Intel May Have Upper HandFor Now

R

Rich Tate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
5,955
Not only does this story emphasize the present situation the major processor makers are in, but it also highlights that one product cycle can mean a complete reversal of fortunes rather quickly.

"AMD had superior products a year to two years ago and for the first time was able to have prices above Intel's, and Intel was having to be competitive on pricing to clear inventories" said Cody Acree, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus.
Click to expand...
 
AMD had a superior product for years, yet at the time you could go to any mass merchant and find ONLY P4/Celeron. My latest trip into the electronics superstore actually had very few Core 2 Duo systems, a fair number of Core Duo/Celeron, and roughly a third using AthlonX2 and Sempron. My point is the AthlonX2 has lost favor among the enthusiast crowd, but is still an excellent solution for most people, and WAY better than the Core Duo, that many unknowledgeable sales people sell as Core 2 Duo.


Cheers!
 
Its just a ladder game, one is on top for a bit, then the other takes the crown, and the cycle continues over and over...

imagine if Cyrix were actually processors, back in the day, and if they were still around now?
 
If Cyrix were still making processors then the ice caps would have already melted!
 
willyspuddle said:
AMD had a superior product for years!
Click to expand...

Which years would this be, because I was here too, and all I've seen is the "Reversal of fortune" that is previously eluded to. Or do you not factor in cost? When the first A64s were king, they were FUCKING EXPENSIVE, and the smarter purchase was intel, for the price. When the X2-s became king, they were king. When the core architecture came out, it one upped amd. I expect that when amd's next product releases, it'll take the crown for a while.

I would not say amd held the crown ever for "YEARS" straight. Unless you count 13 months as "years"

It's all well and good to have a superior product (like the FX line) when you are charging almost double for it.
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
In a way, Cyrix still is. Via owns them. those Epia-M boards you see with "joshua" processors are cyrix technology.
Click to expand...

Nope, Via bought Cyrix and Centaur (Winchip). They kept the Cyrix name and shut down the rest of the company. They then decided to brand winchips with their new cyrix name.

The mediaGX seems to live forever. It looks like AMD inherited it (or just a license) and makes it with a K6 core.

Wumpus

PS. Count me among those who insist that AMD had the better chips (both in power and value) from roughly first shipment of Athlon to the first core2s.
 
CyberDeus-RagDoll said:
Which years would this be, because I was here too, and all I've seen is the "Reversal of fortune" that is previously eluded to. Or do you not factor in cost? When the first A64s were king, they were FUCKING EXPENSIVE, and the smarter purchase was intel, for the price. When the X2-s became king, they were king. When the core architecture came out, it one upped amd. I expect that when amd's next product releases, it'll take the crown for a while.

I would not say amd held the crown ever for "YEARS" straight. Unless you count 13 months as "years"

It's all well and good to have a superior product (like the FX line) when you are charging almost double for it.
Click to expand...

...good grief. :rolleyes:

There really hasn't been any reason to purchase an Intel processor for the last 3 years. years....unless of course you just had to have an Intel cpu for some reason.

CPU performance isn't really as significant as it once was so who really cares. I only care about GPU performance now.
 
Sir I do not have any data to back my claims, but will offer a point of view. AMD has had the top processor since the Athlon 1000. It was hands down faster than any of the P3 lineup. Then came the 1400XP and up. Once again it simply ran everything better than the Pentium 4/Celeron comparing apples to apples (P4 went the faster MHZ route and AMD did more work at a lower clock). The X2 was another winner. Basicall since the Introduction of XP, up till 6 months ago it has been king of the ring to the enthusiast crowd.

5 years is a good run.

Cheers!
 
Yeah I'm a bit tired but there was a time when AMD pwnzd intel in terms of price & performance. Those days may be long gone but they were the gold 'ol days maybe a few years back lol.

Here's to hoping they get their crap back together.
 
ICOM said:
...good grief. :rolleyes:

There really hasn't been any reason to purchase an Intel processor for the last 3 years. years....unless of course you just had to have an Intel cpu for some reason.

CPU performance isn't really as significant as it once was so who really cares. I only care about GPU performance now.
Click to expand...


For what YOU do, maybe.
Not everybody who builds a computer just uses it for barnyard porn and first person deer hunting simulators, like you, ICOM.

Some people do actual work. My QuadCore intel cpu is EXTREMELY faster in the video editing, and graphic manipulation work, than my highest end AMD processor.

You do realize there are people on this planet that can do the work they need (say, databases, coding & compiling) and an onboard video card is more than enough?
 
