News Intel boasts $11B record quarter

They'll have trouble really damaging ARM (unless they buy them) for 2 reasons:
1) ARM has a much more lightweight efficient cpu core. Intel's x86 is a huge disadvantage in this market.
2) ARM sells IP not finished chips. This is what manufacturers want so they can develop their own SOC, Intel only want to sell finished chips + motherboards. Can't see many manufacturers wanting to be constrained like that.

 

Honestly, just read again what you have written. You are hoping that all of the AMD alledged future releases will turn out to be exactly how they say they will be. I'm sorry but that has never happened. AMD have always over promised and under delivered, unless you go back 10 years but we aren't.

I recently built three systems based on the Bit-Tech and CustomPC recommendations. Now that's independently reviewed each component in the "Budget" "Mid" and "High End". The only AMD component they recommended at the time was the ATi HD5770 (Since replaced by the GTX 460) for the "Budget" and the ATi HD5870 for the "High End".

Apart from keeping the budget model around the £500 mark, Bit-Tech recommended the AMD X2 250 and MSI 770-C45. CustomPC on the other hand recommended the i3 530 and then the G6950 and the H55M board, giving full overclocking briefing in the process which ended up on here as well.

Go and look through both recommended lists and tell me where any other AMD product could be added instead of an Intel or Nvidia product.

Unless you are testing these products daily and consistantly, how can you choose AMD just for the hell of it knowing there is something better.

By all accounts on this site, Bit-Tech have only written what AMD have been saying and not from hands on benchtesting. Even their own comments are "We will believe it when we see it!" stance, which is a good one to have.

AMD should stop pretending to be the big dog and get back to developing their products to the once high standard we used to expect from them, without the smoke and mirrors.

 

Snips is right, even on this site there are plenty of Intel products that are recommended for the sole reason that they are the best at fulfilling the desired role. When choosing a processor many different factors can come into play. To say that AMD provides the best value and is therefore the best option may result in purchasing an insufficient product. The needs of a computer enthusiast (the demographic this site heavily focuses on) can quite easily push past the power of AMD's quad or even hex core processors. My personal PC needs involve heavy gaming and occasional CAD work, if I were looking to buy a new PC then an i5 760 would likely be my best option, or perhaps even an i7 930. AMD doesn't have an offering which sufficiently covers my needs.

But on the other side of the coin, AMD can provide good value and shouldn't be ignored just because of their laughable high end range. The important factor is an open mind. Lock out either party and you'll likely suffer.

 

The main disadvantage Intel has is actually it's size - making it a bit like Microsoft. Smaller companies (e.g. ARM) can be more nibble in the market place.
Look at the whole NetBurst farce and subsequent turn around - that wasn't exactly overnight! Larrabee- hmmm cough, cough... The ATOM architecture... Intel is far from bullet proof. It will be interesting to see whether AMDs new architecture can bring it up to the same level again... I'm not a big fan of AMD's current range of products - but I will use them in builds for other people to (1) save money (Intel can't match the price of the budget Athlon II CPUs) and (2) to encourage competition in the market place...