Intel's Pretty Much Screwed.

[Tab]

Did anyone forget about the fact that 1Q 2005 they'll be releasing the 925DX along with 1066Mhz FSB Procs? :|

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Did anyone forget about the fact that 1Q 2005 they'll be releasing the 925DX along with 1066Mhz FSB Procs? :|

those products have nothing over an older northwood/i875 setup ~ thats the problem! new hardware, but not any faster.

especially for OCers, weve been running 1066fsb for quite some time now ~ we arent impressed. (MOF 1066fsb chips may well be the worst OCers ever)

 

[LTC8K6]

They had already reached 3.6Ghz, 3.7 if you count the EE, I think. It's not like releasing a 4Ghz chip was going to do much for them anyway, imo.

The decision makes perfect sense to me and I don't see how it will hurt Intel even slightly. It means they will get the dual core chip out quicker than they would have, imo.

The Nocona Xeons are out now too with the 64bit extensions. I wonder where they are going?

 

[Zebo]

Dual core will make Intels position even worse...all you need to do is look at opteron total dominance in server arena to see that. AMD has superior tech to throw dual core CPU's together.. superior communication visa vi HT and lower power and already a huge clock for clock speed advantage will make Intels dual core cry for mercy....especially since thier plan is presshot based DC not dothan...just wait and see. Remeber you can't crank speeds up on DC like single because of eponential heat due to area dissapation limitations.

Some signs of things to come:

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2163
http://www.2cpu.com/articles/99_9.html
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982&p=6
http://www.tomshardware.com/cp...pteron_vs_xeon-38.html

 

[LTC8K6]

AMD needs a big lead to make a dent in Intel.

Nocona seems to have closed the gap considerably, even beating Opteron in some of the benches you listed.

 

[Schmeh]

It may just be me, but I think we are getting ahead of ourselves by predicting the demise of Intel. After all the advances AMD has made this past year or two, Intel still has over 82% of the cpu market compared to AMD's 15%. The big advantage that gives Intel is capital for R&D. I seriously doubt they are going to sit back and watch AMD slap them around in the high end PC and Server markets, considering the talent they have in Isreal that did the Pentium M and Centrino Platform.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Schmeh
It may just be me, but I think we are getting ahead of ourselves by predicting the demise of Intel. After all the advances AMD has made this past year or two, Intel still has over 82% of the cpu market compared to AMD's 15%. The big advantage that gives Intel is capital for R&D. I seriously doubt they are going to sit back and watch AMD slap them around in the high end PC and Server markets, considering the talent they have in Isreal that did the Pentium M and Centrino Platform.

That's like saying IBM had a big advantage over microsoft when microsoft was in a stripmall. look at them now. All it takes is better innovation. Companies switch places and die off all the time and new fortunes are created everyday. Bigger is'nt better. I would say worse due to bureaucracy and dead wood around every corner...almost like governemnt job. If size mattered intel chips should be 50X better than AMD judging by market cap. Thier not.

AMD's problem is production capability from what i understand. Even if everyone wanted AMD chips they could'nt give em them cause only 1 fab. Intel has 10 i think.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Actually, even though I am an AMD fan, this could be true, or have some truth in it .....

Na... They are just in a lull, and I hope they stay in it long enough for it to really become a two horse race...

Its a 100% true. AMD doesn't own x86, Intel made it, and licences it.

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: Schmeh
It may just be me, but I think we are getting ahead of ourselves by predicting the demise of Intel. After all the advances AMD has made this past year or two, Intel still has over 82% of the cpu market compared to AMD's 15%. The big advantage that gives Intel is capital for R&D. I seriously doubt they are going to sit back and watch AMD slap them around in the high end PC and Server markets, considering the talent they have in Isreal that did the Pentium M and Centrino Platform.

actually AMD is outreaching Intel in the market sales, but Intel still has huge capital and stocks. Please don't make up numbers

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: Schmeh
It may just be me, but I think we are getting ahead of ourselves by predicting the demise of Intel. After all the advances AMD has made this past year or two, Intel still has over 82% of the cpu market compared to AMD's 15%. The big advantage that gives Intel is capital for R&D. I seriously doubt they are going to sit back and watch AMD slap them around in the high end PC and Server markets, considering the talent they have in Isreal that did the Pentium M and Centrino Platform.

You cant throw money at something and expect it to work. Just because someone has the money and brains doesnt mean they'll research and develop the thing that will actually end up being the best due to the fact that they dont know for certain which project will be best.

Intel are smarter than the dinosaur that some people are thinking here. The Prescott could really have been a smokescreen to cover what they were really working on. If thats the case, AMD could be on the back foot technologically again. However, I dont think the public will be happy with that kind of action.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Alas, as grim as Intel's future outlook is right now, they still own 85% of the market, and AMD has gained no ground over the past year AFAIK.

I'm thinking that when AMD's dual core comes out, though, it will absolutely spank Intel's dual core. Prescott is a dead end; they just cancelled 4 Ghz after it was supposed to be out already earlier this year.