ICOM said:
...good grief. :rolleyes:

There really hasn't been any reason to purchase an Intel processor for the last 3 years. years....unless of course you just had to have an Intel cpu for some reason.

CPU performance isn't really as significant as it once was so who really cares. I only care about GPU performance now.
Click to expand...
Hows that Cyrix running?
 
willyspuddle said:
Sir I do not have any data to back my claims, but will offer a point of view. AMD has had the top processor since the Athlon 1000. It was hands down faster than any of the P3 lineup. Then came the 1400XP and up. Once again it simply ran everything better than the Pentium 4/Celeron comparing apples to apples (P4 went the faster MHZ route and AMD did more work at a lower clock). The X2 was another winner. Basicall since the Introduction of XP, up till 6 months ago it has been king of the ring to the enthusiast crowd.

5 years is a good run.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Funny. I had an athlon 1Ghz. My P3 1.13 was faster, yet it was trounced by the next processor.

I had an XP 1700+. My P4 2.0(533 bus?) (which, btw, cost exactly the same price as the xp1700+) was faster (as it should be)

My XP 2100+ demolished my p4 2.0, but it should have. My xp 2800+ lagged behind my P4 3.0c (again, very similairly priced, in fact, I sold my xp2800+ on a forum for MORE THAN I PAID for my p4 3.0c). My A64-3500+ dethroned my P4 3.0C.


My x2-3800+ can't even hope to compete with the e6300, nor could my FX-57 compete with an E6600. FX-57 costs more than the e6600 depending where you can even find one. Amd's fastest processor, the FX-74, methinks, would have severe issue with the e6700, and definately the x6800.

So, my upgrade path was...
AMD (athlon 1ghz)
INTEL (p3 1.13)
AMD (xp1700+)
INTEL (p4 2.0"b")
AMD/AMD (xp2100+/xp2800+)
INTEL (p4 3.0c)
AMD (a64-3500+)
AMD (x2-3800+)
Intel (e6300)


On another thread
amd (FX-57)
intel (e6600)
intel (qx6700)

This is since 2000
seems to me it's alternated back and forth. Intel is king today, Amd was last year. I suspect amd will be my next purchase in 2008.
 
ICOM said:
...good grief. :rolleyes:

There really hasn't been any reason to purchase an Intel processor for the last 3 years. years....unless of course you just had to have an Intel cpu for some reason.

CPU performance isn't really as significant as it once was so who really cares. I only care about GPU performance now.
Click to expand...


Ok.. do this then.

Build yourself a rig running a celeron 1.6 Ghz, and an 8800GTX, and tell me how crysis runs.
 
The performance crown has traded hands several times in the past, and as long as the companies are putting forth good products, then it shall continue to do so.

Let's take a look back in history (I'll start with the 486 family).

Intel had the market cornered when they released the 80486 CPU. AMD had nothing to counter this, and could only fight for the lower end, by offering superior performance at the same, or lower cost, with lower end chips. They did make some nice products, such as a 386 DX-40 CPU, though.

Only when AMD was finally able to reverse engineer Intel's 80486 CPU, and put out their own, were they able to really be a threat to Intel, but by that time Intel's Pentium CPU had already been prepped for release.

At that point, Intel clearly had the crown. Nothing of AMD's could touch Intel's higher end Pentium CPU's, and all AMD could do was push the last bits of performance from their own 486 CPU's in order to even stay competitive with Intel's 60 and 75 MHz Pentium chips.

This dominance by Intel continued thoughout the years, since AMD's own K5 CPU (a nice idea, but it scaled poorly) was years late to the party, and by the time they did get to the party, the party was almost over.

Intel continued to demonstrate dominance, even when AMD's K6 came out, since everyone was concerned about pipelined FPU's, and how AMD's K6 (and K6/2 and K6/3) were sorely lagging behind Intel's superior Pentium II, and Pentium III.

It wasn't until AMD came out with the Athlon, that they finally offered a superior product that bested Intel's best offerings.

Since then, the lead has changed hands. Intel's Pentium 4 was better than AMD's Athlon XP line. AMD's Athlon 64 line was superior to Intel's Pentium 4 lineup. Intel's Core2 Duo is superior to AMD's Athlon 64 line, and I suspect AMD's Barcelona will be superior to Intel's Core2 Duo line. I also suspect Intel will eventually come out with something better than Barcelona, etc.

The process will continue, as long as the companies stay focused, and don't descend into a pit of gluttony (aka 3dfx).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top