Why Intel is not > AMD....?

[9mmCensor]

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.

I think a Barton @ 2810 will beat a barton. http://www.cpudatabase.com/CPUdb/

 

[Anaxagoras1986]

I second that I think a Barton at 2.8Ghz would smoke a P4 at 3.3Ghz in most cases. Most Bartons wont do 2.8Ghz though

 

[greenman100]

UGH.

This board is getting to me a little bit lately. Very few people, with the exception of @mdOCer and a few others have offered ANY insight on my original questions. Almost everyone on this forum knows AMD is more efficent per clock cycle, blah blah blah. Mhz is like measuring a car's speed in horsepower. I'm sick of hearing it. The fact of the matter is, AMD makes chips that can do nearly as many, if not more, computations per second. How is Intel not blowing them away with all the money they could be dumping into R&D?

Please, read and respond to THIS. No more explainations of AMD's more efficent design, I want to know why Intel hasn't been able to come up with something blowing AMD away, since my research showed Intel has the cash to.

::edit-spelling

 

[9mmCensor]

My guess would be that when Intel desided to go the power route they laid down the archetechure to do so(not something you can tweak easily), and that they are fixing that for the P5s.

or AMD has really good engineers.

 

[greenman100]

or AMD has really good engineers.

Engineers don't work for free. Generally better engineers demand more money...so, back to my original question....?

 

[docinthebox]

Like users, there are good engineers out there who support the underdog too. Money isn't everything. Besides, who knows, maybe AMD offers other things like more stock option than Intel, so the overall compensation package may be comparable, and stock option provides the employees incentive to work hard to make the option worth more value.

The other thing to bear in mind is that I seem to recall that AMD has a number of engineers from the previous DEC, which Compaq later bought and pretty much wasted. So prolly a lot of the DEC expertise flowed into AMD.

 

[9mmCensor]

Also some engeneers may not like working for a huge evil corperation.

flame away

 

[johan851]

Please, read and respond to THIS. No more explainations of AMD's more efficent design, I want to know why Intel hasn't been able to come up with something blowing AMD away, since my research showed Intel has the cash to.

Well...judging by your research, current market shares, and the differences in revenue between the two companies...as long as Intel has such a significant lead, do they really need to blow anyone away? Economically, they already have.

It's also possible that Intel DOES have something available, but they don't want to pull it out unless AMD starts to get ahead, as was the case with AMD coming out with Opterons and Intel showing up with P4EE's as a counter.

 

[greenman100]

Well...judging by your research, current market shares, and the differences in revenue between the two companies...as long as Intel has such a significant lead, do they really need to blow anyone away? Economically, they already have.

It's also possible that Intel DOES have something available, but they don't want to pull it out unless AMD starts to get ahead, as was the case with AMD coming out with Opterons and Intel showing up with P4EE's as a counter.

Awesome, finally some insight.

However, if I were Intel, I'd want to further my market share, and further secure my victory....why aren't they pulling away?

In my opinion, and probably just about anyone's, the P4EEs are a band-aid. All they did was smack some more cache on a P4.


As for the short-sighted comments about engineers workinf for less money....Think for yourselves. If you had a family, and had to put food on the table and pay the bills, would you put "working for the underdog" ahead of taking care of your family?

I didn't think so. Come on.

 

[OC Detective]

UGH.


Please, read and respond to THIS. No more explainations of AMD's more efficent design, I want to know why Intel hasn't been able to come up with something blowing AMD away, since my research showed Intel has the cash to.

::edit-spelling

OK a few possible theories.
1. Intel cannot "blow away" AMD because if they did they could run into isues such as the anti competition laws that Microsoft had to face.
2. Intel as Market leader with 80+% market share in the processor sector - do not need to blow away AMD because they are very profitable and only need to do enough with the products they have and the excellent marketing and tie-ups (DELL etc) they have to maintain this position.
3. They spend more on Marketing than R&D therefore at present with this current balance of marketing/R&D spend they dont have the sufficient R&D to blow away AMD.

YOu can look at all these in isolation or better still see linkages between them all to see why Intel does not "blow" AMD away.

 

[johan851]

Exactly OC Detective. I was thinking the same thing about point #1. If Intel suddenly doesn't have any competition, then they have a monopoly on CPUs and are subject to all kinds of regulations...they want to avoid that.

If Intel really wanted to blow AMD away then they'd just do some major price cuts. I know if P4's were cheap enough I'd go with one over an AMD system...but the way the money plays out, I can't afford to go Intel right now. Intel's CPUs can't cost more to make either...if they do, it's definitely not along the same ratio as Intel vs. AMD retail costs.

Again, perhaps Intel isn't pulling away completely because it's simply not favorable to their position.

 

[specific]

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.

Typical statement coming from you lately, ol man. Why would you compare a T-bird to a P4C? There are about 3 years seperating the technologies. I hope you meant T-bred.

