5.
 
Re: Is AMD doomed?
Feb 27, 2006, 12:36
5.
Re: Is AMD doomed? Feb 27, 2006, 12:36
Feb 27, 2006, 12:36
 
"I use AMD to be l33t" fanbois club

Frankly, I own quite a bit more Intel stock than AMD stock, so I'd much rather Intel do better.

But the reality is that their desktop and server processors suck compared to AMD. They're hotter, they're slower, and they're more expensive (mostly).

The dual core Intel chips are actually cheaper than AMD's X2 offerings, but there's a reason for that -- their performance really, really blows. The implementation of dual core was extremely poor, with very low integration between the cores. It was clearly a last minute bodge job to put out a dual core chip at about the same time AMD did. Note that none of the future dual core chips (including Core Duo) replicate the current Pentium D's architecture. Intel knows that it's a shitty solution.

Intel's been getting caught with its pants down for years now -- first RDRAM, then Netburst, then x86-64, and now dual core. AMD certainly hasn't been perfect -- they were slow to adopt on-die thermal protection for example, the first couple generations of Athlons had TDP issues (esp. when compared to the Pentium 3 series), and for awhile the deskto chipsets sucked (basically until the nForce chipsets arrived; but the server chipsets have been solid for much longer since AMD rolls their own there). But it's pretty sad when you realize that Intel hasn't been leading the technology push on x86, but rather following AMD. Particularly given how much R&D Intel does in comparison.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Feb 27, 2006Feb 27 2006
2.
Feb 27, 2006Feb 27 2006
3.
Feb 27, 2006Feb 27 2006
 5.
Feb 27, 2006Feb 27 2006
   Re: Is AMD doomed?
6.
Feb 27, 2006Feb 27 2006
7.
Feb 27, 2006Feb 27 2006
9.
Feb 27, 2006Feb 27 2006
      Re: Is AMD doomed?
10.
Feb 27, 2006Feb 27 2006
      Re: Is AMD doomed?
4.
Feb 27, 2006Feb 27 2006
8.
Feb 27, 2006Feb 27 2006
12.
Feb 28, 2006Feb 28 2006
11.
Feb 27, 2006Feb 27 2006