Ok What Happened to AMD

dbu8554

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 7, 2002
Messages
5,157
I used to be a hardcore AMD guy but Ive been out of the scene for a while and, have on idea what happened they were on the fast track man and had it all together but now its like no one even considers building a good PC with AMD parts and nothing much is even said about them just wondering what they did the drop the ball and does anyone think they can recover?
 
You have a lot of reading ahead of you. There are still several instances where I'd build an AMD system, they just aren't top dog anymore. Plenty of other places in the market for now though.
 
Just build an AMD rig for a friend today and he is happy with it.. for the price sensitive person AMD is still better IMO
 
With the prices, it's tough to beat an AMD X2 rig for a budget build. Most people going with that type of system probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway. Despite having 3 overclocked Intel quads, I still use my X2 [email protected] as my secondary system. Even with 1 gig of RAM it runs everything I need a secondary system to run and I don't notice a difference.

 
I was a big Intel guy, then I was a big AMD guy for several years, now I'm a firm intel fanboy for the time being. Hardware evolves and AMD just hasn't caught up yet.
 
My 4800+ was €73 at the time I bought it, and the mobo was €45. The money I saved, almost €100, I was able to put towards a faster videocard. Because I had decided not to overclock, going with an Intel CPU would have meant an 8500GT or possibly an 8600GT instead of the 8800GT. Now, I have a gaming system that is much better than most students' in my class even though they have faster CPUs :)

Well, in the end I overclocked anyway and I don't think 3 GHz would be much of a problem to be honest. Runs Orthos for hours on end at 2.8 @ default voltage with the pathetic all-Alu stock cooler.

But yeah, for most, going with AMD doesn't make much sense at this point. The Phenom isn't a bad CPU, but it needed to launch at 3 GHz, not 2.3 GHz or whatever.. Waste of time.
 
I built all my computers with AMD, this is the first time i've went intel and i'm quite satisfied.

They say that for a budget computer you cannot beat AMD prices, but IMHO, i went with a budget build with the Intel E21XX series and i'm quite satisfied and the prices is about the same. Not to mention its highly overclockable.
 
umm...even B3 phenoms have been getting 700-1000mhz overclocks, and overclocking phenoms is much more interesting than core2's, so much more options to tweak. people uninterested in overclocking wouldnt choose phenoms? not really, its more interesting to oc than C2Q's IMO
 
I love AMD and all but Intel just makes a better product ATM. I have a Phenom 9850 system and it really is fun to tweak but if you want top performance and all around, Intel is the better choice.
 
It depends on what you want to do, too. If you encode videos and create archives all day, get an Intel CPU.. But when you're gaming at very high resolutions, pushing your videocard to the limit, all reasonably modern CPUs perform about the same. So if money is tight, why not save a few bucks? Even Nvidia recommend the Intel E4500 @ 2.2 GHz in their "Balanced PC" PR move.
 
I used to be a hardcore AMD guy but Ive been out of the scene for a while and, have on idea what happened they were on the fast track man and had it all together but now its like no one even considers building a good PC with AMD parts and nothing much is even said about them just wondering what they did the drop the ball and does anyone think they can recover?

Apparently you've missed the information bus since June of 06, when Intel laid the biggest smack on AMD anyone's ever seen.

Good morning, and welcome to Core 2.
 
Apparently you've missed the information bus since June of 06, when Intel laid the biggest smack on AMD anyone's ever seen.

Good morning, and welcome to Core 2.

It was the same thing for me.. I was happily bumbling along with my Athlon64 3500+.. Then I decided I needed to upgrade so I looked around at the hardware sites which I hadn't visited in years, really. I saw this new Intel "Core" thing.. and thought -*Yawn*, not another hot-running, inefficient Netburst CPU.. -And it runs at only about 2.5 GHz too..Bet the Athlons totally crush it..

Then I realized it was based on the Pentium M and my opinion changed.. I have this old 1.6 GHz Pentium-M laptop, and it even gave my 3500+ @ 2.2 GHz a run for its money. So I knew that a Core 2 running at 2.5+ GHz was one serious CPU.

It took some reading to grasp what really had happened. AMD didn't really drop the ball.. Intel finally abandoned the Netburst shipwreck and designed a real CPU, that's what happened.
 
What happend was that Intel got tired of getting their ass kicked by a small company like AMD for 2 years running and came out with a new processor and kicked the Athlon X2's ass.

