AMD now worth less than it paid for ATi
Posted by Tom Warren on 10 December 2007 - 11:31 · 92 comments & 39975 views
About the Author
Full name: Tom Warren
Forum name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Tom Warren
Forum name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(7 replies)
#1 Posted by Thrawn on 10 Dec 2007 - 11:58
- Geez, how are they going to keep up making silicon if their main competitor is 32x bigger then them!
Pain for AMD is bad news for everyone, for the market needs competition. Right now, Intel has the best chips because they've been able to efficiently roll out both new processes and architectures. AMD needs to stay caught up if it wants to present serious competition.
I've never bought a non-Intel CPU...
486DX2
Pentium 166
Pentium III 500
...
Celeron M 1.7 GHz
Core 2 Quad Q6600
Neways, the great Core 2 is thanks to teh AMD pwnage that happened to the Pentium 4. -
#1.1 Posted by sin-ergy on 10 Dec 2007 - 12:38
- heh and I've never bought a non-AMD CPU.
Support the underdog! Competition keeps prices low! -
#1.2 Posted by boho on 10 Dec 2007 - 14:59
- Very sad. This is symptomatic of what a near monopoly (Intel) can do. I have bought AMD several times in the past, when build my own (cheap) systems. Personally I see no difference when up and running. I would buy AMD over Intel because they keep their prices low, and because they are the underdog. Sadly my actions means that Intel prices are reduced slightly for those who buy nothing else, and they prevent investigation as a monopolist by clever pricing, choking AMD, keeping them small and in penury.
-
#1.3 Posted by Jugalator on 10 Dec 2007 - 19:28
- Agreed on the competition part -- they're probably a big contributor to why Intel abandoned their P4's and we have the Core Duo generation now.
-
#1.4 Posted by Krome on 10 Dec 2007 - 20:14
- I've never bought AMD CPU too. Stuck with Intel since then and till this day. I just thought that AMD was not up to par with Intel in terms of technological advancement despite many seems to think differently. Althought I never actually buy AMD myself, I've build AMD systems and test it and have used quite a few and the CPU seems to fail. But that's just my experience. I know that Intel will always hold the crown and I have mention so many times that Intel will devour AMD one day. I think that day is coming.
-
#1.5 Posted by The_Decryptor on 10 Dec 2007 - 20:23
- The C2D came out of the competition, so did the 64Bit support (Intel said you couldn't do it, AMD did it, Intel followed).
AMD being in a bad state right now is AMD's fault though. -
#1.6 Posted by Chicane-UK on 10 Dec 2007 - 21:00
- I've been a long time AMD owner.. used to own a K6-2 which was so fast in Windows but rubbish in games compared to the PII thanks to the lack of decent floating point.
Then when the Slot A Athlons came out, I bought one of those - problem was motherboard support was a bit poor and it was a generally rocky time to be an AMD owner. Things started to mature well a few years ago and now the products are as reliable as they've ever been.
For everyones sake, you need to hope they keep their heads above water. The products coming from AMD are the only reasons Intel had to get themselves back to the drawing board to produce the excellent processors they've created in the past few years.. if AMD end up bumming out of the market or something, Intel will be under no pressure to innovate and we'll be back where we were with the supersized, power inefficient intel chips of yester year! -
#1.7 Posted by kaiwai on 10 Dec 2007 - 21:47
- Quote - (The_Decryptor said @ #1.5)The C2D came out of the competition, so did the 64Bit support (Intel said you couldn't do it, AMD did it, Intel followed).
AMD being in a bad state right now is AMD's fault though.
Intel never said they couldn't do it, they said that the average consumer didn't need it - there is a HUGE difference. Intel wanted to keep 64bit for the highend, high margin business. AMD demonstrated that the consumer did actually benefit, and in alot of cases, it addresses issues within x86 - so if you dropped the issue of 64bit, it was still a good move.
-
#2 Posted by +nezermundy on 10 Dec 2007 - 12:31
- Seems like even the new chips from AMD won't help them, they had there opportunity back when the Pentium 4 was struggling and missed it to gain a large market share.
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by hardgiant on 10 Dec 2007 - 12:34
- That is some bad x-mas news. They need Santa to bring them some 45nm breakthrough.
