digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at businessweek.com

AMD vs. Intel: The Challenger's New Plan

businessweek.com — Struggling AMD may look to unload its chipmaking facilities to a partner to concentrate on battling the industry's giant

Who dugg this? Made popular Aug 11, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

83 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • chanop, on 08/11/2008, -1/+84It's a shame to see AMD struggle like this. More competition = better products from both companies
  • V1ncent, on 08/11/2008, -3/+57If it wasn't for AMD we wouldn't have good Intel chips and vice versa. The minute they go away, we're going to pay more for chips. I used AMD Athlon 64's when they were better and will use Intel as long as they're better. I don't care what chip I run as long as it's the best price/performance when I build a rig.
  • shcforward, on 08/11/2008, -1/+53I never have bought AMD, but I do seriously doubt that Intel will be pushing out better products anywhere near as quickly if AMD bit the dust.
  • kgorczyn, on 08/11/2008, -0/+44What they need is another "BREAKING!!!!" chip like the K7, the original Athlon, was back in the day. Whopped Intel's ass to the ground. Cmon' AMD!
  • galvo, on 08/11/2008, -5/+39I've never used an AMD chip/chipset until my last build and I can't be more happy with the outcome. Running along side a Radeon x1950xt and 4GB of RAM gives me perfect frame rates in Bioshock with all settings at max @ 1680x1050. Crysis manages to run on High @ 1280x800.

    I can't wait to see what AMD and ATI have to offer in the future.. The new 4800 GPU line is incredible. nVidia needs to start lowering their prices!
  • yor1001, on 08/11/2008, -1/+18You do know that the top end black edition is almost as fast as aQ6600, which goes for about $220, and is also about 2 years old...and not to mention it has a far better overclocking ratio.
  • Kanten, on 08/11/2008, -2/+18The problem here was, AMD spent all of their bank on the ATi acquisition, when it should have been spending on R&D for something to compete against Core 2. Now AMD has been having to play catchup in BOTH the CPU and GPU markets.

    Jerry Sanders built up the company, and Hector Ruiz kicked it into the dirt.
  • AirRaven, on 08/11/2008, -0/+12*were.
    Meet the Core 2 Series, iakovos87.
  • dn11, on 08/11/2008, -3/+15AMD is a solid choice for a budget rig and they're taking good steps with integrated chipsets, but they aren't more cost effective clock for clock anymore - the Intel chips are just overwhelmingly faster. I'm running a MacBook 2.2GHz that kicks the crap out of my over clocked to 3Ghz X2 desktop. It was shocking for me to come to that realization, but it is the truth. I hope AMD makes a come back for competition sake - but Intel is winning on all fronts right now - especially with mobile chips - which are increasingly becoming the most important
  • wicketr, on 08/11/2008, -1/+13Ain't that the truth. AMD's success is what eventually brought us the Core2 Architecture. Intel never would have put forth the effort they did had it not been for AMD. Fortunately/Unfortunately, AMD woke the sleeping giant, but was ill prepared to deal with it.
  • Genma, on 08/11/2008, -0/+9right and meanwhile nvidia/intel have been laughing all the way to the bank, giving them that much more money for their own r&d. even after ati comes out with the strong 4800 series, taking nvidia's prices out of fantasyland, they have to sell it at low margin just to compete. it's a vicious cycle.

    bless them for trying though, at least they brought nvidia back to reality. nobody's going to buy their cards at those ***** crazy prices when they can get a better one from ati for half the price.
  • steelsmack, on 08/11/2008, -0/+8It's really not that bad, chances are you bought the best machine for your budget. AMD has a knack for being the price/performance value in the low-mid range. I just built a new system (AM2 X2) and the difference in price to go to a Core 2 Duo was not enough to justify a few FPS on my games of choice.
  • inactive, on 08/11/2008, -1/+98800GS? thats some *****
    4850 is a far better deal and a far better card
  • Jadhar, on 08/11/2008, -1/+9wow, are you a genius or something?
  • houndeyex, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7Well, I plan on buying the AMD chips as long as they exist so perhaps you all will get your wish.
  • sx66gns, on 08/11/2008, -1/+7additive: I'm supported AMD for many years , the first chip I bought was a K5 and I've continued all the way to the black addition.
  • ej1oo1, on 08/11/2008, -1/+6You can do it AMD I believe in you and you have to have some money left in case my new quad core breaks. Who else is gonna fulfill my warranty?
  • Lephisto, on 08/11/2008, -0/+5Yet everyone thinks that AMD is dieing when what is in the Wii and 360 those revenue sales don't just stay in ATI you know. With how popular the Wii is that revenue really helps. Anotherthing is even if AMD does go under they won't just disappear another company would buy it maybe IBM.
  • KMartSheriff, on 08/11/2008, -3/+8Exactly. Intel's current lineup stomps AMD's but I would never want to see AMD go out of business.
  • insertAliasHere, on 08/11/2008, -2/+6This is very true. I'm an Intel guy all the way, but I am constantly thankful for AMD keeping the pressure on Intel to excel.
  • dhughes, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3 Was that a pun? It Hertz!
  • mrowlinson, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3yeah, maybe in 2004... the only real leg up they have on intel right now is integrated memory controllers but the next intel chips are gonna have that too, plus intel is gonna start integrating gpus in the chips as well. amd really has their work cut out for them with the limited r&d budget they have to work with
  • netownage, on 08/11/2008, -5/+8All the computers I've built have been AMD's but probably not the next one :(
  • inactive, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3how about the 8800GT then? i'd say thats worth the extra cost over the GS

