Without AMD (essentially an Intel Monopoly) What would CPUs cost?

[JeffreyLebowski]

You like to leave out important details that contradict your argument, don't you? Back when intel had it's supposed x86 monopoly, x86 itself wasn't the only option for a consumer computer CPU. If intel CPUs were too expensive, you could buy a Mac or an Amiga. There was still competition.

These days, things are different. x86 itself has a huge monopoly as the only viable PC CPU. If AMD went away, intel would have ZERO competition for it's x86 CPUs.




You can get a pretty decent computer today for $600, 20 years ago there wasn't anything "mainstream performance" available for less than $2000. Unless your definition of mainstream performance has changed year by year, sounds like BS. Maybe you can get a mainstream performance PC today for what you paid for a low-end entry level PC 20 years ago.

You obviously don't know as much about CPU's as you think you do.
Cyrix was around, and now VIA still makes x86 CPUs. They are were not and are not at a performance level of the Intels, but they are a low price option.
You seem to think a company will put out a product and charge a million bucks for it even though it's not that much. They charge what their research suggests that people will be able to pay for it. With $1000 processors there will be 5-8 years between computer upgrades for 99% of people. with $200-$300 processors a larger majority change every 3 years, and some every year.
Intel is an extremely smart company and understand how to maximize their profits.

 

[Scotteq]

GPGPU is mainly interesting for the supercomputing market. They don't have an x86 legacy anyway.
Firstly a lot of it is research, so new code is written anyway, and backwards compatibility isn't a big deal.
Secondly, until recently, supercomputing wasn't done on x86 processors at all. They were mainly custom-made systems, with the CPU-du-jour, on some unix-like custom OS. Things were programmed in C/C++, and nVidia supports that. The supercomputing market is used to having to rewrite/update code for a new supercomputer, because you never knew exactly where the next supercomputer was coming from. It's custom hardware with custom OSes.

True - Just so long as we understand that Supercomputing is a highly niche market, with only a handful of very powerful machines being made. And for the reasons I stated above, I don't see any traction to be made in the general marketplace with this one. Not to mention it seems like an *awful* lot of effort being made for what - at best - might be a few dozen to few hundred GPUs. I just don't see how it's at all relevant for the masses.

It's really cool, and exciting to some subset of PC enthusiasts - (ZOMG!! I PWNT yu Phags in F@H points this month!!1!1!111) - sure. But that's really about it until such time as nVidia can deliver on the promise.

At best, nVidia can (and does) achieve some incremental sales from Marketing the concept. But that's all I see at the moment.

 

[Scali]

Well, it's slowly trickling into the consumer market... There's GPGPU-accelerated video transcoding integrated in Windows 7 now. Something that people with portable video devices will probably use a lot.
Adobe supports GPGPU-acceleration now, in PhotoShop and Premiere.
And ofcourse there's PhysX to enhance visuals in games.
I've heard of a GPGPU-accelerated virus scanner being developed (I think it was Kaspersky?)... and who knows what they'll think of next. GPGPU-accelerated speech recognition?
I've also seen people using Cuda for VSTs. Realtime audio processing on the GPU.

I guess people are only just starting to explore the possibilities.

 

[Hacp]

If AMD weren't around, we'd still be on netburst at 10 gigs.

 

[Chiropteran]

You seem to think a company will put out a product and charge a million bucks for it even though it's not that much. They charge what their research suggests that people will be able to pay for it. With $1000 processors there will be 5-8 years between computer upgrades for 99% of people. with $200-$300 processors a larger majority change every 3 years, and some every year. .

Quit putting words in my mouth, I said no such thing.

I was making a simple point- Intel has never really had a true monopoly. When Intel was the only x86 CPU producer, x86 CPUs were not the only realistic option for a consumer computer. Now they are. If AMD went away (without VIA stepping up) Intel would have a real monopoly. I never even speculated on what Intel would actually do if it had such a monopoly.

 

[ModestGamer]

Well, it's slowly trickling into the consumer market... There's GPGPU-accelerated video transcoding integrated in Windows 7 now. Something that people with portable video devices will probably use a lot.
Adobe supports GPGPU-acceleration now, in PhotoShop and Premiere.
And ofcourse there's PhysX to enhance visuals in games.
I've heard of a GPGPU-accelerated virus scanner being developed (I think it was Kaspersky?)... and who knows what they'll think of next. GPGPU-accelerated speech recognition?
I've also seen people using Cuda for VSTs. Realtime audio processing on the GPU.

