[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Can AMD Ever Beat Intel? here

[jsnowbordr47]

Problem is, in addition to AMD getting focused, it needs Intel to lose focus. That's how Athlon really took off vs P3 and P4. Problem is, Intel already went through that, and you can bet they will be doing everything they can to prevent another P3/P4 slump.

AMD is like that borderline playoff team that even if they win all their remaining games, they'll still need help to make the playoffs.

It could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[YousufKhanzls6]

There's been a lot of predictions that AMD was going to go bankrupt for the past 5 years, none of it came true, despite Intel's best efforts. Intel's window of opportunity to kill AMD have now come and gone, there's a lot of regulators around the world which have their eyes firmly on Intel's business practices. Through these illegal monopolistic tactics Intel was able to squeeze the blood supply from AMD so that it couldn't afford to do short-term R&D anymore. It's now survived that, and now there's some healing going on. The GPU technology that AMD has over Intel is a bigger gap than the CPU gap that Intel has over AMD. I think most people find that their CPUs are good enough right now, but when it comes to demanding games, nobody feels that they have enough GPU. The GPU is also now being used in video processing and other more general purpose tasks, that's only going to increase the need for GPUs. With Intel you're always going to need an AMD (or Nvidia) GPU to supplement its meagre GPU. That'll add to the cost of an Intel system.

[waldojim]

A well written article on PCWORLD... I am impressed.

AMD does need to get competitive again, Integrated graphics alone aren't going to cut it, nor is making the processors more powerful.

They need to finally change the game a bit. Create a new socket this time, open up to triple channel ram, offer up a faster bus, maybe even try to integrate more of the chipset functions - like the PCI-E controller - just don't cut people short with them like Intel did. Focus on better multi-core chips - not just quads, but 6 or 8 core chips on the desktop. Something with better cache management, and something that doesn't suffer the odd hiccups that current generation chips suffer when real multitasking is attempted.

They CAN do this. They just need to get off their duffs and get it done.

[AravindAarumugamk88n]

Intel's only leap is just finance and regular money flow in the markets in which it has presence,which it gained through illegal and unfair means.

It is also worthy to note that an averages joe does get an computer to play games and simple stuff which AMD can offer at a very attractive price(GPU+CPU combo)

As far as when it comes to server farms AMD's opetron seems to have reached an equilibrium with their power/performence ratio.

With a positive growth every year
i can see AMD gaining a niche on Intel's tail.

Even though we might not see AMD gaining an upper and in the next fiscal year,don't we love competition?
After it's us who benefit
Hail AMD

[BuyLoSellHioucw]

FACT # 1 Intel compiler used in any benchmark software programming proved Intel cheated its way in beating AMD's benchmarks by deliberately crippling AMD processors.

FACT #2 Intel also bribed every OEM not to use AMD with anti competitive tactics.

Throw out every benchmark test result. This debate null and void just as it would be if the visitor’s goal is covered in glad wrap or a jets coach stuck his knee out to trip opposing players from the sideline. Oh wait that happened too.

To answer " HOW CAN AMD COMPETE " Poor Intel has nothing to compete with AMD APUs now. What illegal tactic with they use to bury AMD now ?. I’d say start looking into McAfee and how it will most likely be Intel optimized and AMD crippling. I smell lawyers !

[coastie65]

Waldo Jim mentioned TriChannel and I think that is probably a non issue at this time. Intel used Tri Channel on the 1366 socketed X58 MOBOs only, then dropped back to Dual Channel again with the P55 1156 socketed MOBOs and I believe the new Sandy Bridge. In my Opinion, AMD's AM3 Phenom II X4 965 & 970 Black processors are very good for a budget builder as are the X6's. If AMD goes for a Tri Channel memory configuration, this would mean a revamping of the Chipset for sure, but not necessarily a socket change, but that wouldn't hurt. As for performance tests, I take those things with a grain of salt for the most part. In my opinion, 3D Mark Vantage is biased towards Nvidia and will consistantly give higher marks to machines with Nvidia, based on PhysX. From what I can see is that AMD still may have bit of a draw back in running multithreaded operations and they need to work on the multithreading aspects of their processors with would help.

[waldojim]

BuyLoSellHioucw, on 18 April 2011 - 08:19 AM, said:

FACT # 1 Intel compiler used in any benchmark software programming proved Intel cheated its way in beating AMD's benchmarks by deliberately crippling AMD processors.

FACT #2 Intel also bribed every OEM not to use AMD with anti competitive tactics.

Throw out every benchmark test result. This debate null and void just as it would be if the visitor’s goal is covered in glad wrap or a jets coach stuck his knee out to trip opposing players from the sideline. Oh wait that happened too.

To answer " HOW CAN AMD COMPETE " Poor Intel has nothing to compete with AMD APUs now. What illegal tactic with they use to bury AMD now ?. I’d say start looking into McAfee and how it will most likely be Intel optimized and AMD crippling. I smell lawyers !

So what benchmarks are Tom's Hardware, or Anandtech using that are illegal? By using every current game, video compressor, and other tools, they prove time and time again, that AMD can't keep up. I have proven in my own home that AMD cannot multitask the way Intel does.

Sounds to me like AMD has nothing to compete with.

