A Farewell Letter to AMD

Add Your Comments

The 486 equivalent 133 Mhz processor that is how our relationship started.

The AMD 486 133 Mhz was faster and cheaper then Intel 486 at 66 Mhz. I choose you because you were cheaper and faster. You made me abandon Intel 286 for you, AMD.

All these years I stayed by you, defending you and recommending you.

How many claims of inadequate performance and reliability did I have to disprove for you. I could still remember everyone saying, you are no good for business computers. I asked why, “It’s unstable” they said. I said that is not true, I have no problems with them ever. So many I convinced over that you are good and not overpriced.

The K6 – what fond memories of I have of it! 400 Mhz, yes that was mine. Yes, with you I learned of MP3, encoded many CD with you I did. Got the Overclocker’s virus from you, almost 10 years and I’m still sick with it.

Oh my most joyous moment with you – the socket A!

You’ve grown up and going your own way now; away from the shadow of Intel. My Barton 2500 Overclocked to 2.33 GHz, how happy I was then with you, you were my most impressive overclock. We Counterstrike together, so many we have killed together, so many wars and adventures we went through. I laughed at those with their toasty P4 keeping them warm in summer – what happy memories we have together.

Then you’ve became mature – socket 939 beating everyone at everything. Nothing could match up with you, making Intel send out more and more toasters. And yet you were untouchable, everyone’s desire and envy. Yes, I was very happy with my Venice 3500+, Battlefield 2, FEAR and Guild Wars. Another journey of adventure I had with you, terrorizing people in the HindI and Apache, slaying monsters and meeting so many around the world. Yes, I wanted the dual core, but you’re still fast and cheap, such opposite attributes.

AM2, sadly I will never know you. You’re not bad, but I love my 939 and you are not better and now worse and that is not a good thing. You killed the 939 dual core CPU, no longer will they make 939, stuck with the fx-60 as the fastest. If I spend money on you for a 939, that will be loyalty and not wise of me.

So it pains me to say goodbye AMD.

You started it first, you abandoned me AMD. I was your loyal and faithful follower and supporter, like so many. If only you had continued to make 939’s, I would still be with you for more years. Farewell my good friend, my Intel E6400 is coming, take care, for a lot of us are taking this next step without you.

So long and take care AMD, I wish you well.

An Overclocker, Charles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Discussion
  1. Read this "Farewell" letter..

    Though IMOP, I think it's going too be interesting too see what ATI/AMD relationship turns out too be within respect too new innovations and new and Improved products in the future.

    Now as some of my "Past" posts indicated, I'm something of a "noob", (read: dumba**) when it comes too the techinical aspects with most of the hardware/software out there today... :rolleyes:

    That said, Can you think of graphics cards with something like a 4200 amd CPU on a ATI card, coupled with a dual core, or that 4 X 4 CPU I've read about?

    Rambleing on here, I didn't even get my first PC until 1995 or there abouts,and everything I've learned too date has been "self-taught".. Enough so that now, I build/repair/and maintain my PC's, friends, family, and a few that I get paid for, either doing repairs/upgrades/spyware/virus removal..

    Again My first computer was a Intel 133 Mhz deal, paid like 1100.00 for it running windows 95...

    2nd was a Gateway 450 Mhz, with a AMD Processor... About the same time I started learning about installing/upgrading hardware etc....

    Reading about AMD, as I never knew they even EXISITED...

    Everyone I talked too back then knew nothing of AMD, WE, (everyone in my part of the country) has grown up knowing nothing but "Intel Inside" and little blue Men....

    Lordy, hardly anyone knows about newegg either around here... :shrug: Not even some PC repair shops around here, All or most deal with TigerDirect.

    Back on topic, I'm a AMD Fanboy I guess you could say, and as other posters have said, it's the wallet influenceing my decisions, then functionality... Coupled with "How LONG" will this hardware suit me and perform nessacery tasks, (new games), until it's obsolete or until the next "Big thing comes out)...

    Pricing and the "Best Bang for the dollar" is a HUGE factor in my purchase decisions...

    It's like Nividia and ATI...

    I was a Nividia fan for the longest time, unitl I got my first ATI card, a 9800 Pro..

    Now it may be back too Nivida because of the DX10 cards...

    Same thing with Intel, I'm VERY interested in the C2D, I may purchase one when the Prices COME DOWN too resonable levels, or AMD comes out with something as good if not better...

    Pricing/Performance/and functionality.....

    My decisions....

    Peace....