    also, a GS wouldn't make for a "killer" game system. I'd call it good, or pretty good. not killer by any means though.

    4870, GTX260-280 THEN we start getting into "killer" category.
    the 4850's close though.
  • inactive, on 08/11/2008, -1/+4Without AMD, Intel's chips would be developed more slowly and priced higher. Competition good, monopoly bad.
  • inactive, on 08/11/2008, -1/+4Indeed. I'm loving my Q6600, but I want AMD to stick around just to give Intel a reason to get even better.
  • Schmich, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3Yeh would be awesome if they whoop each others asses in turns. AMD, it's your turn now!
  • Gerz1219, on 08/11/2008, -1/+3It is wise in a global economy to support a local business which offers inferior products and services for more money.
  • Genma, on 08/11/2008, -1/+3don't companies that make better products usually turn a profit?
  • inactive, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2The price/performance ratio of an Athlon X2 3800+ is FAR better than the E8400 or Q6600, so why don't I just get that? Why buy an Audi A4 when I could buy a Honda Civic that'll do the same?

    Lower-end products always have better price/performance ratio, its all about the consumer's needs.

    My needs are for it to be able to max COD4 at 1920x1200 at a stable framerate. I want to be able to play Crysis at that res also, on high, at a stable framerate. I think the 8800GT could possibly do it well, i'm more positive the 9800GTX could do it well, and i'm CERTAIN the 4850 can do it well. To max it at that res, I have confidence the 4870 could do it well. But just running Crysis on high at 1920x1200, and maxing COD4 at that res with a STABLE framerate (29fps+), i'm not exactly sure the 8800GS could cope.
  • Chalks777, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2I just installed the Linux ATI driver for the first time last week. I'm brand new to linux, and it took me a couple hours to get it configured correctly. Now that I know how to do it though, I doubt it would take more than 10 minutes to install. For anyone interested, here's how I did it (wrote it down so I wouldn't forget):

    1. download the proper linux driver from ati.com.
    2. open terminal and type "sudo bash path/to/ati-driver-installer-8-7-x86.x86_64.run"
    2.b. just do the default options on the installer that pops up.
    3. go back to terminal and type "sudo aticonfig --initial -f"
    4. type "sudo vi /usr/bin/compiz" (or use gedit)
    4.b. find the line that says "WHITELIST="nvidia intel ati radeon i810""
    4.c. change it to "WHITELIST="fglrx nvidia intel ati radeon i810"" (I think the order mattered?)
    4.d. save it
    5. reboot.
  • askantik, on 08/11/2008, -3/+5I'm sick of everyone saying AMD is dying. I have a lowly AMD X2 5600+, 4GB of RAM, and a decent Radeon HD4850 and I can totally blow anything out of the water. I spent very little on my PC compared to some other people, and I can play any game on max or very near max at 1680x1050. Please explain to me how this means AMD/ATI is dying. Just because Intel has a bigger market share (as it always has!) doesn't mean AMD/ATI is dead or dying.

