AMD gone crazy

[EdipisReks]

i know a couple people who ended up getting 3.06 PIV's who would have gotten 3000+'s if they had been $100 less. you make more money on a $500 CPU that you sell than you do with a $600 CPU that stays on the shelf. that said, i wish AMD all the best. i would love to see the CPU market be more like the video card market.

 

[DT4K]

Intel cpu's are not stable. I installed Windows 3.1 on my Intel 386 w/ 2MB RAM and the stupid thing kept crashing. Then I tried to add 256MB of PC2100 to make it work better and I broke the stick. So I tried some Rambus, had to use a hammer to get it in and it still didn't work. So then I bought a P4 and i couldn't believe it wouldn't even fit in the mobo. I'll never buy Intel again after all the trouble the've caused me.


Now seriously,
AMD is just as stable as Intel. VIA and some other's have had some problematic chipsets in the past that left a bad taste in people's mouths. It's just too bad that people can't seem to understand that there is a difference between the past and the present.

And I think AMD is making a very good decision to price their chips close to Intel's. By always being much cheaper, AMD has gained a reputation as a "value" chip. This is fine for people who understand that lower price does NOT always mean lower quality. But the large majority of the computer market is not gamers and enthusiasts. Intel doesn't make their money from us. They make it from selling to computer builders like Dell, IBM, Gateway, etc. And the majority of these systems are sold to people who are NOT knowledgeable about computers. These people assume that if a system is cheaper, it is somehow inferior and less reliable. If AMD ever wants to become a more equal competitor to Intel, they need to change the public perception of their products. Rasing their prices to the same level as Intel is one step in the right direction. AMD really believes that the Opteron will give them the performance they need to directly compete and gain market share in the server market. I think their current pricing strategy is an attempt to start changing their image from "value" chip maker to "performance" chip maker. They know that if they can gain substantial market share in the server market, this will trickle down to the corporate workstation and OEM markets. And this is where the real money is.

So I'm all for it. Yeah, it was great to get an Athlon XP 1700+ for 1/2 the price of a P4 1.7 and have it be faster, but if AMD does not change their reputation, they are in big financial trouble and then we will be left paying $1000 for a CPU again.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: chizow

I think Intel was the only company to recall a CPU due to instability problems, (IIRC) and that was the PIII 1.13 Coppermine.

There was that obscure multiplication error with the original Pentium too. They didn't replace 'em all though; I think it was a limited recall depending on what you used the CPU for.

Chiz

For the record, Intel replaced all of those "flawed" Pentium chips free of charge, no questions asked, even though the flaw would have had no effect whatsoever on 90% of users.

 

[jazzmaster221]

i paid 109 for my athlon 2100 +...at frys ..total coast of 400 $ deniro's to up grade the wifey's puter after i F'ED it up from th p3 850 ...the abit mobo went south on me so i just used that as an excuse to buy some more toy's for me to play with.........

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: dullard
History lesson:

AMD started out in mass marketing as a value processor manufacturer. AMD's chips couldn't perform at the same level as Intel's, so they instead tried to make money selling them cheaper than Intel's processors. It worked and AMD got a decent market share - but no where near what Intel had. Many years passed and not much changed. AMD was the value processor, and wasn't making much profit.

Please tell me you know this isn't true. I'm pretty sure that AMD has never been in the business of mass marketing.

AMD started out in the same market as Intel did, and it wasn't logic CMOS. AMD didn't move into the x86 market until Intel outsourced chip manufacturing to AMD. Once AMD realized how easy it was to manufacture Intel's chips, they kept doing it after Intel discontinued the cross-licensing agreement. Queue the entrance for a lengthy lawsuit, the K5, NexGen and the ultimately K6...

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Lol, I didn't thinik people reacted this much to a single post of mine. haha

Anyway, I meant the mobo wasn't compatible with the Hard Drive. Anyway, you can call me a noob or whatever, but there isn't a reason other than price you can tell me that Intel sucks. Yet, there are reasons why AMD isn't as good. Why is intel still like 80% of the cpu market today? Is it because AMD had a superior product... no. Its because their management and quality wasn't anywhere near that of Intel. Don't say that Intel has more money, because both of the companies started around the same time frame (don't quote me on that) and look where each of them is today and where they came from.