-
(2 replies)
#4 Posted by Leo Natan on 10 Dec 2007 - 12:55
- Maybe if they were to make real competitors in the CPU and GPU markets (I'm talking about high-end, not mid-to-low-end), they'd be worth more.
-
#4.1 Posted by Sazz181 on 10 Dec 2007 - 19:42
- I disagree. I think the average Joe won't give a damn about whether he can play Crysis in Ultra-high, rather that he can use a computer to do work, write emails, browse web, listen to music etc. I think AMD will do well this Christmas, simply because of their competitive pricing strategy.
Although, I think AMD need to be very careful from now on, they can't afford to make any mistakes (literally). I don't think they will be able to carry on much more if this Christmas brings no cash. -
#4.2 Posted by Smigit on 11 Dec 2007 - 07:31
- Quote - (Sazz181 said @ #4.1)I disagree. I think the average Joe won't give a damn about whether he can play Crysis in Ultra-high, rather that he can use a computer to do work, write emails, browse web, listen to music etc.See I think they need high end but not for the reasons you stated. I think they need the high end so that they can grab the enthusiast market as those are the customers IMHO who are far more likely to know of and consider AMD if they have a competitive product. While the mainstream user doesnt need to run crysis at 60FPS on their work machine, I assume that many mainstream users arent all that familar with the AMD brandname and would thus choose Intel by Default.
By expanding the enthusiast market you spread the company by word of mouth and stores will be more likely to push AMD systems as more and more people hear that they are the thing to have. AMD never has seemed to be big on advertising like Intel is so it's next best bet is to expand by being on the top of their game and building a following that way. As it is, I think average joes are more likely to go Intel if they don't know an awefull lot or care much about what the different brand CPU's will do for them.
-
(5 replies)
#5 Posted by X'tyfe on 10 Dec 2007 - 13:16
- no surprise that there failing after they bought ATI
-
#5.1 Posted by
neufuse on 10 Dec 2007 - 13:26
- Quote - (X'tyfe said @ #5)no surprise that there failing after they bought ATI
I think buying ATI was one of their biggest mistakes... they should of used that money to increase their fab's abilities -
#5.2 Posted by Ogmius on 10 Dec 2007 - 18:06
- Quote - (neufuse said @ #5.1)Quote - (X'tyfe said @ #5)no surprise that there failing after they bought ATI
I think buying ATI was one of their biggest mistakes... they should of used that money to increase their fab's abilities
agreed! -
#5.3 Posted by Jugalator on 10 Dec 2007 - 19:29
- Quote - (neufuse said @ #5.1)Quote - (X'tyfe said @ #5)no surprise that there failing after they bought ATI
I think buying ATI was one of their biggest mistakes... they should of used that money to increase their fab's abilities
Yeah, especially since they were already at that time having new problems keeping up. Maybe they wished to branch off to new markets to make them less vulnerable to failures in the specific markets they're in, but at the same time it's no doubt a risk. -
#5.4 Posted by kaiwai on 10 Dec 2007 - 22:32
- Quote - (neufuse said @ #5.1)Quote - (X'tyfe said @ #5)no surprise that there failing after they bought ATI
I think buying ATI was one of their biggest mistakes... they should of used that money to increase their fab's abilities
I tend to disagree. The problem is that they've got too much capital tied up in fabs which would be of better use retiring debt and improving their product line up.
The idea behind purchasing ATI was a good idea, but purchasing of ATI was stupid. AMD need and end to end offering to large OEM vendors where they can offer the complete system to OEM vendors. They would have been better off IMHO to purchase something like Matrox or a lower cost one, and work up there. Look at Intel, their GPU's aren't performance setters but the are cheap, and available to OEMs in a complete package.
As for Fabs, outsource it to TSMC and UMC - they seem to be able to do the job for Nvidia and Ati quite nicely. -
#5.5 Posted by z0phi3l on 11 Dec 2007 - 00:41
- Quote - (kaiwai said @ #5.4)Quote - (neufuse said @ #5.1)Quote - (X'tyfe said @ #5)no surprise that there failing after they bought ATI
I think buying ATI was one of their biggest mistakes... they should of used that money to increase their fab's abilities
I tend to disagree. The problem is that they've got too much capital tied up in fabs which would be of better use retiring debt and improving their product line up.
