Who Has Swapped To Intel Since CD2 release??

Changed To Intel?


  • Total voters
    365

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
Someone sounds a bit overzealous for the boys in blue :p

Hah, you wish :)
Actually, I've never really liked Intel at all, and I think x86 is the worst thing that ever happened to the computer industry (therefore I hate AMD for introducing their 64-bit extensions, and dragging on the x86 legacy for at least another 10 years).
No, my favourite CPUs are the 68000, PowerPC, PA-RISC and Alpha.
But I have to be realistic, it's an x86 world (and a Windows world for that matter)... So I too have to use x86 processors for normal desktop/notebook systems. And as an objective 'outsider' to the x86, I can draw no other conclusion than that Intel is currently doing better than AMD, and also has better plans for the future than AMD.

I can't speak for what the performance will be for Nehalem, but Bulldozer will be significantly faster than Barcelona, both in single thread and multi thread situations.

Uhh yea, it had better be. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Nehalem will also significantly improve on IPC, especially in multithreading, because of its single-die design, integrated memory controller, and better multi-socket infrastructure (basically exactly the things that worked for the Athlon64, so especially you guys at AMD should know how significant this change is).
Considering the fact that Barcelona can barely keep up with Kentsfield, AMD had BETTER get significantly better performance out of their next-gen products. Else you might aswell close shop right now.

45nm is on track, as is Shanghai. Sandtiger follows shortly after. Bulldozer based Fusion processors are due for 2009.

Yea, wow 'on track'... Meaning they're still not gaining on Intel in terms of production process.
And what market exactly is this Fusion supposed to address?
Who's going to want it, and why?
It sounds like a niche-product, not the cash-cow that AMD needs.
And do you honestly think Shanghai or Sandtiger will be cash-cows? It all seems like the same kind of bland rehashes of technology as Barcelona is. Now Penryn is also a rehash, but that's a rehash to make a very successful architecture even cheaper to produce, and will only be used for a year, to hold Intel over for Nehalem.
AMD needs more than a rehash, they need something to turn their outdated product-line into something new, fast, desirable and successful. Where is AMD's 'Nehalem'?

Oh, and may I also remind you that Intel has decided to step up the Itanium-action, and no longer trail a process behind? This means Intel has an ace up its sleeve if things really turn out to be a multicore war. Itanium cores are very tiny, you can fit about 60% more Itanium cores into the same transistor budget currently. When Intel gives Itanium the same transistor budget as their x86-line, we could end up with a whole lot of cores on a chip.

And, what is AMD going to do about the poor Radeon line? That's another product line that needs more than some rehashes to get back on track.

In summary, I think you are selling AMD short ;)

No, I think we are sticking to the exact same facts. I just draw conclusions from them, you seem to just count the number of things you can find on AMD's roadmap.
Now I've explained why I don't think AMD has any kind of technology on that roadmap which indicates that AMD is going to leapfrog Intel.
If I'm wrong, please point out what technology is going to make AMD leader again, and why. In detail please, I'm a hardcore tech, I don't go for sugarcoated marketing nonsense ('native quadcore!' haha, right!).
 

Droc

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
3,359
Now I've explained why I don't think AMD has any kind of technology on that roadmap which indicates that AMD is going to leapfrog Intel.
If I'm wrong, please point out what technology is going to make AMD leader again, and why.
Good point.
 

vista_blista

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
480
What many people don't realize, or fail to acknowledge, is that AMD has actually continued to gain marketshare (in the server, desktop, laptop market) from approx 2003 till present. Currently AMD has made huge inroads in China with substantial 6% market increases per year. And some of the technology most appealing to the OEM market might be AMD Fusion architecture. This builds GPU processing into a single CPU package, and would further reduce costs.

Those wondering why Intel motherboards cost more to make than AMD probably don't understand the importance of having these things on-die: GPU, memory controller, hypertransport. From what I've read, currently only *some* Nehalem's will have on-die memory controllers and GPUs. Of course, there's a lot more money in the OEM market than the enthusiast market.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
What many people don't realize, or fail to acknowledge, is that AMD has actually continued to gain marketshare (in the server, desktop, laptop market) from approx 2003 till present.

