Is Intel In Trouble?

[MuffD]

I don't think so since their main competition is only AMD and some people just have their own preferences. I own both makes of cpus and both run fine.

 

[cavingjan]

Actually regarding drivers for chipsets: The BX chipset (I would hope you don't need drivers for this chipset in any modern OS since the chipset is how old now?) was the last Intel chipset without any significant driver updates but they still have some including an AGP driver that was just released three weeks ago. Any stripped down ghost will work on any system as long as you give it a chance to find things on its own.
But like I stated above, if you keep to the same type of systems, the headaches aren't eliminated but simply reduced in the number of different headaches.

Here at work, we are very printer brand specific and I hate buying a new printer since it takes so long to set the thing up for some of our more proprietary programs. Yes, we still have most of our database in Dbase3 but we are moving to Access but it just takes so long to come up with all the little specialty programs that were written over the course of ten years. Plus merging two databases with different client numbers into one with a new unified client number system. But I digress.

 

[bigbootydaddy]

amd doesnt even dominate the forums...



<< CPU Stats

AMD: 2959
Intel: 3279
VIA/Cyrix: 6
IDT: 7 >>



so not even the Tech Zealots have the advantage...Intel will stick...end of story, im sure AMD will eventually take over/fight for first place, or maybe itll end up being like apple, who for a moment looked like it was going to really take off...when the g3-g4s hit...im sure the mac forums were saying, yeah, its only a matter of time...

right.....

 

[bigd480]

People think AMD can be competitive for simplistic reasons...

Good example of the vaunted &quot;price/performance ratio&quot; meaning nothing:

Chevy Camaro Z28:
HP: 300+
Price: ~$20k
Production: Killed by GM after 2001 due to lack of demand (by average consumer)...

I'm sure most of the ppl on this BBS would love that car and think it's a great buy, but we're not the average consumer...

 

[Double Trouble]

People forget that in the corportate world, you can't mess with ANY headaches, because sometimes you're talking about 10,000 PC's at a time. You can't just update a driver or update the BIOS on 10,000 machines. Thus, a large company is willing to pay extra bucks to buy the expensive IBM or Dell machines, just to make sure they don't have those headaches. Like it or not, AMD's on VIA chipsets are machines for tweakers wanting to get the best performance out of the least amount of money.

 

[TunaBoo]

Right now AMD is just plain stupid for large corporations.

If AMD can make a series of stable chipsets for like a year or 2 straight, then people will begin to change their mind.

I own a slow pentium and a fast AMD.

 

[cavingjan]

I beg to differ on the drive updates. At NIST, they push all the drivers across the network to us at night and the secretaries never know it happened. Same with our antivirus, program patches, and os patches.

 

[bozack]

Snoop,

First off I never said I would quit if My company decided to use AMD based systems, I just said that I would rather them stick with Intel.

This really is a non issue because they are not even remotely considering AMD based systems, they just cannot get them as cheap as they can Intel based systems, so your price argument is out...you have to remember your not talking pricewatch here, these are large companies and there is alot of politics involved that I am sure you do not understand or you would have never made that silly argument.

Secondly, while I do not have first hand knowledge, I do know many of my collegues have AMD systems (Tbirds and Durons) for their home systems, and they agree, that where we work would be much worse if we were working around AMD based systems. Also I do a good deal of reading up on these and other forums and have seen numerous postings by very knowledgable people (least they seem that way) relaying problems that they have encountered with AMD/VIA based systems they have built/worked on.

Finally, your last argument while you may think it is the best is really your weakest. Lets face facts, if Anand's Forums or web site were to go down then it would not be the end of the world, sure for him his servers are mission critical, but they in no way have any real impact on other organizations, besides bringing revinue for a few companies via banner ads. Also it was Anands choice that they use AMD based systems, and Anand is the boss. In most other large companies (The one I work for example) the boss has no clue about any kind of technology, heck he just knows how to be a good politician, and the guy that buys the servers wants to keep his job, so he is not about to buy something that is relatively &quot;unknown&quot; especially to his technically illiterate manager.

I still would not like to work in an AMD/VIA based environment just yet.....maybe when the chipsets are a little more refined-but not yet

 

[bozack]

cavingjan--same where I work, but 9 times out of 10 engineering doesn't do all of their homework and we (the technicians) have to manually repair all of those machines after the push fails....

simple, reliable, cost effective machines are what large companies like, as of yet (at least for us) AMD does not offer anything

 

[shathal]

A word on AMD &amp; chipsets.

Personally (I still don't get this one) I can't understand why AMD isn't into chipsets - the 760 is a good chipset, but it surely is difficult to find. They rely on VIA chipsets which, let's face it, are just magnets to errata &amp; bugs.

