AMD today challenged Intel

magick

ahh u can just read the first few lines, intel really panicing , but since they have so many business deals dell etc ....... do you think that they view amd as a threat to their home pc market?

IDF AMD today challenged Intel to a dual-core processor benchmarking duel, and Intel responded by mocking the French. AMD pumped a few major US newspapers with ads, begging Intel to accept the dual-core challenge. The competition would see AMD put its best performing dual-core Opteron up against a comparable Xeon processor from Intel. A neutral, third-party would conduct a number of benchmark tests, measuring both performance and power consumption, according to the always gracious AMD. Will Intel accept the challenge? "I saw the ad this morning over my coffee," said Intel's CEO Paul Otellini, during a question and answer session here at the Intel Developer Forum conference. "I have always thought that companies and products are best judged in the marketplace, and I will leave it at that." By Otellini's own metrics, AMD has already won the duel. Two years ago the little chipmaker didn't have a single, major server maker on its side. Now it has IBM, HP and Sun Microsystems all shipping fleets of servers and workstations based on its Opteron processor. A recent analyst report said this success has helped AMD pick up 10 per cent of the x86 server market over the past two years - up basically from zero. Otellini's reticence to answer tough questions or have Intel face up to a head-on challenge looked even worse after his odd treatment of a French reporter at the IDF show. When asked why Intel was so far behind AMD with a dual-core server chip and "what's wrong with Itanium" by an accented reporter, Otellini responded, "You're obviously from France." The cheap shot triggered a wave of laughter from Intel's staff and other reporters. Once the laughter died down, Otellini responded to the reporter's question by saying Intel took a leadership position with mobile processors in 2003. Hardly an answer to a question about Intel's close to a year lag behind AMD with a dual-core server processor. And as to why Itanic wasn't mentioned during Otellini's morning keynote? "In terms of Itanium, it was time budget," Otellini said. "I was given 59 minutes, and I hit 59 minutes." Multi-billion dollar investments in next-generation chip architectures just don't buy the plugs they used to. This type of hard question sidestepping seems to be all Intel can come up with after falling behind rivals IBM, AMD and Sun Microsystems on the cutting edge of the server processor front. To placate reporters, Intel spent most of today talking up a future, unnamed chip architecture that should make it more competitive. Intel, however, won't has this line thriving until 2007 and 2008.

K.O.Kiki

I hope AMD win their lawsuit against Intel's unfair business practices.

You must be French.

F***ing right-wing Americans, can't understand that they're inferior to us Europeans.

magick

F***ing right-wing Americans, can't understand that they're inferior to us Europeans.

sooo agree

the french jokes for intel look a little pro repub and less professional

maidhc

I hope both AMD and Intel prosper and compete fiercely for our business. We will get better and cheaper equipment.

I dont think Intel are panicking yet though. Their mobile processors seem to still be ahead of the turions and at the moment that seems to be where the margins are. They also have the Apple deal, and I dont think they are going anywhere for a long time.

AMD seem to be making far better desktop processors at the moment, in which case they deserve a bigger market share, but I would hate to see Intel leave the market.

It will be interesting to see how the competition litigation pans out though.

jayneemac

maidhc wrote:

AMD seem to be making far better desktop processors at the moment

I think they've been making better procs for the last few years actually

Kernel

jayneemac wrote:

I think they've been making better procs for the last few years actually

No they haven't, I've owned both and Intels are always better for general use. The former AMD chips were cheap and cheerful, but hadn't got the extra power of a Pentium. They ran hot, they burned out, they failed.... P4s are bulletproof.

Even with the dual core chips (and I admit that AMD has improved things with the dual cores - to the point that I'd consider going back to AMD now), Intel wins for multitasking, AMD wins for single app (according to THG), depends on what you want to use your PC for.

astrofool

Just saw on HardOCP that the P4 2.8ghz came out 3 years ago today, good to see how far Intel have come, their best value part today is the Pentium D 2.8ghz....