Uhh yea... make it cheap enough, and you can sell any piece of junk. That's the problem here. AMD is running at a loss. That's fine, you can do that for a small period... But what is AMD going to do to make some profit in the future? Currently they cannot match, let alone beat Intel in terms of performance. This means that Intel controls the prices. AMD needs to get control of prices, and the way to do that is not by marketshare, but by having technology that can give them the same performance at a lower cost, so they can demand higher profit margins. Then the money comes in, AMD can invest in R&D, expand its production facilities, do some marketing etc etc.
But currently no money comes in, money only comes out... And nothing in the future plans of AMD marks a turnaround point.

Those wondering why Intel motherboards cost more to make than AMD probably don't understand the importance of having these things on-die: GPU, memory controller, hypertransport. From what I've read, currently only *some* Nehalem's will have on-die memory controllers and GPUs. Of course, there's a lot more money in the OEM market than the enthusiast market.

Memory controller, perhaps (you reduce logic because you don't need to redirect memory access through a bus)...
Hypertransport or FSB, really doesn't matter. A bus is a bus.
GPU? Who cares whether it's integrated in the CPU or in the northbridge? In fact, it's probably better off in the northbridge, because otherwise the CPU would get a very large die, which means higher production costs, lower yields etc. It's better off in the relatively simple northbridge.

Even so, not everyone wants low-end GPUs. For example, I've worked at a company where the helpdesk people used two monitors. This made it easy for them to use remote assistance. They had to install a separate videocard because the onboard GPU supports multiple monitors.
I can imagine many other situations where onboard GPUs lack certain features or simply aren't powerful enough. That is probably also why large OEMs such as HP, Dell, Apple etc offer a lot of systems with no onboard video, but a separate videocard preinstalled.
I would like to see some figures on that... How many OEM systems are actually sold with onboard GPU, and how many have separate videocards?

Nevertheless, Intel is market leader in the GPU world, because of its cheap onboard solutions. So either Intel's solution isn't that expensive in practice, or people don't care that much about the price.

I don't see Fusion taking the market by storm.
 

morfinx

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
1,105
Since I don't have half an hour to write a protracted response, I will just address a few of the key points:

Yea, wow 'on track'... Meaning they're still not gaining on Intel in terms of production process.
Surely as a tech person you know that process isn't everything? K8 did well without having the latest processes.

And what market exactly is this Fusion supposed to address? Who's going to want it, and why?
I'll name one, laptops. Laptop sales have eclipsed desktops and are continuing to grow. This is a huge opportunity.

And do you honestly think Shanghai or Sandtiger will be cash-cows?
I think they will earn their keep.

AMD needs more than a rehash, they need something to turn their outdated product-line into something new, fast, desirable and successful. Where is AMD's 'Nehalem'?
Bulldozer. I can't talk about any architectural features yet of course, but personally I'm very excited about it :) It's a completely grounds up design, where as K8 is a derivative of K7 and Barcelona is a derivative of K8. I think anyone interested in computer architecture would be excited too once more details are revealed.

On the ultra low power end, there is Bobcat, also very interesting technology in itself. It is set to compete with Silverthorne. There is money to be made in that space as well.

Oh, and may I also remind you that Intel has decided to step up the Itanium-action, and no longer trail a process behind? This means Intel has an ace up its sleeve if things really turn out to be a multicore war. Itanium cores are very tiny, you can fit about 60% more Itanium cores into the same transistor budget currently. When Intel gives Itanium the same transistor budget as their x86-line, we could end up with a whole lot of cores on a chip.
Itanium currently occupies a very small piece of the market. That's something I don't foresee changing anytime soon.

And, what is AMD going to do about the poor Radeon line? That's another product line that needs more than some rehashes to get back on track.
Funny you said that. I had lunch with folks from Santa Clara today, and I grilled them about R700 and R770, and I liked what I heard. Again I can't reveal any details, but I'm excited about them. R670 will be out next month, which will be more than competitive to NV's offerings. And R700 series are due out in 2008.

