AMD not Competing with Intel Anymore

[leemajors]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Not-Competing-With-Intel-Anymore-Goes-Mobile-237103.shtml

[Kai]

http://www.warriorledger.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/AMD-vs-Intel.jpg

[lefty]

cool

my laptop has an AMD :D

[Jt.ONE]

since when was it ever a competition?

[Wild Cobra]

since when was it ever a competition?
I was thinking the same thing, but not all would agree. Intel was always the better quality chip. AMD did make some advances also. Still, I always considered them a cheap copy.

[resistanze]

Those AMD Barton chips were some of the best value/performance CPUs from the past decade. I remember cranking up the FSB of my Athlon XP 2500+ and getting a 3200+ without even trying.

[Wild Cobra]

Those AMD Barton chips were some of the best value/performance CPUs from the past decade. I remember cranking up the FSB of my Athlon XP 2500+ and getting a 3200+ without even trying.
Sure, but I'll bet they just were not as reliable as an Intel counterpart.

[leemajors]

Sure, but I'll bet they just were not as reliable as an Intel counterpart.

He wasn't bitching about the chip

[Nathan Explosion]

I bought my desktop about 6 years ago, and it came with a Athlon 64 X2 4600+ processor inside (according to wikipedia, this is when the processor was first released).

Saved me a few hundred dollars over the Intel product at the time and has done a really good job. In fact, when I think of the what I can improve the performance, the first thing is the graphics card, followed by increasing the ram to about 8 gig (it came with 2 gig when everything else was still around 512 mb)and the last is the processor. When I bought my desktop, Pentium 4s were still around and doing quite well, but I went dual core, and this AMD chip is doing pretty well for me even 6 years later.

I'm not a huge computer nerd so I can't say for certain what makes an Intel chip better. All I know is this AMD hasn't failed me and is still pretty damn quick, and that's all I can ask for.

[ElNono]

What's really noticeable from the Penitum 4 days to the post-Core Duo days is power consumption. P4's and earlier had basically no idea about throttling... These multi-core processors do a much better job at shutting down and kicking in back up when needed, and it helps a lot on both energy and cooling. I think Intel started that off on the CPU side with their SpeedStep tech.

Never been much of a fan of AMD personally, so I don't have much experience with them...

[Nathan Explosion]

What's really noticeable from the Penitum 4 days to the post-Core Duo days is power consumption. P4's and earlier had basically no idea about throttling... These multi-core processors do a much better job at shutting down and kicking in back up when needed, and it helps a lot on both energy and cooling. I think Intel started that off on the CPU side with their SpeedStep tech.

Never been much of a fan of AMD personally, so I don't have much experience with them...

The one thing I was told way back when (and just reading about them now, it came up again) was that AMD's were a little more efficient than Intel (at the time maybe), so they could be powered down a bit in terms of speed to decrease power consumption, but still run just as fast as their Intel counterparts sporting higher clock speeds.

(Kind of reminds me of OS X vs Windows. My little iBook was running tasks faster on an 800 mhz [I know :lol] processor as my GF's [at the time] Windows laptop sporting a 1.3 ghz Pentium processor. Was told it's because OS X wasn't as cluttered and therefore was more efficient in running tasks than Windows.)

Again, my 6 year old processor just came up a 5.5 out of 7.9 on the Windows Experience Index (make of it what you will, I don't really care what they rate it, I just know what I'm seeing), so it's not doing too bad.

Admittedly, I don't have a lengthy experience with the Core Duo chips, but I have played a bit with others new laptops with them in it, and the difference isn't as vast as you would think given the age difference (which in technology years is generations).

[jman3000]

Intel chips are superior in many ways except price point. I personally have a Phenom II X4 980 and it cost me $150. It's OC'd to 4.2 Ghz on air and I've never personally had a problem with it. I'm not one to do extreme multi tasking so I dont really need the hyper threading found in the Sandy bridge line up, and for what I use it for it fits me perfect. AMD messed up by trying to undercut Intel at every point and it backfired in that when Intel came out with new iterations of Sandybridge and prices for older models went down... bam... you have great processors around the same price as an AMD.

As an aside, AMD black edition chips are sometimes preferred by gamers over intel because of the unlocked multipliers that are only found on the 1000 dollar Intel chips. Makes it extremely easy to overclock.

[resistanze]

Sure, but I'll bet they just were not as reliable as an Intel counterpart.


He wasn't bitching about the chip

Yeah, the Barton chips were excellent and stable, anyone who used them can attest to that. Mind you, this was at the peak of AMD's market share back in 2005. By the time I had to buy a new computer, AMD was already falling off.