Realize, intel almost can't gain any more market share. Amd just by having a netbook ready processor will gain some by default.
No one is saying amd will challenge intel for top dog, but the odds of them picking up a few percentage points? Its like picking amd to cover, and its not even that risky Sent via BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Brian Weeden <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:06:59 To: [email protected]<[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [H] Motherboards. I'll put a wager on the marketshare statement, if you meant it to apply to calendar year 2011. $20 Think Geek gift certificate? Or maybe Amazon? ----------- Brian Sent from my iPhone On 2011-01-04, at 9:24 AM, "Stan Zaske" <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't say that Intel wouldn't still be superior in performance. I'm saying > that Intel will lose market share to AMD and have a profitable year finally. > AMD will continue to provide it's customers the best bang for the buck and > Bulldozer will be far better than anything they've made in a long time. > > On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 04:31:43 -0600, Brian Weeden <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> No offense taken, but I think we'll be having this discussion again later >> when AMD's architecture finally comes out. And I'll wager that Intel will >> be the one laughing all the way to the bank. >> >> ----------- >> Brian >> Follow Me [image: LinkedIn] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/brianweeden> [image: >> Twitter] <http://www.twitter.com/brianweeden> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Stan Zaske <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> So somebody really is reading my posts. Thanks! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 01:16:16 -0600, Greg Sevart <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> While I don't mean to be an Intel apologist (I personally find many of the >>>> moves in this latest generation to be, in effect, anti-enthusiast and >>>> frustrating as all hell), I really don't think that any of their changes >>>> were made for the express purpose of screwing over the enthusiast. The K >>>> edition processors are only marginally more expensive than their "locked" >>>> counterparts. Turbo modes are more impressive than before--a 3.3GHz base >>>> clock runs up to 3.7GHz when one core is active (3.4 with all 4, given >>>> enough thermal headroom)--which may very well supplant overclocking for >>>> the >>>> more common crowd that may have previously dabbled. And, contrary to what >>>> you've described, excluding the lowly i3 series, ALL of the remaining i5 >>>> and >>>> i7 SB chips actually DO support increasing multiplier by 4x. That means >>>> that >>>> your 3.3GHz stock chip can actually run at 3.8GHz (4 cores active) to >>>> 4.1GHz >>>> (1 core active). While it's definitely shy of the 4.5GHz+ the unlocked >>>> variants can hit, it's something. So why would Intel make these moves, if >>>> not to screw the enthusiast? While I can only speculate, there are several >>>> good answers: >>>> >>>> 1. Moving more components, such as clock generators and more and more >>>> NB/PCH >>>> style functions, into the processor reduces motherboard complexity (fewer >>>> components, less PCB real estate use, and hypothetically simpler design), >>>> thereby potentially reducing costs and quality variation (both on the good >>>> and bad spectrum, admittedly) >>>> 2. Moving these components onto the processor and PCH may have positive >>>> power consequences. Intel will have a SB weighing in at a mere 17 >>>> watts--that's fairly impressive given that includes the chip itself, >>>> memory >>>> controller, a good chunk of core logic, system interfaces (ie: PCIe), and >>>> GPU. >>>> 3. There may be technical reasons. Given that more of the system >>>> components >>>> that use the reference clock are moving onto the processor and PCH, there >>>> may be stability or other technical reasons that make it more desirable to >>>> have a common reference clock generator included as well. >>>> >>>> Frankly, as we do move more and more components to the processor itself, I >>>> think we're going to see decreased socket longevity--not more--for both >>>> camps. AMD is to be commended on their effort to have a platform remain >>>> relevant for so long, but it'll be interesting to see if they sustain that >>>> in the years to come as x86 moves more to the SoC approach that's more >>>> common with other architectures. >>>> >>>> Again, not apologizing for Intel. As a potential consumer, I find a number >>>> of aspects of the new platform refresh very unappealing. My main system >>>> will >>>> probably remain on LGA1366/X58 until both Bulldozer and the LGA2011/X68 >>>> platforms are out in the market to duke it out. But I think that you >>>> drastically overestimate and demonize Intel's intentions. I also think >>>> that >>>> you, like most enthusiasts, significantly overestimate the impact of the >>>> enthusiast market segment. It's tiny. I honestly believe that if it >>>> weren't >>>> for the possibility that a good number of enthusiasts likely have >>>> influence >>>> over the technology purchasing patterns in the organizations to which they >>>> belong, we wouldn't receive much attention from either side. If, this time >>>> next year, there's been a material difference in the market share >>>> positions >>>> of either camp, it will have little to do with the grumblings of a few >>>> enthusiasts, and everything to do with just how good Bulldozer and Bobcat >>>> really are. >>>> >>>> In the interest of full disclosure, I do tend to lean Intel, but I have no >>>> problem buying anything AMD if I feel the situation is best suited for it. >>>> My personal systems are quite decidedly a mix of each. In this room alone, >>>> I >>>> have 4 AMD systems and 2 Intel. >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- >>>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Stan Zaske >>>>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 11:42 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [H] Motherboards. >>>>> >>>>> Brian means well but in this case he is mistaken. The 2500K is the only >>>>> >>>> chip >>>> >>>>> worth having because it and the 2600K are the only two that overclock. >>>>> >>>> Intel >>>> >>>>> finally succeeded in getting it's wet dream come true by making it >>>>> >>>> impossible >>>> >>>>> to overclock the lower margin "cheap" chips thereby giving it's customers >>>>> >>>> less >>>> >>>>> bang for the buck. The 2600K is out of the running for most because of >>>>> >>>> price >>>> >>>>> leaving only the 2500K at $210 worth buying for a gaming and hardware >>>>> enthusiast. Then you have to buy the Intel chipset mobo because Intel >>>>> >>>> loves >>>> >>>>> it's customers so much they never allow backwards compatibility (one pin >>>>> difference between LGA 1156 and LGA >>>>> 1155 for the new socket) because it's just not profitable. I'll be >>>>> >>>> laughing all >>>> >>>>> the way to the bank when I upgrade to AMD's new architecture this year >>>>> and >>>>> we all owe Intel a vote of thanks for being so anal they will chase much >>>>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>> their business AMD's way. No offense Brian and have a Happy New Year! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:13:34 -0600, FORC5 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > obsolete hopefully means *cheaper* 8-) fp >>>>> > >>>>> > At 11:19 AM 1/3/2011, Brian Weeden Poked the stick with: >>>>> >> Sandy Bridge just came out officially this week and it makes pretty >>>>> >> much everything else in the mid and low range obsolete: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge- >>>>> r >>>>> >> eview/1 >>>>> >> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/intels-sandy-bridge-upheaval- >>>>> in-th >>>>> >> e-mobile-landscape >>>>> >> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel- >>>>> core >>>>> >> -i5-2600k-i5-2500k-and-core-i3-2100-tested >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Quote: >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >>> > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