No, I think we are sticking to the exact same facts. I just draw conclusions from them, you seem to just count the number of things you can find on AMD's roadmap.
Now I've explained why I don't think AMD has any kind of technology on that roadmap which indicates that AMD is going to leapfrog Intel.
I certainly respect your opinion, and everyone is entitled to one. But I must respectfully disagree :)

That's the problem here. AMD is running at a loss. That's fine, you can do that for a small period... But what is AMD going to do to make some profit in the future?
I'm sure you've noticed that the loss have been getting smaller and smaller. It's getting there.

I don't see Fusion taking the market by storm.
In summary, it's clear that you have a different opinion of the future and nothing I say will change your mind. I'm not one for protracted arguments, especially not online. So let us agree to disagree and simply wait and see how it all pans out :p
 

8lack8rain

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
372
Does this brick wall have a name?
Would you converse with it often?
Does it (gulp) speak back to you?

Don't worry, your not crazy either ;).
 

vista_blista

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
480
You can make valid points and observations, while still making concessions. In that sense, I guess those only capable of talking in absolutes are like brick walls.
 

bobrownik

Gawd
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
800
yup, i dumped amd because they didn't have anything to compete with core2duo (and still don't), i also dumped ati, 2900 sucks

ex amd/ati fanboy
 

lamboman

Gawd
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
598
I switched to Intel last week from a PowerPC 7450, more commonly known as the PowerPC G4 733mhz chip, introduced in 2001. I had a Mac, and it has taken six years to get a new computer.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
Surely as a tech person you know that process isn't everything? K8 did well without having the latest processes.

Yes, not because K8 was so good, but because Pentium was so bad. Core2 Duo is built on the exact same 65 nm process as the latest Pentium 4/D models, and K8 doesn't stand a chance there. That same architecture will now be brought to 45 nm... So again a better architecture on a better process.

I'll name one, laptops. Laptop sales have eclipsed desktops and are continuing to grow. This is a huge opportunity.

Opportunity, yes... guarantee, no.
Currently Intel is king in the laptop world. AMD will have to make something that's cheaper and better, and even then pray it catches on, because better technology doesn't always win (insert Betamax-anecdote here).

I think they will earn their keep.

We'll have to see. Just like Barcelona they don't exactly strike me as 'winners' on paper. They may be able to compete, but they won't create a big performance lead for AMD.
And if they get delays and other setbacks like the Barcelona did, they could turn out just as useless.

Bulldozer. I can't talk about any architectural features yet of course, but personally I'm very excited about it :) It's a completely grounds up design, where as K8 is a derivative of K7 and Barcelona is a derivative of K8. I think anyone interested in computer architecture would be excited too once more details are revealed.

Who knows... Thing with AMD is that they've never actually developed a proper CPU from scratch. And Intel is crushing AMD's R&D budget by these new prices.
So the question is... Even if AMD has great plans for the future... will they actually be able to pull them off?
I can name two examples from Intel that I thought were very exciting on paper: Pentium 4 and Itanium. The actual implementations were far less impressive than the initial plans.

Itanium currently occupies a very small piece of the market. That's something I don't foresee changing anytime soon.

As more and more servers are running .NET, Java or scripted applicaties (like perl, PHP etc), it no longer matters what kind of architecture you run it on. Bottom line is that Itanium with a normal amount of cache, on a state-of-the-art process, can mean a lot of cores on a die, and excellent performance (the IPC of an Itanium is just insane, compared to an x86). That's the advantage of not having to support the whole x86 legacy.

Funny you said that. I had lunch with folks from Santa Clara today, and I grilled them about R700 and R770, and I liked what I heard. Again I can't reveal any details, but I'm excited about them. R670 will be out next month, which will be more than competitive to NV's offerings. And R700 series are due out in 2009.

