[InfiniteThought]

At the moment AMD seems to have a brighter future then the once dominant Intel. The architecture of the K8 appears to be advantageous over the Intel counter part, due to its lower power consumption, on board memory controller and ability to run at a lower frequency with its shorter pipe line. This evidence of which is most clearly displayed when comparing dual core CPUs.

I'm primarily an AMD man. I've run an AMD machine for the past 5 years because of the better performance-price ratio of the K7 and most recently the better design of the K8 dual core.

Even though Intel’s current products aren't bad, the advantage AMD has at the moment is obviously there, and it's not due to better marketing, when was the last time you heard AMD mentioned in a TV commercial? AMD just doesn’t have the brand recognition of Intel; therefore AMD must have the better product at the moment. The consumer market doesn't lie.

One question: When will Intel regain its dominance? Will their new 65nm chips be the answer? This thread should be a discussion of where the CPU industry is going. Will multi-core CPUs become the norm? What products will AMD and Intel look to release to gain an advantage over their rival? Will the ensuing battle find a way to maintain Moore’s law?

[dicecca112]

I think it'll all depend on the next gen of processers that are due to come out. If Intel manages to keep there processers as low wattage as AMD, Intel will win just because of there name. Multicore will be the norm whether we like it or not, both manufactuers have said that that multicore chips are all that they will manufacture anymore. IMO Moore's law is a distant concern, clockspeed no longer matters, both have said its performance per watt. I mean who cares, if they can make a 4ghz chip, if a 2ghz chip with a difference architecture will blow it out of the water.

[3DFlyer]

I don't really see AMD's on die mem controller as advantageous. I see issues with it. It does allow lower latencies, but other than that it's pretty much a wash anymore in memory bandwidth and the controller also introduces the cold bug to the CPU, and makes the CPU memory dependent.

I've seen memory bandwidth marks anywhere from 7000-9000 in Sandra on the newer Intels depending on clock rate of course. Intel has sateted that they don't need to rely on an on die mem controller, and I agree. The latest (and last) generation of netburst CPU's, the 9xx series has shown stellar performance.

Intel hold the 3DM01 record of being the first to 50 grand, and that's something AMD used to excel in, so measures of 3D performance advantages are dwindleing for AMD. The 65nm technology is delivering what was promised. While they don't have quite as low TDP numbers as some of the AMD counterparts, they do have a higfher clock to pipe length ratio.

With the Introduction of the Conroe XE with it's 14 stage pipes, and clock rates up to 3.333GHz ,HT enabled on the XE's, and a 333mhz chip of their own, I foresee Intel retaking the all of the performance benchmarks. A chip like that will not onl excel a the multimedia end, but will be efficient and quick enough to retake the 03,05, and 06 marks.

AMD does have some good ideas. Their mem controller does offer some advanatges. It does help improve latency. They do run slightly cooler, but they are clocked lower so that is to be expected. The TDP on the new AM2 and the Conroe has been stated on the review sites to be near equal. The AMD's have shorter pipes than the Intel counterpart currently so it's really a completely different type of running. With the Introduction of Conroe that difference will also dwindle away.

Intel has found a way to go to a 14 stage pipe, yet still retain higher clocks of 3.333GHz. It will not have the on die mem controller, so will not be hindered by the cold bug. With HT, a shoter piep design, cooler running, Viiv, VT, and the best chipsets in the world running alongside them, I don't see AMD gaining marketshare.

On this forum, I have been seeing quite the opposite. Many users are switching to Intel, and many new members have come to this forum and are OC'ing the new 6x1, and 9xx CPU's. Many are also waiting on Conroe to appear.

By Q3-Q4 I think the market trend will be very clear.

[dicecca112]

On this forum, I have been seeing quite the opposite. Many users are switching to Intel, and many new members have come to this forum and are OC'ing the new 6x1, and 9xx CPU's. Many are also waiting on Conroe to appear.

I just think its more prevelent here. I think the forum is still split 50-50. What your right about this is a lot of people are waiting for these new chips. Personally, whatever has the best performance and runs the coolest I will go with that. The only reason I didn't go X2 was cost. I wish I had the temps of those though

[Indyxc1]

My opinion is as follows:

Historically AMDs were never relevant to the mainstream, because Intel offered a superior product, at a competitive price, with better support.

