About a month ago, we asked Intel users some questions. Here’s the answers we got:
1) Please list the type and default speed of the Intel processor you use (i.e. Celeron 566, PIII 866MHz, PIV Willamette 1.8, PIV Northwood 2.4C, etc.)
The response:
Northwood PIV: 79%
Tualatin: 4%
PIII: 4%
Others: 13%
This was rather surprising, especially when at least 75% of those who said they had Northwoods indicated they had the latest “C” model Northwoods.
Only about 2% of those answering indicated they had Prescotts.
The average Intel user has relatively modern equipment, and thus can afford to be patient/unconcerned about Intel’s current problems.
2) To what extent do you consider yourself an Intel fan?
a) Not much; I just go with what is better for me at the time I buy: 37%
b) I normally go Intel, but I wouldn’t have too much of a problem shifting to AMD if the situation called for it: 37%
c) I almost always or always go with Intel, and I would have a pretty big problem shifting to AMD: 22%
d) There is no way I buy AMD over Intel: 4%
Hardly a group of fanatics speaking.
3) Why do you prefer Intel over AMD?
a) I really don’t have any real preference: 30%
b) I bought AMD before and didn’t like what happened: 10%.
c) I find that you can overclock Intel chips more than AMD chips: 12%
d) I think Intel makes a better product than AMD: 15%
e) I think Intel is a more reliable, dependable company than AMD: 18%
f) I can’t put my finger on it, but I just feel more comfortable using Intel rather than AMD: 12%
g) I’ve never seriously considered buying from AMD: 3%.
What these percentages do not reveal are the typical comments made by people about AMD. On the whole, they aren’t too wound up against AMD. To the extent Intel users
got wound up about anything AMD-related; it wasn’t the CPU but the motherboards supporting them. Intel motherboard chipsets were generally perceived as being almost as good a reason to buy Intel as the CPU. In contrast, AMD motherboards were generally regarded as an anchor (though nVidia was rather less criticized than Via).
Results Continued
4) Given Intel’s problems with Prescott and its cancellation of Tejas, what do you think will be your next computing upgrade?
a) I need a new system soon, and I don’t know what to do: 2%
b) I need a new system soon, and I guess I’ll end up with an old Northwood: 7%.
c) I need a new system soon, and I hope they fix up Prescott a bit, or introduce a Dothan desktop chip soon: 8%
d) I’ll probably end up with an AMD system: 13%
e) I can wait until 2005; I’ll compare Intel and AMD then: 55%
f) Dothan dual-core, baby!: 15%
With almost 70% indicating that they’ll wait a year or more before considering the next upgrade; this group is pretty stand-pat, and understandably so. AMD will benefit from some defection, but it won’t be anything major anytime soon.
5) How do you feel about Intel’s problems with Prescott and its cancellation of Tejas
a) Disgusted and angry: 4%
b) Pretty disappointed: 7%
c) Fairly neutral to a bit disappointed: 21%
d) At least they owned up to their problem, and did what had to be done: 49%
e) I like their new plans better than the old: 19%
Again, there’s no great angst here, more a calm acceptance than anything else.
In many ways, the mental climate is much the same among AMD and Intel users. Recent events on either side, so far, are not enough to make a significant percentage of users jump from one side to the other. This is probably due to both companies offering well-performing, mature platforms at prices considered reasonable by each camp.
Since most of neither camp finds compelling reason to upgrade from their established platforms, there’s little reason to consider upgrading, much less changing horses.
Your Comments
“I Can Go Either Way”
My cpu has been overclocked to 3.33 ghz at
stock voltage and at a full-load temperature
of 40 deg. on air. Locked AGP and PCI ports
are what sold me on Intel at the time. Lower
temps at stock speeds and overclocked (along
with a heat spreader) were an added bonus.
Had AMD offered these features at the time
(April 2003) I would have readily gone with
them. In 2005, I will probably go AMD unless
Intel raises the bar by then.
