Why is Intel so popular

[PP Mguire]

Dont tell that to pros.

 

[brady]

If AMD's processors are so much better than intel then why would Intel sell more processors than AMD? Is it because of advertising, contracts, or what.

People don't know better. People know "Dell" and whatever Dell has inside of it, the people are ok with.

 

[schulz269]

Maybe we all should buy some AMD Stock for when AMD really hits the public...think about how much you could make... lol

 

[tommyboy123x]

hahaha, no kidding... as soon as i pay off my amd processor i'll buy some of their stock .

but after reading this post i wanted to ask my friends about amd and see if they even knew about it. The few that did know about it only liked amd because "amd's cool and intel sucks"... it is really quite sad how the public will choose sides so quickly whether they know anything or not about the topic.

 

[kahlos]

Yeah very true. I have a friend who says to me "My Intel Centrino is better than your AMD thingy" . I say "how is this yours is way slower in many respects". He says "Cause Intel has more power than any AMD. Look mine has 2.8GHZ and yours has 2.7GHZ so mines obviously better" . I say "you don't have a clue do you". He says "Yeah i do i know that the new intel 6GHZ processor using 2 cores is really good"
I say "Right" and walk away. It seems people are drawen in to catchy names and bigger numbers unless of corse they know a little about computers.

 

[brady]

Word of the wise... Drop your intel stock...

 

[Flanker]

Dont tell that to pros.

Then don't make a fool of yourself.

If you bash Intel's products, thats fine. But beware, Intel's Conroe is going to own you, k?

If you're bashing Intel (the "Drop Intel stock" comments) then stop. Intel will own up AMD if it wants. As a company, its recognized as the Biggest and the Best. If you're going to get someone to build processors for you, its going to be Intel. AMD can't match Intel's brute power, and reliability as a company. If anything, buy more Intel stock.

AMD may, at some point, become an actual competitor to Intel, but right now, its nothing but a skidmark in the pavement. And if you're saying that AMD's products are better, you're going to lose that excuse when Conroe rolls around.

 

[brady]

Then don't make a fool of yourself.

If you bash Intel's products, thats fine. But beware, Intel's Conroe is going to own you, k?

If you're bashing Intel (the "Drop Intel stock" comments) then stop. Intel will own up AMD if it wants. As a company, its recognized as the Biggest and the Best. If you're going to get someone to build processors for you, its going to be Intel. AMD can't match Intel's brute power, and reliability as a company. If anything, buy more Intel stock.

AMD may, at some point, become an actual competitor to Intel, but right now, its nothing but a skidmark in the pavement. And if you're saying that AMD's products are better, you're going to lose that excuse when Conroe rolls around.

LOL... I don't even know where to begin. Do you really think if DELL starts putting AMD processors in their machines that Intel will still be the "Giant" you claim?

People buy Intel b/c they don't really have another choice. How long will that last? When people eyes are opened to the AMD world, they won't look back.

Edit: One more point I forgot to mention... Why do you think Intel is now in bed with Apple? They are trying to save themselves. They are trying to move to apple b/c they know they are right around the corner from losing their MAJOR market.

 

[Flanker]

Re: Intel not trustworthy? Yeh right.

I think you need to read this again man;

While I realize that the "audience" on this forum is particularly slanted at gamers and young ones at that, I felt like I should take a stab at providing a little factual basis to a thread that seems to be going south, especially when I read the input stating that "Intel has never been trustworthy". Granted they have had too many missteps the last few years, and they perhaps grew too complacent-much like IBM did after its huge success in the 60's and 70's. But Intel is widely regarded as one of the mosted trusted companies in the world, and backing up that childish statement would not be possible.

To address the initial question of why Intel vs AMD, you need to understand the real marketplace. While AMD has 2 fabs now (planning on closing the older) Intel has 10 fabs just in the US. It cost $2.5 billion for AMD to build the new Dresden facility, which was a huge gamble on their part to attempt to address the indescribably huge advantage Intel has in production alone. And new fabs are estimated to cost $7 billion in 2007, so Intel has a huge, nearly impossible moat to cross in this area. And while AMD has almost achieved parity in chips for PC sales, this is only a very recent trend and they lag significantly far behind in the mobile market, which overtook the PC market in 2005. Why do you think IBM sold off its business to Lenovo-the long term margin and growth in this area is decidely less than exciting. And when Apple went looking for a good partner to fuel its future growth, they went with Intel-not AMD. While the home PC market is important in the US, the business market worldwide is vastly larger and Intel probably views the money lost to American gamers as a nit.

And then you have to look at the amount of research dollars spent. For instance, in 2002 Intel spent $4 billion vs AMD's paltry $816 million. It an industry that is all about technological advancements, it is hard to believe that anyone would think that AMD will ever be more than a niche player compared to Intel. Intel has so much greater capitalization, production capacity, and diversification that even years of self-destructive behaviour couldn't put a dent in their advantage. I am glad that AMD is out there, as it makes Intel have to stay competitive, and I think that AMD's current product is very good and the place to spend your consumer dollars right now. Everyone loves David vs Goliath stories, but when it comes to spending your investment dollars, put your money in Intel stock vs AMD every day of the week. AS they used to say, nobody ever got fired buying Big Blue ;-)

For those of you willing to go beyond reading other's faceless posts and actually are interested in getting factual data when forming your own opinion, try doing some real research. Also I included a few links below for your reading enjoyment.


http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/15/cx_ah_0915mondaymatch.html

http://news.com.com/Semi+survival/2009-1001_3-981418.html

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/09/15/intelvsamd/index.php

Intel has far more rescources compared to AMD. Read this too, since you seem to have come into the thread a little late;

Advertising does play a large part in Intel's domination, but laurieny has a very good point in that Intel is by and far bigger than AMD. I've never agreed with anyone who has said that Intel isn't reliable or such hogwash, but as far as processor performance goes, AMD is KILLING Intel. Just look at it; Intel doesn't make a processor that can touch the FX-57 or FX-60. And as far as the server market goes, the AMD Opteron 800 series dominates Intel Xeons.

But the problem for AMD is that its nowhere near as large as Intel. AMD doesn't have the 10 fabrication plants, or the billions of dollars in research money that laurieny mentioned. It can't even afford to advertise, which is why you don't see AMD commercials. From all the money that AMD has, most (after wages and such) goes to R&D.

From a business point of view, Intel is much better and reliable than AMD, mostly because they can deliver on their promises (business promises, not technological promises). Intel also as some of the brightest minds working for it.

If you think Intel are unreliable and just a bunch of rednecks, then take a look at the new-gen Intel processors. 3.33Ghz Dual Core Extreme Editions, and a Quad-Core Server processor will level, and then tilt the playing field as far as performance goes. Not just performance, but pricing too. A 2.4Ghz Dual Core processor that has BETTER performance than the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ for as little as $315, cheaper than the cheapest AMD Dual Core right now. AMD doesn't have anything to match this, nothing in the works that has become public, atleast.

Come August, AMD will be second to Intel in both Performance, as well as market domination.

 

[brady]

Flanker... No doubt they were and at this moment still are the processor Giant, just as the 2 quotes you posted above said. However You are not thinking about the future. In the near future, AMD will be introduced into the public eyes by being a part of a DELL system. Once dell starts using the AMD processors, people will actually HAVE the chance to see them and use them... Its impossible to tell exactly what the future holds for either company... But being a stockholder, I know what I am going to do.

As far as Intel having 10 fab plants... Thats just more layoffs.