[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Can AMD Still Compete in High-End Chips? here

[glnbnz]

Long live Intel. Lets face facts here, amd is the generic version of Intel. They really don't compare at all. Usually generics perform almost as good as the Brand name. But this is not the case with amd. I am sorry, any amd lovers out there can hold out hope, but for me I will not be suckered into buying their Junk...

[Dewcrav3r]

Hold the show dude! Generic? Junk?? I think not! Think back to May of last year. If you will recall, Intel had the Pentium D, and AMD just introduced the AM2 version of the Athlon 64 X2. Let's cut to the chase: the Pentium D was a half-* piece of crap attempt at a dual-core cpu. It was two single core dies slapped together. AMD actually took the effort and time to put both on one die, and the X2 absolutely blew away the D on benchmarks. They didn't even have many dual-core benchmarks at that time, so the scores aren't even what they should be. Not to mention the fact that the original design came out in 2005, and Intel didn't have an answer to that for over a year! AMD had a true dual core first, and Intel had been sitting on their butts and got a wake-up call. I will admit that the Core 2 Duo was a breakthrough for Intel; the benchmarks are undeniable. However, there is absolutely no basis for flaming AMD: they have come out with a new (superior) version of a cpu every year since at least 2005. You can't call me biased either, because I owned a Pentium 4 AND voluntarily built a Core 2 Duo system for a friend, AND recommended them for new computers at my dad's work.You are entitled to an opinion, as am I, but consider the REAL facts before you make such ridiculous claims. Go to Tom's Hardware if you don't believe me...

[glnbnz]

Well I don't live by "benchmark tests". I like to use "Real life experience" And yes I will admit that amd did, in the past, motivate Intel. But let's face it this is the computer business and something done in 2005 is ancient history. Now I am not suggesting that amd should pack it up, every business need a little competition to keep them honest. But as for my money and the work network that I manage, we will be staying all Intel. Sorry I don't buy into the media to base my opinion on what is the best. When someone writes an article and on the same page there is an advertisement for anything I always have to wonder how bias is that article due to the advertising dollar. Nothing beats real life experience when it comes to forming an opinion. So if you don't believe me, become a Network Administrator, work with both, finally replacing all of amd headaches, and then you will understand.

[Dewcrav3r]

I'm not going to get in a flame war with you, there are enough of those. I just can't help but wonder why you are so biased? Yes, the X2 line is old, but it took Intel at least a year to come out with something better. What makes you think AMD won't give it their all to once again gain the upper edge? If AMD truly doesn't deserve to continue in the processor market, then economics will drive them out. A company can't survive unless consumers buy product, and any knowledgeable person would buy the better of two competing. This monopoly mentality is bad for everyone; it drives up prices and lowers the drive to make a better product. It's just like Microsoft: they are a complete monopoly, and innovation (and prices) have suffered for it. Imagine if all Unix-like products owned 40% of the OS market share. Don't you suppose that MS would come out with a version of Windows that is twice as good? Right now they have little incentive to stay on schedule or make a killer product. Yes their customers demand, but they still aren't driven by competition the way most other companies are. Competition ultimately benefits the consumer; economics has proven that. The point of this is, AMD didn't rip Intel off by making X86 or X64 processors. Those are open specifications, and consumers have benefited by a competitor like AMD. I also want to make it clear that I'm not bashing your experience, it's just that I have never seen an instance where AMD caused headaches... remember Hyper-Threading by Intel? It was innovative, but I know that was a headache for some.

[scunnerous]

So glnbnz, was the P4 the "generic" "junk" during the 3 years that the Athlon64 was whupping its ass?... or are you maybe just biased? The measurable performance difference between C2d and Athlon64 will barely be noticed by 90% of users anyway and for your servers, you still have a more scalable solution.Oh and don't forget how long it took the generic x86 supplier, i.e. Intel, to get off its Removed by Moderator and do an x86-64 chip. If not for the AMD64 architecture, which Intel HAD to copy, you'd be paying through the nose for Itanics by now.BTW there were no "AMD headaches" - that's just a lie... sorry but you had to be called on it, since it seems that you have no experience with AMD64 at all.Edited by MPHEnterprises - Watch Your Language

[glnbnz]

You sad people and your sad devotion to amd. Why would I buy amd64 bit junk when they couldn't even get 32 bit to run? Double the trouble? I seen and it didn't impress me. I know now you want to go on and on about benchmark tests and crap like that, but you didn't call me out on anything. My life started to run so much smoother replacing amd junk. Once again you are just living in the past. amd burned me along time ago and I will never go back You can respond if you want. I won't be wasting my time here anymore.

[Scunnerous]

Shame you're not coming back to tell exactly what it was about "32 bit" that AMD couldn't even get to run... since there were simply no problems at all. Oh and AMD64 is the Athlon64 architecture which includes the IA-32 ISA and 64-bit ISA INVENTED by AMD, which Intel followed, copied and licensed through an agreement with AMD. IOW your use of "AMD64 bit" illustrates rather well how much you understand about the term.When it comes to AMD CPUs, I don't believe you umm, "seen" anything.

[techie4fun]

[quote name='spike']Intel and Mac fanboi's,......you gotta' laugh at 'em, .......they're sheep,.........and you know what happens to sheep,...........wellington boots, anyone??:lol: Spike.

[BadOpCode]

Well a REALLY good reason not to go producing high end products is that the computer market has halted. No one is buying much of anything. AND I think our author here is a fan boy for his job, which if the big tech companies don't engage each other in mortal combat there is nothing much to report.
Business wise though... AMD is doing the right thing by slowing down and letting the consumers catch their breath from all the disappointments of the "Disasters of Tech 2007."
Lets be honest. This year has been a horrible year for technology. It's had its winners, but OMG has it had its failures.

[avanish11]

I'm not an Intel Fanboy by any means I've had several AMD PC's over the years. The phenom is a joke and it was aimed at high-end users. Most core 2's can whoop the Phenom. So unless AMD has a magic CPU architecture coming up, they're done for in High end. Don't get me wrong. The athlon x2's are great for most people, but this column isn't talking about most people. it's talking about the high end chips.

[TechyGuy]

I criticize those who consider AMD some low-end CPU maker. Just take a look. For example, AMD's Phenom X4s are quad-core, and cost quite a bit less than an Intel Core 2 Quad. Look at the AMD Athlon FX series, which are pretty high-end chips. This always happens in the PU industry; one company might have the upper hand, and then everyone else says that the company that is behind is sure to fade away. For example, when Athlon XP was ahead of the Pentium 4's, everyone thought Intel was in very bad-shape. The same scenario applies today, where Athlon 64 is behind Core 2 Duo. But then again, AMD processors cost a good-bit less then a Core 2 Duo. In my opinion, AMD still is competing in the high-end market, just maybe not as high-end as Intel.

[majorsuave]

Benchmarks from tom's hardware indicate that at 4 core operations ( see the movie encoding or 3D scene rendering benchmarks) AMD is in line with Intel numbers when you consider clock for clock speed, so give them a new gen chipset and let them put out some higher clocked chips (not just the 2.2 they have now) and yes, I believe they will compete. Maybe not kick a* but at least worthy.



Of course, penny for penny, at this point it's a no brainer; I'd choose Intel