The idea behind purchasing ATI was a good idea, but purchasing of ATI was stupid. AMD need and end to end offering to large OEM vendors where they can offer the complete system to OEM vendors. They would have been better off IMHO to purchase something like Matrox or a lower cost one, and work up there. Look at Intel, their GPU's aren't performance setters but the are cheap, and available to OEMs in a complete package.
As for Fabs, outsource it to TSMC and UMC - they seem to be able to do the job for Nvidia and Ati quite nicely.
It was never a good idea for AMD to buy ATI, like already mentioned, AMD was already strugling and ATI wasn't doing much better, all AMD did was bail out ATI and increase the chances of AMD going belly up.
-
(6 replies)
#6 Posted by Randall_Lind on 10 Dec 2007 - 13:23
- I don't like ATI and think AMD buying them was a dumb move. However the idea of the GPU+CPU is awesome iif AMD can pull it off.
-
#6.1 Posted by X'tyfe on 10 Dec 2007 - 13:44
- Quote - (Randall_Lind said @ #6)I don't like ATI and think AMD buying them was a dumb move. However the idea of the GPU+CPU is awesome iif AMD can pull it off.
in theory only, in practicality it will be a failure -
#6.2 Posted by Vlad on 10 Dec 2007 - 14:07
- Quote - (X'tyfe said @ #6.1)in theory only, in practicality it will be a failure
I'm curious why you think that. There are certainly performance benefits to merging the two (or at least merging very specific parts) and it seems likely that the semiconductor industry is going to move in this direction anyways (that is, the multi-core general purpose architecture will evolve into multi-core specific purpose one, and even (eventually, possibly) a more dynamic, reconfigurable solution. -
#6.3 Posted by X'tyfe on 10 Dec 2007 - 14:24
- Quote - (Vlad said @ #6.2)Quote - (X'tyfe said @ #6.1)in theory only, in practicality it will be a failure
I'm curious why you think that. There are certainly performance benefits to merging the two (or at least merging very specific parts) and it seems likely that the semiconductor industry is going to move in this direction anyways (that is, the multi-core general purpose architecture will evolve into multi-core specific purpose one, and even (eventually, possibly) a more dynamic, reconfigurable solution.
the GPUs will not be like a geforce 8800GTX thats for damn sure
its going to be a lot like a ****ty integrated card
if it will replace the GPUs of today, then yes of course it will be a failure
not to mention that i would also have to get a new cpu if i wanted to change my graphics capabilities -
#6.4 Posted by Vlad on 10 Dec 2007 - 14:37
- Quote - (X'tyfe said @ #6.3)the GPUs will not be like a geforce 8800GTX thats for damn sure
its going to be a lot like a ****ty integrated card
if it will replace the GPUs of today, then yes of course it will be a failure
not to mention that i would also have to get a new cpu if i wanted to change my graphics capabilities
There's a lot more to the GPU market than just high end GPUs like the 8800 GTX. Even if the CPU/GPU solution is a completely integrated one, it will offer some performance benefits over current integrated solutions, which is where a lot of the low-end hardware is at these days. Sure, it's not going to crush an 8800 GTX, but I don't think that's what AMD will be going for with their first generation of these systems and just because it doesn't crush an 8800 GTX doesn't mean it's a failure. Now if it doesn't make them any money - then it's a failure. -
#6.5 Posted by +Digix on 10 Dec 2007 - 17:54
- Quote - (X'tyfe said @ #6.3)Quote - (Vlad said @ #6.2)Quote - (X'tyfe said @ #6.1)in theory only, in practicality it will be a failure
I'm curious why you think that. There are certainly performance benefits to merging the two (or at least merging very specific parts) and it seems likely that the semiconductor industry is going to move in this direction anyways (that is, the multi-core general purpose architecture will evolve into multi-core specific purpose one, and even (eventually, possibly) a more dynamic, reconfigurable solution.
the GPUs will not be like a geforce 8800GTX thats for damn sure
its going to be a lot like a ****ty integrated card
if it will replace the GPUs of today, then yes of course it will be a failure
not to mention that i would also have to get a new cpu if i wanted to change my graphics capabilities
I don't think you've understood or read up about what the fusion based processor is aiming to be and do, it's very much far from anything like the idea you have of them being some "crap onboard video".