When you make arragements for mission-critical servers, why do they prefer Intel CPUs over MAD.. I mean AMD CPUs?

Intel parts are also tested far more than AMD products, which in an enviroment where you can't afford to mess up because of compatibilty issues or something, Intel leads there. Where does AMD lead except in a price/performance market?

I bet that if you go and count how many Intel CPUs are in use at server farms vs. AMD cpus, Intel will have the majority if not all.

IF AMD is so great, why is Intel still covering 80% of the CPU market???

 

[bigshooter]

Corporations are very leery of jumping on new hardware and even vendors. Dell has a large percent of the business market, and since they won't go with AMD (a lot of people suspect because Intel pressured tehm by threatening to reduce the amount of money they give dell for advertising) there are no products for businesses to evaluate. At my former employer we setup a test lab that was close to what we had running in a production environment. We needed to build on a budget so we built all our own systems using AMD processors in 2U cases. We had ZERO stability issues running under high loads when we were testing systems. Once AMD can get more OEM's liek Dell/HP/IBM to try out their processors, more businesses will at least test these systems, and probably purchase some.

 

[paralazarguer]

Lol, I didn't thinik people reacted this much to a single post of mine. haha

Anyway, I meant the mobo wasn't compatible with the Hard Drive. Anyway, you can call me a noob or whatever, but there isn't a reason other than price you can tell me that Intel sucks. Yet, there are reasons why AMD isn't as good. Why is intel still like 80% of the cpu market today? Is it because AMD had a superior product... no. Its because their management and quality wasn't anywhere near that of Intel. Don't say that Intel has more money, because both of the companies started around the same time frame (don't quote me on that) and look where each of them is today and where they came from.

When you make arragements for mission-critical servers, why do they prefer Intel CPUs over MAD.. I mean AMD CPUs?

Intel parts are also tested far more than AMD products, which in an enviroment where you can't afford to mess up because of compatibilty issues or something, Intel leads there. Where does AMD lead except in a price/performance market?

I bet that if you go and count how many Intel CPUs are in use at server farms vs. AMD cpus, Intel will have the majority if not all.

IF AMD is so great, why is Intel still covering 80% of the CPU market???

Basically everthing said in this post is complete, unadulterated clueless fud.
NO! AMD did not start making processors at the same time as Intel. They started with flash memory, no? Then they started making clones of intel processors whose architecture had been in development for years. Then, they stopped cloning and started producing architectures of their own and then the K7 which was superior to intel's architecture and then the K8 which is, once again, superior in design.
Intel's processors are not tested more thoroughly nor are then more stable than AMD processors. That's something that some guy named AgaBooga made up. He's a moron spreading FUD and mis-information. Judging by some of the things he's done with an AMD system, he doesn't know anything about AMD or their processors.

Intel does not own 80% of the processor market. AMD owns 1x%. Other manufacturers such as IBM, motorolla, Apha, transmeta, VIA etc all have part of the market and intel has the rest.

Considering that AMD started out buying a mask for the 486? Maybe 386 to produce a carbon copy of intel's chips and has so quickly developed their own architectures and captured so much market share in such a small (in the big scheme of things) period of time speaks volumes about how amazing the people at AMD really are. They are poised to make big inroads into Intel's bread and butter, the corporate world with the K8 and have already scored some major contracts.

You are a clueless newb who doesn't know what he's talking about. Please stop spreading FUD like you know something.

 

[Novgrod]

a lot of people suspect because Intel pressured tehm by threatening to reduce the amount of money they give dell for advertising

i'm a stone's throw from the ex-compaq world headquarters.

it was common knowledge among people working there that Capellas (sp) would meet with the Intel folks and then Compaq would announce new intel-based systems, and that AMD systems were not looked upon kindly by the good folks at intel.

it is not the first time nor will it be the last time that intel used strongarm tactics.

Now I don't mean to suggest that Intel is all that anticompetitive, I just mean that there might be more than one reason for the low presence of AMD in the market.

anandtech uses (used?) Athlons in their servers, and IIRC (always a risky proposition) ILM and Nvidia do likewise. I kinda trust them.

