will amd be making a comeback?

how will AMD do in the next 5 years?

  • They will FAIL

    Votes: 64 26.6%

  • AMD and intel will level out with each other

    Votes: 163 67.6%

  • AMD will take over the market

    Votes: 14 5.8%
  • Total voters
    241
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mnewxcv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
8,998
It's interesting the way things are going between the two major chip makers. To me, it seems like intel is cruising while AMD is trying hard to make itself known. I've always been an AMD fan, since my palomino 1800+, barton 2800+, opteron 140, 3 fx-51s, brisbane 4000+, and my current windsor 4200+. Theyve always treated me well and for the right price, but my next build will certainly be intel, just because they offer more to me than AMD can at the moment. But do you think AMD has a chance at keeping up, or maybe even regaining the market like they did in the socket A days? I know the roadmap for AMD shows it being steps behind in manufacturing process, but one thing to note is the sledgehammer, clawhammer, and newcastle a64s were 130nm and keeping up just fine with intel which had already jumped to 90nm with prescott in early 04. Good luck AMD!
 
I'm glad they're both doing well but prefer AMD.

Intel is better for testing and future-proof but the price is not their strong suit. AMD is delivering current performance and affordability. I haven't heard of anyone finding a game unplayable with the Deneb and it's sliding down to $200. I don't think AMD will be offering a $1000 personal processor, it's just not the way now.

They both build normal cars, luxury cars, and drag racers. Intel just loads up some of the dragsters with NOS, turbines, and other really expensive stuff. Or it's like 7200 RPM vs SSD.

I don't think the market will level out. Intel is like Coke, McDonald's, Sony. Even if there's something better than McDonald's right next to it people pack the golden arches. There is a majority of people who don't really want change in what they buy.

Now over time that can change, like Toyota over GM, so maybe AMD some day. Fifteen years ago if I said Toyota would sell more than GM... including Chevy, Pontiac, Cadillac, etc. over just Toyota not T+Honda, that would probably be laughed at.
 
I was all set to vote when my crystal ball fell of the desk and broke.....so I got nothing.
 
AMD is a great budget system and i hope they keep up the Great work. :)
 
AMD has great prices with excellent performance currently. I think they are making a slow but steady comeback.
 
hm, i think amd may be able to take over the entry level buyers, but a lot of the more "enthusiast" market is going i7 simply because it's faster. now i know this is not true for everyone but lets face it the people who are buying i7 right now are not buying it to do their taxes. they are benching and gaming and trying to get the biggest epeen .
 
AMD is certainly on track over the next couple years to really make some progress...with the forming of the Global Foundries company to focus on the manufacturing of their CPU's now, things should only get better for AMD.

They are all I've used for my personal computers and for others....Intel of course is great, but for 90% of what I do with a PC, I don't care if I can rip a CD or DVD 2 minutes faster if I had Intel, I'll take the cost savings of building with AMD any day.
 
They are certainly improving their products compared to the previous generations, but they've got a long way to go before their CPUs will be able to compete with Intel's. Right now, they're just trying to stay afloat.
 
pxc said:
Even AMD realizes it is toast: http://www.theregister.co.uk/1998/11/18/fabless_chip_companies_are_flawed/

Falling behind even more does nothing to catch up when you start out behind. :p
Click to expand...

That links almost 11 years old lol. About the time when the k6-2 500s and the boarder to going to Slot A. Its like what they said about hard drives and cds how they will never go bigger than a few megs. Now we are pushing 2TB for the consumer. I don't think Newton's laws of physics will come into effect just yet.
 
I've always been a AMD fan. What sold me was the price; that's how I bought my current Agena Phenom. It was much more afforadable than Intel even though it's not super crazy fast. It gets the job done. I think AMD is doing well and serving those who are tight on budgets.
 
should of been an option on there "or will amd and intel stay in their own market shares" which is pretty much what they are doing.. intels pushing for the lower profit enthusiest market and amd's sticking with the mid-level consumer market..
 
I think they will maintain their current market of catering to the low- to mid-end segment. I don't see them overtaking Intel in processor architecture even though lots of the things that Intel is coming out with were first publicly proposed by AMD. Intel just has too much money and resources for AMD to make a big comeback at the moment.

Who knows though since Nvidia made a comeback after getting its butt handed by ATI during the R300 vs. FX days. However the processor market is way more cutthroat than the graphics market so the pricing war is hurting AMD's future more than Intel's. I just hope AMD hangs around to keep giving me cheap processing solutions.
 