-
(4 replies)
#7 Posted by HoochieMamma on 10 Dec 2007 - 13:41
- People here do not look towards the future, we NEED AMD to be around for our own sake. I have and always will support them as competition is needed in every possible way with companies like these.
-
#7.1 Posted by z0phi3l on 11 Dec 2007 - 00:43
- Quote - (HoochieMamma said @ #7)People here do not look towards the future, we NEED AMD to be around for our own sake. I have and always will support them as competition is needed in every possible way with companies like these.
I'll only buy from whoever gives me the most bang for my $ -
#7.2 Posted by Swordnyx on 11 Dec 2007 - 01:22
- Quote - (z0phi3l said @ #7.1)I'll only buy from whoever gives me the most bang for my $
And so you picked Intel. -
#7.3 Posted by z0phi3l on 11 Dec 2007 - 05:55
- Quote - (Swordnyx said @ #7.2)Quote - (z0phi3l said @ #7.1)I'll only buy from whoever gives me the most bang for my $
And so you picked Intel.
IF AMD had stayed competitive, odds were pretty good I'd have picked one instead. -
#7.4 Posted by Smigit on 11 Dec 2007 - 07:35
- Quote - (z0phi3l said @ #7.1)ditto, I go with the performance at the time. Current desktop is an AMD 64 cpu, next one will likely be a quad core intel.Quote - (HoochieMamma said @ #7)People here do not look towards the future, we NEED AMD to be around for our own sake. I have and always will support them as competition is needed in every possible way with companies like these.
I'll only buy from whoever gives me the most bang for my $
-
(6 replies)
#8 Posted by krustylicious on 10 Dec 2007 - 14:17
- A couple of things.
a) Amd needed to buy a graphics card company. In many ways nvidia would have been better.
Putting a graphics core into a cpu makes alot of sense:
low power needed for standard applications - when you need gaming performance switch to dedicated gpus.
Altering the gpu slightly to do more general maths but yet keep up the gflops you have a supercomputer on a chip.
Add a couple of these on a chip - say 1tflop per (2 gpu cores and 4 cpu cores) per socket. Now start to do 4 or 8 sockets, you have a small super computer in 4u case.
hint: ati was needed for not just laptops but high end super computing.
b) management restructure. Typically a merger of this kind takes 12 to 18 months to complete and ususally damages product output. A know fact.
c) AMD messed up the K8 launch - it took half a year before the consumer got althon 64 and then it was only 10 to 15% faster than the p4's at the time. Its a shame amd does mess up launches but they do.
d) I had hoped amd would be on track for 2007 to equal or smash the intel architecture but I think it won't be to shanghai comes out that intel will have issues again.
e) we have had to have 3 to 4 iterations of intel architecture before intel caught up .
f) Nvidia, has major sli issues. Remember the gx2, quad sli, tri sli. oh and multi monitor in sli. NVTV. the list goes on. All failures.
g) the misinformation about the 939 socket and am2. Yes there had to be a socket change, mainly cos of memory. the controller in the a64 got upgraded to dd2. 1Gb of ddr is £31 ish and 1gb of dd2 is about £11 to £14ish.
f) intel has to change chipsets every time they raise their fsb 800fsb, 1066fsb, 1333fsb 1600fsb. A new chipset per new cpu generation.
Also ati is now catching up to nvidia very quickly. Hopefully the amd side will catch up as well. -
#8.1 Posted by Kirkburn on 10 Dec 2007 - 14:54
- Quote - (krustylicious said @ #
f) Nvidia, has major sli issues. Remember the gx2, quad sli, tri sli. oh and multi monitor in sli. NVTV. the list goes on. All failures.
Crossfire?Quote - (krustylicious said @ #Also ati is now catching up to nvidia very quickly. Hopefully the amd side will catch up as well.
They are? How so? -
#8.2 Posted by krustylicious on 10 Dec 2007 - 16:06
- Quote - (Kirkburn said @ #8.1)Quote - (krustylicious said @ #f) Nvidia, has major sli issues. Remember the gx2, quad sli, tri sli. oh and multi monitor in sli. NVTV. the list goes on. All failures.