AMD's next opportunity was in the quad core segment. While Intel was hard at work on a quad core CPU, AMD was hard at work at trying to convice everyone that Intel's quad core CPU is going to suck becuase it wasn't a "native" quad core but instead, two dual core die's in one package. They insisted that their quad core was going to be so much better becuase it was a single die with 4 cores.

Then when it came time for AMD to actually deliver, they didn't. Their "native" quad core processor had worse IPC than Intel, it scaled worse than intel, it even scaled worse than the Athlon X2. It could bearly reach 2.2GHz at launch, it ran hotter, consumed more power overclocked worse, and had more motherboard incompatibility than Intel's processors.

That's what happened.
 
I like all the comments about going with AMD on a budget but when AMD used to rock the house they were still cheaper then Intel and provided better performance without overclocking, so yeah I was just wondering thanks alot guys appreciate the help and such.

As far as being into computers and not being around for years at a time, I was working in the computer industry and I just got tired of it all quit my job kinda just avoided the internet for a few years but I am back now bitches!
 
When AMD was on top they certainly were not cheeper. Not that they should have been anyway. X2's almost always had atleast a small premium over the Pentium D's
 
I used to be a hardcore AMD guy but Ive been out of the scene for a while and, have on idea what happened they were on the fast track man and had it all together but now its like no one even considers building a good PC with AMD parts and nothing much is even said about them just wondering what they did the drop the ball and does anyone think they can recover?


The problem was a few years ago when they had the cash there were rumors of them buying Nvidia but instead they bought ATI.

From there they were really never able to recover. If they bought Nvidia maybe things would be different right now, they are strapped for cash.
 
The problem was a few years ago when they had the cash there were rumors of them buying Nvidia but instead they bought ATI.

From there they were really never able to recover. If they bought Nvidia maybe things would be different right now, they are strapped for cash.

Nvidia was too expensive. ATIs R600 looked like it could be such a profitable product, instead it turned into an ironic joke.

I don't think AMD is going anywhere in the next couple years. Even if they don't release a product which is superior to Intels for a while, they can shrink back into the low-end-consumer/contracted markets, ready to spring when Intel makes another slip-up like the netburst/Itanium fumble.
 
Not sure much has happened to AMD really that can't be fixed with some decent marketing. Maybe the X2 isn't as fast as the Core series. I can tell you one thing AMD has going for it that they can handily destroy Intel in. A decent Mobo with an integrated IGP. With an AMD setup you can choose an ATI, or Nvidia setup. You choice. The newer units offer HW based HD/Blu Ray Decoding. I can guarantee you Intel will continue to lag behind in that segment. And truth is, it's a segment that makes up a far more profitable sector than the CPU benchmark wars. Why AMD doesn't leverage this into a better situation for them financially I will never know. It's likely the only segment where they hold a clear upper hand. Intel can't buy anything close to the big two when it comes to GPU's. There is all but an open war between Nvidia and Intel. And well..I think it's safe to say they won't be contacting ATI for a supply.

Personally I have an AMD rig, and don't for one second wish I had bought an Intel based system. I looked at both and got my rig for a much better price than I could have had I gone Intel. Most of my parts were free, and when you get enough for a rig for free, well no amount of theoretical advantage could trump that bang for the buck. The ugly truth is most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference if it was Intel or AMD. They will likely continue to swap the "lead" back and forth as long as they both remain in business. Buy what suits you I say. If you like to look at tests and see you got 7 fps more with your Intel rig, fine by me. I won't begrudge you on your choice. That said I like my setup, and don't see a need to change it in the near future, save for a new PSU and a 2nd 8800GTS.
 
for everyone doing stuff other than gaming, AMD is still a great choice....

back in fall 06 i built my girlfriend an AM2 system with a sempron running at 2.6ghz and using a miniATX motherboard with a built in GeForce 6100....

the system runs Vista Ultimate, she uses it to watch/record TV, do word processing, play the occasional game (flatout 2 mostly.... ), and use about 100 tabs of firefox at a time, encode movies/recorded TV for her creative zen (all the damn time....), and so much else....

runs flawlessly, speed is never a problem.... if she were to upgrade to an X2, the computer would be over twice as fast.... and yea, most of the general populat probably uses even *less* CPU power than her.... (seriously, her media center app is *constantly* recording TV while the computer is on)

and yea, PC gamers are becoming less and less relevant as time goes on.... I think AMD *would* be fine if they could drastically slash their manufacturing costs, and drive up their marketshare.... which is actually precisely what they seem to be focused on...

like it or not, the CPU doesn't need to get any faster for at least another 3 or so years....
 
