AMD price cuts

[DragonMaster]

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

[skootyloops]

Hmm those price drops dont look that impressive. Its not enough to really combat the Core 2 Duo price cuts which are coming later on.

Unless people are on a super tight budget, AMD are in serious trouble.

[werty316]

Ever since the Core2Duo release, AMD is barely hanging on.

[PP Mguire]

They arent barely hanging on at all. They are just putting their efforts with ATI to other technology, instead of Intel trying so hard to push for quad core which is very rediculous. These price cuts are to keep the loyal AMD goers happy until their new platform comes out.

[DragonMaster]

Or working on a new CPU
http://www.techspot.com/news/24178-amd-says-barcelona-will-clobber-clovertown.html

[skootyloops]

They arent barely hanging on at all. They are just putting their efforts with ATI to other technology, instead of Intel trying so hard to push for quad core which is very rediculous. These price cuts are to keep the loyal AMD goers happy until their new platform comes out.

AMD are also working on quad cores. They just can't keep up with Intels movements.

Just think about it, Intel are already testing 45nm parts, AMD only just reached 65nm. Its going to have taken over a year for AMD to have released a new cpu to compete with the C2D ones.

[werty316]

AMD has most of the time been behind of Intel which isn't surprising. Just wait for the K8L to see how it fairs.

[darkorb]

dude, amd owned intel for the past like 2 years, i say just stfu. now its intels turn to shine

[skootyloops]

dude, amd owned intel for the past like 2 years, i say just stfu. now its intels turn to shine

AMD might have had the better performing part, but Intel was refining their technology.

Think Intel was in 65nm while AMD was the performance king. Intel also moved to DDR2, Intel are always in front when you think about who is making leaps into new technologies.

[PP Mguire]

AMD might have had the better performing part, but Intel was refining their technology.Same for AMD now? Actualy if you read around, AMD dont want to do quad core for the enthusiast, only server. They think its a big waste and want to continue on their on die GPU idea. Which i think is great. Oh and AMD didnt utilize DDR2 cause they wanted to stick with the market until it was the right time. If you look around i see as much AM2 users as C2D users.

AMD are also already creating 45nm processors as well, and are probably going to do DDR3 with the new chip. Read around buddy, AMD is ahead of the game still. Not to mention, It took Intel how many years to catch up to AMD?

[vfrex]

Think Intel was in 65nm while AMD was the performance king. Intel also moved to DDR2, Intel are always in front when you think about who is making leaps into new technologies.

Intel had to make the move to 65nm for their netburst processors. They ran too hot at 90nm to compete with AMD. And as far as the AMD switch to DDR2, what exactly do you expect? Intel switching over to ddr2 will create the market for ddr2. It creates volume and good pricing. If AMD switched to DDR2 before Intel, it would be an expensive, niche product.

[darkorb]

Same for AMD now? Actualy if you read around, AMD dont want to do quad core for the enthusiast, only server. They think its a big waste and want to continue on their on die GPU idea. Which i think is great. Oh and AMD didnt utilize DDR2 cause they wanted to stick with the market until it was the right time. If you look around i see as much AM2 users as C2D users.

AMD are also already creating 45nm processors as well, and are probably going to do DDR3 with the new chip. Read around buddy, AMD is ahead of the game still. Not to mention, It took Intel how many years to catch up to AMD?

very well said

[skootyloops]

Intel had to make the move to 65nm for their netburst processors. They ran too hot at 90nm to compete with AMD. And as far as the AMD switch to DDR2, what exactly do you expect? Intel switching over to ddr2 will create the market for ddr2. It creates volume and good pricing. If AMD switched to DDR2 before Intel, it would be an expensive, niche product.

I know very well that's why intel had to move to 65nm technology. But the fact is that they were able to. Regardless of how AMD is performing Intel have always had them in the strangle hold. I know AMD had a reign in the performance sector for a while. I only used AMD cpu's until C2D came out. But the fact is Intel have always been ahead. Both those companies know that the performance market isn't everything. Intel have the entire pc market, they nearly have the same hold there as microsoft have in the os arena. You can basically call AMD the more powerful linux in the hardware market. AMD's technology is open source, however they can't touch Intel when it comes to profit.

AMD didn't make the move to 65nm for ages because they couldn't work it in financially, because they would have to stop a lot of their production and it wasn't benificial for them. Intel moved to 65nm not only because they needed it to keep temps down, but because they could.


Same for AMD now? Actualy if you read around, AMD dont want to do quad core for the enthusiast, only server. They think its a big waste and want to continue on their on die GPU idea. Which i think is great. Oh and AMD didnt utilize DDR2 cause they wanted to stick with the market until it was the right time. If you look around i see as much AM2 users as C2D users.

AMD are also already creating 45nm processors as well, and are probably going to do DDR3 with the new chip. Read around buddy, AMD is ahead of the game still. Not to mention, It took Intel how many years to catch up to AMD?

