Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | reply to PolarBear
Re: Anyone surprised?
Yeah, that's what I meant. And I believe that Dell ended up sending back a large number of unsold processors to AMD which is what hammered them last quarter.
If AMD is to survive they need to return to their budget roots and sell price per dollar instead of all the over-hyped Phenom BS. IOW, be the bridge between Intel's Core processors and Via/Cyrix.
Compete with Celeron in the sub $1000 PC market and call it done. They will never come up with another "Slot A Athlon" that can dethrone Intel strictly on performance at the rate they're going. Intel is too far ahead. |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Its not just the CPU though. They used to be enthusiest friendly, and the nvidia IGP boards were an extreme value for the money, when it came to a general use or media player box.
Then they turned their backs on the overclockers, started in with Intel style hype (over nothing), and bought nvidia's only competitor.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | AMD wasted money on ATI imo. and if AMD goes down and ATI doesnt spin off it will take the only Competition to Nvidia with it.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to Dogfather
"Slot A"? You're a few years behind there. Up until Intel came out with Core 2, Intel was badly behind the curve. AMD is currently in the position Intel was with the end of the P4, lame excuses for dual core CPUs. It is because of AMD that Intel finally realized that Mhz wasn't the only measure of CPU power. Intel isnt too far ahead, though AMD needs to dump or fix Phenom soon or that will be the case. The last thing we need as customers is for Intel to be the only performance CPU maker. |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
|  said by JakCrow  : The last thing we need as customers is for Intel to be the only performance CPU maker. Double Agreed on that! |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Kearnstd
You called it.
ATI is an anchor around AMD's neck. What could have possibly been their plans?
Nobody wants CPU/GPU combo chips unless they're $2 ea due to their awful performance history. Have they even designed a controller to go with it or are they leaving that to someone else, like NVidia?
Another issue, NVidia used to be friendly to AMD. There always seemed to by some sort of symbiosis, in that so many custom gaming systems were AMD/NVidia setups.
It's like their goal is to eliminate any competition with Intel.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. |
|
Ian Christie
@tnt21.com
| reply to Dogfather
Re: Anyone surprised?
Yes Dell does sell AMD but the majority of their "performance" systems and the sleek XPS systems are Intel and they mainly push Intel. I don't think I've seen a single Dell TV ad without the Intel inside logo. That said I'm on a Dell Inspiron 1501 which is powered by AMD.
On Dell's site, when you narrow down the laptops by processor 5 are Intel, 3 are AMD.
But it still comes down to how much the OEM pushes either processor and right now AMD plays second fiddle in the majority of Dell's lineup. |
|
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to JakCrow
However, Core has been a blockbuster for Intel. In fact, the Core microarchitecture is popping up in places you wouldn't have expected to find Intel *anything* even two years ago. I'm not just talking desktops, but HPC workstations and servers (lest anyone forget, every XEON is Core-based), laptops, notebooks, UMPCs, even Macs (from super-lightweight to ultra-heavyweight). Core hasn't just clobbered AMD; Core is also directly responsible for chasing National Semiconductor out of the general-purpose CPU business entirely. Core 2 has simply extended Intel's lead to the supremely silly; Intel is now basically competing with *itself*. Intel is at the point where they are getting ready to EOL a processor that is too powerful for general-purpose use that is priced for for such use (I'm referring to the Q6600, formerly known as Kentsfield; a server processor in desktop clothing at desktop-processor prices.)
Yes; AMD is in serious trouble, but it can't blame all its woes on the acquisition of ATI Technologies; besides, ATI had their own issues (competing with nVidia) that simply could not be wished away. nVidia hasn't exactly had a walk in the park; the short supply of 8800GT GPUs (and the issues with their own 6-series chipsets) didn't help their positioning as an Intel-chipset alternative.
Motorola? The one area where Motorola *may* be in trouble is their cell handset business (thanks to the encroachment of LG and Samsung at the low end, and Apple's iPhone at the high end); however, Motorola still occupies the solid midrange with the RAZR and RAZR2 lines and their derivatives. Moto may actually be the most likely of the four companies to survive either mostly or completely unchanged (also Moto still has the cash cow of their broadband business, especially cable modems and STBs, not to mention their mobile communications business, none of which will be going away anytime soon). Moto's ace-in-the-hole (as far as their cell-handset business)? Believe it or not, it's the CDMA handset business (specifically with VZW), where the RAZR and variants show no signs of slowing up.
Sprint is under fire (but not due to Motorola), primarily due to encroachment from VZW and (somewhat) AT&T Mobility. Sprint has to find a way to re-differentiate itself as a carrier (in a positive way); unless it does, it's screwed. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| said by PGHammer :However, Core has been a blockbuster for Intel. In fact, the Core microarchitecture is popping up in places you wouldn't have expected to find Intel *anything* even two years ago. I'm not just talking desktops, but HPC workstations and servers (lest anyone forget, every XEON is Core-based), laptops, notebooks, UMPCs, even Macs (from super-lightweight to ultra-heavyweight). Core hasn't just clobbered AMD; Core is also directly responsible for chasing National Semiconductor out of the general-purpose CPU business entirely. Core 2 has simply extended Intel's lead to the supremely silly; Intel is now basically competing with *itself*. Intel is at the point where they are getting ready to EOL a processor that is too powerful for general-purpose use that is priced for for such use (I'm referring to the Q6600, formerly known as Kentsfield; a server processor in desktop clothing at desktop-processor prices.) I don't understand this. Why wouldn't Intel have used their current CPU tech in these devices? Both Intel and AMD have always done this, so it's a non-issue. And the first run of Core wasn't that great and didn't do dual core and couldn't even do decent dual CPU. Like I said, their roles are currently reversed. I think AMD will eventually come out with something that will leapfrog Intel. It's not like there isn't a history of this happening. |
|