Crossfire?
Errrm the original crossfire with cables was kinda pants. At least ati is publicly showing the scaleing of crosfire x.
Remember that nvidia goes and offers x,y and features and half of them break or are completely none function. Tri sli is a complete joke, release December and gets canned in january .Quote - (krustylicious said @ #Also ati is now catching up to nvidia very quickly. Hopefully the amd side will catch up as well.
They are? How so?
The 3800 series is in the right direction. -
#8.3 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 10 Dec 2007 - 18:27
- Quote - (krustylicious said @ #8.2)The 3800 series is in the right direction.It's on par with the 2xxx series, which was a disaster. They need a faster part that is cheaper than nVidia if they are to regain their market share. The problem is they are still sticking by the Catalyst Control Center and that has been a disaster from the start (it's one of the reasons I moved away from ATi). I wish ATi all the best but I don't see myself going back to them anytime soon.
-
#8.4 Posted by RAID 0 on 10 Dec 2007 - 20:19
- Quote - (theyarecomingforyou said @ #8.3)Quote - (krustylicious said @ #8.2)The 3800 series is in the right direction.It's on par with the 2xxx series, which was a disaster. They need a faster part that is cheaper than nVidia if they are to regain their market share. The problem is they are still sticking by the Catalyst Control Center and that has been a disaster from the start (it's one of the reasons I moved away from ATi). I wish ATi all the best but I don't see myself going back to them anytime soon.
Yep. The Catalyst Control Center was why I too moved from ATi to Nvidia. It's a big pile of crap. -
#8.5 Posted by +rm20010 on 10 Dec 2007 - 23:54
- Quote - (RAID 0 said @ #8.4)Quote - (theyarecomingforyou said @ #8.3)Quote - (krustylicious said @ #8.2)The 3800 series is in the right direction.It's on par with the 2xxx series, which was a disaster. They need a faster part that is cheaper than nVidia if they are to regain their market share. The problem is they are still sticking by the Catalyst Control Center and that has been a disaster from the start (it's one of the reasons I moved away from ATi). I wish ATi all the best but I don't see myself going back to them anytime soon.
Yep. The Catalyst Control Center was why I too moved from ATi to Nvidia. It's a big pile of crap.
Indeed. Can't say too much about the CCC other than I've seen it in action on my friend's PC, and at the time my Radeon 9200 was, and still is, incompatible with it. But Nvidia has done some work on their new control panel, cleaning it up from a XP-style Control Panel to one with just a navigation pane. It now beats the old classic control panel in terms of usability and functionality (well, minus moving Performance to nTune) and it runs just as fast as a normal Win32 application.
-
(3 replies)
#9 Posted by A10 on 10 Dec 2007 - 14:18
- I love how Bit-Tech always finds a way to take a virtual dump on AMD. Competition is good even if AMD/ATI is lagging behind in that game, but who cares their prices are good and while not blazing/smoking fast it's fast enough for some people to chose them over Intel.
So their struggling we've heard it before no need to keep beating on a dead horse week after week. -
#9.1 Posted by boho on 10 Dec 2007 - 15:22
- This is absolutely true. Hard core gamers need the hugely expensive high end systems, that in two years become entry level equivalent. What AMD giveth, Microsoft taketh away
. The PC's is now a cheap commodity item for the majority. Chip manufacturers need to concentrate more on price, disk access speed and low power, everything else is pretty much irrelevant. The Nintendo Wii and DS have proved what most gamers want. The disasterious problems with the X-box 360 made them into disposable items too! I find it hard to fault my original X box and PS2.
"What's yourRockefellercarbon footprint?" -
#9.2 Posted by Swordnyx on 11 Dec 2007 - 01:29
- Quote - (boho said @ #9.1)This is absolutely true. Hard core gamers need the hugely expensive high end systems, that in two years become entry level equivalent. What AMD giveth, Microsoft taketh away . The PC's is now a cheap commodity item for the majority. Chip manufacturers need to concentrate more on price, disk access speed and low power, everything else is pretty much irrelevant. The Nintendo Wii and DS have proved what most gamers want. The disasterious problems with the X-box 360 made them into disposable items too! I find it hard to fault my original X box and PS2.
