Intel has been reduced to the follower

[Ilmater]

I'll post a link to proof of this stuff - Text - but most of us know this stuff already, and the rest I'll summarize below (with my own opinions added in). If this is a repost, I will replace this post with me begging for forgiveness from the repost Nazis of the world.

Intel's new processor is not that great. I'm not saying Intel won't sell tons of them, just that it clearly has some heat issues and such. They know they've eeked all they can out of the P4 architechture, and they cancelled Tejas and Jayhawk because of it.

Now, they had to follow AMD with its iAMD64 extensions. They have to follow AMD with its NX bit after Microsoft announced it was canning Palladium (WOOHOO!!) in favor of the NX bit. Now, just to make it a trifecta for AMD, Intel is going to implement AMD's throttling technology that they use in the AMD 64 family to help with the heat issues in the Prescott.

I'm not posting this to start an AMD vs. Intel thread, I'm simply pointing out that the firm that I see as the underdog has just shown the big boy of the industry how to swing. Very impressive. Those are three technologies that AMD came up with itself that are now going to be industry standards. Impressive.

Unfortunately, I'm sure Intel will still sell far more chips and will probably shoot so far ahead with their next processor core that AMD will be lightyears behind. But that's just speculation...

 

[Pariah]

Intel has been reduced to the follower

Except in the only thing that matters... making the most money.

 

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Intel has been reduced to the follower

Except in the only thing that matters... making the most money.

If AMD had any business sense they would push hard during this difficult time for Intel and spend some money on advertising. The ignorant masses buy Intel in bulk because of the catchy tune played at the end of every PC commerical on TV

 

[Maximilian]

Yea well if i owned a huge company and i had to follow a comparitively tiny one yet still made a ton more than the tiny company i would still be pretty chuffed.

 

[txxxx]

Intel make profit - lots of it. Like they care who they follow.

 

[Chaotic42]

AMD does need to advertise. I've never seen an AMD commercial.

 

[magomago]

I don't get it....if the entire hardware industry is telling AMD they need to advertise...why don't they?

Yeah it costs money...but to get the money of tomorrow today you gotta spend some today ^^

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Intel has been reduced to the follower

Except in the only thing that matters... making the most money.

This is not necesarily true. If Intel is falling behind in technology and innovation, it can easily hurt them in the long run. I don't think this will be a case where the bigger guy can buy out the smaller guy because the smaller guy is making them look bad.

Intel isn't going to roll over and die on this. But it could hurt them significantly especially if AMD actually does something to capitalize on this rather than sit on their rear ends.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: Pariah

Intel has been reduced to the follower

Except in the only thing that matters... making the most money.

This is not necesarily true. If Intel is falling behind in technology and innovation, it can easily hurt them in the long run. I don't think this will be a case where the bigger guy can buy out the smaller guy because the smaller guy is making them look bad.

Intel isn't going to roll over and die on this. But it could hurt them significantly especially if AMD actually does something to capitalize on this rather than sit on their rear ends.

The problems with your analysis are that AMD won't capitalize on opportunity, and you greatly overestimate the knowlegde and interest in intelligent shopping habits by the average PC shopper Unless you beat Joe sixpack over the head with your brandname so that it's a household word like Intel and Pentium you don't have a prayer of making Intel pay for any technological failings they might temporarily suffer.

 

[Duvie]

A little off-topic ofcourse, but I always wondered what makes ppl hate the "big guy" the "marketshare leader".....I know ppl like the underdog, but here it seems so much more then hope the little guy does well but downright hatred towards INtel that is often called the "evil empire" and "darkside"....I have seen them called cheaters, thieves, liars, incompetent, all the while you armchair business owners collecting your 30-40k a year salary, or the hand me down money from mom and dad as you go to school....

I wonder if it is this same mentality that happens with the US....People around the rest of the world (the civilized word that is like Europe) hate us and even a large majority of our citizens, democratic senators ( I wont name the traitors), and liberals....I wonder if some of you Intel haters are the same bunch.

Most of you sicken me with this anti-intel rhetoric.....But then I remember the likely age of most of you....

I own more amd systems then INtel yet I am called a fanboy. I have built more amd systems in my life and the last year then INtel and yet I am called a fanboy....I own one personal Intel computer but unlike most of you AMD blind-ass followers I have tested mine and got empirical numbers to back up my claims wich most of you don't have. Yet I am called a liar, fanboy, etc......Maybe you hate my elite status like you hate intel....

It has always striked me as possibly a bit of jealousy....Ppl around these parts so often want to justify their purchases and therefore what they own is the best....Amd fans usually only suggest amd system and so when I get advice for purchases I always look at your system or systems to try to guage your answer...INtel ppl as well...My rig may only state INtel but I repeatedly have pointed out I buy Amd for friends and family and work and far more in number then INtel...