Its also funny how since the athlon 64's began beating the p4 in alot of benchmarks, that single cores are no longer able to run a pc, for some reason, which is funny, as they're good enough for Intel in the mobile space, HT is dead as a dodo in their next gen part (announced this week).

Dinner

K.O.Kiki wrote:

F***ing right-wing Americans, can't understand that they're inferior to us Europeans.

Ah yes. He's a lesser person because he lives in a differant country and has political views of his own. How dare he. :rolleyes:

DemonOfTheFall

Lol at Kernel.....
"According to THG".

If THG was printed on paper i wouldnt wipe my ass with that biased uninformed crap.

maidhc

Isnt it great in lots of ways the p4 2.8 has been out 3 years and is still a fine processor. I well remember buying 386's and 486's and they being unable to stuff within 12 months. Then a new PC was about €2000/€3000 in todays money... every few years....

I'd love to know if there is much difference in real life between a p4 and AMD. As in can one get a job done quicker?

WizZard

It depends on the applications you want them for.

Buy processors for what you need/want them for, as opposed to the current fanboyism/allegiances at the time.

e.g. for someone who does a lot of video/audio editing work I would recommend a Pentium D, but for a gamer an Athlon64, as it is the current best performer for that usage

Laguna

I'm an AMD fan myself and feel they outperform Intel processors in every application I need them for.

As for the right wing comments by Intel about the French, well lets face it, having no culture of their own, all they can do is mock others. Us Europeans will always remain socially and culturally superior.

cregser

(OT) - Yes culturally superior with our hollywood movies, MTV music, McDonalds and the Simpsons. Oh no wait, they're american. We have history yes, but American culture is everywhere.

I'm using an AMD64 3500+ now (and actually have it at half speed most of the time) and it blows me away sometimes. It chews stuff up and spits it out. I only hate Intels because of all the computers adds with the "do doi do" Intel sound.

CyberGhost

I still prefer Intels for their multitasking abilities, they are a bit but still faster with desktop applications, but AMD is best best when it comes to gaming, no competition

Laguna

cregser wrote:

(OT) - Yes culturally superior with our hollywood movies, MTV music, McDonalds and the Simpsons.sound.

I wouldn't regard any of the above to have cultural value, I'm talking about heritage... better still, class. The closest an American comes to that word is crass

Sparky

im an amd man when it comes to desktops, but i must say the pentium M i have in my centrino lappy and it does go mad fast on mains and lasts ages on battery.

i used to go with intel but my first preference is AMD now because they kick ass really

AdMMM

I've gone with AMD in the past because of the price difference and I reckon the next chip I'll buy will be an AMD unless Intel drastically improve their gaming performance!

Steven

You guys sound like Intel, turning this into a cultural issue. Take it to the politics forum so you can be banned there instead.

I have always thought that companies and products are best judged in the marketplace, and I will leave it at that.

That's not the most confidence inspiring quote his shareholders are going to hear.

Mutant_Fruit

I still prefer Intels for their multitasking abilities, they are a bit but still faster with desktop applications, but AMD is best best when it comes to gaming, no competition

The new X2's are pretty damn good multitaskers. HT will only make a difference if you're not maxing out your CPU's with stuff like video encoding. And even still, that difference isn't that big at all.

K.O.Kiki

Comparisms from a decent tech site.
AMD ownz Intel! I'm almost* sorry, but it's true.
Except for the Pentium M, that is a good chip

I can't* believe cregser wanted MTV to be counted as "culture". When was the last time you turned on MoronTeeVee, man?

*NOT!!

Kernel

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

Lol at Kernel.....
"According to THG".

If THG was printed on paper i wouldnt wipe my ass with that biased uninformed crap.

But they say they ran the chips for about 2 weeks (IIRC) to get the best benchmarks of them. I've always thought they were good at benchmarking and comparitive tests?