The pentium 4 willamette core is really where Intel really began loosing their lead to AMD. At that time though the AMD offerings weren't too much better, but the perception in the lack of support, and buggy chipsets in motherboards kept people in the Intel camp.

Northwood came out, and gave Intel some renewed hope, followed by Prescott, which we know the story about. I never though Prescott was bad, as I owned one, but the mainstream saw it as a high power consumption low efficency chip.

Then came AMD with their socket 754/939, with low consuming cpus that were VERY efficenct in clock cycle, and FINALLY received good chipset support througn Nvidia. In comparison the 5xx and 8xx Intel chips were nothing special. The 8xx series was arguable rushed, being easily outperformed by the x2 and Opteron X2s. The 5xx was really nothing more than a prescott in lga 775.

Another big factor is Nvidia. Nvidia made AMD into what it is now. Nvidia came out with the nforce 4, with SLI and other features not really found on Intel until recently. Everyone including myself finally decided to take the jump to AMD, and see what the fuss was about. If you were a gamer and wanted the early SLI rig, cared about benchmarking, and game framt rates you were going with AMD.

Looking to the future, it's hard to say. I think AMD will continue to grow, as they finally got a "good" foot in the door, but from what I've seen with socket AM2 AMD might be in trouble. Intel has Conroe on the way, and AM2 seems nothing more than 939 in another socket with DD2. Considering the 9xx and 6xx series Intel Preslers and Cedar Mills really closed the gap, if Conroe comes out to be what it is suppose to be, and AM2 is nothing more than what I mentioned, well AMD might not grow much more.

Indyxc

[Quailane]

Originally Posted by dicecca112

I think it'll all depend on the next gen of processers that are due to come out. If Intel manages to keep there processers as low wattage as AMD, Intel will win just because of there name. Multicore will be the norm whether we like it or not, both manufactuers have said that that multicore chips are all that they will manufacture anymore. IMO Moore's law is a distant concern, clockspeed no longer matters, both have said its performance per watt. I mean who cares, if they can make a 4ghz chip, if a 2ghz chip with a difference architecture will blow it out of the water.

The only reason that AMD and Intel say that is because they can't make them go any faster. If they could get processors to go faster, they would still be singing their old tune.

[dicecca112]

Another big factor is Nvidia. Nvidia made AMD into what it is now. Nvidia came out with the nforce 4, with SLI and other features not really found on Intel until recently. Everyone including myself finally decided to take the jump to AMD, and see what the fuss was about. If you were a gamer and wanted the early SLI rig, you were going with AMD.

That's a real good point. I know a lot of Intel users are so mad over the ridiculous number of chipsets that intel is putting out.

When I built my system in May, there was 915, and 925. Since then Intel stands to release (or released) 945, 955, 965, 975, and 985 and all there various other variants compared to AMDs 754, and 939.

[jarthel]

with the new Intel architecture coming out and from reports from "the inquirer" that they are cheap dual-cores, I don't really see AMD gaining much more ground. They might even lose some market share.

[yo4444]

I really saw AMD beginning to make some ground with the Nforce2 chipsets, long before the Nforce4's. That was the point when I saw huge #'s of Intel ppl trying out the AMD's for their overclocking Tbred B's and Bartons. As long AMD can keep close with real world performance and still manage to pull ahead once in a while, their market won't be dwindling, as they are becoming synonomous with the "alternative" CPU that can put up the #'s when they need to. It WILL however take another step similar to the x2's and 939's to gain enough market share to equal Intel. That's for sure.

Granted, if Intel's new lines are so incredibly mindblowing that AMD looks like a commodore 64, its endgame, but I don't see it happening.

Every time a new core/socket/die shrink comes out, ppl start with the who will win stuff. The two companies will just keep scoring/taking hits, back and forth, just like ATI and Nvidia. All the while, the market will slowly equalize between the two companies until a third comes along to eat up some marketshare.

[IWasHungry]

I was actually thinking of investing some $$$ is AMD, seeing as how I can't foresee any degradation in market share anytime soon. AMD just becomes more and more popular.

[InfiniteThought]

Originally Posted by IWasHungry

I was actually thinking of investing some $$$ is AMD, seeing as how I can't foresee any degradation in market share anytime soon. AMD just becomes more and more popular.

Intel stock seems like a bargain right now.

It's trading at a P/E of ~15 while AMD is at 107.

AMD is over priced. Buy Intel.

[Surfrider77]

Originally Posted by InfiniteThought

Intel stock seems like a bargain right now.

