Why Intel is not > AMD....?

[Como]

hm...how much would it cost to tell the world that an amd system does about the same work for alot less cash?

and hte P4EWE may win in benchies, but the heat must be unbearable...

 

[docinthebox]

The main question is....where does AMD get the R&D money from? Obviously, it could have come from IBM of recent times, but since the K6, they've been close.

What gives? [/B]

I have the same question in my mind. I guess it just boils down to the basics: frugal, wise, strategic R&D budget, bright competant staff, borrowing (selling bonds) plus outside investors? (is IBM an investor?)

OTOH, I think there are a lot of people who would make sure AMD stay alive so that the Dell/Intel camp does not take over the entire low-mid end server market, now that Linux is starting to get prominent in the enterprise world (e.g. Oracle and DB2 both push Linux as their deployment platform.) These people include HP/Compaq, Sun, IBM. If AMD goes away, they'll all have to play by the rules of Intel, and they don't want that to happen.

 

[diddydo75]

well my 2 penneth, i'll be buying AMD again yes my thunderbird is hot under the sink but you cant beat the price/perfomance ratio.

 

[ShakyJake]

When did gateway switch back to intel - that must have hurt AMD sales a bit.

Gateway dropped AMD about 2 years ago or so.

I don't think there was necessarily any problem with AMD, just Gateway having financial problems and wanting to streamline it's product line.

I imagine for inventory reasons, it would be cheaper just to offer one processor line rather than two.

 

[@md0Cer]

Or AMD could beat Intel at its own game by making a processor that is more inefficient than the P4 and run it at 5 GHz. They'd be outselling Intel in no time!

Seriously though, it is too bad that the average consumer thinks that the AMD platform is inferior to Intel's solution just because P4's "Have more MHz"

LOL!!! 30 stage pipeline and 18Ghz. Heh lol that would be awsome.

You are right it is too bad that the average consumer's ignorance results in a great product being thought of as not as good. Some people, I mean its like "ooo! when i play CS i get a ping of 300,000!! my connection sure is fast!" or "15,0000000 hour seek time I want that hard drive!" "50 stage pipeline! must be an efficent CPU!" "3.2 Ghz! must be a really fast CPU im gonna go buy that celeron" "150 db! must be a good fan!" "130,000,000 negative feeback ratings! must be a good seller!"

Ugh thats almost how bad it is.

 

[Cheval]

Come on, we all know VIA owns both Intel and AMD.

yup.

 

[NewbiePerson]

Don't forget both have produced their own motherboards from time to time.
Not to mention i think intel is putting a little more money into mobility.
The xbox uses intel (so im guessing the chip had to be modified).
While AMD seems to be 95%focused on desktop and server area. They do make mobiles but i haven't seen any big mobile boost from them in awhile.
It's almost like the civil war. AMD being the south. Putting most of their focus on attacking the northern part (processor market) (around the capital most in VA where the most intense battles took place), while the north eventually chokes the south splitting it into by attacking from the side (mobile, motherboard) which really decimated the south, destorying supplies, railroads etc. which essentially cost the south the war.
All in all the more money intel makes the better it can put out faster processors which will make it that harder for AMD who lacks the income of intel and as you have said the publicity.
One interesting note is the south could have easily won at the very beginning.... but they all got drunk instead of taking DC
I root for the underdog too.

 

[warlock110]

hmm i've been reading this tread, and so far people have said that more mhz doens't mean that it's better, so why is that, if the cpu works harder does it mean that it do more calculation, would that mean that it works faster? sorry if i offend any one but i'm a newb and i need to know this, i'm used to intel product, but if anyone can give me reasonable explaination then i can switch to AMD cuzz their price is hard to beat

 

[Yuriman]

AMD processors can do more work per mhz than intels. Thats why a 1700+ is only at 1.47ghz but easily beats a 1.8a P4. A 3200+ cannot beat a 3.2ghz because Intel's are now more efficient than they were before. They have higher fsb and hyperthreading, which lets them do 2 things at once. But in the low end market amd still ownz.

AMD has come out with a new 64bit product line which is even more eficient, and can keep up with intel's high end stuff, but its rediculously expensive IMHO. But it will come down, and amd will again own.

 

[NewbiePerson]

yeah
with intel your got 18 washers and dryers going on normal cycle
AMD you got 12 washers and dryers going. But they are going at on megadry and super spin cycle So you can finish one cycle faster allowing for you to get more work done. The washers and dryers are the pipelines and the cycles are the IPC.
I used the article from howstuffworks.com
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/microprocessor5.htm
I maybe wrong in that comparison but thats how i interpreted it. Thats close to how bitrate was explained to me.
Except a school bus and bus capacity was used. carrying 32 students vs 64 students etc.
You could get an A+ cert book it explains a lot about all the varying components and their importance.
Hope that helps

 

[tom10167]

hmm i've been reading this tread, and so far people have said that more mhz doens't mean that it's better, so why is that, if the cpu works harder does it mean that it do more calculation, would that mean that it works faster? sorry if i offend any one but i'm a newb and i need to know this, i'm used to intel product, but if anyone can give me reasonable explaination then i can switch to AMD cuzz their price is hard to beat

haha - Not laughing at you, per say, it's just ironic.