    LD
    i am also thinking of switching to intel for my next upgrade if amd doesnt come out with something in the next few months...

    i remember the 1st cpu i oc'ed was my old duron 800mhz to 1ghz with stock cooling :D i had a pentium 200mhz before that, but it sucked.
    Inteersting discussion, and I have seen this on many forums over the years. The reality for me is that I will always go with the brand that gives me the best bang for the buck. Prior to my conroe system, I was running an AMD Opteron which I still have and like very much to this day. At the time the Optie 165 chips were the best performance/price ratio available. And they dominated a lot of the Intel CPUs. Prior to that I had an Intel P4 Prescott 3.2which did very well a few years back. I think a lot of people are the same, way and I also agree that healthy competition is a good thing for us consumers. I don't really care for just 1 chip company because I have to agree that it will potentially stagnate the market and slow down progression drastically. :beer:


    AMD has clobbered Intel only TWO TIMES, performance-wise. The original Athlon, and the Athlon64. Honestly, this shouldn't be the focus any more. Stop trying to beat Intel at that game. I don't care if your $1000 chip is faster than Intel's $1200 chip. I care if your $200 chip can overclock to reach the performance of Intel's $800 chip. I care if your $100 chip is reliable so that I can tell my dad to go ahead and buy the HP that has one in it.



    Actually there was a third time AMD clobbered Intel with the 386x-40 chip in 1992 and it made many realize that there was someone else besides Intel. The rest is history.

    I agree that this should not be the focus of every chip Intel and AMD make. I'm perfectly pleased with my Opteron 180. The price was right, it's reliable and should keep me in a good rig for some years to come.

    It could have easily been an Intel Core Duo chip, I wouldn't care.
    Its sadly my understanding that AMD is more interested in Perprisal SP Graphics chips and even more interested in Integrated graphics solutions. But How far can you go with onboard solutions that would chew up tons of CPU power? Unless they find a way to include such GPUs on Mobos that can use its own power supplied directly to the GPU, i dont see this as a good thing when it comes to the enthuseist. Im honestly thinking AMD is going after the OEM market, and has shifted gears and is leaving its base users behind.(US).

    Harry


    Enthusiasts have never really been AMDs base users, at most we represent a tiny fraction of a percent of the total number of home computer users. AMDs main customers for CPUs even in the mid to late 90s were Compaq, minor OEMs, and all of the companies that bought the 29k chips for embedded devices. Enthusiasts don't matter to them, have never mattered to them, and probably never will.


    AMD has clobbered Intel only TWO TIMES, performance-wise. The original Athlon, and the Athlon64. Honestly, this shouldn't be the focus any more. Stop trying to beat Intel at that game. I don't care if your $1000 chip is faster than Intel's $1200 chip. I care if your $200 chip can overclock to reach the performance of Intel's $800 chip. I care if your $100 chip is reliable so that I can tell my dad to go ahead and buy the HP that has one in it.



    Well said. I think thats AMDs biggest problem now, like most big computer part manufacturers. They are always trying to out-do the compatition, making their products DO what they do, instead of expanding on what they CAN do. This is one of those times when AMD can become a huge hit with the enthusiest market by making them overclock better at lower voltages. Instead of trying to take out Intel and Conroes by spending millions of dollars trying to develop a $2000 4ghz dual core, I would like them to develop a $300 2.4ghz dual core that can hit 4ghz easily.
    Everything costs money. Everything. R&D and acquistions. In my opinion AMD put its next line of processors on the chopping block in order to aquire ATI. This is about the future. Not the here and now. In a few years when AMD processors have clawed their way back up after Intel becomes complacent again (maybe unless they actually learn from their mistakes). From my perspective Intel seemed to always pair more often with ATI and AMD with NVidia. So now that AMD has bought ATI they are kind of roping in the gamer market. Think of the things they will be able to do with a pretty good graphics company working in tandem with making processors and motherboards. AMD architecture might find ways to work better with ATI graphics in the future and Intel will be relying on integrated Intel graphics. Ok this won't really happen as outlined but the line has been drawn in my opinion and now that AMD has the funds to R&D more I think the next couple years will be EXTREMELY interesting. Who knows what AM3 and AM3+ (I believe that is correct) will bring?


    Its sadly my understanding that AMD is more interested in Perprisal SP Graphics chips and even more interested in Integrated graphics solutions. But How far can you go with onboard solutions that would chew up tons of CPU power? Unless they find a way to include such GPUs on Mobos that can use its own power supplied directly to the GPU, i dont see this as a good thing when it comes to the enthuseist. Im honestly thinking AMD is going after the OEM market, and has shifted gears and is leaving its base users behind.(US).