How can you guys be out of the loop for almost 2 years if you are at all interested in computers? :rolleyes::p

Well, I've actually "used" my computer instead of just upgrading and tweaking it, so there was no need to keep myself updated. I just got tired of the pissing contests, benchmark wars and constant upgrading. My 3500+/X800 rig ran all apps I used, and almost all games, up until very recently. Not at super-high quality settings, but at settings that were "good enough" to me. Wasn't even going to upgrade to my current system, but my old mobo died when I tried installing a S939 X2 CPU into it, which set off a chain-reaction of stuff that needed replacing when moving to a new platform :p

It remains to be seen what AMD can do with the Phenom. Once they move to 45nm, they might be able to achieve higher clockspeeds and increase the L2 cache to something more sensible like 2MB per core, and maybe do a few other tweaks to get a higher IPC from it. If they don't manage this, they're in serious trouble.
 
Some of the news today about AMD outsourcing their cpu production.

Does anyone think that's a good idea or not?
 
Some of the news today about AMD outsourcing their cpu production.

Does anyone think that's a good idea or not?

This is what I believe is part of the "Asset Light" strategy that Hector has spoken of in light detail and also this was mentioned months ago concerning thier chip production/FAB arrangements. Basically it's like this, all of their main CPU production will be done "in house" at FAB 36/38, with extra demand production done at Chartered. All other GPU/Fusion processor production will be handled at TSMC, basically what ATI has already been doing for it's GPU production for years, the only difference is they are going to be utilizing AMD's SOI process for Fusion processor production. So it's no real big secret or much of a big deal here folks... Put simply, unlike Intel, AMD doesn't have the resources or capital at the time to afford more FABs to cover all their own for chip production, so outsourcing is their next best option.

FABs are expensive and few chip companies have them/can afford them, therefore most companies outsource production to foundries like TSMC for this reason.
 
I like all the comments about going with AMD on a budget but when AMD used to rock the house they were still cheaper then Intel and provided better performance without overclocking, so yeah I was just wondering thanks alot guys appreciate the help and such.

You must've missed the part where Intel Pentium-D's were half the price of X2-3800 (and certainly *not* half the performance). Lets be realistic. When AMD was on top, they charged a huge premium for their X2's. For the year or so that the X2 was out, there was hardly a price drop; it never fell below $300. And they even had the audacity to RAISE prices a few months before the Core2 launch.

That said, the most compelling AMD solution is the 780G as a multi-media/htpc solution. The nvidia 8200 platform is also compelling, but it won't be available on Intel platforms until summer (correct me if I'm wrong).
 
How can you guys be out of the loop for almost 2 years if you are at all interested in computers? :rolleyes::p

Being a hardcore computer guy for many years made me interested in computers. Then I finally landed a dream job as an IT Manager. But an IT Manager's job extends beyond the hardware scope, especially into the Server field, so we tend to lose track of what gamers and consumers use now.

Doesn't mean we're not interested anymore. We're too busy paying attention to the business end of hardware.
 
You must've missed the part where Intel Pentium-D's were half the price of X2-3800 (and certainly *not* half the performance). Lets be realistic. When AMD was on top, they charged a huge premium for their X2's. For the year or so that the X2 was out, there was hardly a price drop; it never fell below $300. And they even had the audacity to RAISE prices a few months before the Core2 launch.




Yes, but then the C2Ds came out and that 300 turned into 50 over night. so many burned wallets....
 
for everyone doing stuff other than gaming, AMD is still a great choice....

I actually think it's the total opposite. At high resolutions, we're GPU limited for the most part. There's no doubt Core2 offers superior performance, but the difference in gaming is minimal compared to other CPU intensive tasks.

The difference in video and audio encoding speed is big, especially with 1080p h264 video. I'd much rather have a Q6600 in my rig than a Phenom for some heavy Photoshop as well.

If you look at my sig, you'll clearly see I have AMD rigs. My two main rigs are old S939 single core systems upgraded that have lasted me this long. I don't really feel a need to upgrade for gaming. If I ever got into serious encoding though, these rigs would be on eBay or in FS/T before you know it.
 
I like all the comments about going with AMD on a budget but when AMD used to rock the house they were still cheaper then Intel and provided better performance without overclocking, so yeah I was just wondering thanks alot guys appreciate the help and such.

I have love these false rumors.