I tend to like Intel’s products from an
intellectual standpoint more
than I like AMD’s (Prescott is a notable
exception), but when it
comes
time to buy something, I really don’t care
which company it’s from as
long as I get the best value I can find for
my money. Intel usually
has
the better products at the times I’m
upgrading, but I’ve bought from
AMD
before (Duron 1200, and an AthlonXP 2200+,
which I’ve been thinking
about replacing with a Duron 1800, so I can
use quieter cooling with
it).
As far as Prescott and Tejas go… I don’t
really care much; I’ve got
a
pretty good system, and I’d have to upgrade
the video card (9700Pro)
before a faster processor would even be
worthwhile (I work and game
at
1600×1200, so unless I’m playing Quake 3,
which I rarely do anymore,
I’m
graphics limited).
I use Intel because I always have from the
start and have never
had a
major problem with them. I didn’t know
anything about AMD until 3
years ago.
More television advertising from them would
be a good idea.
Not the Chip, The Chipset!
I wouldn’t call myself an Intel fan. I’ve
used AMD systems in the past. I take a look
at the whole package (speed, stability,
chipset features) before deciding what
platform to go.
In the early days of P4 the
choice was easy, I went AMD. Once the P4
northwoods were released and intel started
putting out DDR chipsets, the choice was easy
again, P4.
If both platforms performed
identically and had the same features, I’d
probably choose Intel, just because I trust
their chipsets a bit more than AMD and VIA
(I’ve had stability/compatibility issues in
the past with certain AMD/VIA platforms).
Right now the choice is very hard. Each
platform has so many negatives that we have
to decide which is the lesser of two evils.
This is a choice I’m not looking forward to
making, so I will hold off all upgrading
until there is a clear, positive path to
take. As for my pentium-M, it is the easy
choice for notebooks right now.
I have gone AMD in the past when Intel has
had problems but usually it is brief. AMD’s
biggest problem is usually 3rd party chipset
manufacturers (Via, Sis) and the
inconsistencies they build into their
products. If AMD has as good chipsets and
mobos available as Intel when I switch then I
may stay longer.
Mostly because the Intel CHIPSETS just work
… and darn well, too.
I will NEVER AGAIN use a VIA chipset.
I’m happy to O/C an AMD Socket 939, though I
HATE
having to go with 3rd party chipset
suppliers, especially given the
transition to the new PCI Express I/O. I’d
feel more comfortable, and
purchase sooner, if there were an all-AMD
solution available.
Currently I
feel that I must wait 2 months after
introduction before purchasing
anything.
My primary home machine is a C566A @ 875 MHz.
Hail Asus, and the P2B that Refuses To Die!
. . . I prefer Intel because they make the
best chipsets in the business. In addition, I
think Intel deserves some respect as an
innovator and industry “leader” (which
basically means wasting a lot of energy
trying to convince the world that a
particular improvement is worth the hassle).
I don’t think my attitude is accurately
described by any of your options. For my last
workplace I spec’d and ordered an XP1600
system which worked very nicely, so I have
nothing bad to say about AMD. . . . I
definitely need a new system soon, or I’ll go
crazy. Mostly from shame, but I’d also like
to be able to play Thief 3 in the foreseeable
future. . . .
I’m waiting to see if the
price of a bare-minimum overclockable S775
system is reasonable. At this point, I need
to trash everything but my monitor, speakers,
and input devices no matter what, so I’m not
afraid to start over. As a second choice,
I’ll look at S939, provided that decent PCIE
motherboards are available. But if. come
July, I’m still not happy with my “next
generation” options, screw it – I’ll pick up
a top of the line S478 or socket A system and
run it into the ground.
I’d rather buy Intel because I like their
chipsets better, not merely
for
the CPU alone.
When I compare Intel boards against AMD
boards I think that Intel
chipsets
offer more.
I also have better experiences overclocking
Intel CPU’s then AMD’s.
But I suppose the next guy to take this poll
might claim the other way
around.
. . . it’s the supporting CHIPSET that makes
the difference. AMD’s own chipsets often
have things broken on them (USB 2.0?, yeah
right!) and numerous compatibility problems.
And don’t get me started on third party
chipsets, especially VIA (never again,
NEVER!).
Why Worry, Why Hurry?