It's trading at a P/E of ~15 while AMD is at 107.

AMD is over priced. Buy Intel.

I agree... Intel is down to about $20 a share. I have no doubt it will pick up in the next year. Buying AMD is not smart right now. Think "Buy low, sell high". Buying AMD would be just the opposite.

[Kris]

Intel always has the silver bullet just around the corner...... along with a new chipset!

[rseven]

Well, I would like to congratulate everyone here for not turning this thread into a flame thrower. This is the calmest AMD versus Intel thread I have ever seen. I hope I do not make it otherwise.

My crystal ball says that by the end of the year AMD will lose a modest amount of market share, but will still be better off than they were during their last decline. In the long run I see them having ups and downs as both companies introduce new products and gain some share term advantage, However over time I see AMD slowly gaining over Intel. The reason is that Intel is an old, large corporation that is suffering from hardening of the creative arteries. If this were not so, then AMD would not even be close to competing with them. All of the cards are stacked in Intel's favor, yet they have struggled. To me this is an indication that something is seriously wrong with the company. I believe that Dell will be selling AMD systems before this year is over, which will be a nice boost for AMD.

BTW, for a short term investment I would think Intel is the better deal. In the long term I'd rather buy AMD. In truth, I would not buy either stock as neither is such a great investment gamble. Tech stocks are a bit to volatile for my money.

[MightyJoe]

I forsee their market shares staying about the same over the next year or so, while Intel and AMD work on releasing dual core chips. Whoever makes the next giant leap in performance after that will take more of the market share but for now I think that AMD is becoming known to the general public is a very good thing. It's no longer customers walking into a store requesting Intel by name (as much) so AMD has more of a chance. Just look at how the ending months of '05 how AMD outsold Intel in brick-and-mortar stores.

[OC Detective]

Originally Posted by IWasHungry

I was actually thinking of investing some $$$ is AMD, seeing as how I can't foresee any degradation in market share anytime soon. AMD just becomes more and more popular.

You have totally missed the boat in terms of AMD - as recently as say September it was still a good investment - now all of AMDs future market share increase and profits (through being sold out Q1 and Q2) is already factored into their current share price.

[Roofles]

What I see is a factor of who can create new technology faster, and who can put the r&d behind the 'next thing'

As has been said earlier in this thread, Intel and AMD have said screw off to Moore's Law, which is really not a big deal. Maybe the amount of transistors won't double every 18 months, but essentially the processing power does. So its just a rewording of the law. But my point is that eventually they will have reached the limit of whatever chip making technology they are using now (SOI?) and then the market share will start to turn over into whoever can create the 'next thing' faster. I read a while ago in MIT's magazine about Intel doing research on Silicon Optics. Now on the other hand, AMD is doing what?

Now I own an AMD processor because its price and power fit into my budget nicely, and I love the chip and will root for the underdog in a race like this. However, until AMD starts looking beyond the now, I think in the long run Intel will maintain its market share.

[IWasHungry]

Originally Posted by InfiniteThought

AMD is over priced.

That's what they said about Google stock.

[Gautam]

Originally Posted by 3DFlyer

I don't really see AMD's on die mem controller as advantageous. I see issues with it. It does allow lower latencies, but other than that it's pretty much a wash anymore in memory bandwidth and the controller also introduces the cold bug to the CPU, and makes the CPU memory dependent.

I see you stating this pretty often. The real issue is compatibility. The cold bug and all, not really a big deal as far as Intel or AMD are concerned. Also, for the record, the Timna, ie great grand daddy of the Yonah, was originally designed with an on-die memory controller in March of 2003. I'm not sure whether AMD or Intel started experimenting with on-die memory controllers first, but my guess is they both did around the same time...For practicality's sake, Intel might have done themselves a favor by not implementing it in their retail products, but they definitely lost the enthusiast market. I think you can expect to see an IMC on an Intel rather shortly, at least I hope we do...would be pretty interesting.

[Indyxc1]

Speak of the enthusiast market:

One interesting thing to check out is the number of people browsing the AMD forum vs. the Intel forums. Most of the forums I visit like this let you see how many people are browsing the respective forum.

About 2 years there were almost always more people in the Intel forum. These days it's always AMD. Go see for yourself at any given time.

The point being is, right now AMD has captured the gaming segment with the help from Nvidia, with things like SLI, overclocking, better gaming performance, etc..