I guess people are only just starting to explore the possibilities.

did they write a ati driver for that yet ?

I hope they do.

home Studio guy here.

 

[Acanthus]

Intel would lose billions if people had no reason to buy new computers. If a computer 3 years ago is just as fast as a new computer on the shelf today, there's no reason for me to buy a new computer.

Ironically this is already true to some degree. My 3.5 year old E6600 overclocked to 3.1ghz will crush half of the desktop computers in Best Buy.

Yeah, this is the case right now, especially when you are tlaking the average user.

Gamers and Encoders and Distributed Computing are the only reasons anyone needs more than a low end dual core.

 

[aigomorla]

i really dont think pricing would be much different.

If you really think about it now, AMD does not affect intel's pricing offers.

In a sense Intel already has a monopoly.

SO i dont see how things would be any different if AMD wasnt there minus us having to be forced on intel.

 

[Idontcare]

I agree with Aigo. Intel's competition today is with the CPU's it sold over the last 2-3 yrs.

If Intel's products of today do not offer a compelling upgrade story at the right price-point then they won't sell their cpu's today.

Same thing that drives Microsoft's sales. Linux and Mac OS X are not Microsoft's competition, they need to release a new OS every 2yrs to force the obsoletion of the OS they sold 2 yrs ago.

Really though, these "what if" hypothetical gedunken experiments are kinda pointless outside of serving the purpose of being mildly entertaining chatter. AMD is not going anywhere.

Even if they were to go bankrupt you'd still see them reorganize their debt and emerge from bankruptcy to keep on doing what they do the same as the airline and the auto companies.

 

[Scali]

did they write a ati driver for that yet ?

Nope... and even if they did (they will be using OpenCL), it wouldn't work on an AMD system out-of-the-box, because ATi doesn't provide OpenCL drivers to end-users. nVidia does, however. Has been since November last year.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Before Thuban's release the i7 870 was a $500 plus processor, now it's $300 and Intel even introduced the I7 875K unlocked to compete with what??? a 1090T. If AMD didn't release Thuban we wouldn't be able to purchase 870 or 875k for $300 or there abouts.

 

[Scali]

Before Thuban's release the i7 870 was a $500 plus processor, now it's $300 and Intel even introduced the I7 875K unlocked to compete with what??? a 1090T. If AMD didn't release Thuban we wouldn't be able to purchase 870 or 875k for $300 or there abouts.

There's no way you can know that.
Before AMD was around, Intel reduced prices of their CPUs aswell, from time to time. And they also introduced new CPUs every now and then.
Usually the prices are dropped down a notch to make room for a new CPU higher up in the chain. In this case, Intel introduced a second six-core CPU.

 

[Gikaseixas]

There's no way you can know that.
Before AMD was around, Intel reduced prices of their CPUs aswell, from time to time. And they also introduced new CPUs every now and then.
Usually the prices are dropped down a notch to make room for a new CPU higher up in the chain. In this case, Intel introduced a second six-core CPU.

No no no. My friend 875K was launched in response of the 1090T success. 870 was re-ajusted recently but i doubt it's price was reduced to make way for the $899 six core beast. If that's the case then why they kept i7 930/950... etc prices the same???

875K was released to battle 1090T. It was a great move by Intel, it's a much better chip IMO.

 

[Scali]

No no no. My friend 875K was launched in response of the 1090T success. 870 was re-ajusted recently but i doubt it's price was reduced to make way for the $899 six core beast. If that's the case then why they kept i7 930/950... etc prices the same???

875K was released to battle 1090T. It was a great move by Intel, it's a much better chip IMO.

As I say, there's no way you can know that for sure.
The way you're talking, it's like Intel would never change any prices unless AMD does something. That is simply not true.

 

[Gikaseixas]

As I say, there's no way you can know that for sure.
The way you're talking, it's like Intel would never change any prices unless AMD does something. That is simply not true.

...and yet you claimed in other threads that AMD will fail, and there's nothing they could do to change that. How do you know that???

My point makes perfect sense because up to the 1090T launch Intel didn't have a unlocked cpu in it's line-up and since the 1090T is aimed at overclockers at $300 bracket. Look again now, they have a $330 cpu with unlocked multi's.

Mr Scali, your BIAS knows no limits, that much i'll give you.