 

[LordAccord]

I thought I would be done with this thread, until he replied.

Well said paralazarguer... there is way too much misinformation and so many one sided words based on lack of complete knowledge. I seriously hope you don't work in a computer related field Aga.

 

[holdencommodore]

From my experience with building AMD and Intel machines, I've found each to be just as stable, as long as quality components have been chosen. By doing this, I've never run into any major stability issues with either brand.... and that even goes for the old AMD systems that I have. All of my 7 AMD rigs are running in very fine order.

Cheers

 

[Wingznut]

Be careful about accusing AgaBooga about spreading FUD... Well, at least when it comes to market share numbers.

Going strictly by what I've read on the net, AMD's market share is around 11% in both Q3 and Q4 of 2002... And actually, they have not been at 19-20% since mid-2001. I don't believe things are going to change when the reports come out for Q1 2003.

 

[Ralidan]

Originally posted by: Shanti
Intel cpu's are not stable. I installed Windows 3.1 on my Intel 386 w/ 2MB RAM and the stupid thing kept crashing. Then I tried to add 256MB of PC2100 to make it work better and I broke the stick. So I tried some Rambus, had to use a hammer to get it in and it still didn't work. So then I bought a P4 and i couldn't believe it wouldn't even fit in the mobo. I'll never buy Intel again after all the trouble the've caused me.

.......First off.. let me say that this post made my day! I haven't laughed so hard in a long time... the truth of it is amazing!!

Originally posted by: paralazarguer

Lol, I didn't thinik people reacted this much to a single post of mine. haha

Anyway, I meant the mobo wasn't compatible with the Hard Drive. Anyway, you can call me a noob or whatever, but there isn't a reason other than price you can tell me that Intel sucks. Yet, there are reasons why AMD isn't as good. Why is intel still like 80% of the cpu market today? Is it because AMD had a superior product... no. Its because their management and quality wasn't anywhere near that of Intel. Don't say that Intel has more money, because both of the companies started around the same time frame (don't quote me on that) and look where each of them is today and where they came from.

When you make arragements for mission-critical servers, why do they prefer Intel CPUs over MAD.. I mean AMD CPUs?

Intel parts are also tested far more than AMD products, which in an enviroment where you can't afford to mess up because of compatibilty issues or something, Intel leads there. Where does AMD lead except in a price/performance market?

I bet that if you go and count how many Intel CPUs are in use at server farms vs. AMD cpus, Intel will have the majority if not all.

IF AMD is so great, why is Intel still covering 80% of the CPU market???

Basically everthing said in this post is complete, unadulterated clueless fud. He couldn't even get the percentages close to right.
NO! AMD did not start making processors at the same time as Intel. They started with flash memory, no? Then they started making clones of intel processors whose architecture had been in development for years. Then, they stopped cloning and started producing architectures of their own and then the K7 which was superior to intel's architecture and then the K8 which is, once again, superior in design.
Intel's processors are not tested more thoroughly nor are then more stable than AMD processors. That's something that some guy named AgaBooga made up. He's a moron spreading FUD and mis-information. Judging by some of the things he's done with an AMD system, he doesn't know anything about AMD or their processors.

Intel does not own 80% of the processor market. AMD owns 19%. Other manufacturers such as IBM, motorolla, Apha, transmeta, VIA etc all have part of the market and intel has the rest. It's less than 80%.

Considering that AMD started out buying a mask for the 486? Maybe 386 to produce a carbon copy of intel's chips and has so quickly developed their own architectures and captured so much market share in such a small (in the big scheme of things) period of time speaks volumes about how amazing the people at AMD really are. They are poised to make big inroads into Intel's bread and butter, the corporate world with the K8 and have already scored some major contracts.

You are a clueless newb who doesn't know what he's talking about. Please stop spreading FUD like you know something.

....Now this guy is just unbeleivable... Agabooga: I suggest doing at least some minor research before making outragous claims next time. I am no expert, and definetly don't have all the answers, but I would never try and make such claims while also showing so much ignorance. Thank you paralazarguer for setting the record straight! Its people like you and all the other COMPATENT anandtech-ers that make this such a great forum to come to for advice!

