still dominate the low end.
- Dustmuffins, on 12/03/2007, -0/+8comma*, you're*
Nice Try. - UtopiaInTheSky, on 12/02/2007, -3/+11The 8800GT doesn't offer "WAY more performance" than the HD3870, actually. Based on price vs performance, the current best card is actually HD3850 with the HD3870 in a close 2nd place. The 8800GT falls behind both of those.
- trav1970, on 12/02/2007, -0/+8It is only the existance of AMD that has kept Intel processors affordable over the years. Look at the price of Microsoft products, sans competition..
- ferrariman60, on 12/02/2007, -2/+10Speed doesn't matter any more. Get out of the Pentium 4 marketing era. Ever notice how an Athlon 64 clocked at 2.0 ghz could keep up with, if not simply kick the ***** out of a P4 clocked at 3.2?
- pidge, on 12/02/2007, -0/+7Why did this lame article make the front page? I've read better more informative summaries from Digg comments.
- WhereAmI, on 12/02/2007, -0/+7Or maybe he is. But judging on the fact he doesn't seem to care to read about technology, I doubt he's tech savvy enough do bother to do so.
- ToadLeg, on 12/02/2007, -1/+8AMD is nowhere near failing.
- getoffmybridge, on 05/05/2009, -0/+7How it the ram different? Does intel have different ddr2???
- jonnyboy88, on 12/02/2007, -0/+7Aren't they basically in the position they were in before the Athlon 64's? Plus, they still have a significant share of low end PC's. Think about it, if you were a regular person, would you care which company has the fastest $1,000 CPU?
- inactive, on 12/02/2007, -2/+9well the 8800gt is 20% more in price and 20% more performance.
However ATi is going to make an absolute killing with the 3850, it has NO competition. It's going to be the card that they sell to OEM companies like dell, HP etc in MASS numbers.
On top of that, two 3870 in crossfire compete with two 8800gts but not many people buy two video cards. Overall though, ATi actually made a pretty damn good move with the 38xx series. - ToadLeg, on 12/02/2007, -3/+10I just bought a dual core AMD processor for $100. To get something as good from Intel I would need to pay at least $160.
- matthewf01, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6coma? are you sure?
- shirosamurai, on 12/02/2007, -1/+7Definitely not the end of AMD, but it is a disappointing setback. I remember back when AMD was my processor of choice, when they were on par (and even better at some points) than Intel. Nowadays any high end gaming machine is Intel CPU + nVidia GPU, no questions asked.
- vagarach, on 12/02/2007, -1/+7When AMD was winning it was 'Fall of intel: Pentium 4 is not the answer'. Then they went back to the pentium 3 model and came up with a new design that has been showing AMD up for quite some time now.
- dysonlu, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6At least, the submitter didn't write "loosing", like the loser who wrote the article.
- astrosmash, on 12/02/2007, -3/+9Dude, you should stay far, far away from any threads discussing grammar and punctuation.
Now, how about telling use where the apostrophes go in *your* comment. - bart5986, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6AMD started going downhill as soon as they dumped socket 939 for AM2.
- Cherubim, on 12/03/2007, -0/+6It's early days yet for Phenom X4 cpus. The first models are limited to under 2.4GHz due to an internal bug. As later revisions are introduced we should see AMD gain ground. Bear in mind that AMD is doing well in the OEM and server markets - so this "AMD is dead" nonsense is completely stupid.
- ToadLeg, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6The RAM is the same, but they use different motherboards because they have different connectors, because the architecture of the chips is different. I don't know what you mean by most hardware being Intel, there is hardware for both processors. I assume there is more for Intel because Intel has more market share, but that doesn't mean that the hardware for AMD is hard to find or not as good.
Also, I like AMD, but I'm not "anti-Intel" - estat, on 12/02/2007, -0/+5Sad to see after they took the market share for the first time only two years ago, but I still have hope.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 175 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is