Bit-tech.net
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/07/intel-core-i7-875k-review/1

At £282, the i7-875K is pitched squarely at AMD's flagship Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition CPU, which costs £233

Techreport.com

http://techreport.com/articles.x/18988

Smart strategy will only take you so far, though, when you're not the king. Intel's chips extract more computational throughput from a smaller silicon area while consuming less power. From manufacturing to design and architecture, it has every advantage. Intel is king. As a result, Intel gets to decide how much performance it will deliver to customers and at what price. And now it appears, the king is a little miffed—cheesed, peeved, horked off, if you will—about the Phenom II X6's critical success.

Thus, the king has lifted his hand from the armrest of the throne and made a quick flourish—perhaps a slicing motion across the throat—and tilted his head in the general direction of the Phenom II X6. A little fiddling in the royal factories and a few marketing slides later, and the king's official response rides forth across the drawbridge, the Core i7-875K and the Core i5-655K. Both of the K-series CPUs are priced attractively and have unlocked core and memory multipliers for easy overclocking. And they offer precious little room for those pesky Phenom IIs to breathe.

Digest this

 

[Scali]

Actually, most internet forums and news sites are biased towards AMD heavily. People generally support the underdog, and fail to apply common sense and practice objectivity.

I'm one of the few neutral observers, which is why most people think I'm biased. In reality they're too biased to know where the middle ground is.

I'm getting really tired of being accused of being biased however. Stop insulting me. I don't like Intel any more than I like AMD.
Also, step back, calm down, and read what I actually say. Stop putting words in my mouth, I haven't said anything like what you think I said. You guys are so biased that the word AMD drives you into completely irrational behaviour and even rage. That's not healthy, you're not thinking straight.

Heck, I've actually been around in those early PC days when AMD wasn't there yet. I've bought a number of computers before AMD offered any alternative.
I also bought my first AMD-powered system at around 1993-1994. I helped friends out building their first Am386DX40 systems. Some of you weren't even born yet, and others had no idea what a computer was, let alone who Intel and AMD were. You don't even have the right to have an opinion on me. You don't know what bias really is.
If there's anyone who appreciates alternative technology, it would be me, with my past using C64s and Amigas alongside PCs (PCs were a necessary evil back then, for running business applications. Much like you need to run Windows on your PC today, to get access to many business applications. I never bought a PC because I preferred the technology, because it was good price/performance, let alone that I liked Intel or x86). You have a lot to learn.

And another thing. Just because I say "there's no way you know for sure" doesn't mean I don't agree with it. I am just trying to teach you the difference between probability and absolute truth. But that went WAY over your little biased head.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I'm calm, very calm trying to read but i couldn't ignore your persistent bias. I mean, i'm not the only one who sees it. If more than one guy tells you this you have to stop and think about what you're doing to make people label you as biased, fanboy, etc, etc.

You're defending yourself in your last post and it's not the first time, why's that??? Think about it for a second.

Our little exchange started because i gave my opinion and you felt the need to tell the world i was wrong because what i said gave some credit to whom? Exactly AMD. If it's the other way around you never say anything hence the obvious bias you have.

Back on topic. Did you read my links? Do you see how even very well known websites share my opinion?? Is it that hard for you to see it?

 

[Scali]

I'm calm, very calm trying to read but i couldn't ignore your persistent bias. I mean, i'm not the only one who sees it. If more than one guy tells you this you have to stop and think about what you're doing to make people label you as biased, fanboy, etc, etc.

The majority isn't always right. I've been around long enough to know where I stand and what trends arise in computer land.

You're defending yourself in your last post and it's not the first time, why's that??? Think about it for a second.

I already answered that. Most people are biased towards AMD. That is a fact. End of discussion. You're the problem, not me. Any neutral observer will see that:
- Intel has a huge advantage in the scale of their operation
- Intel is a process node ahead of the rest of the industry
- Intel's architecture is superior to the competition in all important areas (power consumption, IPC, clock scaling, performance-per-transistor etc)
- Intel has a pretty convincing new architecture coming up (Sandy Bridge), which they have already demonstrated in a working state
- AMD has problems with moving to their 32 nm process (extra risk factor for launching a new architecture, never do both at the same time: tick-tock)
- AMD hasn't revealed any groundbreaking new technology on their roadmap
- AMD has not demonstrated working silicon for Bulldozer yet. By the time they do, Intel's successor to Sandy Bridge will be well underway, so we will see where they stand then. Beating Nehalem is not what AMD needs to do, they need to go way beyond that.