I would hope so... ATi has been my favourite GPU manufacturer for a while now (since the Radeon 8500 basically), and I was concerned that the AMD takeover would mean that the GPU-department would be toned down, especially in times of financial trouble such as now. The Radeon 2x00 series seemed to make it even worse: the last architecture developed by ATi as a standalone company was already a failure (probably the reason why they wanted to sell?). But perhaps the broken 2x00-series can be fixed.

I'm sure you've noticed that the loss have been getting smaller and smaller. It's getting there.

Will it?
Somehow I think the Barcelonas and Phenoms will be even more expensive to make, so they're not going to bring in the big bucks. And you can't keep the old dualcores around forever either.
I'll have to see if you can continue making the loss smaller... It could be that you are already running at 'maximum efficiency'... it could even be that the new chips turn out to make more losses (also remember that they're going up against 45 nm processors, so expect more pricedrops). After all, you're not in control of what the market demands.
 

S[H]ady

Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Messages
858
i went for a quad. its gonna take a LOT for AMD to win me back now. this is the first Intel chip i have ever owned. I've had AMD since my 2nd computer. That was an old 450Mhz K2.
I've since owned an 800Mhz athlon, and athlon XP 2100+, XP2500+, XP3200+, A64 3200+, and finally a X2 3800+.
My Q6600 was the biggest step up in performance i have ever made. I can't imagine justifying the money to change platforms back to AMD unless they really come out with something amazing.
Plus overclocking is definately an Intel domain. AMD can't hold a candle to them. There is no way you could squeeze 1Ghz out of an AMD chip, whereas my quad was just getting going at that point.
 

ShepsCrook

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
9,374
I currently have an AMD Opteron 175 and it's still a great processor. It may not be top of the line, but the difference in performance as opposed to a C2D with the things I do is minimal.

I'd upgrade right now if someone wanted to trade me a C2D E6400 or better processor for my 175, or if someone bought my 175 for around $125. Of course, I'd have to sell 2GB of ram, and my mobo, and then buy ram and a mobo for the C2D. :p
 

LstBrunnenG

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 3, 2003
Messages
6,677
While I recognize Intel's current supremacy in the CPU market, my current desktop setup does everything I want it to. If I built today, I'd go Intel in a heartbeat, but I have no reason to build today.
 

harpoon

Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
829
Yeah, well I finally retired my XP-M @ 2.6GHz/NF7-S 2.0 rig that has served me well since 2003.

I'm currently running an E4400 @ 3.2GHz on the *stock HSF* with a slight voltage bump. Being an overclocker, there is simply nothing from AMD that can compete with C2Ds.
 

Phenol312

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
103
Most of the computers I have owned have been AMD powered...since I had a terrible experience with a pentium II notebook back in the day.

Just recently my Brisbane rig overclocked to 2.85ghz on the m2n-sli deluxe board by asus shorted out (never buy an open box mobo from newegg lol).

I decided to give the C2D a shot since I don't want to pay a premium when Penryn and Phenom hit (I'll probably upgrade again to a quad core when those chips become affordable)

all i have to say is that this e6750 is incredible compared to my overclocked brisbane even at stock speed. vista loads in no time at all.

Like most people, I'm not loyal to one brand but I am gonna follow whoever makes the product that offers the most bang for the buck.

(although i doubt ill be buying an asus board or patriot/crucial memory again since i've had very poor experiences with their products/customer service)
 

LordBritish

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 28, 2001
Messages
2,062
Still on an Opteron 160 running at 2.6 Ghz combined with an equally ancient 7950GX2.

It works for everything I need it to do so far, so why change?

It plays virtually any game with maximum or at least good detail.

I can play Crysis on medium settings at 1650x1050 with playable framerates.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
17,467
I'm currently running an E4400 @ 3.2GHz on the *stock HSF* with a slight voltage bump. Being an overclocker, there is simply nothing from AMD that can compete with C2Ds.