 

[paralazarguer]

As wingznut pointed out, there may be some error in my percentages aswell. I'm not sure where I read it but it was just last week that I read it was up from 18 to 19%. Since I don't remember the source it could well be wrong or out of date or be focused on a smaller demographic (home users or something, I dunno.) At any rate, sorry if I got that wrong. Whatever market share AMD has is still amazing for how long it's been around coming from a company that just produced clones to stealing market share. I think the rest of my post still stands.

 

[paralazarguer]

Ah. The stat that I read was from extremetech and was XX% of the x86 marketshare so all itanium processors and motorola, IBM, etc didn't factor in.

 

[Wingznut]

Hmmm... In this article on ExtremeTech.com, they state:

Intel shipped 84.6 percent of processors based on the x86 instruction set in the fourth quarter, down 2.2 percent from the third quarter but up from 81.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2001. AMD grabbed a 13.8 percent share, up 2.2 percent from the third quarter but down from 18 percent in the fourth quarter of 2001.

 

[paralazarguer]

yep. you're right. I got a statistic that I pulled outta' my memory wrong. A statistic which has no bearing on the stability of AMD processors mind you. Sue me. That's not FUD, as you stated in your PM to me, that's a mistake. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt is something that this duma$$ is spreading. And then I corrected it. Obviously the number that I remembered was the 2001 number. I mis-remembered a statistic and here you harping on about it regardless of how accurate the POINT of the post was.
As usual the only detractor is the harbinger of Intel righteousness here to set me straight in my ways completely ignoring the point of the post to put intel in a better light (as always.)
I wonder if it's possible for you to step outside yourself for even a moment and realise your own intense BIAS. I've always stuck with you especially in hammer threads but sometimes it's just too much.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
IF AMD is so great, why is Intel still covering 80% of the CPU market???

Marketing. Because most of the world doesn't know that AMD exists, dipsh!t. I love it when I'm talking to people and they discover that I know a bit about computers. Usually, they ask my advice and then what I run (or what I think of the latest Intel cpu) and I'll tell them, "Oh, I actually use an AMD processor in my system." Blank stare - 99% of the time. Maybe it's because I live in the Land of Intel but, in my experience, almost the entire world has no idea who AMD is. Intel, they know... AMD? who?
And of those few who discover AMD, so many of them are just like you, AgaBooga. They buy parts randomly off the shelf without research or just take the advice of some idiot salesperson (or worse yet, a dishonest mom-n-pop owner) and try to build a completely incompatible system. Why? Who knows? You'd never actually build an Intel system, you'd just buy a Dell. But when it comes to AMD, you have to take all of your stupidity and try to build one. On your own, without research, knowledge, common sense, brains, or manual. I've seen it so many times, even in person, and I just don't get it how stupid you are. You install a heatsink that can obviously only go one way on backwards, frying the cpu, and you screw up the jumpers so your hard drive doesn't work, you do everything else wrong, but of course that is all entirely completely and without question AMD's fault, AND you have to make sure that the whole knows that (1) you're an idiot and (2) you're not man enough to admit your mistakes, but have to pass the blame on to someone else.

:disgust:

 

[Wingznut]

paralazarguer... All I did is point out an inaccuracy with numbers. I'm not defending or arguing anything. I've never said anything about AMD's being unstable, nor agreed with anyone saying that. To the contrary, I've said on many, many occasions that AMD makes excellent products.

My PM to you said nothing about "FUD"... So, I'm not sure where that came from. To be honest, I think that's probably the worst acronym on the 'net, and I've never used that term with the exception of it being in response to someone else's usage of the acronym.

It's not that big of a deal. Just trying to clear up a little misinformation, that's all.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

All right, you win the game. I'm a FUD, I shouldn't work in the field, and my dad wasted his college time ranking in the top 2 or 3 all the time. I was not trying to show very accurate n umbers but you all know that when you walk in to a Best Buy, they'll show off all the new Intel cpus compared to the AMD cpus. The DAY AMD gets more market share than Intel, I will accept this. And because AMD is soooo good compared to Intel, lets wait and see.