If they were to propperly get into the chipset market (like Intel does), and would throw a few solid chipsets (inevitably with the one hiccup or so in between - can we say MTH?) onto the market for a solid period of time, then companies may start to see it in a better light. Obviously, it has to work on its distribution channel as well.

It's AFAIK simply not possible to order 10,000 1GHz CPU's with the same ease for AMD than it is with Intel CPU's. OK - the number is pretty high &amp; &quot;ease&quot; is relative - but it would a lot easier to get the Chipzilla bits on this one. Numbers &amp; &quot;brandname&quot; play a role.

As irritating as it is (for me at least), a fair few of the people who have to sign off for new tech equipment don't know anything about IT, or AMD for that matter. Intel is a well known name. People are afraid of new things &amp; stick to their habits.

That is why I doubt that AMD will be entering the corporate market any time soon - and THAT is the sector where the big bucks are made.

 

[Wingznut]

I don't believe that AMD has the fab capacity for both chipsets AND cpus. From what I understand, they are barely keeping up with cpu demand as it is. Which I suspect is a reason they don't advertise more. If the demand were to rise quickly, they probably couldn't keep up, and that could be very damaging. I have heard that they are trying to outsource their chipsets, but as of yet haven't been able to reach an agreement with another manufacturer.

 

[Degenerate]

what does outsource mean?

 

[shathal]

Means that someone else makes them for AMD.

Basically, they would pay company XYZ to produce the chipsets - they would still be sold under the AMD name.

Hmmm - valid arguments, Wingznut - thanks. Makes more sense now .

 

[wyvrn]

I personally like the fact that AMD is competing so well with Intel, we all benefit from it.... but like IBM, I think Intel is about to wake up and come back with a vengeance.

Before I go any further, let me say I am not a zealot for either of the companies. I have built/used slightly more Intel systems than AMD's, and I like and run both.

The thing that makes me laugh about the quote statement above is: Intel is a hugely successful company, don't you think that if they could kill AMD they would? The pt. is that they can't! No company would allow another to just eat up market share year after year in a segment of the market that has been very profitiable to them (think Microsoft). When it was pretty much Intel only, they could charge whatever they wanted for chips, make a hefty profit, and take their time in introducing new chip designs. AMD has put a kick in Intel's but and totally forced them outside of their previous business model. Will Intel die anytime soon? IMO, no. But they are gonna have to cut the fat out and get a more competitive business model before AMD earns 51% of the desktop processor market (and hence recognition by even salesman as the consumer king).

I wonder how Intel feels about AMD introducing Duron's in laptops and development of dual proc. server boards? Only a matter of time before AMD has a viable solution in every area of the market. I know Intel would have to be worried about this.

As far as chipsets, AMD has previously stated that it is not profitable for them to make their own chipsets, thus leaving it to Via, Ali, et al. I think this is an excuse for not being able to open enough fabs to produce their own. I do not, however, think that AMD will leave it this way. They WANT to make their own chipsets, but do not have the resources that Intel currently does, so it is going to take some time.

About the 4in1 driver thing, isn't that the same thing as installing a service pack to Windows OS? It would be really easy to setup a login script that calls the 4in1 install, reboots the machine, and voila! ready to go. Further, I have worked in an imaging room, and we routinely setup several different images for the different machines we used (laptops and two types of desktop machines, Compaq and IBM). IT WAS NOT THAT HARD. And yes this was a large Fortune 500 company.

Of course this is just another pointless AMD vs. Intel debate and none of our opinions is going to have any effect on the market.

 

[Rob9874]

<< The thing that makes me laugh about the quote statement above is: Intel is a hugely successful company, don't you think that if they could kill AMD they would? The pt. is that they can't! >>



It is only my personal opinion (and could be wrong), but couldn't Intel buy AMD right now if they wanted to? I would think in the wake of what recently happened to Microsoft, the very large corporations are playing with competition very carefully.

This is ONLY my opinion.
Rob

 

[shathal]

I agree - Intel (more likely than not) *COULD* buy AMD - and could have done so for donkeys years.

However - would it WANT to?

Not really - because then the only &quot;competitor&quot; would be Cyrix - and we all know how much of a threat Cyrix is posing at the moment (even to AMD) - hardly any. Nah - Intel (I've said it before, I'll say it again) has quite an interest in keeping AMD alive &amp; &quot;healthy&quot; - so that the CPU market doesn't turn into what the desktop OS market is at the moment (and thus, the DoJ and anti-trust things).

Intel doesn't mind competition - it just likes to be winning at the same time. Intel would be very stupid indeed if it bought up AMD...

 

[wyvrn]

Shathal that is a good pt., maybe Intel also thinks it can put the hurt on AMD if they get too big for their pants. That would be a mistake for Intel, IMO, because AMD is big enough now to be dangerous.

 

[MGMorden]

I doubt the FTC would approve such a buyout anyways.