Did the same thing with my E6400 but with the voltage bumped up to 1.4. Then again, this was in the winter when it was much cooler in my apartment. Snagged a new waterblock for a socket 775 system to go with my old EXOS and have it running 3.4Ghz year round. Once I decide to turn on the heat in the apartment I might open the window and put the EXOS in the windowsill once the temps get down in the 30'sF to see if I can get any more out of it. I doubt I'll get much if anything as this seems to be the max for this CPU. Dropped the multiplier and raised the FSB up to around 475 or so with my DDR2 800 RAM at 950 with tighter than stock timings with a 0.1v increase in voltage and everything was stable. So I know everything but the CPU can go higher. It would have been nice to have a CPU that overclocked higher just because the board and RAM can do so much more. 3.8Ghz would have been really nice.

 

SippieCup

Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
762
I have finally given in, just ordered a new q6600 from newegg (i hope it is G0..)

my motherboard has become flaky and so i needed to change it, and nothing beats intel and phenom sure as hell wont... so i switched.

i cant wait to overclock it though
 

Conker

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
3,025
Been with amd since the 486dx amd. Went to cyrix m2 for alittle bit when it was 266mhz but after that i was amd :)

Super Socket 7 Amd k6-2 500mhz@520mhz --> Amd slot a 600mhz tbird --> Amd Socket 462 duron 600mhz@900mhz spitfire-->duron 800mhz@1ghz -> duron 1ghz@1.2ghz morgan-> duron 1.2ghz@1.25ghz -> Thunderbird 1.33ghz@1.5ghz -> Athlon XP 1600@1.8ghz palomino > 1800xp@2.0ghz > 2000xp thoroughbred@2.2ghz > 2400xp@2.48ghz > 2500xp@2.2ghz > 3200xp@2.35ghz> then to the Athlon XP mobile 2500@2.5ghz 250fsb -> now its Socket 939 Amd X2 3800@3.0ghz 300fsb

Always been amd since intels chipsets always had cpu compatible problems and also because amd has always been stable and great for me and cheap :cool:
 

Hornswoggler

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
2,325
I wanted great overclocking performance and there was nothing AMD was selling to match my $190 E6300 I bought last December. With my chip running at 3 GHz today, can ANYTHING AMD even touch it? I know some of you guys are just cheap, but this value (bang-for-the-buck in overclocking) is hard to deny.
 

xvioz

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
127
Switching this month... from a 3200+ (lolol) to a e6850. Should be good... don't know what to do with this PC though.
 

wjogert

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
3,108
I have not switched over, per se...

Actually, I just upgraded my SK939 workstation to an Opty 185.

However, my new lappy has the C2D, so I'm not totally AMD loyal... :p LMAO

Sadly, my C2D laptop @ 2.0 GHz kicks the snot outta my workstation, even after the Opty upgrade. Hopefully a lil' o'cing will remedy that!

(BTW, I've traditionally been an Intel fan more than AMD. Past few years I've been pretty much a "fence-sitter")
 

dexvx

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
1,273
Even so, not everyone wants low-end GPUs. For example, I've worked at a company where the helpdesk people used two monitors. This made it easy for them to use remote assistance. They had to install a separate videocard because the onboard GPU supports multiple monitors.

The vast majority of video is onboard. Is onboard low-end? You bet. But what you seemed to have failed to grasp is that even the low end keeps raising the bar. Most people fail to grasp that even the GMA3000 series will perform on par with most of the mainstream GeForceFX line while having DX10 features*. 10 years ago, the thought of onboard video even having 3d features was nearly unfathomable. Now, it's commonplace, and there's stil far more room as process sizes shrink.

* Goes to the idiots that recommend some 5+ year old Geforce over a GMA3000 thinking its better. Cause onboard has to suck right?

I can imagine many other situations where onboard GPUs lack certain features or simply aren't powerful enough. That is probably also why large OEMs such as HP, Dell, Apple etc offer a lot of systems with no onboard video, but a separate videocard preinstalled.
I would like to see some figures on that... How many OEM systems are actually sold with onboard GPU, and how many have separate videocards?

Because mid/high end chipsets and enthusiast boards don't have on-board video. Most people buying a higher end computer usually demand a higher end graphics card; its just the target demograph.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
The vast majority of video is onboard.

