I agree, healthy competition is good for everyone. I think the last several years have been a highpoint for consumers precisely because AMD has forced Intel to innovate and slash prices, whereas before that Intel had become complacent. In that sense, I think AMD has been a success from a consumer point of view even if they haven't been from a business model perspective.
I am agnostic in this battle - I will purchase the best performance to suit my need for the lowest price, regardless of who makes it. In the past that has switched between Intel and AMD, and I think with Sandy Bridge it is still Intel. But if AMD does come out with something that is better, I will gladly purchase it. --- Brian On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Stan Zaske <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this year will be profitable for AMD and I'm happy about that. We > need a healthy AMD because when the bean counters control Intel everyone > suffers. > > > > On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 12:13:17 -0600, <[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/ >>> >> > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >
