[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Is New Chip AMD's Last Stand? here

[pertersj]

Before it was Intel, then it was AMD, and now it's Intel. AMD will be back, and to be honest I think it will take some time. Phenom doesn't break enough new ground from what I've seen. But then again, AMD has always been the innovative underdog that has kept Intel on it's toes. Bottem Line: AMD is down, but not out, even if Phenom does't take the performance lead back.

[lodave]

The nattering negativism of this piece, particularly the title, leads me to believe that the author is on the Intel payroll in effect if not fact, and likely owns a chunk of Intel stock. What is the point of publishing this? Are you trying to drive down AMDs stock price, sap their research and development budget, and ultimately drive them out of business? AMD is probably the only company preventing Intel from becoming the Microsoft of hardware. Do we need another monopoly? I think not. You should be encouraging competition, not disparaging it!

[RNR19952]

I have not purchased an Intel chip since 1995I currently have no plans to do soIs the Core 2 Duo so great?I have replaced more Intel chips than AMD's but that may be do to the popularityDollar for dollar is the Intel setup better?

[ImaPhake]

"Dollar for dollar is the Intel setup better?"Why yes, it is.AMD has had to cut its prices in order to compete with the thorough performance drubbing Intel inflicted upon them. Prices for "comparable" chips from each manufacturer are within just a few dollars. The only problem is that the higher-priced chip "equivalents" from AMD suffer an even greater loss in performance in comparison with the Intel chip they are trying to compete against. The fact that AMD lowered their pricing drastically accomplishes little (or nothing), unless you're counting the hard-core AMD enthusiasts who are loathe to switch out of sheer stubborness (actual price/performance ratios "be damned").Here's a link to thorough testing from The Tech Report where they put the lineup from each manufacturer against each other:http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/cpus/index.x?pg=1Their final (inescapeable) conclusion?"The fact that Intel retains the overall performance crown comes as no surprise. As we said at the outset, AMD has no real answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 among its dual-core processors."As a gamer, I will use a CPU from whichever manufacturer gives me the best edge at a good price. AMD used to hold that honor.

[DoctorDoom]

[quote name='lodave']The nattering negativism of this piece, particularly the title, leads me to believe that the author is on the Intel payroll in effect if not fact, and likely owns a chunk of Intel stock. What is the point of publishing this? Are you trying to drive down AMDs stock price, sap their research and development budget, and ultimately drive them out of business? AMD is probably the only company preventing Intel from becoming the Microsoft of hardware. Do we need another monopoly? I think not. You should be encouraging competition, not disparaging it!> > "Nattering Negativism" LMAO - who are you, Spiro Agnew? ROFL

[Soren]

I'd be very surprised if desktop hard drives only gained 4tb space in 6 years. I'd guess more like 15-20tb drives in 2013

[XweAponX]

"Intel's main competition faces a steep climb as it looks to regain a bit of the desktop performance supremacy that it enjoyed in pre-Core 2 Duo days."I thought that AMD had a Dual Core x64 Athlon BEFORE Intel came out with this Duo-poop.AMD stayed true to the course by making chips with x64 architecture - with backward compatibility. INTEL - They betrayed us. Instead of developing a cost effective x64 chip, they made the overblown Core Duo. And when Intel saw that they missed the point, they developed x64 Core Duos as fast as they could.AMDs Dual x64 CPUs are clearly the more superior. Even AMDs low-cost Sempron chips beat Intel with a stick. AMD is not suffering at all- in 2006 I built about 15 socket 754 Athlon systems- While there was stock of Socket 754s.I got two systems right now with 2.2 GHz Socket 754s - They Bench better than my 3GHz P-IV's, and 754s don't even have Dual Channel capability.AMD makes a serious CPU and should be taken seriously

[Sparty]

We'd better hope AMD doesn't die. If AMD hadn't provided Intel some competition, we'd still be running Pentium IIIs. Competition breeds advances and without AMD chips, advances will languish. When I had a Pentium 300, I remember being told by a person with inside information that Intel had a 1 GH chip ready, but they were biding their time, introducing slower chips to encourage sales both now and when they finally introduced the 1 GH chip. If there had been competition then, Intel wouldn't have been stalling. I don't ever want those days back. I'm buying AMD, not because it may be absolutely the best processor, but because without them Intel's introductions will grind to a halt.

[lonewolf22]

I wouldn't fret about AMD going out of business. Intel and AMD are both good companies. Both companies have had thier up and downs. However, Intel chips are more expensive than AMD and if you are a average computer user Intel may be my last choice. I can get much more from a chip from AMD(pricewise) than spending a lot of money on Intel. Intels chips are good, but just too expensive. As it has been said If AMD do bottom out. Intel will not be motivated to produce high quality chips. I myself use AMD's in my desktops and Intel in my notebook. and I am very pleased with it.

[glnbnz]

I am sorry to say that anything amd puts out is the generic form of the product. Intel has always put out a Premium product and is outpacing amd in just about every category. You can hope for the best but as for me I will never get burned by that amd cheap juck again. My home and work network will be Intel based as long as I am the Network Administrator.