[waldojim]

coastie65, on 18 April 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

Waldo Jim mentioned TriChannel and I think that is probably a non issue at this time. Intel used Tri Channel on the 1366 socketed X58 MOBOs only, then dropped back to Dual Channel again with the P55 1156 socketed MOBOs and I believe the new Sandy Bridge. In my Opinion, AMD's AM3 Phenom II X4 965 & 970 Black processors are very good for a budget builder as are the X6's. If AMD goes for a Tri Channel memory configuration, this would mean a revamping of the Chipset for sure, but not necessarily a socket change, but that wouldn't hurt. As for performance tests, I take those things with a grain of salt for the most part. In my opinion, 3D Mark Vantage is biased towards Nvidia and will consistantly give higher marks to machines with Nvidia, based on PhysX. From what I can see is that AMD still may have bit of a draw back in running multithreaded operations and they need to work on the multithreading aspects of their processors with would help.

I am not saying that TriChannel is the end all of performance, just saying that AMD needs anything it can right now to gain the upper hand. If TriChannel were to give AMD another 5-10% memory bandwidth, then DO IT! They need it. When Dual Channel first launched, AMD was the first on board with DDR dual channel ram - and it showed. The AMD Athlon was impossible for Intel to beat. It is time AMD did that again. They need to pull ALL the stops, and produce an unbeatable chip.

[QUADICON]

The answer is simple - NO!!!!!

[QUADICON]

YousufKhanzls6, on 17 April 2011 - 01:26 PM, said:

There's been a lot of predictions that AMD was going to go bankrupt for the past 5 years, none of it came true, despite Intel's best efforts. Intel's window of opportunity to kill AMD have now come and gone, there's a lot of regulators around the world which have their eyes firmly on Intel's business practices. Through these illegal monopolistic tactics Intel was able to squeeze the blood supply from AMD so that it couldn't afford to do short-term R&D anymore. It's now survived that, and now there's some healing going on. The GPU technology that AMD has over Intel is a bigger gap than the CPU gap that Intel has over AMD. I think most people find that their CPUs are good enough right now, but when it comes to demanding games, nobody feels that they have enough GPU. The GPU is also now being used in video processing and other more general purpose tasks, that's only going to increase the need for GPUs. With Intel you're always going to need an AMD (or Nvidia) GPU to supplement its meagre GPU. That'll add to the cost of an Intel system.

AMD never made GPU's. They bought ATI which makes awesome GPU's. The technology may be shared, but its Canadian ATI that developed it.

[QUADICON]

BuyLoSellHioucw, on 18 April 2011 - 08:19 AM, said:

FACT # 1 Intel compiler used in any benchmark software programming proved Intel cheated its way in beating AMD's benchmarks by deliberately crippling AMD processors.

FACT #2 Intel also bribed every OEM not to use AMD with anti competitive tactics.

Throw out every benchmark test result. This debate null and void just as it would be if the visitor’s goal is covered in glad wrap or a jets coach stuck his knee out to trip opposing players from the sideline. Oh wait that happened too.

To answer " HOW CAN AMD COMPETE " Poor Intel has nothing to compete with AMD APUs now. What illegal tactic with they use to bury AMD now ?. I’d say start looking into McAfee and how it will most likely be Intel optimized and AMD crippling. I smell lawyers !

I don't think any of that matters per se. Test have shown for every clock cycle where AMD chips performed 3 instructions vs Intel's 2 instructions show AMD chips were faster, more efficient and cost less.

AMD admited back in the 90's when Pentium III was released, they could compete against Intel Inside marketing.
Everywhere you look Intel has a commercial, they sponsor events and more. What does AMD do? Have you seen any AMD commercials lately?
Even ATI before AMD bought them, advertised way more than Nvidia did.

Intel didn't need to pat OEM to just use their chips, but hey nothing wrong with a little encouragement.
Sure it was illegal, however consumers don't just shop by price. They also shop by what is familair. Intel has been around a very long time.

When people go to work, they see Intel on the servers, they see Intel on their own laptop or desktop. AMD chips tend to be used on mid to low end computers.
People also know that Intel chips which are slower, seem to pack more power.
Microsoft works more closely with Intel to optimize Windows performce in their chips
AMD supplied the benefit of running 32/64 together without a reboot. And Intel paid AMD for this benefit.
Consumers are going to buy what they jnow. If you agve a consumer a laptop with no stickers on them and tell them to guess which is the Intel vs AMD version, they could not tell you based on usage.

The sticker is the difference. That bright blue Intel inside was driven by large companies that seem to prefer them.
I think I heard Apple is planning to offer AMD chips in the Mac soon. Ifthat rumor is true, witll the cost of Macs drop? I doubt it.

Intel is king because they are everywhere.

[hsevb]

Intel is not king. INTEL SUCKS!!! I had a computer with Intel that crashed the day I bought it. My computer with AMD lasted 5 years.

[hsevb]

AMD is top-of-the-line fast. Intel is bottom-of-the-line slow! Can AMD ever beat Intel? The answer: THEY ALREADY DID!!!

[hamsterhead]

You know what, i like AMD. They keep Intel in check. If it wasent for AMD us Intel buyer's would be paying a lot more for Intel cpu's. I build systems for people and I have Intel. But people that are one buget i use AMD.

[mjd420nova]

I'd just like to a single device hit the market that will allow a video phone app or function to connect to others with the same app. AMD is in a unique position to design and build the chip to combine all that's needed in a single chip. Multiprocessors opened the door to include the GPU within a CPU substrate but keeping the procesors seperate. These days, few use phone minutes, it's all text and internet that gets maxed out. This could even be a console type for desk use, today they have to mix it on a PC and link to any remotes from there. A conference call would only be limited by the PBX, both in house and the central office.