I am sorry for the rant but I am tired of this and especially in this forum...go post this crap in offtopic were opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one.....

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I'll tell you what most peoples problem with Intel is right now Duvie.....Celeron. You can go on and on about how it's enough for granny to send e-mail, surf, and play solitaire but it doesn't change the fact it's utter junk Presently there is basic parity in the mid and high-end market since the masses don't overclock, but AMD owns in the ultra-budget catagory. Many feel , and I believe rightly so, that Intel is perpetrating a injustice on the consumer with celeron given the fact a lowly XP1700+ will outperform a 2.6 Celery in most usage.

Myself, I couldn't give a rat's ass since I hook my clients up in the ultra-budget arena, but I can empathize with how fustrating it is for members here to find a friend, relative, or acquaintance got had by buying a celery based system with extreme graphics no less

 

[Pariah]

It's like that in every category Duvie. People here used to hate 3dfx when they were on top and loved NVidia as the new comer, then NVidia became 3dfx, and everyone hated them, and loved ATi, the underdog. For some reason the deep hatred for NVidia still continues despite the fact ATi and NVidia are on pretty even ground now. Hatred for Creative is rampant here. For some reason, nothing brings out hatred for the market leader like the computer industry. Probably because nowhere else are more people given the opportunity to voice their opinion in an anonymous manner to try and make themselves feel bigger and badder than they really are.

That said, I do hate you because you are Elite, Duvie. You were dead on with that one.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I'll tell you what most peoples problem with Intel is right now Duvie.....Celeron. You can go on and on about how it's enough for granny to send e-mail, surf, and play solitaire but it doesn't change the fact it's utter junk Presently there is basic parity in the mid and high-end market since the masses don't overclock, but AMD owns in the ultra-budget catagory. Many feel , and I believe rightly so, that Intel is perpetrating a injustice on the consumer with celeron given the fact a lowly XP1700+ will outperform a 2.6 Celery in most usage.

Myself, I couldn't give a rat's ass since I hook my clients up in the ultra-budget arena, but I can empathize with how fustrating it is for members here to find a friend, relative, or acquaintance got had by buying a celery based system with extreme graphics no less

Apparently, from the 1 set of benchies of the Prescott Celeries I saw, the new one won't be so bad, but that doesn't mean it's going to be great.
It is incredibly cheap though (for an Intel chip), so the performance fits the price, for an Intel chip, but not for the market as a whole.

 

[jhurst]

Celeron is not a problem for Intel. Celerons give people a lower cost option. Why would old people need to pay top dollar for a P4 when all they need to do is e-mail and surf the internet. IMO it is genius. They can market Celeron PC's at a very low rate. Having diverse product lines like Intel has is a vital part of their business. Dell has capitalized on the fact that Intel's Celeron offers the public a low cost option, while still providing basic functionality. I know most ppl on here are all about gaming and OC'ing, but ALOT of computer users do not even know what that means. Intel is the largest because of this as well. If all Intel offered was one like of processors (much like AMD since they do not market the Athlon MP or Duron at all), then they would not be as big as they have become. It also might be a reason that Intel can not keep up with AMD's processor technology. IMO, the only thing that keeps Intel in the top-end processor race with AMD, is that Intel can always advertise their real clock speeds (3.2ghz for example) whereas AMD can only advertise that there processors can keep up with that of Intel (3200+).

 

[Wingznut]

I coudn't help but notice that you've mentioned three instances where AMD has lead... But failed to mention any innovations that Intel has brought to the table.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I'll tell you what most peoples problem with Intel is right now Duvie.....Celeron. You can go on and on about how it's enough for granny to send e-mail, surf, and play solitaire but it doesn't change the fact it's utter junk Presently there is basic parity in the mid and high-end market since the masses don't overclock, but AMD owns in the ultra-budget catagory. Many feel , and I believe rightly so, that Intel is perpetrating a injustice on the consumer with celeron given the fact a lowly XP1700+ will outperform a 2.6 Celery in most usage.

Myself, I couldn't give a rat's ass since I hook my clients up in the ultra-budget arena, but I can empathize with how fustrating it is for members here to find a friend, relative, or acquaintance got had by buying a celery based system with extreme graphics no less

Apparently, from the 1 set of benchies of the Prescott Celeries I saw, the new one won't be so bad, but that doesn't mean it's going to be great.
It is incredibly cheap though (for an Intel chip), so the performance fits the price, for an Intel chip, but not for the market as a whole.

I've seen the same data and I'm stoked to see Intel may start rewarding their customers who are on a tight budget with equitable bang for buck :beer: What Pariah said is another factor for why some hate market leaders and is definitely the case. I can offer an explanation of why nV still get's hated on so much despite no longer being dominant too. It's because they have been playing dirty pool of late. Though even this is perplexing because the same people shouting nV is unethical and evil are the same losers who nuke their vid card voiding the warranty and then RMA it anyways :disgust:

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
I coudn't help but notice that you've mentioned three instances where AMD has lead... But failed to mention any innovations that Intel has brought to the table.

