Will AMD ever be competitive with Intel in performance?

M

maximus87

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
127
I really don't know what AMD's future plans are in terms of competing with the Core i7/i9 series. I know right now they are turning out some great processors at lower prices, but clock for clock Intel still is the best choice in terms of performance correct? Will AMD ever take that crown back like they did the the AMD64 processors?

I hope so, not only because I like AMD but also to keep Intel in line. :eek:
 
this is the third thread with the same title within 2 months.. try finding the older one and revive it..

but for the answer.. 1 word "bulldozer"..
 
I think so. After the Athlon64's had the crown for 4 years, now Intel has it. Only time will tell, but as sirnonkey sais, Bulldozer.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
I dont think 'performance' as we think of it is the issue anymore.

Any CPU you buy off the shelf for any of the current platforms will do the job in most cases if partnered with suitable support.

Nowadays its a case of CPU A will offer you superb performance but if you spend $100 more CPU B will offer excellent performance. All AMD has to do is be competative on price. If the AMD CPU will give me 70fps for $100 I really cant be bothered to spend $250 for the Intel that will give me 100fps.

Now back in the day when the difference was between giving 20fps or 25fps in Quake...no problem, I'll take the one that gives 25fps please. Every bit of performance counted.

We still judge PC performance by turn of the century standards. It's a different story now.

As for AMD/INTEL, well only tech nuts like us give a damn. Johnny customer doesnt give a shit as long as it's cheap, can play WoW and Facebook. This situation should really be more of a concern for Intel than AMD.

Folks start saying "Why do I need to spend $800 on that PC when this one does the same for $500?
 
While I agree with your points I think I can speak for a lot of people here in that performance does matter despite cost. :LOL:

Don't get me wrong, cost is always a factor.. but I'm sure most members here (myself included) lean more on getting the fastest rather than the best bang per buck (though I'm sure there are plenty here who go that route too).

I'm just wondering if AMD will ever be a factor again when it comes to wanting the best of the best, cost be damned. I don't know much about Bulldozer but it's not going to be an i7 or i9 killer is it? At least, I've never gotten that impression.
 
the fastest is usually the most future proof. so yes, i would think most enthusiasts on this forum would want the fastest setup available.

id jump back on the AMD bandwagon if they came out with an intel killer.
 
As they say, "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while."

AMD pulls out ahead once every 7-10 years.
 
I think many people follow the "bang for the buck mantra." I surely do that's why I fell in love with Phenom II x3 720. Three cores that can overclock to 3.6 easy on air for $135 (at the time) come to papa. But on the other side I can see people wanting the best of the best. It all comes down to personal preference.
 
Over this past summer many were letting go of their i7 rigs due to the economy, I got a combo that did 4.0 for 600 shipped. looking at the phenoms at the time, it would have cost me near that to get a 965BE/ new ram / new mainboard. Understandably, I went with the performance.

At least at the time, nobody was selling their AMD stuff used. When I bought my C2D setup used back in 07, nobody was selling their AM2 stuff either. On here, there's just more supply of used Intel stuff it seems.
 
+1 for bulldozer....no one knows what it will bring, but if you use google you can find what it is supposed to be.....it will be different(from what i have read)...


next time use search tho....as there are a few threads already for this
 
maximus87 said:
I really don't know what AMD's future plans are in terms of competing with the Core i7/i9 series. I know right now they are turning out some great processors at lower prices, but clock for clock Intel still is the best choice in terms of performance correct? Will AMD ever take that crown back like they did the the AMD64 processors?

I hope so, not only because I like AMD but also to keep Intel in line. :eek:
Click to expand...

Not everyone is CPU performance bound.
AMD still has a market in pricing.

If Intel pulls too far, expect the FTC to step in.
As a matter of fact (no surprise here): http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/12/intel.shtm
 
If Intel pulls too far, expect the FTC to step in.
Click to expand...
So wait, if a company is just better at designing a chip than another one, the FTC has to step in?
I mean, I am all for AMD to get back to its Athlon 64 days but that is just silly...I am sure something is not quite like that.
 
shaolin95 said:
So wait, if a company is just better at designing a chip than another one, the FTC has to step in?
I mean, I am all for AMD to get back to its Athlon 64 days but that is just silly...I am sure something is not quite like that.
Click to expand...

not that, bullying and undercutting the competition will get the FTCs attention real quick
 
I like folks here mentioning future-proof. Especially most of those would be the types to change their CPU at least every 18 months if not less. Why 'future-proof' when thats not an issue? I bet you dont even get dust starting to collect in your GPU fans before they are swapped out.:D

There is more to computing than endlessly running benchmark software guys.:cool:

Check out Joe Averages PC, he bought his single core 2Ghz P4 with 256MB of ram seven years ago (in his mind it's only three) and he still doesnt realise its dog slow. Now thats real future-proofing.:eek:
 
Random - but will this 'bulldozer' chip be using the AM3 socket?
 