"What's yourRockefellercarbon footprint?"
Disk speed? Don't worry about that as soon everyone will be using SSDs, which are much faster and much more stable than the HDDs we're used to.
DS= crap/ Wii= Fun for a few games. I don't get what everyone is saying about the 360 crashing and all. I have never experienced anything like that and neither have any of my friends.
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by krustylicious on 10 Dec 2007 - 14:44
- the k10 series will perform better during 2008. Plus amd has the opportunity to dump dual core completely during 2008...
A base line quad core say for £60/$120 would send shockwaves in the intel camp, just like the dual cores did. -
#10.1 Posted by Sazz181 on 10 Dec 2007 - 19:47
- I never thought of that. Let's just hope that they do decide to wipe out dual-core, because then they have a winning edge, price wise. Mind you, aren't they planning a release of a dual-core Phenom? I seriously hope not, as dual cores are Intels back bone at the moment.
-
(1 reply)
#12 Posted by Croquant on 10 Dec 2007 - 15:30
- In related news, an AMD executive was heard to exclaim "D'oh!"
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by darkpuma on 10 Dec 2007 - 16:12
- ouch.
It is no surprise that when i made my new computer i avoided both AMD AND ATi. AMD needs to get their shat together. Their products aren't as good as the competition, and their drivers aren't for sure.
-
(3 replies)
#14 Posted by mkol on 10 Dec 2007 - 16:26
- Killing off 939 was a huge mistake
-
#14.1 Posted by illz55 on 10 Dec 2007 - 16:32
- Definitely. That was not a good decision on their part. I was shocked really when I wanted to continue upgrading my 939-based CPU a while back. I mean, the 3800+ was such a hit - why they wouldn't continue that line is beyond me.
-
#14.2 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 10 Dec 2007 - 16:52
- I have an X2 Dual Core 3800+ that you can now buy for €65. You can't find anywhere a 4800+ and when you could, it would cost €700.
Stupid AMD.
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by +Zhivago on 10 Dec 2007 - 17:28
- AMD stock is a bargain nowadays! It's a great time to invest in the company! Although, I believe the stock will continue to slip in the short-term.
-
#15.1 Posted by toadeater on 11 Dec 2007 - 01:32
- Quote - (Zhivago said @ #15)AMD stock is a bargain nowadays! It's a great time to invest in the company! Although, I believe the stock will continue to slip in the short-term.
Yeah, I don't see how AMD could just die off. Even if they were to fail, someone would buy them.
But another thing to consider is the shrinking desktop PC market. There isn't anything driving people to upgrade. Vista was supposed to lead to a new golden age of ripping people off on expensive hardware, instead consumers have learned to avoid the useless upgrade trap. People see they can use their $500 laptop for most of their tasks.
It's ironic that Microsoft is killing it's own Windows market by promoting the Xbox.
-
#17 Posted by +Digix on 10 Dec 2007 - 18:03
- put it this way,
AMD stepped in and bought ATi because they were struggling now AMD is but chances are they'll pull through it fine. we all need the competition, intel and their garbage business tactics should never be given whole rule over a market considering they are already flooding consumers of all markets it doesn't matter if it performs best or not.
-
(1 reply)
#18 Posted by qdave on 10 Dec 2007 - 18:09
- isnt it always like that..one company gets more popular and then after a while vice-verca. amd will recuperate if they will make something cool.
-
#18.1 Posted by Smigit on 11 Dec 2007 - 07:44
- The problem is for AMD that even when Intel had the lesser of the chips they still controlled a far greater percent of the market. For AMD, being behind is bad news as they are a far smaller company with alot less money to throw around than Intel. That said, they arent poor either and should manage ok but none the less, being where they are now is going to hurt them.
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by OblivionStalker on 10 Dec 2007 - 19:48
- Against the G92 chip? I don't think so. The 8800GT 512 and GTS 512 really look impressive. (money=performance).
Also this 3xxx series are the newest from ATi. Wait for nVidia's 9xxx. -
#19.1 Posted by toadeater on 11 Dec 2007 - 02:04
- Quote - (OblivionStalker said @ #19)Against the G92 chip? I don't think so. The 8800GT 512 and GTS 512 really look impressive. (money=performance).