What innovations have they brought to the table ?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Originally posted by: Wingznut
I coudn't help but notice that you've mentioned three instances where AMD has lead... But failed to mention any innovations that Intel has brought to the table.

What innovations have they brought to the table ?

You're joking right?

 

[LTC8K6]

Is the NX bit something that can be added to the chip at the last minute, or is it, as usual, something that must have been done long ago by Intel, and is only being talked about as a "reaction" by folks who don't really know.

 

[Markfw]

Well, I have disliked Intel for years, since for many years, I was paying way too much for my CPU's. Once AMD came on strong with the Athlon, prices started to drop and become more reasonable. Now it is still a price war. I also don;t like the "mhz counts", but they are backing away from that now.

I figure Intel still owes me a couple of grand from what they overcharged me for years.........

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Well, I have disliked Intel for years, since for many years, I was paying way too much for my CPU's. Once AMD came on strong with the Athlon, prices started to drop and become more reasonable. Now it is still a price war. I also don;t like the "mhz counts", but they are backing away from that now.

I figure Intel still owes me a couple of grand from what they overcharged me for years.........

You are certainly entiled to your viewpoint Mark, I'm just not in total agreement wih it. I believe many underestimate the impact the .Dot com boom had on PC sales and subsequently pricing. The huge sales boost meant manufacturers get better pricing on the materials they used due to greatly increased ordering volume. I also recall that when AMD beat Intel to 1ghz the price was $1000+ for it so they weren't exactly cheap While the competitive enviroment certainly helps keep pricing in hand, at least when there isn't a real possibility of price fixing as the memory industry is being accussed of I think the importance the internet played thanks to the diversity and amount of content that became available, along with features like e-mail, opened up markets for their products that were previously untapped, and the resultant sales boost fostered in atmosphere of competition AMD alone cannot be credited for. </my personal speculation>

 

[Wahsapa]

there is a LOT more to intel then pentium vs amd, not to mention all the new centrino technologys that we have yet to see implimented in a non-mobile market, intel followed amd on 3 things; im willing to bet amd and a few others are going to be copying intel after centrino technologies are matured.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Wahsapa
there is a LOT more to intel then pentium vs amd, not to mention all the new centrino technologys that we have yet to see implimented in a non-mobile market, intel followed amd on 3 things; im willing to bet amd and a few others are going to be copying intel after centrino technologies are matured.

They've already followed Intel more oft than not. SSE, SSE2, SSE3 in all likelyhood, MMX. I believe Intel Pentium Pro was the first x86 CPU with full speed L2 cache too was it not? I'm certain there are many more examples someone more knowledgable on the topic can offer up.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Well, I have disliked Intel for years, since for many years, I was paying way too much for my CPU's. Once AMD came on strong with the Athlon, prices started to drop and become more reasonable. Now it is still a price war. I also don;t like the "mhz counts", but they are backing away from that now.

I figure Intel still owes me a couple of grand from what they overcharged me for years.........

You are certainly entiled to your viewpoint Mark, I'm just not in total agreement wih it. I believe many underestimate the impact the .Dot com boom had on PC sales and subsequently pricing. The huge sales boost meant manufacturers get better pricing on the materials they used due to greatly increased ordering volume. I also recall that when AMD beat Intel to 1ghz the price was $1000+ for it so they weren't exactly cheap While the competitive enviroment certainly helps keep pricing in hand, at least when there isn't a real possibility of price fixing as the memory industry is being accussed of I think the importance the internet played thanks to the diversity and amount of content that became available, along with features like e-mail, opened up markets for their products that were previously untapped, and the resultant sales boost fostered in atmosphere of competition AMD alone cannot be credited for. </my personal speculation>

In the price range I was looking, AMD was almost allways better. I paid $500 for a 486dx2-66, then next I paid $500 (or so) for a Pentium 90, etc.... When the K6 came out, I got one (a 166) for $320, while the Intel 166 was $600 (or so). and from then until now I have been almost allways an AMD man. There were a few other assorted Intel CPU's I got early on, I just don;t remember all of the prices like the two I mentioned. And since the K6- I have gotten a P4 2.4 when they were best bang for the buck, so I am not totally skewed to AMD.....

 

[BlvdKing]

I am an AMD fanboy (NVidia too) but even I am coming around to the greatness of hyperthreading. I was ripping an MP3 from CD yesterday and decided to play some COD online due to boredom. When I got on a server the game was unplayable on my Barton 2500+ and 5900. Next CPU I get will be a P4 w/ HT. Dual core CPU are the right direction for both companies IMO.