AMD is gonna own Intel

[Mindf!3ldzX]

EXTRA EXTRA , AMD vs Intel , Read all about it

http://www.pcworld.com/article/12162...nst_intel.html

(Personal opinion : These asshole's are no better than companies that outsource all their work to mexico, or some other "country" , same labor if not more, for less money.Killing the American dream, I'll never buy a Intel chip due to these lowly tactic's, they are just scurred that AMD will out preform Intel at any or every turn in the long run.)

[ORL]

Jun 28, 2005 8:00 am

Is this antitrust suit still going on, 3 years later?

And who here can give their personal opinion on the performance of AMD and Intel processors? I have used Intel processors since, forever.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

who knows. I didnt even bother reading the date of the article

AMD hardware is great,its got more bang for the buck in my opinion.

I've only owned a handful of Intel motherboards and they was all satisfactory, my P3 900mhz coupled with my ATi Radeon 9200 could run NFS Most Wanted , which isnt a very old games, I used that computer for a couple years. I built a beastly AMD machine for 350bucks,Tower+all innards, and both of the computers I own now are nVidia nForce motherboards,and either one of my computers will run any game released today,and probably the next few years. Half the games I already own run too fast on these AMD x2 64bit processors on both machines, one running ASUS GeForce8500GT and one running a Sapphire X1650 ATi , both can preform high definition over 3-4 formats of monitor/tv , and both have badass onboard audio.

My opinion is AMD owns Intel.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

http://hothardware.com/News/AMD_vs_I...se_Happenings/

Reed em and Weep, Intel is still under the pressure of AMD & the US Court System haha.

I hope AMD "sticks it to the man". ...

[spooker]

Here's the latest on the AMD-Intel antitrust suit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/te...hip.html?fta=y

Apparently the Federal Trade Commission has decided to begin an investigation. It will still be years before they appear in court, and once they start, antitrust trials can go on for years and years. By the time they finish a trial, the marketplace has usually changed so much that the main issues addressed at the trial no longer matter. Antitrust sentiment changes with the times too, and right now, based on the approval of the XM-Sirius satellite radio merger, antitrust sentiment seems to be one of low enforcement. The next administration will likely have a big role in this case, because the president steers antitrust enforcement quite a lot. The Republican style, no rules, free market economy approach is on the way out, because the current economic crisis was kicked off by lack of regulation of the mortgage market and mortgage-derived securities market, so that should impact on this case.........

In my opinion, AMD and Intel alternate as the maker of the best, cheapest chip. Intel definitely needed a competitor though. AMD only really took off after Intel had been stuck on the Pentium 4 chip for some god awful length of time--6 years maybe? AMD got Intel off its ass, leading to the recent emergence of multiple core systems, so I think we should all be glad for the competition, even though it caused Intel to lay off my brother :/

Mindz, as far as Intel being "the establishment" and AMD being the underdog, I don't think that view is accurate, although it definitely was a few years ago. I don't know the statistics of their market shares, but my perception is that AMD is about as successful as Intel--maybe 20% less market share, but not an astronomical amount.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

It never appears to be much of a market share, until you crunch numbers.
20% can be a significant difference when you break it down from a multi billion dollar buisness.

It isnt looking for good AMD

[Warlin]

I usually veer away from AMD unless I'm building a server computer. They seem to handle a lot of stress better than Intel, but for gaming, which is what I do a lot more of, getting an Intel Dual Core and over clocking it a wee bit is pretty much what I do. I don't see anything coming from AMD as of right now, but they did make the first 32/64 bit processor that doesn't need to be switched in some way to run in either mode, so they might come up with something clever.

[Mindf!3ldzX]

Nothing is more intense on a PC than gaming, if a PC is just doing networking tasks transmitting data its doing nothing,unless your running autocad software or something to that effect, and AMD hasnt done me wrong yet.

[Net-Tyme]

Sorry I hate AMD's. I've had two a few years back and they can't multi-task worth a damn. My Intel's always allow me to have several programs open at the same time.. PDFPro, Excel, Word, PaintShop,Web browser.. without a problem, those damn AMD's would lock up with all that running. Quake was "OK" playing but if I had anything opened with it it would lock up. Two different AMD's same problem. Now.. I did recently buy my mom a AMD machine because it was cheap.. And she just doesn't get into to many things other then Email and a photo edit program. So she is a light weight user. My AMD had a terrible time with UnReal Tournament. I dumped it fast.

[R00k]

I've ran AMD for years with no probs. I've had an AMD 486DX-80, right up to an AMD XP THUNDERBIRD 900mhz to a 2.1Ghz Sempron no probs! They run fast and stable and cool. My Sempron runs at about 38 degrees Celsius with normal airflow. But, my new machine does have an Intel Core 2 Duo so... i'm not a total fanboy.

If Intel loses the suit, they could be fined, or split into smaller companies.
This will take years to unravel. In the meantime, AMD needs to bump up the R&D funding as Intel is spending it's earnings in legal fees

[Disco]

IMO intel chips are better than AMD however thats just a normal person's opinion. I am not stating that i know for sure but from what i read off professional sites and gaming sites, intel is just always a step ahead. Especially in speed.


Also intel owns way more of the market share than AMD. I dont know whos saying only 20% more but thats way off.

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6553931.html

thats just one article i posted, ive read many that state its the same, its roughly Intel 70-80% vs AMD 20-25%.

Basically Intel owns AMD but as a consumer i appreciate the competition.

[MH]

I've had the same AMD in my main home PC for about 3 years now, and it's never really let me down. It's also cheerfully survived through upgrades of other components, while still remaining fast enough despite being only single core. Aside from games the most CPU intensive thing I do is audio editing, and it even runs better than comparable Intels there. Intel however has the edge with .NET CLR compiling and a few other things, so it's really down to how the chip handles instructions, and which instructions a particular task depends most on.

I don't really do the "multiple windows and applications open at the same time" thing; the most you'll ever find from me is 3 or 4, so AMD and task switching is something I've little experience with.

I've dual Xeons in my work PC though - now that is a nice setup, and gives me an upgrade itch for home. I also work fairly extensively on mid sized servers, where the hardware can get quite exotic while still being in a sensible price range. Mmmmmm - dual quad-core Xeons and 15K SCSI disks - droool.

[foq]

AMD vs Intel has reached even here huh?

Intel is currently destroying AMD because they own both the low end and high end market. You can get an E2200 for around $80. It will dominate any $80 AMD chip.

However I have never run into anything that my AMD 5200+ 2.6GHz can't handle. I overclock it, but only to push my RAM speed higher.