What you should have grasped from my post is that I have serious doubts about that, and I'd like to see figures. Which you don't provide.
I'd say that it may be about 50-50...
I just think it's too far-fetched to think that AMD CPUs with integrated GPUs will be a huge success. The vast majority still wants Intel CPUs and Intel GPUs. Fusion is not such a hot technology that will turn this around in an instant and take the market by storm. They'd be lucky if they'd get half the onboard GPU market from Intel, which would be about 25-30% of the entire CPU market.

Because mid/high end chipsets and enthusiast boards don't have on-board video. Most people buying a higher end computer usually demand a higher end graphics card; its just the target demograph.

Not in Intel's case anyway. Their mid-end chipsets are always available with or without graphics (945, 965, P/G35 etc). And the high-end chipsets aren't sold much in the big OEM machines. It's mostly about low-end and mid-end.
 

elite.mafia

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
14,980
My p4 3.06Ghz 533fsb w/ HT tech is still doing me just fine... Can't say the same about my 6600gt... 9700pro is reportedly still working in some random guys computer.
 

BigDH01

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Messages
452
What you should have grasped from my post is that I have serious doubts about that, and I'd like to see figures. Which you don't provide.
I'd say that it may be about 50-50...
I just think it's too far-fetched to think that AMD CPUs with integrated GPUs will be a huge success. The vast majority still wants Intel CPUs and Intel GPUs. Fusion is not such a hot technology that will turn this around in an instant and take the market by storm. They'd be lucky if they'd get half the onboard GPU market from Intel, which would be about 25-30% of the entire CPU market.



Not in Intel's case anyway. Their mid-end chipsets are always available with or without graphics (945, 965, P/G35 etc). And the high-end chipsets aren't sold much in the big OEM machines. It's mostly about low-end and mid-end.

Some out of date numbers

Integrated obviously holds the lead in the mobile market which is quickly growing while the desktop market is declining. Clear numbers aren't given on the desktop as far as IGP vs AIB except to say that sales of IGPs aren't declining as fast as AIBs. You could probably look at all the numbers and do the math to determine what the proportion actually exists but I'm too lazy right now. Needless to say, laptops are quickly replacing desktops and IGP are dominant in that arena.
 

dexvx

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
1,273
What you should have grasped from my post is that I have serious doubts about that, and I'd like to see figures. Which you don't provide.
I'd say that it may be about 50-50...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20071029062106.html

Q2 2007 total Graphics shipments: 81.3 million

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20070904213513.html

Q2 2007 total Add-In Graphics shipments: 21.1 million

Of course there are some overlap (people with IGP's upgrading to add-in's), but even still, that's almost a 4:1 ratio in favor of IGP's in shipment.


Not in Intel's case anyway. Their mid-end chipsets are always available with or without graphics (945, 965, P/G35 etc). And the high-end chipsets aren't sold much in the big OEM machines. It's mostly about low-end and mid-end.

The only OEM desktops that don't have IGP's are mid-high to high end ones. Lets take Dell's product line as an example:

Home Line: Inspiron 530/531: IGP based with 16x PCI-E
Entry-Mid Business: Vostro 200/400 and Optiplex 320/330/755: all IGP based

Gaming Line: XPS: All non-IGP, except the slim XPS, which has an IGP
High-End Business: Precision 390/490/690/T3400: non-IGP

As a baseline, except for the extremely high end, I'd wager most OEM PC's have an IGP. The 16x PCI-E slot is in case you want to upgrade later.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
Integrated obviously holds the lead in the mobile market which is quickly growing while the desktop market is declining.

Well, Intel holds 37% of the market... It's not too far-fetched to say that this is approximately half the total IGP market I suppose... perhaps a bit more.
I think somewhere around 50-60% of the total market (that'd mean that about half the chips sold by NV and ATi are also IGP).
Also, not all laptops use integrated chips. The faster ones use high-end mobile GPUs (Radeon Mobility or GeForce Go).
 