    Harry
    It's funny - when the 'Farewell' article was posted, I was waiting on an A8N SLI board I purchased from the classifieds to combine with the 3400+ and 7900GT I had bartered for / purchased earlier.

    I used to be a wannabe-Intel Fanboy, loooong ago when Intel was incredibly expensive. I settled for whatever I could afford. (I'm talking 286 - 486 days, here.)

    Around the Socket A days I did a hard flip-flop to AMD Fanboyism. I replaced my p3 600b with an AthlonXP 2000+ and I was sure that Intel was just a bunch of moneygrubbing jackasses with low IPC processors bla bla bla bla, you've heard it all before.

    Now? Now my only allegiance is to my wallet. I currently have the makings for two kickass systems in my house, not counting video. (as well as 2 or 3 more not so kickass but serviceable systems.) I have the 3400+ system I'm using as my primary daily driver desktop, and I have my P4 2.4c in my sig, which will become my new BSD file server.

    I would very much like to buy a core2duo system, but I won't do it until bang-for-the-buck is guaranteed... which will probably be when the e4300s are released.

    I went through this big spiel to illustrate how I think AMD is screwing up: They haven't courted the wallet ENOUGH. It's good that they've finally broken into the OEM market in a meaningful way (Dell et al) but they should have been hammering for this years and years ago, by offering oodles and oodles of perfectly acceptable mid-grade performers at attractive bulk prices.

    "Dear Dell - we can supply you with all the mid-level chips you need at %70 of what you pay now, and we have established relationships with bulk motherboard manufacturers who can supply the mobos."

    Then Dell (or whomever) would have done all their marketing for them.

    AMD has clobbered Intel only TWO TIMES, performance-wise. The original Athlon, and the Athlon64. Honestly, this shouldn't be the focus any more. Stop trying to beat Intel at that game. I don't care if your $1000 chip is faster than Intel's $1200 chip. I care if your $200 chip can overclock to reach the performance of Intel's $800 chip. I care if your $100 chip is reliable so that I can tell my dad to go ahead and buy the HP that has one in it.

    I no longer care about the ultimate performance. I could never afford that anyway. I care about bang for the buck and reliability. Focus on these and you'll do fine, AMD.
    AMD is still seen by many as a taboo chip maker. I had to have a conversation with someone today as to why it would be ok for her to buy a Dell with an AMD chip in it. She thought she was going to buy a ghetto computer if she did.

    AMD as we know is not a ghetto chip but in the eyes of a large audience they are still a bit unknown because how far ahead Intel is in the OEM market.
    Dell already sells AMD based computers and servers and have been for a while.


    Yes, but AMD would like them to sell MORE. And the best way for them to accomplish that would be to develop an integrated CGPU that can reduce costs for the manufacturers. Imagine it like this(purely hypothetical numbers coming up). At the moment, it costs Dell $200 to build a low end system based on AMD or Intel. AMD creates a wonderful little chip that helps to reduce that to around $180. Dell still charges $300 for that new system and makes an extra $20 a system. Dell dances for joy. AMD joins in the dancing, because Dell is now selling more of it's chips for them. At the end of the day it boils down to the difference between making $100 a chip and selling 1000 or making $30 a chip and selling 20,000. The latter makes them more money.

    When you look at it this way, 65nm becomes less of a priority than getting this wonderful new CGPU online.

    I think we are seeing the beginning of a split in the way that the two camps are going. I think Intel is going to take the performance high road, as they seem to have it figured out for the moment again. I think AMD is going to keep working on a speedster, but in the background, while they keep working on a way to gain more marketshare. Remember, we are a small segment of the market. There are WAY more sixpacks and Grannies than us. That's where AMD needs to focus to steal marketshare away from the Men In Blue.
    I'm actually more interested in AMD's financial health from the perspective of an Intel user. I've always used intel, even when I was a kid playing Reader Rabbit on a Pentium 1 90Mhz. I probably always will until something bigger and better comes around.

    However, competition drives prices down and increases features, it's generally a good thing to have.

    7
    If they are going to survive, they are going to want to pimp themselves out to Mikey and crew with a set of features that can make for a lower price of production for them.


    Dell already sells AMD based computers and servers and have been for a while.


    I think when AMD took the lead they did they same thing Intel did when THEY had the lead... they rested on their laurels.


    How do you know that? Maybe they were working their asses off and nothing panned out? Just think of how many crap ideas it takes to find one good one.

    If one steps back a bit and looks at the bigger picture, then I think there a few predictions that can be safely made.

