Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 13 Oct 2010.
The adaptability of ARM is where Intel will struggle, even if they do succeed in making a similar chip.
In the short term I expect AMD to come back with their new architecture, but given AMD's long life cycle, that come back will only last a year or two. Then Intel will replace Sandy Bridge with something better and AMD will be stuck with an old uncompetative architecture again.
The issue, I think, isn't so much Intel processors, as it is the surrounding marketplace. Consumers have never really shown an interest in tablet PCs before the iPad, and now that the iPad is more or less domianting that market, Apple has a stranglehold that will be hard to release. Fixing that problem is a concern for the parties Intel works with, but not Intel themselves. Moreover, ultra-mobile products like phones have been using ARM and Qualcomm processors for so long that even at a competitive price point, Atom will likely struggle to gain a foothold, especially if it's incompatible with all existing software.
dout intel care for they have 3bil net profit which is just insane.
AMD will never be competitive vs intel who have a research budget thats bigger than AMD make a year.
Do you think they'd lend me a tenner?
yeah funnel some of that into my bank account.. I won't tell anyone!
Yeah fine .... But can that money buy a pc that will play Crysis?
Thats $5707 every minute for a entire year!
nope. This game has a framerate cap stuck at 15fps regardless of how fcking powerful your pc is
It would be if you spread it out over a year, but unless I misunderstood, these numbers were made in a quarter of a year. Their "money per minute" in regards to this value and how long it took to make it would actually be about four times as much.
Of course, it's not like they actually see income smoothly coming in per minute anyway, most of this is probably from large multi-million contracts.
I've not seen anything to suggest that AMD has anything to compete on ANY level with Intel now or in the foreseeable future. Shame really as some really just want to buy AMD because they think they're saving something.
...have you not checked this website recently? yes, amd is pretty far behind right now but there was a whole article on how amd's next architectures are significant and supposedly better than what intel has currently. and when people buy amd they're saving money.... that's not just "something". based on the way you've worded everything, i'm assuming you have an i7 (maybe even a xeon), in which case money probably wasn't the first thing on your mind when buying your computer. not everyone can just buy something with more power than nearly every game and application today can utilize.
yes even the lower end i7s can still heavily outperform the best phenom II, but other than bragging rights, excessive multitasking, rendering, and benchmarking, i wouldn't consider most of intel's products a good value.
Just goes to show how much they are over charging people!!!
You obviously have not met the Core-i5, or the i3. AMD's products at the i3 price point can't even beat it. BT's own article proved this.
i can check on that but i've never heard of an i3 being significantly faster than an athlon II - i've heard of i3 being a better value, but not actually a better overall cpu. i know someone who owns 3 computers, all intel based, and even he thinks i3 is one of the dumbest products intel has ever made. personally, i don't like the i5 models with the bult-in gpu - i find that a waste of money, but the other i5s are acceptable.
keep in mind that intel motherboards are also usually more expensive, and intel makes upgrading a real pain in the ass. with amd you can go from a single core sempron to a 6 core phenom in the same socket, which can save people money by not having to buy a new board every time they want to upgrade. or, sometimes you can use the same cpu on a newer generation board.
remember, currently amd doesn't target high-end systems, they target budget and mid-range systems. if you want high end, go with intel. intel does a great job at their high end stuff (although i think theres plenty of room for improvement) and they do a great job at their low-end stuff. their mid-range products are pretty good but many of them aren't a good value. i'm not saying intel is bad, i can admit they're noticeably better.
Good for Intel.. bad for the market. The more players in the market, the better the competition, innovation, and theoretically, the pricing. I've always gone with Intel CPUs in my PC builds, but that doesn't mean I particularly approve of their dominance.
As much as I dislike AMD I hope they come out with something great to keep Intel on there toes and keep prices down
Atom is (over)due for an update, that's certainly true.
Interestingly, this ratio (intels research budget beeing about AMD's turnover) has been like this for...dekades. Yet every now and then AMD manages to get ahead.
Me thinks Intel's hoarding quite a few breakthroughs. No point releasing anything better since AMD is already finding it an uphill battle to catch up.
Wow more for R+D ideally...
Separate names with a comma.