Now that AMD can play in the same ballpark as Intel, I think that we will soon see AMD pull ahead a little then Intel come back and start seeing a seesaw battle like the good old days. Ought to be interestiung seeing who comes up with what next.
 
I just don't believe the processor is important enough to warrant the cost of an entire system in many cases with Intel. But that's the basis of $500 video cards (used to be single GPU), Velociraptors for a small performance increase, $40 mousepads, etc.

If they make a system that is twice as fast based on the proc then maybe.

And I can't say it's futureproof because the early '07 processors will work well but they don't have the same luster, only 2 years.
 
I think it will end up being a coke-pepsi kind of debate eventually. It will just be some subtle differences that will make people lean in one way or the other. Right now I'm on an AMD phenom II X4 940. I have to say I love it. And for the $220 ish price I paid, It was more than worth it. I have nothing against intel though. They both have their strong points.
 
AMD/ATI is making a comeback, its just your perspective is skewed on how it's doing it. Its going for competitive performance/price ratios in specific price points which have higher demand.

Not everything is about the epeen as some say and more sensibility in times like ours. For right now, they are putting out good products and bringing the company off its knee's.
 
they certainly have their market right now. for me it seems to be in htpc where cheap procs that run cool get the job done. the whole reason they were able to make an impact in the first place was their price/performance ratio. nobody wanted to spend hundreds on an intel when a cheap overclocked amd was more than capable. intel got wise to this and started making some price cuts then came out with core2 which was solid and irresistible. it looks like intel is getting greedy again and amd is seeing the market open up a bit. especially now with getting ownership of the ati chips. i'm still using my older core2 in my desktop and don't see upgrading it in the near future. i've also made two amd systems this year (both in sig) so they're currently getting my money for whatever that's worth.
 
AMD has a price advantage only at the low end and mid-range markets. They don't really offer a "high-end", and the i7 920 for it's price is the best price:performance processor on the market.

Where AMD is shining is in the cheaper X3s for gaming systems, since the GPU matters a lot more than the CPU for most games. It's a better solution to go cheaper on the CPU and spend the most on a GPU if you are on a tight budget.

I think AMD will have a harder time competing once Intel starts transitioning to the i5 and lowers the cost of the i7 920, though. The initial cost-prohibitive DDR3 is now cheap, so the platform is getting more affordable, and AMD doesn't have anything to counter except clock speed bumps for a while.
 
Personally, unless AMD can turn a profit soon and Orochi (a.k.a. Bulldozer) offers a huge leap in performance over what Intel has out in 2011, I don't think AMD will be around in their current form for too much longer. If you can't compete, you die. Plain and simple.
 
It's not in blue's interest to let green die though. Blue will just lounge around charging $$$ in the performance space that green is not competitive in. Assuming green management doesn't suicide the company.
 
Voted for the second option.

Think AMD are doing just fine as of lately. With the release of the Phenom II, many people are going for the P2 X3 720 BE as an affordable performance cpu.

In terms of the ATI cards, think (not exactly sure) many are buying the 4830/4850 and 4850/4870 X2.
 
truth of the matter is amd and intel are both fed, everything is getting smaller/faster economy is in the crapper, all the big corporate bucks are gone and prices are dropping like crazy, i think both companies are going to have downsize substantially
 
Rizen said:
AMD has a price advantage only at the low end and mid-range markets. They don't really offer a "high-end", and the i7 920 for it's price is the best price:performance processor on the market.

Where AMD is shining is in the cheaper X3s for gaming systems, since the GPU matters a lot more than the CPU for most games. It's a better solution to go cheaper on the CPU and spend the most on a GPU if you are on a tight budget.

I think AMD will have a harder time competing once Intel starts transitioning to the i5 and lowers the cost of the i7 920, though. The initial cost-prohibitive DDR3 is now cheap, so the platform is getting more affordable, and AMD doesn't have anything to counter except clock speed bumps for a while.
Click to expand...


exactly.. the processor has the best price to performance.. but when you talk about i7 you have to add the platform cost into the price to performance ratio.. and honestly the phenom II 940 owns it at that level.. but i wont argue that intel has the stronger processor.. i just dont think its worth the price tag just yet.. once theres more i7 processors on the market and more x58 or newer boards out.. the prices will drop and make it worth wild.. now that amd has joined the ddr3 market the prices for ddr3 should drop to ddr2 price levels.. so we will have to see how the prices on motherboards drop as well..


but on a side note.. you really have to wonder how much money intel is losing on the i7 with its price.. since they do own the chipset for the platform im sure thats where the make the money up.. but as for the processor i just cant see how they are making the profit margin they wanted with the i7 processor its self.. and i personally think the i5 will be a flop with its limited cpu socket.. since nothing else will be using that same socket except the i5..
 
without AMD we would all be paying $600.00 for Q6600's if not more.