Yet another analogy.

Intel is 100 secretaries, they can only do 32Words per minute(WPM) yielding 3,200 wpm total

AMD has 50 secretaries, but they're doing 60 words a minute, yielding 3,000 words a minute.


This is more accurate because while AMDs are more efficient, Intel still IS(generally) faster. But AMD is way cheaper because you only have to pay 50 secretaries.

 

[9mmCensor]

In laymans terms AMD CPUs are simply more efficient.

 

[specific]

My rule of thumb is this.

What's the best component for under $150?

The answer is AMD. When intel stops ripping the world off, I'll buy it. Same for MS. I just can't see spending all that money on a PC, then spending the same amount every year or two on software that i just use casually, or play around with. If it was crucial to my legitimate business needs, and it put food on my table, that's a different story. I'll gladly buy it.

That leaves Linux, and all that free or next to nothing opensource stuff looking good. I should take some time to make that switch and stop playing around.

 

[johan851]

Oddly, since AMD is known as that "other CPU, not Intel" people not only look at MHz, but also at some sort of reputation they think they undersand.

I was trying to advise one of my friends on a computer he was going to build with only $600. It seems like people can't past thinking that AMD is "generic," "cheap," or "unreliable." Tried to convince him that'd he'd be happier with a Barton 2500+ over a 2.6GHz Northwood because he'd be able to spend more on other parts of the system. Sigh...it's so frustrating when people assume that a less well-known company makes crappy processors.

 

[9mmCensor]

Its like say "Meh, Bugatti, never heard of it, must be SH*t".


Bugatti

 

[madcow235]

The problem with Amd, yes the real problem, is their pr division SUCKS! Look at their ad's "AMD me!" it sounds retarted and is no where as catchy as DOO DO DO DO "INTEL INSIDE" AMD is great and i love them but if they dont get there name out, a 1 page ad in a pc magazine isnt going to do it, they will die.

 

[johan851]

True, their PR and advertising really isn't very good. A lot of it probably has to do with budget though...Intel undoubtedly can afford better PR and marketing people as well as more propaganda.

 

[ol' man]

My rule of thumb is this.
What's the best component for under $150?

I think if your budget is $150 for a CPU then it better be a 2.4C(2.6C is around $170). It is a well known fact that no OC'd barton or tbird can even get close to the 3.3GHz + aircooled power of a PIV-C.

Intel - Pentium® P4 2.4GHz Processor 800MHz FSB 512K Cache Socket 478 OEM
Details:
30 Day Warranty
Part - CPP4-00662
Updated - 12/13, 11:23 AM TotalCost $158
Price - $158
Shipping - Free UPS Ground

Can't buy? AC Micro
Score 1 / 1 Feedbacks
866-acmicro
301-595-8964 Beltsville, MD
Info ...
Free FedEx Ground Shipping on ALL orders. FREE Gift with Order. Languages Spoken - English, Spanish, French.

 

[Anaxagoras1986]

AMD spends alot of money to design and produce their CPU's just as Intel does. The flash memory chips is kinda an on the side thing. Also I beleive, Intel makes flash memory chips as well. They even make wireless stuff (centrino) and processors for Pocket Pc's.

Usually the latest AMD offers pretty good competition to Intel's latest, but sometimes they even make CPU's 1 or two steps ahead of Intel. For example back in the day and age of the Tbirds going at 1.4 Ghz and making Intel paper-launch Pentium 3's. Then in the 2400-2600 tbred era, AMD had to paper-launch the 2600 to keep up with Intel's latest I think. And now, the Athlon FX and Opterons are just owning Intels latest and greatest. I saw some benchmarks posted here a couople months ago. If needed I could go get that thread.

To answer your origional question, AMD and Intel seem to be pretty similar as CPU makers. They both dump tons of money into reasearching and developing their cpu's. Im sure they both reverse engineer the hell out of each other as well. Only difference is that AMD dosent have a repuation to the average Joe, and they are something like 150 million in debt.

Dont forget the initial Athlon. That thing decimated when it first came out! Good 'ol Slot A!

 

[gamefoo21]

"Ahh the brain is strong but the nervous system is weak."

Lets face it, Amd does make good cpu's but the chipsets blow!. I swear to god my via p3 board is more stable than the nforce and the nforce 2(the drivers blow also).

If amd could get off their arses and build a good chipset like intel they could get more of the oem market.

Also wouldn't the comparison between the 1.8a and 1700+ be flawed since the upgrade to northie core whupped the h*ll outta the Willie. I'd think it'd be more like 1.8(willie) goin down hard against a 1700+.