I'm aware of the risks and you may indeed be right. But I think it will be fun at the least.
----------- Brian Sent from my iPhone On 2011-01-04, at 11:13 AM, [email protected] wrote: > 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/