AND, why do you all have to defend AMD sooo much? Shouldn't its product and market share do it on its own??? And things like the heatsink are the small things Intel does to make a big difference.

 

[dullard]

Please tell me you know this isn't true. I'm pretty sure that AMD has never been in the business of mass marketing.

AMD started out in the same market as Intel did, and it wasn't logic CMOS. AMD didn't move into the x86 market until Intel outsourced chip manufacturing to AMD. Once AMD realized how easy it was to manufacture Intel's chips, they kept doing it after Intel discontinued the cross-licensing agreement. Queue the entrance for a lengthy lawsuit, the K5, NexGen and the ultimately K6...

That was my attempt to describe something when the right word wasn't coming to my mouth. Intel and AMD started at the same time. But Intel's CPUs were into consumers computers far before AMD. When AMD did start manufacturing their own chips they really didn't have many sales. So I'm trying to exclude these initial years. Then in about the middle of the K5, AMD's market share really got a boost. So my history lesson started right then. What is a good word that excludes the Intel CPU production at AMD, excludes the initial AMD CPU production, but includes the AMD CPU production when it first got significant market share?

 

[mooojojojo]

ok, that's cool on stable amd chips. but to run them ok, don't you need a quality PSU and memory?

well.. that's the main reason I went with a celeron - still had problems with it and had to replace the mobo (intel chipset) and upgrade the cpu, but I'm not sure you can have a perfectly stable PC if you put an athlon xp into a generic 300W psu case and add some generic 512ddr ram (what I actually got).

my point is - not everywhere you can get an antec or an enermax powersupply, and corsair, crucial, kingston or whatever memory is not available in some countries. that's why I felt comfortable getting a slower celeron. actually it's not really slower to me - I'm not convinced that I would notice the difference between it (2ghz) and an athlon 2000+ (except if I was to run a benchmark)

hope at least someone understands what I'm saying.

 

[chin311]

ive never built a newer intel system, last one was a P2 400. Only AMD's recently....current system is an XP1600, havent had too many stablity problems, and when i did, it was all RAM issues. When time comes for my next upgrade...If Intel and AMD are at the same pricepoint, ill probably try out Intel...Last time, I went with AMD because of the price/performance issue, if they were both the same price relatively, i'd lean towards intel, IMO.

 

[mroptimistic]

Originally posted by: chin311
ive never built a newer intel system, last one was a P2 400. Only AMD's recently....current system is an XP1600, havent had too many stablity problems, and when i did, it was all RAM issues. When time comes for my next upgrade...If Intel and AMD are at the same pricepoint, ill probably try out Intel...Last time, I went with AMD because of the price/performance issue, if they were both the same price relatively, i'd lean towards intel, IMO.

I know quite a few people with similar opinions. That is why i dont think it was a good idea for AMD to price their processors at the same price or in the case of the 2800 even more expensive then the intel counterparts. A lot of people like the better price to performance ratio, but when it comes to both having the same price, will go intel. And thats also what i recommend to people, as i lean more towards intel as a personal choice. If they are looking in the 2100 or under range i recommend AMD, but once the prices start evening out, i have to say intel has my vote.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: dullard

Please tell me you know this isn't true. I'm pretty sure that AMD has never been in the business of mass marketing.

AMD started out in the same market as Intel did, and it wasn't logic CMOS. AMD didn't move into the x86 market until Intel outsourced chip manufacturing to AMD. Once AMD realized how easy it was to manufacture Intel's chips, they kept doing it after Intel discontinued the cross-licensing agreement. Queue the entrance for a lengthy lawsuit, the K5, NexGen and the ultimately K6...

That was my attempt to describe something when the right word wasn't coming to my mouth. Intel and AMD started at the same time. But Intel's CPUs were into consumers computers far before AMD. When AMD did start manufacturing their own chips they really didn't have many sales. So I'm trying to exclude these initial years. Then in about the middle of the K5, AMD's market share really got a boost. So my history lesson started right then. What is a good word that excludes the Intel CPU production at AMD, excludes the initial AMD CPU production, but includes the AMD CPU production when it first got significant market share?

In a generic word: matured.

In a phrase: the onset of MPU revenue growth generated by in-house IP-based design.