    If people are going to say AMD/ATI is dying just because they have a smaller market share, then I look forward to all the Mac is dying, Linux is dying articles here on Digg.
  • dafunkmonster, on 08/11/2008, -2/+4I really don't see AMD struggling. They were beating the hell out of Intel for 5-6 years, and a few years after Intel releases its Core2 line, people are saying AMD is struggling? Gimme a break. Their 65nm chips were just for hanging in. The 45nm stuff is where they're going to drop something huge on the market. I mean, for God's sake, Intel can't even develop true 64bit, they have to come up with a hokey memory controller that emulates 64bit. Intel relies too heavily on marketing to rich tech-illiterate douches that ask the best buy rep for "whats the best" and then say "oh, screw that, I want an Intel cuz I heard they're good".
  • inactive, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1It would be awesome if Intel could keep AMD afloat like Microsoft did to Apple back in the day...
  • newsboys, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1dugg for ***** crazy....and for making a valid point
  • MacSuxWindozSux, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1The surge is working!
  • thakur01, on 04/27/2009, -0/+1Maybe IBM will be their saviour?
  • bipolarruledout, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Most people have no idea how much this would hurt competition and it would be an intel wet dream.
  • bipolarruledout, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1True, this may not have been a great idea but I can't blame them for trying to diversify. The decision to design a hybrid CPU may be worse still but there is significant and growing demand for reduced functionality notebooks and computers for the developing world which such a product could find a great market for. From what I hear there has been significant "culture differences" between the two companies which could be a major stumbling block. Hopefully they come up with a good product or scape the idea before its too late.
  • bipolarruledout, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1I don't believe it would be so difficult. AMD has a true quad core design with a better bus architecture which should in theory be cheaper to fab. They desperately need to shrink their die size and retain their traditionally excellent quality control. The phenom bug was an embarrassment but Intel is no stranger to chip bugs not to mention overspecing parts which I would argue is more egregious.
  • bipolarruledout, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Interesting idea. AMD rose to where they are because they used to basically fab for intel and there is little reason why they couldn't do it again. The bad thing is that it reduces AMD to a commodity service company . Things are also much different now. No longer are designs so generic. Each x86 processor company has invested significant intellectual property into their products and has novel designs.
  • bipolarruledout, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Indeed. Unfourtanly shrinking the die is more of a financial than technical hurtle for AMD and they could greatly use a cash infusion ASAP.
  • sayssimon, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1GO AMD
  • bipolarruledout, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1The old RISK/CISK debate is quaint with modern CPU designs and becomes less relevant with each release. The industry needs a standard instruction set and that happens to be x86. Blame intel becuase it would be suicide to try to compete against x86 on the desktop today or perhaps even a decade ago. AMD acquired significant RISK assets and wisely chose to incorporate the technology into their athlon designs. The Alpha bus also continues to live on for the right reasons. If the PC has taught us anything it's that the market demands compatibility above technical superiority. Never mind that it's extremely difficult to maintain superiority with a niche CPU when you can't scale performance due to low market share or assets. Just ask Apple why they gave PowerPC the boot.
  • 0biKwiet, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1At this point Intel has way more to loose from the failure of AMD than any threat that competition from AMD might pose.
  • dhughes, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1 I commented above about how I built my first ever Intel/nVidia box and I'm happy with it, my old system was an AMD Athlon XP2200 and a ATI 128MB 9600XT which served me well for six years, now that I paid off my car loan (took awhile due to some financial trouble) I built a new system and decided to go Intel and nVidia. As I said above I read some bad reviews but it's hard to go by words, numbers are the real deal but I decided just for kicks more than anything to try Intel and nVidia, AMD wasn't so bad it was more being fed up with ATI and I'm Canadian! Although it's owned by AMD now.

    Linux helped too it works much better on older hardware, it helped squeeze a few years out of an old system.

    By the way whatever happened to Matrox I wonder?
  • dhughes, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1 I went to Synaptic clicked nvidia-glx-new and nvidia-settings then Apply and was done.
  • HonoredMule, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Well the huge deficit in their operating budget is a major concern, but you are right. AMD is about as dead as a bear in winter...just like all the other bears every regularly-occurring winter.

    In the tech industry, most multinational 'dead' bears reach spring just fine. AMD is seriously due for their spring, but taking ATi to create a complete platform was a solid, forward-thinking move, and they are about to leap-frog Intel on die size for CPUs and GPUs, while nVidia is still on what, 65nm?
  • bipolarruledout, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Look at the difference in die size. No doubt that Intel has superior process technology or more likely the massive funding to fuel it. Not to mention the market share to justify it.
  • bipolarruledout, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1For now I think quads are way overrated. Would much rather have two faster cores than some cores that sit around idle at times. Multi-threaded programing is inherently difficult and this race to cram more cores on a die is shortsighted. I can understand why it's happening, it's cheap and people eat up the marketing but I think it's a bad trend overall especialy for desktops.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.