Mutant_Fruit

Another site to read with a pinch of salt is www.tomshardware.com. They have been known to get some really odd results at times, clashing with pretty much every other benchmark site out there.

anandtech would be my personal favourite, but if i'm buying something, i'll always read a few, and average the results.

WizZard

THG = Tom's hardware Guide

They're paid to give good reviews and as ssuch are regarded by those in the know as one site not to listen too.

Kernel

WizZard wrote:

THG = Tom's hardware Guide

They're paid to give good reviews and as ssuch are regarded by those in the know as one site not to listen too.

Hmmm.. I didn't know that.. that's THG off my bookmarks list so!

Mutant_Fruit

Lol, i never knew that. I thought THG was some other site. Ah well, i suppose that adds weight to the argument. Avoid THG/Toms Hardware. Very biased results.

CyberGhost

I really like THG videos though

smeggle

AMD/VIA I've found are brilliant for graphics but absolute useless for sound recording. Intel is the better of the two for working with sound recording. I've constantly had sound related problems with the amd/via setup and one sound card I tested (Sonic Fury] was aconstant headache. Worked perfectly on Intel.

depends what your doing but I'd use my amd/via for graphic work and pentium/intel for all sound related work.

WizZard

Would a Mac not be better for sound/graphics work? I know a couple of people who work in the sound industry and they are almost exclusively Mac users.

DemonOfTheFall

I just wouldnt use a VIA chipset for any work! VIA chipsets suck the fat chimmy chonga. Ive never seen a PC that i'd consider rock steady with a VIA chipset. If you want stability use nForce motherboards, with drivers one or two steps behind the current revision.

That said, nVidia seem to be getting a little sloppy with their driver releases. Their 2nd and 3rd latest graphics driver releasese broke video overlays on my PC, for every single app other than WMP with all of the acceleration and features turned off. Works fine again now, but i was going mad for a while there.

astrofool

that was fixable in the control panel as well..

rogue-entity

Kernel wrote:

No they haven't, I've owned both and Intels are always better for general use. The former AMD chips were cheap and cheerful, but hadn't got the extra power of a Pentium. They ran hot, they burned out, they failed.... P4s are bulletproof.

Even with the dual core chips (and I admit that AMD has improved things with the dual cores - to the point that I'd consider going back to AMD now), Intel wins for multitasking, AMD wins for single app (according to THG), depends on what you want to use your PC for.

LMAO, at kernel
You must have been living in a closet for the last few years or something.
It is a well known fact that AMD's Athlon XP range were 30% faster then the P4, and more then 40% more efficient then them at lower clock speeds too!

An AMD Athlon 64 clocked at 2.6GHz consumes around 80w whereas the Intel P4 clocked at 2.4GHz consumed nearly 110w. I think that means that AMD's chips are cooler and more stable.

An AMD Athlon 64 clocked at there fastest ever, 2.8GHz outperforms an Intel P4 XE clocked at 3.8GHz by nearly 15%.

So I think I can safely say that Intel sucks, and I really think that Dell should get there head out of the clouds and start offering Dell PC's with AMD processors.

andrew163

WizZard wrote:

THG = Tom's hardware Guide

They're paid to give good reviews and as ssuch are regarded by those in the know as one site not to listen too.

Who told you that? (not agreeing with or disputing it, just wondering where you got it from...)

Mutant_Fruit

I've heard that they were doing a live benchmark of some sort when demonstrating how intel were better than AMD, and they had "technical difficulties" with the live feed, and the results afterwards gave intel the lead, even though the benchmarks up until the "difficulties" put AMD in the lead. I'm just going to google this now... i'm writing from memory.

tba

on a side note are the X2s out in socket 940?

axel90

AMD's are the oc friendly chip. Run cooler and generally run quicker than intel equivalent. And although I don't like apple at all, multimedia i.e graphics sound and video are best suited on a mac. I know originators and graph designers who swear buy their speed