AMD to pass Intel in growth by 2007 says Forbes

Status
Not open for further replies.

c1001

Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
943
How the world has turned:

AMD to pass Intel in growth by 2007 says Forbes
By Justin Mann, TechSpot.com
Published: January 31, 2006, 6:38 PM EST

Forbes has some interesting things to say about AMD, namely that in the next few years and beyond the company will surpass Intel in growth and performance, making them much more valuable. Basing this on product releases and technology advances, the prediction also includes that AMD's 45nm manufacturing will be well ahead of Intels and that it will take a long time for Intel to catch up.

”Analysts are also predicting that Intel will not have the ability to catch up to AMD until Intel releases products on new 45nm fabrication processes, which isn't expected until 2008 claims Forbes. We reported earlier that AMD is transitioning its Fab 36 in Dresden to mass produce its next generation processors (both dual-core and quad-core) on a 65nm process. Intel on the other hand, has demonstrated that it has successfully started working on 45nm technology but its main production will be 65nm through to 2008.”

This is an interesting topic. Intel isn't sitting idly by while AMD makes strides in technologies, of course, and has often been an industry leader. The impact of such advances by AMD are clear, from lower CPU prices to more competition from Intel to much more. We won't have to wait all that long to see whether or not this pans out.
 
interesting bc at the moment AMD/ATI is floundering in terms of performance and price...


only time will tell
 
just for anyone who doesnt know how to read.....before you post ANYTHING realize that this is:

DATED January 31, 2006
 
I think it just goes to show how incompetent analysts are. It also just goes to show how "trustworthy" Forbes is.
 
I don't know about you guys, but i'm enjoying my cooler (than 75W Conroe) 125W Athlon 64 with reverse hyperthreading. It is so much faster than anything Intel could dream of. Hur hur hur.

Look back over a year is pretty funny now. That is if you consider AMD's agony funny. ;)
 
Yeah, I don't see happy days for AMD anytime soon. The AMD/ATI merger is going to end up killing both of them off (not entirely, but they won't be industry leaders again for at least 5 years). IGP chipsets for OEM's are the thing that will save them in the end.
 
Technically, they were correct... Somewhat. AMD was growing faster than intel, in relation to their own market share, AMD's growth doubled... Remember, the article did not say AMD will be BIGGER than Intel, it simply said they would outpace them as far as growth is concerned. And AMD did have the performance advantage temporarily.

Unfortunaly for AMD, all that seems to be a moot point right now.
 
I have my own personal analyst.

*shakes magic 8-ball*

"Ask again later"

Just as reliable as Forbes and never asks for a salary increase :p
 
Look at the size of Intel, look at the size of AMD. Look at their financial track records for the last 20 years. Intel has always been more profitable, and has had better products for most of that time period. There wasn't even a question about which was better until around 5 or 6 years ago. Anyone who didn't think Intel would make a comeback and stick it to AMD obviously hasn't done their homework on the two companies.
 
Look at their financial track records for the last 20 years.
I think Q3 1985 was the last time Intel didn't make a quarterly profit. And the loss before that was in 1971. :p

AMD is pretty good at losing money though. Can't they get an award for that?
 
I think Q3 1985 was the last time Intel didn't make a quarterly profit. And the loss before that was in 1971. :p

AMD is pretty good at losing money though. Can't they get an award for that?

Yeah, if by award you mean Chapter 11 :p
 
Technically, they were correct... Somewhat. AMD was growing faster than intel, in relation to their own market share, AMD's growth doubled... Remember, the article did not say AMD will be BIGGER than Intel, it simply said they would outpace them as far as growth is concerned..


Yep. Croatia's economy is growing much faster than that of the US. That doesn't mean it's bigger, just that it's growing faster. The smaller you are, the easier it is to grow. It's a measurement that, more or less, means absolutely nothing.
 
Yep. Croatia's economy is growing much faster than that of the US. That doesn't mean it's bigger, just that it's growing faster. The smaller you are, the easier it is to grow. It's a measurement that, more or less, means absolutely nothing.

Kind of like an e-peen :D
 
I think it just goes to show how incompetent analysts are. It also just goes to show how "trustworthy" Forbes is.
...or it goes to show you how skilled Intel's chip designers are. AMD -did- have a considerable lead over the Pentium 4s, no matter what speeds you were talking about-some engineer / engineering team at Intel just had the stroke of genius to incorporate Pentium M technology into the desktop line. Forbes wasn't wrong when they praised AMD, they just had no possible way of knowing that Intel was about to release a chip that had more IPCs, lower power consumption and better scaling.
 
C2D FTW, I hope to get a QX6600 soon.

You mean Q6600? The QX6600 doesn't exist. The QX6700 and QX6800 are part of the Extreme Edition processor line. Right now the Q6600 is the only Core 2 Quad series processor out that I know of. (Which is a shame, I'd love a 2.13GHz unit for my server.)
 
You mean Q6600? The QX6600 doesn't exist. The QX6700 and QX6800 are part of the Extreme Edition processor line. Right now the Q6600 is the only Core 2 Quad series processor out that I know of. (Which is a shame, I'd love a 2.13GHz unit for my server.)

I thought they made an LGA775 quad Xeon in 2.13Ghz. The problem was it was hard to find in stock and the price was still in the $390 range.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top