MrWizard6600 said:
bulldozer++;

8 integer pipes with 2 128bit FP units sounds pretty :eek: to me.
Click to expand...

The fact that AMD thinks that is enough to handle 2 complete threads ~90% of the time should tell you their expectations for keeping all of them fed in a single threaded application.

I hope Bulldozer is good, but AMD has been long on promises and short on performance a lot lately... I'm just finding it hard to be interested much less exited in a chip we won't have cold hard numbers on for at least another year, probably closer to 18 months.
 
the real question is will intel be competitive with AMD pricing? :D amd=best bang for the buck!
 
I dont think it should matter. as long as they can sell cpus affordably for the mainstream consumer, they have a plan that works for now.
 
It is competitive with Intel in terms of perfomance and the price is better. The Phenom 2 line was good and was decent competition. As for the very top performance, I don't think it will ever be able to compete with Intel in the near future and they probably aren't aiming for that anyway. AMD is trying to avoid any blunders. Intel is a beast and if it did screw up, it could rebound easily unlike AMD.
 
AMD does pretty well in the budget to performance category, but with the i5 750, those willing to spend just a little more can get better performance than the AMD chips can offer

but that's about it for AMD really untill their new chips are released, if ever
 
but will this 'bulldozer' chip be using the AM3 socket?
Click to expand...

I hope it does not. Much better and future proof to have tri or even quad channel ddr3 support in a new socket.
 
Last edited:
Intel is pushing out multi-million dollar fab plants and micro-miniaturisation, to ensure that they are at the top of the heap.

If the majority of computer buyers just want an Internet box, AMD wins in price / performance.

For budget-conscious gamers, AMD wins on price / performance.

How important will multi-threaded applications be in the future?

I don't expect AMD to come out with the next Athlon x 2 and maybe they don't need to? It would be nice if they concentrated on getting a handle on the higher TDPs.

Who knows what AMD will do with the 1 billion dollars that they won from the lawsuit?
 
Who knows what AMD will do with the 1 billion dollars that they won from the lawsuit?
Click to expand...

Pay off part of their enormous debt. Increase research and development.
 
AMD will always have a special place in the hearts of nerds and techies alike, regardless of performance ;)
 
Astronomica said:
AMD will always have a special place in the hearts of nerds and techies alike, regardless of performance ;)
Click to expand...

AMD does in mine, that's why I ask. It's not that I prefer Intel, I just go with the fastest I can get for the amount of money I have to spend. AMD is on the lower end of that spectrum, usually just below my ideal level of performance, that's why I haven't really taken anything they released seriously for a pure performance level build.

Now, if a family member or friend asked me to build them a computer that's fast and cheap, I'm definitely going with AMD. :p
 
The last Intel build I put together was in about April, 2008. ATI graphics were junk and the Phenom line was anemic. I put an e8300 on an EVGA 750i board for my brother because I thought he might want to go SLI in the future. Distributed computing is the only reason I would build an Intel system right now.

In the future, who knows which company will produce the next golden chip. Innovation is an expensive process, but occasionally a lucky find can turn the next revision into a revolutionary product.
 
OP: Maybe

Others: I don't think Bulldozer would be absolute stunner and Intel killer against theres, because by the time Bulldozer is out, Intel will surely be ahead with something else breath takingly powerful, which they are already in front of AMD anyway, and yes I've seen the tech specs Bulldozer is going to be based on. BTW, I ain't any fan of green, red, blue or white, I'm on the best bang for buck wagon.
 
I look forward to AMD's upcoming Thuban processors and this Bulldozer sounds promising, I wonder if it would require a new socket, because I really like to see AMD support either tri or quad channel DDR3 would make my day.
 
shaolin95 said:
So wait, if a company is just better at designing a chip than another one, the FTC has to step in?
I mean, I am all for AMD to get back to its Athlon 64 days but that is just silly...I am sure something is not quite like that.
Click to expand...

It is a necessary evil.
If Intel undercuts AMD such that AMD is out of business, everybody loses including Intel.

Intel uses a lot of technologies developed by AMD (and vice-versa).
Just because AMD is having a rough time right now does not mean it won't come out with great innovations tomorrow.
The FTC is there to make sure AMD stays alive so that we can all see those innovations to come.
The FTC would do the same for Intel if AMD was on top.

Even more interesting is the fact that after a grace period, Intel is obligated to share with AMD its "secrets" so that AMD can catch up. ;)
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2009/20091112corp_a.htm
 
I just want single core apps to run faster! the top of the line PC fo today can only do lame conversions roughly 25% than the faster computer of 2 years ago.. thats pretty sad
 
Perhaps it is time to improve lame? Could also be hdd speed related?
I rarely use lame and it does not take any long or I do not pay attention..either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top