LT1-Z/28

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
240
I just switched to a E6750 , Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L and a 8800GTS 640mb from a X2 4600+ 939 , Asus A8N-E and a 7900GTO. My neighbor needed a new(er) PC and did have a lot to spend . So I sold while it was still worth something . I still have a 939 system in the house for the wife , but she is strictly office apps and Internet .
 

sam0t

Gawd
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
824
X2 4600+ clocked @ 2.9GHz and works like a champ.

Have not seen a real need to upgrade yet, think I´ll skip the whole DDR2 era alltogether. Time will tell.
 

ShepsCrook

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
9,374
I went from a 486x -> Pentium II 350 -> AMDK6-2 400mhz -> AMD K6-2 500mhz -> AMDK6-2 550mhz -> Pentium III 600mhz -> AMD Athlon 1GHZ -> AMD Athlon 1.4ghz -> AMD Athlon XP 2500 Barton -> AMD Athlon XP Mobile 2600 -> AMD64 3200+ 939 -> AMD64 Opteron 175.

I've also owned in there as a 2nd system Intel Pentium4 3.2 HT and an Intel Pentium4 3.4 HT.

Would I go Intel? YES
Do I like AMD more? YES

Does it matter who has more power for me to use? NO

Does budget matter? HELL YES.

Whomever has the best bang for the buck nice processor is the best in my books.
 

stockwiz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 6, 2007
Messages
330
I've switched, yes, but I hope AMD stays alive and comes out with something to surpass intel.. it would be terrible to not have competition.. already you can see that Intel, although they've made great technical gains and I give them credit, are starting to scale back the release of their new penryns simply because there's no incentive for them to do so, as there's no competition from AMD.. so you see that they are only releasing the highest of the high end one to milk it for a while before they release the lower end ones, when they could release them all now if they wanted.

This trend will continue if AMD doesn't make a comeback.. god forbid they ever go under... companies need competition to keep them innovative and keep them on their toes, and to keep prices good for us... just look at how Nvidia milked the 8800 series all year keeping it really expensive without competition from ATI to bring down prices... don't tell me those cards are that much more expensive to produce, because a simple look at their balance sheet will show record profits and a record high stock price. :)
 
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
954
I had 5 dual core AMD machines folding. I shut 2 down and upgraded 2 to Q6600's saving 100w/hr and doubling my work output.
 

Thanatos.

Gawd
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
744
Had an Opteron 170 and an Opteron 165 and i switched to a Q6600. I waited for AMD to catch up but they never did so i switched but i still hope AMD will pull ahead again like they did with the Athlon 64.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
17,467
I've switched, yes, but I hope AMD stays alive and comes out with something to surpass intel.. it would be terrible to not have competition.. already you can see that Intel, although they've made great technical gains and I give them credit, are starting to scale back the release of their new penryns simply because there's no incentive for them to do so, as there's no competition from AMD.. so you see that they are only releasing the highest of the high end one to milk it for a while before they release the lower end ones, when they could release them all now if they wanted.

This trend will continue if AMD doesn't make a comeback.. god forbid they ever go under... companies need competition to keep them innovative and keep them on their toes, and to keep prices good for us... just look at how Nvidia milked the 8800 series all year keeping it really expensive without competition from ATI to bring down prices... don't tell me those cards are that much more expensive to produce, because a simple look at their balance sheet will show record profits and a record high stock price. :)

I don't foresee AMD closing up shop anytime soon but I don't see Barcelona as anything more than a stopgap in an effort to keep up somewhat with Intel at this time. I could be completely wrong about Barcelona which would pleasantly surprise me. I think AMD's real next large performance increase will be with the Bulldozer architecture. From what I've read about that, it looks a very exciting architecture if they can pull it off and implement it correctly.

As of right now, my top end system is Intel. Unless some things change, my next upgrade is likely to be an Intel quad hopefully sometime early next year. If anything it will be because I will be able to just drop in one of the current quads into my current motherboard with no trouble although my current hope is to be able to build another new system to keep my current one running mostly as it is.

Time will tell which company will best suit my needs and since I don't have any money to spend right now, waiting will work out perfectly for me.

 
Top