Intel needs to get off its a$$ and get those Pentium-M engineers over to main base to whip up some dual core low voltage Dothan-powered desktop bouillabaisse.

That's exactly what they are doing. I have read in a few different places that P-M is where intel is focusing its resources. And did you know that the P-M is actually much closer to PIII technology than P4? Hence the lack of Netburst and Hyperthreading and the lower clockspeed comparable performance to a P4 twice its speed. Just some tidbits.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Alas, as grim as Intel's future outlook is right now, they still own 85% of the market, and AMD has gained no ground over the past year AFAIK.

I'm thinking that when AMD's dual core comes out, though, it will absolutely spank Intel's dual core. Prescott is a dead end; they just cancelled 4 Ghz after it was supposed to be out already earlier this year.

Intel needs to get off its a$$ and get those Pentium-M engineers over to main base to whip up some dual core low voltage Dothan-powered desktop bouillabaisse.

That's exactly what they are doing. I have read in a few different places that P-M is where intel is focusing its resources. And did you know that the P-M is actually much closer to PIII technology than P4? Hence the lack of Netburst and Hyperthreading and the lower clockspeed comparable performance to a P4 twice its speed. Just some tidbits.

The mobile market is one of the fastest growing sectors, and Corporate notebook sales are a particularly good focus The Israeli team is behind the P-M iirc.

 

[RickH]

It doesn't matter what you think or I think or Anand thinks--try to buy a Dell or Compaq computer with a AMD. The people who read this stuff on the net are a microscopic part of of the PC market. Where I work they purchase machines every day--there isn't an AMD in the building. Intel make a great product, people have a history with it and they will continue using it.
R

 

[psebas]

RickH is right.

In my company we have about 500 machines and thay are all intel.

BTW i have several friends with computers , 2 of them use opteron's and more all less 8 use P4's ( including me ), and we are always fighting wich one is better, and i'll have to admit that amd runs faster but... ( and there is always a but ) two of us have the fastest machine, me and a friend ( i have a Intel , friend's a Opteron) and we both have ATI X800 ( mine a pro , friend's a XT, both by asus ), and ALL THE OTHER SUCK!!!! ( Gforce TI's, Radeon 8500, FX5900, Radeon 9800 etc etc ), i'm saying all this because i still have my old P4 2.8 bus 800 with HT and my friend has a opteron 2.2 (940) brand new , and even with a X800 Xt he only has more 550 points in 3DMark 2005 then I . ( Mine 4600 , His 5550 ), so whats the point in saying that Intel or Amd are going to launch the fastest processor , when everyone knows that is the GC ( ati / nvidia ) that rules games , and besides for work anything above 2 Ghz with 1 gb ram does the trick???

Since my first Pentium 120 Mhz ( WOW that was a mean machine back then ) i've always bought Intel, even now when i know that ams runs faster, i'll still will buy an Intel , i just know that it is better ( as my friend will always buy Amd ), it's like football everyone has a favorite team and even if they know that the opposite team is better they still wont admit it.

Have a nice day , and play FIFA 2005 the best football sim in the world ( i don't know if this site is an american , but if it is FOOTBALL is what we play in Europe ( you guys call it soccer ), i still don´t know why you guys call FOOTball a game that is major played with hands ( like rugby or handball )...

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: psebas
Since my first Pentium 120 Mhz ( WOW that was a mean machine back then ) i've always bought Intel, even now when i know that amd runs faster, i'll still will buy an Intel , i just know that it is better ( as my friend will always buy Amd ), it's like football everyone has a favorite team and even if they know that the opposite team is better they still wont admit it.

Have a nice day , and play FIFA 2005 the best football sim in the world ( i don't know if this site is an american , but if it is FOOTBALL is what we play in Europe ( you guys call it soccer ), i still don´t know why you guys call FOOTball a game that is major played with hands ( like rugby or handball )...

Brand loyalty in this situation is beyond my comprehension. I support my local football team because they are local, they offer something very appreciable to my community and the country as whole. Buying Intel over AMD when AMD is better performance per $ is beyond me unless you already have Intel-specific components which will be reused such as a motherboard.

Also, SWOS V2 was and always will be the best football sim in the world. No, I dont get why Americans call football soccer but thats not the point. Most europeans I know and quite a lot are on my university course call football soccer and we have FIFA/UEFA which explicitly say Football.

Ive owned 1 Cyrix processor and 4 AMD processors. The Cyrix one was my first when I didnt understand the convention of PR Vs. Mhz. Ever since then Ive bought the best performance for my budget which so far has been AMD. If when I upgrade in 1-2 years time, Intel is offering the best performance for my budget then Id buy Intel.

 

[mindless1]

...try to buy a Dell or Compaq computer with a AMD

What 3rd world country are you from? Clicking on "Desktops" from the Compaq/HP homepage pulls up 3 out of 6 offerings, 50% having AMD inside.