Back on topic. Did you read my links? Do you see how even very well known websites share my opinion?? Is it that hard for you to see it?

I already answered that above. I never said you were wrong, I just said you will never know for sure. You are just too busy being frustrated and fighting windmills.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I never said you were wrong, I just said you will never know for sure.

Finally, that's all i wanted from you

Now relax or go mess with someone else cuz i'm done with you.

 

[Scali]

Finally, that's all i wanted from you

Why would you want that from me?
I don't get it.
It was all in your head from the get-go. Think about that. And I mean it. Really think about what just happened here. You insulted someone you don't know about something he never said, because of some weird companies that you are too hung-up about. Don't take such things personally, it's not healthy. And certainly don't launch personal attacks on others when you do.
I don't want to be insulted for any company. I have nothing to do with any of these companies, other than that I buy the products from the company that offers me what I want.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Has everyone forgotten that Intel tried to kill AMD with RDRAM licencing? But because AMD had the superior product at the time which worked with MUCH cheaper DDR, Intel was forced to release the 845 with DDR support, and they eventually gave up on the proprietary RDRAM.
Intel obviously wanted to keep the high end starting at $2000+.

Without AMD we may not be paying significantly more for a CPU, but it would be a slower CPU, and we'd be paying out the ass for RIMMs.

 

[Scali]

Has everyone forgotten that Intel tried to kill AMD with RDRAM licencing? But because AMD had the superior product at the time which worked with MUCH cheaper DDR, Intel was forced to release the 845 with DDR support, and they eventually gave up on the proprietary RDRAM.
Intel obviously wanted to keep the high end starting at $2000+.

I don't see where Intel tried to 'kill' AMD by choosing RDRAM.
Their Pentium 4 was simply a CPU that could do high-performance stream processing via SSE2, and as such high-bandwidth memory was preferred.
Intel wasn't the only one using RDRAM, Sony also chose RDRAM for their PlayStation 2, for similar reasons, for example. You think Sony did that because they wanted to kill AMD aswell?
Besides, Intel still offered SDR as an alternative.
They could not offer DDR because of restrictive licensing with Rambus. However, Intel designed its SDR chipset (i845) to be dual-standard. Hence, after the Rambus license ran out, these chipsets could be used for DDR.

Why does everyone have to spin the facts in a way to make Intel look bad and AMD look good (if you wanted proof that there's a general AMD bias on the internet, here it is)? Rambus simply had some very good memory at the time. It delivered better bandwidth than DDR, so it's not that strange that Intel chose to support SDR and Rambus rather than SDR and DDR. If it were up to Intel, they'd support SDR, DDR and Rambus at the same time, but Rambus wanted to prevent competition.

By the way, Intel and Rambus signed this deal in 1996 (probably when Pentium 4 was in very early stages of development), years before there was any sign of AMD's Athlon, let alone DDR.

 

[DominionSeraph]

If it were up to Intel, they'd support SDR, DDR and Rambus at the same time, but Rambus wanted to prevent competition.

Intel partnered into an exclusive deal with a company they were heavily invested in, and their investment paid off when Rambus stock went into the stratosphere upon news of that.
You don't seriously believe it was Rambus dictating the terms to Intel, do you?

 

[Scali]

Intel partnered into an exclusive deal with a company they were heavily invested in, and their investment paid off when Rambus stock went into the stratosphere upon news of that.
You don't seriously believe it was Rambus dictating the terms to Intel, do you?

Yes, I do actually (Intel probably invested in Rambus as a result of these terms, I consider them smart enough for that). The FTC seems to have thought so aswell, filing an antitrust lawsuit.
And regardless of who dictated the terms, I still don't see how AMD is involved here.
Firstly, neither Intel nor Rambus knew that AMD would be going for DDR at that time.
Clearly Rambus was interested in killing DDR, as they also tried in court with IP lawsuits.
But what does that have to do with AMD? AMD was free to stick with SDR or to go with Rambus aswell. AMD freely made the choice for DDR long after Intel and Rambus had made their deal.

 

[amenx]

Without AMD (essentially an Intel Monopoly) What would CPUs cost? $300?
look at the obscene prices Micro$oft is forcing on us with their essential monopoly, for Win 7, a face-lift for the same ole OS.

Therefore, I have bought only AMD for many years, to do my little part to avoid $300 CPUs.

AMD would do the same without Intel. And there would be 'obscene' AMD pricing. Shareholders would boot out their directors if they didnt.