Also this 3xxx series are the newest from ATi. Wait for nVidia's 9xxx.
The 3xxx series isn't their newest. ATI is getting ready to release R700-based cards in spring 2008 that use a completely new multi-core architecture using some of the core interconnect tech from the Phenom.
-
(4 replies)
#20 Posted by and1direct on 10 Dec 2007 - 20:17
- I honestly don't understand anyone surprised by this.
Intel has always killed AMD in the processor area. And whenever AMD comes out with a "better processor" than Intel, it is simply because Intel lets them; If they don't, the lawyers will start yelling "monopoly" and all that BS. -
#20.1 Posted by RAID 0 on 10 Dec 2007 - 20:23
- No, not always. Just this past year and a half. AMD was there with a faster 486 to Intel's Pentium 75. You can't tell me the P4 was faster then the Athlon or the Athlon 64? It just wasn't so.
-
#20.2 Posted by Krome on 10 Dec 2007 - 20:35
- Yeah. I been with Intel for a very long time I have never thought that AMD was any better. AMD never impress me during the hype about it being better than Intel a few years back. I just knew that Intel is still better CPU and it is apparent.
-
#20.3 Posted by Manuroc on 11 Dec 2007 - 02:26
- It's a known fact that AMD was superior to Intel before the Core architecture. Athlons always destroyed Pentium 4s as well as previous Intel processors. Just because Intel made a right move with their new Core processors doesn't mean that they always had the upper hand.
-
#20.4 Posted by Max™ on 11 Dec 2007 - 10:04
- Quote - (Manuroc said @ #20.3)It's a known fact that AMD was superior to Intel before the Core architecture. Athlons always destroyed Pentium 4s as well as previous Intel processors. Just because Intel made a right move with their new Core processors doesn't mean that they always had the upper hand.
The Athlons never destroyed the Pentium 4 until they turned 64-bit. The Athlon XP line was pretty neck and neck with the Netburst P4's, basically at that point AMD's were great for gaming and P4's were good for multitasking. They both overclocked seriously well (who remembers the 2500+ Mobile Barton and the 2.4C?)
-
#21 Posted by yakumo on 10 Dec 2007 - 20:28
- I really, really hope they can turn things around soon.
I admit I'm an Intel & Nvidia fan but there's only ONE reason behind why I think their technology is fantastic, and that's because they HAD to make it so because of AMD and ATI's competition that would have otherwise buried them in their shared fields.
-
(7 replies)
#22 Posted by MvT Cracker on 10 Dec 2007 - 20:29
- crash and burn ati/amd
-
#22.1 Posted by Sazz181 on 10 Dec 2007 - 21:29
- Are you capable of thinking about something even slightly deeper than how it is presented? My bad, I was stupid to think that everyone was capable of such apparently difficult things.
AMD is good for AMD and Intel fans alike - for AMD fans it provides quality yet cheap products, and for Intel fans it provides competition, hence keeping Intel's prices down. Do I really have to explain that if AMD goes down then Intel are free to charge whatever prices they like, because there's not going to be any competition? The same goes with nVidia. Your post was made without any thought whatsoever. -
#22.2 Posted by +Digix on 10 Dec 2007 - 21:38
- picture a hardware market full of mac fanboy like people and no other choice high prices and no innovation, that's where it'd go without AMD. Not nice to say the least.
Last edited by Digix on 10 Dec 2007 - 21:43 -
#22.3 Posted by nonick on 10 Dec 2007 - 22:06
- Quote - (MvT Cracker said @ #22)crash and burn ati/amd
I do hope they crash and burn so your beloved intel can rip you off real good.
as if they give a rats ass about you? -
#22.4 Posted by kaiwai on 10 Dec 2007 - 22:35
- Quote - (nonick said @ #22.3)Quote - (MvT Cracker said @ #22)crash and burn ati/amd
I do hope they crash and burn so your beloved intel can rip you off real good.
as if they give a rats ass about you?