Personally, I am quite happy with Intel
processors after the P4Bs…. I see no reason
to upgrade now, or for awhile… Clearly AMD
has the advantage at the moment, but, in my
opinion, it is plain stupid to upgrade
now…. PCI express is right around the
corner…. following that logic, it doesn’t
matter who is in the lead right now…. I am
actually glad AMD has a slight lead in
speed(excluding the horendously overpriced
P4EEs) at the moment… maybe it will push
Intel to try harder or something….
I was looking at either getting a Socket 939
A64 or a Northwood system and overclocking it
as much as I possibly could. I basically
planned on getting a Socket 939 somehow
whenever they’re out, though – as soon as I
heard about their coming existence almost a
year ago, something about that platform just
‘felt’ right. I’m also sitting on an unlocked
2500+ I grabbed when they first became rare.
So if AMD gets stupid with 939 and offers a
3500+ or something as the lowest speed
rating, I will just use the Barton,
overclock it, and sit out the year.
I’d like to add that the situation really
hasn’t called for it until Prescott sucked,
but even then Hammers aren’t THAT compelling
right now either.
I sure as
hell wasn’t planning on buying a preshott (I
live in a tropical climate and heat is a
major consideration in my purchases), and I
was very worried about Tejas.
The current AMD
situation isn’t much better though, so it was
a very dreary outlook for enthusiasts… but
with Intel’s announcement of scrapping Tejas
and focusing on multi-core/pentium-m
technologies, well I am hopeful Intel will
get ahold of their heat and power issues.
It’s too early to tell, of course, so I will
wait until these chips have made the review
rounds before making up my mind. I worry that
it will be quite a long time though, as Intel
hasn’t done so hot with meeting deadlines
lately.
Waiting till 2005 to upgrade seems to
be the right decision anyway, with so many
other changes on the horizon (pci-express,
ddr2, btx, sata cd-roms), putting together a
new system now would seriously limit your
upgrade path.
I wouldn’t rule AMD out with the Hammers, but
it doesn’t seem feasible right now. I’m not
going to pay for a feature I’m not going to
use (ie 64 bitness) and software isn’t
available to exploit the feature. By then, a
new version would be out anyway that would be
better than what’s out there now.
I’m considering buying a new processor, but
It just doesn’t seem worth the $$$. $150 for
a marginal improvement? I don’t think so.
My 1.6a has been a great investment. It’s 2
years old now, but it still runs all my aps
and games great.
I did upgrade late last
year to a dual channel Asus p4p800 deluxe
Newegg refurb, but I don’t think I’ll see a
big jump in performance if I put a new
processor in at 3.X ghz with hyperthreading.
I should amend that—I don’t think I’d see a
performance jump that justifies $150 to me.
Looking Towards The Dothan Way
A future desktop Pentium-M class
chip would be ideal for those of us that have
become interested in a
decently powerful computer that is both cool
and quiet. Once Intel
releases a desktop Pentium-M class processor
I’ll look at AMD’s
offering and then decide which company has
the CPU that meets my
needs. Prescott and 130nm Hammers don’t
interest me. . . .
I’ve been drooling over
the idea of a Pentium-M desktop machine for a
long time. Intel’s stubborn insistence that
only megahertz matters
had prevented that from happening. It appears
that, for once,
engineering has succeeded over marketing.
Good for Intel and good for
its talented Pentium-M design team.
I’m reminded how nVidia tried to force the
GeForceFX 5800 into production and proclaim
its greatness while most everyone sat back
and marvelled at their delusions. Had they
stopped and thought about its direction when
things when off track, they may have been
able to introduce the NV35 as the NV30 and
not been put in such an embarassing situation
where they were selling a product that they
knew wasn’t as good as their competitor’s
product, and they couldn’t exactly say “Uh,
sorry. We’ll do better next time.”
Someone at Intel finally stepped up and said
“Wait a minute, is the Pentium processor
heading in the right direction, or have we
blinded ourselves into believing that
consumers want mhz above performance?”. I
was impressed with the Pentium M’s
performance when I first saw its gaming
benchmarks, and I’m curious to see what Intel
can do with the Pentium M when not hampered
by the shackles of notebook power consuption
requirements.)
