Why is Intel so popular - Page 5 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-13-2006, 03:25 PM   #41 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

Exactly. I was so stupid back then I want to kick my own ***.
__________________

Flanker is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 04:35 PM   #42 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 738
Default

I was that stupid exactly 1 month ago.
__________________

__________________
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ @2.6 ghz
Arctic Cooling Freezer 64 Pro
2gb Corsair XMS DDR400 RAM
ATI Radeon x1950xt
MSI RD480 Neo2 Crossfire Mobo
Western Digital 160gb SATA HDD
Fortron 450 watt PSU
KINGWIN SK-523BKP Case
Logitech MX518 Gaming Mouse
NeedAcpu is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 04:50 PM   #43 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
ATIRAGEPRO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,400
Send a message via AIM to ATIRAGEPRO Send a message via Yahoo to ATIRAGEPRO
Thumbs down "x8666..."

Quote:
Originally posted by NosBoost300
lets not bash on intel too much now.. but, i'll say the intel at my work can handle a beating... its constantly doing multiple things... not small processor either... it could be running illustrator, photoshop, and indesign all at once.. and its only a 3.0 ghz pentium... doesnt even have hyper threading or anything... i don't see the big deal on why people bash intel so much... the intels at my school can take on doom 3 pretty good too, they use the same processor as the ones at my work...
I wouldn't judge Intel performance wize, concidering that they are still sorta OK in that area.

However, I like AMD better. Not just because everyone else does, but since they seem to be a much more reliable company than intel. When intel made a socket 7 CPU, it only went as fast as 233mhz, and by the time they made the Pentium 2, they went with a whole different kind of socket. When AMD made the K6-2, they stuck with socket 7, and it still had clock speeds of up to 400mhz, and by the time they made the K6-3, It's max was 600mhz.
So when intel simply abandoned all those poor people who spent a couple of grand on a socket 7 PC thinking they were getting something good, AMD stuck with it.

Intel was never a trustworthy company to begin with, Which is why i hate the fact thet they make Mac CPU's now. So reguardless if one CPU is faster than the other, knowone likes a company that likes to abandon their own customers.
__________________


Quote:
Originally posted by bonehelm
WTF ROFLMAO !!!! WTF OMFG LOL !!!! PARDON THE ****KING CAPS IM SO ROFL NOW !!!

I just found out I\'ve been using direct X 8.1 since its out.
He who knows when enough is enough will always have enough... - Lao Tzu
ATIRAGEPRO is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 08:29 PM   #44 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 26
Default Intel not trustworthy? Yeh right.

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_...ndaymatch.html

http://news.com.com/Semi+survival/20..._3-981418.html

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/09...samd/index.php
laurieny is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 08:43 PM   #45 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 90
Default

I'm speechless...

Edit: Intel has more of the market because of advertising, thats also a reason why there processors aren't "as good". Another reason people think intel is better is because of the title. You might not think about it, but most people don't do there homework. Most people in my class think that a 3.2 ghz intel is much better than a 2.4 ghz AMD. They don't understand that the real clockspeed of a Intel is divided by 4 and the real clockspeed of a AMD is divided by 2. Most adults don't know this either. People also go with intel because more of the market does. Most people do what everybody else does. like the saying goes, "when in rome, do like the romans"

and please don't flame me cause i'm only in 7TH GRADE, hehe

EDIT 2: another reason is prices(this is small but still) People think that the more expensive, the better. This means that the cheaper, the worse, and they kick out AMD (I THINK amd is cheaper)
juststarting123 is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 09:49 PM   #46 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

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.
Flanker is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 10:10 PM   #47 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 841
Default

I actually saw my first AMD commercial last night. I forgot what it was on, but they were powering some event. Maybe it was the winter olympics, I can't remember :\.
__________________
NathanM is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 10:41 PM   #48 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

What channel? Lol. I know AMD had a famous commercial LONG ago about the original Athlon processor (Not Athlon 64, simply Athlon).
Flanker is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 11:05 PM   #49 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
ATIRAGEPRO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,400
Send a message via AIM to ATIRAGEPRO Send a message via Yahoo to ATIRAGEPRO
Cool "Intel not trustworthy? Dam skippy..."

Quote:
Originally posted by laurieny
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.
... Uhu.... Let me guess, Invest in Intel's shares? You sound like you do. Instead of looking at it market wize, i at least had the common sense to look at the products individually instead of just their marketing history. (Un- like some of us.)

The reason i said they werent Trustworthy is because Intel has a history of abandoning one kind of board for another at the drop of a hat, while AMD pushes as long as they can with the one they have. If you had even read my first post you would have cought that.

How would you like it if you bought a socket 960 motherboard and they came out with a socket 1000 eight months later, and the only way you could keep up with the new products is to buy another expensive board? would you feel good about that?


Quote:
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.
Grow up. The factual evedence was allready provided and the links you gave were embarassingly off topic. Just because you take a brief glance at the words "Intel is not trustworthy" dosn't make me another incessent fanboy, and if you would have even tried to comprehend what i was writing you would have known that.

You talk about how Biased my comments were, yet you just said something like this:
Quote:
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...
Everyone knows that Intel is the global business leader when it comes to market revenue and compeditive shares. However that wasn't the point of that post. My point was that AMD had better products! If i didn't start the subject on corporate investment value, you shouldn't have combatted me with it.

Just because a company is more popular dosn't mean they make better products!
__________________


Quote:
Originally posted by bonehelm
WTF ROFLMAO !!!! WTF OMFG LOL !!!! PARDON THE ****KING CAPS IM SO ROFL NOW !!!

I just found out I\'ve been using direct X 8.1 since its out.
He who knows when enough is enough will always have enough... - Lao Tzu
ATIRAGEPRO is offline  
Old 02-13-2006, 11:14 PM   #50 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 765
Default

I'd use an Intel if it were a bit cheaper, and the performance was better then that of an Athlon. I'm a fan of no processor, I only pick the one that gets the job done right.

HyperThreading = Always nice to have.
__________________

septoid2 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.