When AMD was on top they were more expensive than Intel's offerings. My oh my how people have selective memories when it comes to this stuff.
 
As far as on top when I last was keeping track maybe more then 2 years ago 1.5 GHz was like woah fast and AMD was out preforming Intel and the chips cost about 50% less or half the price depending on how you look at it
 
I don't remember AMD EVER outperforming Intel at HALF the price point, much less less... Care to give any specific examples?
 
Sorry it was when the 1.0-? Ghz Thunderbird Came out

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=502

Is one article

This one was fun to bad kyle didnt list prices

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==


Well I have been looking for like an hour now but, aside from forum posts all over the internet of people arguing what is better and talking about what they got for what price I cant find much. Turns out 1 GHZ processors came out in 00/01 so wow ive been out of computers for a while, but if anyone can find some more articles the AMD was cheaper then the P3 or P4 and you cant cite prices from the pre orders 6 months out where assholes paid 700+ for a fucking processor anyone know of any old [h] articles that have any information.
 
ah yes. the tbirds. pure beauties. used in my first custom built cpu.

that thing got me in cs b4 anyone :D lol

i've been running w/ amd since. but i've been tempted to grab a quad core intel but i think i'll hold off until 09' hopefully amd will have bounced back w/ something next lvl. but i wouldn't hold my breath.
 
I actually think it's the total opposite. At high resolutions, we're GPU limited for the most part. There's no doubt Core2 offers superior performance, but the difference in gaming is minimal compared to other CPU intensive tasks.

I have to agree to some extent. I'm finding my X2 @ 2.9 GHz and 8800GT perfectly adequate for any game currently available, including Crysis. The system is betwen 2x and 6x faster than my old 3500+/X800XT system, even though the CPU isn't *that* much faster and most games don't really take advantage of multi-core CPUs - another indication that game performance nowadays is very GPU bound. Indeed, the smallest performance improvements I encountered were in older games that neither take advantage of DX9/10, nor multi-core CPUs. If you're short on cash and building a gaming system, save some money on the CPU (no matter if it's AMD or Intel), and put it towards a faster GPU instead.
However gamers are very sensitive to framerate variations, and with lots of AI and physics going on, some of the slower CPUs will not provide an optimal experience even when paired with a high-end GPU or two. With a slow CPU, you can't just lower the resolution a notch or two, or turn off AA when things start to get sluggish in future games.

Everyone keeps mentioning media encoding.. What kind of users does this target? I rip an audio CD to MP3 every now and then, but then I encode on the fly and the CPU encodes faster than my DVD drive can rip the audio. I also do some remixing and music production in Ableton Live - and this work at some point ends up as high-bitrate mp3's.. But when I've spent months working on a project, I don't really care if it takes an extra 20 seconds to encode it... I've never in my life encoded a movie.. but if I were to do this, I'd probably leave the computer on over night to finish it.
 
Well encoding is one thing, I hardly call that a average user's big need though. I still stand by the fact that as a platform for a HTPC, or even the average user..AMD more than can hold it's own. Add in a little light gaming and an Intel rig makes very little sense to me. Intel has nothing to combat the twinheaded monster of IGP's that an AMD platform gets you.

ghettobox
 
When benchmarks show extra 20 seconds for encoding they're like only encoding 2 minutes of a video. You multiply that by 60 and you get a HUGE difference in encoding video times. This is likewise with long list of MP3s.

Newer games are affected by a slower CPU and having a faster CPU will have a minor effect most of the time, but you can't discount it when the difference between 20FPS and 30FPS is due to the CPU. For example, Gamespot show COD4 1280x1024 @ Max Quality and 8800GT becomes GPU bound with E6600 @2.4Ghz with 77 FPS. However, a A64 4000+ @ 2.4 Ghz only had 26 FPS. Also, [email protected] had 54 FPS.

Edit: thats a A64 4000+, but just pointing out clock differences do affect it from low to mid-range.
 
So, you're trying to say that the Core2 is 2.7x faster than the X2 clock for clock? Not likely. You even had to turn to Gamespot to find those numbers. Also the 4000+ went out of production a long time ago. The X2 is certainly slower clock for clock, but not by that much on average. Ideally, if you're getting an X2, you should try to get one with 1MB of L2 per core, rather than one of the newer ones with only 512KB per core.

Also you forgot to mention that the Phenom CPUs, even the 9500, manages close to 70 FPS in that particular game.
 
Agreed, the C2D's are nice and all, certainly not 3x faster clock for clock though
 
Back
Top