Glad I just bought an Phenom ll x3 720BE =]
 
While I like AMD, I've been using Intel for a few years now, and am very happy with them. Yes, they cost more, but you get a nicer product. I would be worried if AMD went under, though (I don't think they will.) Intel's prices would sky-rocket.

That said, I think in the next 5 years, Intel will become cocky (see: Nvidia this past year, or Intel ~5 years ago), and AMD will make up quite a bit of ground.
 
They already are making comeback - amd is great choice at low price cpus (below e5300 price range) and X3 720 BE with good 780G mobo is excellent choice with price/performance (intel can't match it), and amd new quads when you consider cheaper good mobos are also viable alternative to intel products (for non oc people).

With all that told as a 100% gamer I still prefer e8400 with P45 mobo :)
 
I vote the second option, but at least AMD is now making progress these days and I'm happy for them. I'm still waiting for those AM3 Phenom II 945 to be released along with the 890 chipset.

Intel is good too, but its crazy they charge way too much for their products. Without AMD in the picture we would have to buy CPU's that is way overpriced.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
exactly.. the processor has the best price to performance.. but when you talk about i7 you have to add the platform cost into the price to performance ratio.. and honestly the phenom II 940 owns it at that level.. but i wont argue that intel has the stronger processor.. i just dont think its worth the price tag just yet.. once theres more i7 processors on the market and more x58 or newer boards out.. the prices will drop and make it worth wild.. now that amd has joined the ddr3 market the prices for ddr3 should drop to ddr2 price levels.. so we will have to see how the prices on motherboards drop as well..


but on a side note.. you really have to wonder how much money intel is losing on the i7 with its price.. since they do own the chipset for the platform im sure thats where the make the money up.. but as for the processor i just cant see how they are making the profit margin they wanted with the i7 processor its self.. and i personally think the i5 will be a flop with its limited cpu socket.. since nothing else will be using that same socket except the i5..
Click to expand...
I would be surprised if Intel is selling the i7 at a loss. Even the 920. AMD has nothing to compete in that market so they really have no incentive to sell it at a loss right now.
 
Rizen said:
I would be surprised if Intel is selling the i7 at a loss. Even the 920. AMD has nothing to compete in that market so they really have no incentive to sell it at a loss right now.
Click to expand...

i wouldn't think it would cost them $200 per chip to make. lolol
 
I see a lot of comments about typical desktop usage, but nobody brought up the sector where AMD has made pretty solid headway on Intel since the first Opteron.

Right now, AMD is doing well in the server market imo. The Dell R805 is my #1 choice. I'd rather have 2x Shanghai than 2x Harpertown if I'm going 32GB of RAM and heavy virtualization loads.

The only reason I'd choose Intel over AMD for a server is if I was running something incredibly CPU dependent. By that I mean a load that would require 8 CPU cores and only 8GB of RAM, for example. I do not have or see me having to deal with any server loads like that in the future.

Don't get me wrong, if there was a two socket Nehalem server I'd probably choose that depending on the price premium, but no such thing exists.
 
Agreed with the not enough Poll options.

I don't see them failing, but unless Intel missteps again like they did with Prescott when AMD was at the top of their game like they were with Athlon 64, I see AMD either staying the budget leader or the playing field leveling more.
 
I like AMD and also I have nothing against Intel, but let's not compare AMD and Intel with style that Intel made processor that is faster than fastest from AMD. Comparison of processors which have same performance have point. I had many AMD systems (Duron 800, Athlon 1200, 1800, Barton 2500 and now 64 X2 6000) And I will continue with AMD in future, because of less price for same music as Intel offers for much higher price. Btw core i7 is selling because it's a core i7, extreme performance for enthusiasts. But I have no idea why to buy this kind of extreme performance for home use. In gaming, graphics card and RAM are more important factors than processors. And watching HD movies or other multimedia-based stuff can be fully handled by novadays mainstream processors.
 
For those saying not enough poll options, its a very simple answer and only requires 3 answers. Yes they will, No they wont, and They will even out.

That simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top