I don't know if you have read around, but AMD just happened to have released their 4x4 boards. Which are designed to allow enthusiasts to have a 8 core monster machine. But they can only have 4 cores due to the fact AMD hasn't released a quad core. So saying AMD think's its a waste is wrong.

AMD's on die solutions are for budget/low power/laptop area's. You can't have a 3 core cpu and 1 core gpu and convince enthusiasts its what they want. Even AMD know this.

AM2 still has its merits, but its only because it can be placed in the budget area, though if Intel get their pricecuts which they have stated, in just around K8L AMD are going to have a tough time getting off the ground.

[PP Mguire]

Regardless of how AMD is performing Intel have always had them in the strangle hold.Idk AMD had Intel in the stranglehold for a few years cause of them holding on to that crap called Netburst.
I don't know if you have read around, but AMD just happened to have released their 4x4 boards. Which are designed to allow enthusiasts to have a 8 core monster machine. But they can only have 4 cores due to the fact AMD hasn't released a quad core. So saying AMD think's its a waste is wrong.You wont find everybody with a 4x4 board, because dual processor just dosent work for a regular PC that isnt a server. Hasnt before, it wont now. Just to much money to waste for even the people with deep pockets to spend on.
AM2 still has its merits, but its only because it can be placed in the budget area, though if Intel get their pricecuts which they have stated, in just around K8L AMD are going to have a tough time getting off the ground.Here, just take a read.
AMD have fallen slightly behind in the CPU wars in a lot of technology enthusiasts eyes. With Intel ramping up Core2Duo, AMD's previous title of "best gaming chip" has fallen by the wayside. However, by no means are AMD struggling and indeed they are certainly not resting on their laurels. After a press conference attended by OC3D, featuring talks from ATI's (ex) CTO Bob Drebin and Phil Mester - AMD's Technology CTO, we were given a brief but interesting insight of where AMD are going.
Here how about i give you a link to AMD saying that its not worth it to have a billion cores.
AMD stated that the market is going for more and more cores and more and more processing power, but forgetting that these have to actually be utilised to be worth anything. Software support seems to be pretty far behind hardware at the moment and although this is being worked on, is it really worth having 32 cores on a CPU?
http://www.overclock3d.net/articles.php?type=3&id=56&page=1&desc=amd__fusion__vision_for_the_future_-_on-die_gpu

[vfrex]

Don't bring up Microsoft vs. Open Source with me :p

[sushrukh]

AMD has always maintained the best price to performance ratio than those Evil Inside ones.

1. AMD Thunderbird was better than the Pentium III.
2.AMD Duron was better than the Celerons.
3.AMD Athlon XP was better & cheaper than the Pentium 4.
4.AMD Athlon 64 was better,cheaper & cooler than the Pentium Ds & the P4s.

Just ask urself, how many people in the world really require multicores for their work.Not everybody is a gamer or a multimedia professional.AMD Athlon 64 is still the best their money can buy.



Now C2D is offering marginally better performance than the X2 but it's not gonna stay for ever.Just wait n watch.AMD will regain its place soon for sure.

[skootyloops]

Idk AMD had Intel in the stranglehold for a few years cause of them holding on to that crap called Netburst.
You wont find everybody with a 4x4 board, because dual processor just dosent work for a regular PC that isnt a server. Hasnt before, it wont now. Just to much money to waste for even the people with deep pockets to spend on.
Here, just take a read.

Here how about i give you a link to AMD saying that its not worth it to have a billion cores.

http://www.overclock3d.net/articles.php?type=3&id=56&page=1&desc=amd__fusion__vision_for_the_future_-_on-die_gpu

I was talking more stranglehold as in, Intel still sells more chips then AMD even when AMD had the faster chip. Netburst, while it wasn't overly good, it brought in some great technology.

If you read the reviews which were sprouting when C2D was about to be released, Intel said it had the best things from its three micro-arcitectures. That included Netburst.

I know you wont find everyone with a 4x4 board, but thats different to what you first said about AMD not even caring about quad core. Considering thats the whole point of it. Another good point of why you wont see much of them is because Intel's Kentsfield cpu's run with less power requirements then 2 cpu's. Which makes Intel once again the leader in that area.

Also dare I ask, why is AMD's new K8L going to be based on a Quad Core base with cores disabled when they don't care about multi cored cpu's?

I know AMD don't think the 32 cores is a good idea, and to be honest its probably not the way to go, but saying that they think the whole concept is stupid is completly wrong.

[tomato]

...funny how quickly a thread about potential AMD price cuts has turned into an Intel VS AMD (flame) war?

In the realm of technology, someone will almost ALWAYS one-up the other by releasing a newer/better product than the previous existing model... it's a vicious cycle, but it's what drives the other to be better than their competitor(s) (and profits :P)

And, no matter what, Everyone will support their preferred product, no matter what another person says/does... live with it, and move on ;)

[THRASHER2]

Bring on the Price Drops ;-)