I second that I think a Barton at 2.8Ghz would smoke a P4 at 3.3Ghz in most cases. Most Bartons wont do 2.8Ghz though

A 2.4 barton will do more than get close to a 3.3 P4Cat quite a few things.

This board is getting to me a little bit lately

If you want the secrets behind closed doors, then write a letter to whoever is in charge. Then complain when THEY don't give you the answer.

Nothing that has been said here is beyond a few minutes of reflection mixed with some words from the front page. But it seems that you want to know what Intel's 10 year plan is.

They may have an ace in the hole. But why would they tell?

Furthermore, why would you expect to hear the answer to it all here? Or at any other forum? This kind of discussion feeds conspiracy theories.

 

[Noodles]

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.

If AMD was smart, they would shift some focus to the mobile market. This past year, laptop sales surpased desktop sales for the first time. It is clear what most people want. However, since most of those laptops were probably dells anyway, it might not even matter at this point.

 

[theotherphil]

Both companies have great products but Intel doesn't "have" to blow AMD away for any reason. It is much more profitable for Intel to sell products that perform similarly to AMD. No doubt they have the technology to produce a real *** kicking proc. Think of it this way, you buy a super duper all singing, all dancing CPU from Intel that blows everything away significantly. You then wouldn't have to upgrade at all for the next five years. This wouldn't be very wise now would it? Intel want regular income and they rely on people like you and I upgrading once or twice per year.

 

[ol' man]

Typical statement coming from you lately, ol man. Why would you compare a T-bird to a P4C? There are about 3 years seperating the technologies. I hope you meant T-bred.

I meant tbred Also I said aircooled. If you want to go with the max a PIV can do on water I know there are some 3.8~3.9GHz PIV-C running with only water cooling. This guy is running 3.8GHz on air cooling with a 2.4C. Sounds like MACCI.

L309A518 3800 1.75 SL6WF Malaysia 8 Asus P4P800 Deluxe Vantec AeroFlow 11575

 

[Vertical_Zer0]

I meant tbred

Still doesn't mean you're not wrong...

(don't take that the wrong way... I was only being humorous.)

 

[@md0Cer]

I meant tbred Also I said aircooled. If you want to go with the max a PIV can do on water I know there are some 3.8~3.9GHz PIV-C running with only water cooling. This guy is running 3.8GHz on air cooling with a 2.4C. Sounds like MACCI.

Yea, its pretty obviouse you meant tbred.

Anyways, If you went and bought a 1700 or 1800 for like 45 dollars, you would have extra money left over to make that watercooling with a fridge to make that chilled watercooling. Just my opinion on that. Im sure you could hit probably around 3.0Ghz with the right week. My 310 1700 will do 2.5 on air on 1.775Vcore. With chilled you could bump that up to 2.0 vcore and im sure you would be able to hit something close to 3.0Ghz.

 

[Mr.Guvernment]

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

in a car sense i have bene told


AMD has a faster acceleration
Intel has a faster high end speed


it is like cars - u take a porshe and ferrari - they dont both have the same HorsePower, one may have more torque which gets it launches of the line faster resulting ina lead for a while, but after a while the other may catch up and pass the other. - pending on the track they are racing..


lol

 

[Mr.Guvernment]

Both companies have great products but Intel doesn't "have" to blow AMD away for any reason. It is much more profitable for Intel to sell products that perform similarly to AMD. No doubt they have the technology to produce a real *** kicking proc. Think of it this way, you buy a super duper all singing, all dancing CPU from Intel that blows everything away significantly. You then wouldn't have to upgrade at all for the next five years. This wouldn't be very wise now would it? Intel want regular income and they rely on people like you and I upgrading once or twice per year.

My thought exactly.

Why should intel suddenly come out with say a 4ghz CPU when they know they can milk the market with cpu from 3.2 /3.3/3.4 etc etc

a company wants to get as much shelf life out of one product as they can - this results in more money.

if every intel simply came out with a processor that whooped AMD in the butt they are losing out on money - instead they sell products that compete with AMD and sometimes beat them - look @ ATI for example - the 9700 /9800 and now XT - only have a 5-20% total improvements from the 9700 - XT - and yet look how many people ran out and bought a 9800 even thought they had a9700, and how many people ran out and bought a XT even though they had a 9800 - get my drift..

- and if AMD gets ahead - they have a back up plan like the EE - even thought it is a bandaid fix - it is likely enough to take some sales away from AMD - which is there goal.

Intel is so far ahead of AMD they have no reason to leave them in the dust - they leave them their to compete - so intel has a company to surpass and show off too.

 

[9mmCensor]

"In my opinion, and probably just about anyone's, the P4EEs are a band-aid. All they did was smack some more cache on a P4."
The just overclocked a Xeon proc.