I am far more concerned how this sea change
in the industry signals a
likely stratification of the market into
(far) more expensive
server-class offerings and desktop-class
offerings that require more
work from ISV’s to realize continued
performance gains from the
expected multi-core processors. (Witness the
fact that most high-end
games *still* can’t effectively leverage a
dual-processor or HT
machine.)
It has always taken software developers a
much longer time to
leverage new hardware features (SMP/HT, MMX,
SSE, SSE2, 3DNow!, etc.)
in a pervasive way than it does for the chip
makers to add them.
It’s been one hell of a ride for the past 5
or 6 years. I knew the gravy train had to end
sooner than later. It’s going to get
expensive for some decent hardware pretty
quick. If the next paradigm is going to be
multi-processors I think were going to see
more improvement coming from the software
side of life. I could see Microsoft charging
lots more for multiprocessor support in their
next release of Windows especially if they
could get a substantial performance boost
from it.
Getting Burned
The only 2 CPUs I ever burned up were AMD,
and I
hated patching games for 3DNow, plus I got
burned on
the T-Bird Slot-A fiasco.
Basically, It’s a principle thing. I was
turned off to AMD, mostly due to the Big
Mouth dissing Jerry Sanders did, and now
Hector Ruiz seems to following in those
footsteps. My basic philosphy of life does
not include trash talking, for I believe the
more you say how great you are, the less you
really are. And the more you spit on people,
the more likely it is that those people are
better then you. I don’t like trash talk,
and I don’t associate myself with it, nor
support those that do it, regardless of what
they’re offering.
Getting The Proper Perspective
If intel made a solid, 64-bit product at near
current prices, you’d have a hard time
convincing me to buy AMD. Frankly, I’ve been
getting kind of bored by the current slowness
of progress. If Via came out with something
as silent and small as their current
products, 64-bit, and it could perform on par
with a 1ghz t-bird, then both of the big
companies would have something to look out
for. I’d have one in every room.
It’s been one hell of a ride for the past 5
or 6 years. I knew the gravy train had to end
sooner than later. It’s going to get
expensive for some decent hardware pretty
quick. If the next paradigm is going to be
multi-processors I think were going to see
more improvement coming from the software
side of life. I could see Microsoft charging
lots more for multiprocessor support in their
next release of Windows especially if they
could get a substantial performance boost
from it.
AT LEAST MY CURRENT STUFF WILL BE CURRENT
LONGER 🙂
I like Intel’s problems with making
faster chips because it slows down the
process of making my system
obsolete 😉
They haven’t done anything to me personally,
why should I feel hurt or angry?
eh…. shit happens. its not the end of the
world.
The Unenthusiasts
Our recent polling indicates one simple big fact, no matter which side of the Great Divide you’re on.
The enthusiasts aren’t enthusiastic.
The issue is not one of defection to another side. The issue is defecting to the sidelines and waiting anything happening now out.
This isn’t the best of news for Intel, but they have much bigger problems to worry about.
It is worse news for AMD, a company that relies more heavily upon this audience for sales. If they’re counting on big-ticket sales from their fans, they’re going to be disappointed.
It is worst for the computer hardware sites. After all, if the enthusiasts aren’t enthusiastic, what can they say, and more importantly, who is going to listen?
Frankly, the only traces of enthusiasm I’ve seen lately from people have been for video cards, and not all that much of that, either.
The general PC market is falling into a “replace the old ones and replace it with a cheap one” mode. Much of the hype about heavy-duty gaming boxes is really a search for fatter profits in what is becoming a commodity industry.
But not even we lunatics are buying into this. They are sounding more and more like the general PC audience. Those who aren’t supposed to ask “Why,” are, and they’re asking for good reason.
It’s not a lack of enthusiasm per se; it’s more a lack of anything available now to get enthusiastic about, or any time terribly soon.
Those who need an upgrade will get one during these times. Those products that will maximize the potential of current equipment ought to do well.
But if the CPUers are expecting us all to see anything soon and say, “OMG, I must have this!” it’s just not going to happen anytime soon. Right now, dual-core seems to be only OMG prospect on the horizon.
Be the first to comment