Compared to the fact that AMD/ATI couldn't even be stuffed providing decent drivers for *NIX operating systems such as Linux/*BSD and Solaris. Why should I care about them. ATI/AMD shat in their bed, now they'll have to put up with the stink. -
#22.5 Posted by +Digix on 10 Dec 2007 - 23:15
- Quote - (kaiwai said @ #22.4)Quote - (nonick said @ #22.3)Quote - (MvT Cracker said @ #22)crash and burn ati/amd
I do hope they crash and burn so your beloved intel can rip you off real good.
as if they give a rats ass about you?
Compared to the fact that AMD/ATI couldn't even be stuffed providing decent drivers for *NIX operating systems such as Linux/*BSD and Solaris. Why should I care about them. ATI/AMD shat in their bed, now they'll have to put up with the stink.
heh, interesting since phenom 9600 can compile faster under solaris then OC'd Q6600 from personal experience, don't forget sun's big supporter of AMD. personally either, i've never had issues with ati and/or amd over last 5-10 years with linux and windows. -
#22.6 Posted by kaiwai on 11 Dec 2007 - 00:41
- Quote - (Digix said @ #22.5)Quote - (kaiwai said @ #22.4)Quote - (nonick said @ #22.3)Quote - (MvT Cracker said @ #22)crash and burn ati/amd
I do hope they crash and burn so your beloved intel can rip you off real good.
as if they give a rats ass about you?
Compared to the fact that AMD/ATI couldn't even be stuffed providing decent drivers for *NIX operating systems such as Linux/*BSD and Solaris. Why should I care about them. ATI/AMD shat in their bed, now they'll have to put up with the stink.
heh, interesting since phenom 9600 can compile faster under solaris then OC'd Q6600 from personal experience, don't forget sun's big supporter of AMD. personally either, i've never had issues with ati and/or amd over last 5-10 years with linux and windows.
Who gives a crap about the CPU, I'm talking about AMD's crap support for *NIX by way of the lack of drivers. -
#22.7 Posted by Budious on 11 Dec 2007 - 05:04
- Quote - (kaiwai said @ #22.6)Who gives a crap about the CPU, I'm talking about AMD's crap support for *NIX by way of the lack of drivers.
Agreed... this is why I purchase Nvidia GPU's... while my mainstream gaming rig has Windows, my old cards get retired to Linux or FreeBSD boxes most of the time. I want hardware acceleration for my investment, ATI does not offer, I do not buy.
-
#23 Posted by raskren on 10 Dec 2007 - 21:20
- Time for AMD to cook up another Intel lawsuit. That's what happened last time they got behind.
-
(1 reply)
#24 Posted by TickleOnTheTum on 10 Dec 2007 - 23:30
- I don't know why the ATi side doesn't do better? I have found that while nVidia cards are faster overall, you can't beat ATi for stability, compatibility and customer service. I have had 3 nVidia cards (MX440, FX5200, 6800GT) and all 3 were plagued with problems for which nVidia did nothing. ATi meanwhile, I had an All In Wonder several years ago that worked great but just got too old, now I've gone back to them and got a HD2600XT and it is great. The 3870's look great. AMD need to really push the boat out advertising them for Xmas/New Year.
AMD do need to bring out an Intel killer again as it's been a while. I am planning to upgrade to Intel next time as they are definitely ahead at the moment.
-
(1 reply)
#25 Posted by turtledude23 on 10 Dec 2007 - 23:56
- This is really sad, I dont want computer parts to be one company markets. Intel makes great processors however its also got a thousand times as many resources for research and development and it wasnt until AMD made better dual cores that they forced themselves to make really good processors, and Nvidia is just over rated, the 3870 is better than the 8800 GTX, perhaps something the guy who posted this article should note.
-
Intel, AMD’s major competitor in the CPU business, has been on a roll for the past 18 months and is now worth around US$162 billion, which makes the chip giant more than 32 times the size of AMD in monetary terms.
Even worse for AMD is that its partner-cum-archrival, Nvidia, has a market cap of around $19 billion, which makes it almost four times as valuable as the struggling platform company.
It’s fair to say things haven’t been going well for AMD since the middle of last year, as its two major rivals launched products that remain largely uncontested even today. Neither the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 nor the GeForce 8800 GTX have been truly surpassed in terms of performance yet and it’s not going to happen until next year.