    First AMD goes out on a long limb to buy ATI. Then they start having issues with paper releases. To top it all off, they are falling behind Intel with raw speeds again.

    Now logically speaking(I know, I know, logic and AMD don't always mix), if I were in the spot that AMD is, I would be looking to stop trying to compete with Intel on raw speed and start competing on feature sets. Think about it. the big money isn't with us(high dollar, but low volume). No, indeed it's with the big OEM's like Dell(lower dollars, higher volume). If they are going to survive, they are going to want to pimp themselves out to Mikey and crew with a set of features that can make for a lower price of production for them. After all, while Dell sells machines meant for gaming, they sell far more that are meant for web surfing and e-mailing. If they can get the cost of production down then they will jump at the chance.

    So where is it financially better for AMD to be? Trying to impress the few with raw power? Or trying to impress the OEM's with raw features and lower prices?

    I'll let you do the math.


    Well put. Every major corporation knows more volume is where the money is. And as a side affect, the more customers you have the more that will develop brand loyalty.
    Everything costs money. Everything. R&D and acquistions. In my opinion AMD put its next line of processors on the chopping block in order to aquire ATI. This is about the future. Not the here and now. In a few years when AMD processors have clawed their way back up after Intel becomes complacent again (maybe unless they actually learn from their mistakes). From my perspective Intel seemed to always pair more often with ATI and AMD with NVidia. So now that AMD has bought ATI they are kind of roping in the gamer market. Think of the things they will be able to do with a pretty good graphics company working in tandem with making processors and motherboards. AMD architecture might find ways to work better with ATI graphics in the future and Intel will be relying on integrated Intel graphics. Ok this won't really happen as outlined but the line has been drawn in my opinion and now that AMD has the funds to R&D more I think the next couple years will be EXTREMELY interesting. Who knows what AM3 and AM3+ (I believe that is correct) will bring?
    If one steps back a bit and looks at the bigger picture, then I think there a few predictions that can be safely made.

    First AMD goes out on a long limb to buy ATI. Then they start having issues with paper releases. To top it all off, they are falling behind Intel with raw speeds again.

    Now logically speaking(I know, I know, logic and AMD don't always mix), if I were in the spot that AMD is, I would be looking to stop trying to compete with Intel on raw speed and start competing on feature sets. Think about it. the big money isn't with us(high dollar, but low volume). No, indeed it's with the big OEM's like Dell(lower dollars, higher volume). If they are going to survive, they are going to want to pimp themselves out to Mikey and crew with a set of features that can make for a lower price of production for them. After all, while Dell sells machines meant for gaming, they sell far more that are meant for web surfing and e-mailing. If they can get the cost of production down then they will jump at the chance.

    So where is it financially better for AMD to be? Trying to impress the few with raw power? Or trying to impress the OEM's with raw features and lower prices?

    I'll let you do the math.
    The AMD factory is in Dresden, Germany. Nobody is going to shut it down. They employ more than 2500 people there. One of the top 3 international investors in Germany. Shut it down? They all promise what they can't deliver on time. Microsoft has done it for years and so has Intel and AMD. It's all part of big business.

    Consumers need to be patient and stop wringing their hands because a chip they want isn't ready. The sun will still rise tomorrow whether the AMD 65 chip is ready or not. Then the pendulum will swing against Intel, and then against AMD .............and it goes on forever. The ones that benefit are the consumer if you're patient.

    Your 6300 Conroe will be obsolete in 6-9 months anyhow and you can buy it for less than half the price like I did on my Opteron. Think of what your Conroe would cost if there was no AMD.............


    Ok Ill go out on a limb and say fanboys, But who knows. My point was, and this is a fact, the Govt Of germany Gave AMD a certain Time frame to CONVERT the whole fab Over to 65nm It was some sort of deal, contract or whatever it was, AMD almost Missed this deadline, and The Govt of Germany WAS going to make them shut down. This was either posted here awhile back, or at one of the big Tech sites. Why the heck would i make something like that up? Sheesh. Im Buying the 6300 so i have incentive(and a tool to use against the wife) so i can upgrade sooner or later with her blessing. The constant upgrades i do, Shes not buying it anymore.
    RT

    "Your 6300 Conroe will be obsolete in 6-9 months anyhow and you can buy it for less than half the price like I did on my Opteron. Think of what your Conroe would cost if there was no AMD............."

    And if there was no AMD, there most likely would not have been any Conroe for you to buy. The evolution of the chips is driven by competition, with no competition, we would probably all be on 1 ghz pentium 2s or something right now.