 

[FinalFantasy]

I guess the thing for Intel how fast they are going to get themselves out of the hole their in. Are they going to continue to produce these mediocore (sp?) chips or are they going to stop what their doing, rethink their strategy and start back from scratch...that's what they are going to if they want to continue to be successful. Before Intel could come up with these half-a$$ chips that did well, because AMD really did not have a chip that could threaten Intel. So Intel would spend little money designing and fabricating these chips and were able to sell them at high prices and still have them perform just as good and sometimes better than AMD's. But the problem with that was that they got themselves in a bad habit of producing chips like that and they got caught with their pants down when AMD really surprised them with the A64...Intel was like WTF is this...they were not expecting a chip like that from AMD until sometime in the future. Intel was not planning on designin a solid 64-bit or 90nm chip until sometime in the future, so they didn't spend time on designing it like they should have while AMD was cranking some hours out to do so...so what Intel did was have someone come up with a quick design of a 90nm chip (Prescott) and threw it out on the market to be a "smokescreen", hiding the fact that they weren't able to produce the real 64-bit or 90nm chip that they wanted to and they didn't have a solid design for one because AMD has pushed their time table up way ahead of schedule. What Intel is trying to do, is continue with this crappy design they have had and pretend like this was their design for their 90nm's and future dual-cores all along, but it's not working because AMD is releasing some solid chips that are performing way better. Intel needs to stop, take the hit, lose some money and redesign their chips like they were supposed to do a long time ago, but what they are going to do is make up for it in marketing on TV, radio and in sells w/Dell, HP, Compaq etc etc. But AMD is not going to let them continue to release these crappy chips and have people think that the Intel chips are good...because once the benchmarks come out or someone who has an Intel uses their friend's AMD64 computer...people will know that AMD is producing a better chip.

Oh course Intel is not going to shrivel up and die and close up shop forever screwed, but I have a feeling that they are not going to get themselves out of the hole that they dug for themselves for awhile. Intel my have the money to fund R&D, but it seems the AMD has the brains. Intel can pay me $1.2 million to come up with a new core design or come up with a new 65nm chip that runs @ 1.2V, but I'm not going to know how to do it or it's going to take me a hell of a long time before I learn how and when I do it's going to be crap and there's going to be a bunch of trial and errors (it seems Intel has been releasing/selling a lot of those "errors" instead of getting it right and waiting); while AMD would go over to some MIT grad who's been working with computers etc for 25 years pay him $2k and tell him to come up with a rock solid 90nm chip that can outperform any chip on the market today and of course he'll figure it out...and in less time and the chip is not going to have "heat" problems etc etc That's all ;D

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
actually AMD is outreaching Intel in the market sales, but Intel still has huge capital and stocks. Please don't make up numbers

http://news.com.com/Intel+lose...00-1006_3-5303705.html

82.7% to Intel, 15.5% to AMD. Even higher if you go by revenue.

 

[Schmeh]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
actually AMD is outreaching Intel in the market sales, but Intel still has huge capital and stocks. Please don't make up numbers

http://news.com.com/Intel+lose...00-1006_3-5303705.html

82.7% to Intel, 15.5% to AMD. Even higher if you go by revenue.

Thanks Accord99. Here is where I got my numbers from: http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P1365

AMD has only been out selling Intel lately and as you can see has made very little progress in the grand scheme of things.

 

[LTC8K6]

Jeez I can't wait for the higher AMD prices now that they have conquered Intel. :roll:

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Originally posted by: Accord99

http://news.com.com/Intel+lose...00-1006_3-5303705.html

82.7% to Intel, 15.5% to AMD. Even higher if you go by revenue.

Heres were i got my info from, i guess its only desktops, still shows a different light.

 

[PhoenixOrion]

Intel is no way close to being "screwed" just because cpu performance crown is lost back and forth one year to the next.

As long as Dell and other oem still puts corporate orders of 2000+ intel units here and there on strong marketing and label of "stability," that's a tough cookie jar to get amd hands into.

I'm just using my company for example on recent order of 2000 from Dell for two east coast sites.

 

[Markfw]

My company just did a "refresh" of about 50-100,000 PC's (120,000 empoyees, don't know for sure how many of them got PC's, but every one in our building and the other two admin buildings in town got them.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy

Originally posted by: Accord99

http://news.com.com/Intel+lose...00-1006_3-5303705.html

82.7% to Intel, 15.5% to AMD. Even higher if you go by revenue.

Heres were i got my info from, i guess its only desktops, still shows a different light.

That's retail desktops, which is a small portion of the overall market, and is a segment that AMD has always been strong at.

http://static.highbeam.com/n/n...alesintrosnewk62chips/

But the overall market is overwhelmingly Intel, with Intel revenues 7x that of AMD and profits of nearly 40x.

 

[clarkey01]

"But the overall market is overwhelmingly Intel, with Intel revenues 7x that of AMD and profits of nearly 40x "


And Intel still cant beat them at performance.