AMD advantage 2007
PCes are becoming connected and converged devices, speed is still very important, but even more important is functionality. Without features, the clock cycles will be just wasted. Intel is simply out of the HD game.
The 2007 AMD PC will be:
1) Low power, low noise (35 watt dual core)
2) HD capable
3) Doom3 capable (100% of Intel graphics are incapable of Doom3)
4) Vista premium capable
Intel can only hope to achieve 1) with a new Core 2 Duo stepping. Right now, Intel Core 2 Duo has high idle power and is unsuitable for 24x7 operation. Intel is simply out of the game in regards to 2), 3) and 4).
AMD can price a CPU+Chipset+Video+HD combo at good price, Intel can only provide the CPU. The AMD Live notebook will ride the Vista and HD wave and will be far more successful than Centrino, which was just Intel CPU+ Intel wireless.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 1/07/2007 10:12:00 PM
32 Comments:
"The 2007 AMD PC will be:
1) Low power, low noise (35 watt dual core)
2) HD capable
3) Doom3 capable
4) Vista premium capable"
wow i am so excited, finally a 2007 pc able to run a 3 year old game
Do you get paid by the word? Your last few blogs have absolutely no facts and the "analysis" (I;m using this term loosely here) is completed unsupported (not to mention wrong)
Out of curiosity what % of 2007 AMD PC's will be 35W? (<20%?)
And an Intel based PC will not be capable of Vista premium? I will put up any amount of my money against $100 of your money that you are wrong on this.
Not Doom3 capable? Are you on crack?
Not HD capable? Today's PC's are capable you moron!
And what exactly is HD (considering you are combining it with actual HW like chipset, CPU and video cards?) Did I miss something or is AMD producing hard-drives.
Man, I hadn't realized things have gotten that bad for AMD but reading through these last few blogs the desperation is rather obivious...
wow i am so excited, finally a 2007 pc able to run a 3 year old game
100% of Intel's graphics are incapable of running that old game.
Not HD capable? Today's PC's are capable you moron!
Well, Intel PCes may become HD capable by using AMD chipsets. Playing a HD movie on Intel PC will eat 60% of CPU. AMD's Avivo does hardwarr HD Video decoding..
"100% of Intel's graphics are incapable of running that old game."
BUT you were very careful I noticed not say 100% of Intel based PC's because, I'm just spit-balling here, one might actually by a video card! (Again just thinking out loud here).
By the way based on the link you provided and the wording you used I assume the ATI HD tuner is incapable of working on an Intel based PC, correct?
I've also noticed you've gone back to re-doing the posts to cover up your dumb mistakes! (A real "journalist" may want to annotate those with "edit"...but don't worry I don't think anyone confuses you with an IT journalist)
...what were those articles you had published on various IT journals, I would like to read some of your "published" work. Thanks in advance for providing the info...
By the way based on the link you provided and the wording you used I assume the ATI HD tuner is incapable of working on an Intel based PC, correct?
Of course, an Inteler can buy an AMD or Nvidia graphics solution. The point is AMD has the whole package, that's a huge advantage--I don't have to elaborate on that.
"Well, Intel PCes may become HD capable by using AMD chipsets. Playing a HD movie on Intel PC will eat 60% of CPU. AMD's Avivo does hardwarr HD Video decoding."
Oh so the HW you provided a link to is a CHIPSET?!?! Ehhh..try again...it doesn't replace the chipset, you moron!
Being able to play an HD video (and let's assume your 60% crap is true) makes an Intel PC non-HD capable how? You just admitted it is capable!
And by the way 40% of an Intel CPU will "frag" 100% of AMD's production, I'm too tired to provide the link so find them for yourself. (Oh and all of the sites that provide any data to the contrary are just AMD-paid pumper sites, so those data should be dismissed)
Being able to play an HD video (and let's assume your 60% crap is true) makes an Intel PC non-HD capable how? You just admitted it is capable!
Intelers = low IQ.
Saying AMD PC will be HD capable does not mean an Intel PC will be non-HD capable. The Intel retards can never get simple logic right and I am tired of answering these retards.
All I said was that AMD has everything inhouse, and that's a major advantage...
"Saying AMD PC will be HD capable does not mean an Intel PC will be non-HD capable. The Intel retards can never get simple logic right and I am tired of answering these retards."
Your original post said that AMD was capable of points 1-4 and later on down where you said "Intel is simply out of the game in regards to 2), 3) and 4)." should be taken to mean that Intel is also capable or it is incapable?
My bad when I read "simply out of the game" I don't take that to mean "capable"
Signed,
Intel Retard
"Intel is simply out of the game in regards to 2), 3) and 4)." should be taken to mean that Intel is also capable or it is incapable?
It was obvious that the quote meant that Intel won't be able profit from 2), 3) and 4) with its own video products. The money will either go AMD or Nvidia.
You really underestimate Intel brand and business relations. Let's hope that AMD will be able to reach 30% of the market in 2007. This goal is very difficult if you realize that 100% of the production from Q3 2007 will be Conroe-derivative. AMD must reach 30% in notebook space which doesn't look as possible. AMD didn't give any details regarding K8L Turion derivative...
"And by the way 40% of an Intel CPU will "frag" 100% of AMD's production"
What?!
Only the E6600 and up beat ALL AMD Cpus. And these are like 2% of all Intel sales.
It was obvious that the quote meant that Intel won't be able profit from 2), 3) and 4) with its own video products. The money will either go AMD or Nvidia.
You are so right but lets face it AMD did not buy ATI to get its discrete graphics chipsets they wanted to be more like Intel. So they could deliver CPU chipset (both standalone and IGP) ATI’s chipsets being more powerfull than Intel chipsets are a bonus but not really important.
Why is this? Buisness users that make up a large % of the total sales. Right now I’m sitting a a P4 3 GHz with a 915G chipset and I don’t need doom, HD playback or even Vista Areo support. Why because the tasks that I’m hired to perform don’t require any of that. If it was a requirement for my job I’m sure I would have had a better computer but the truth is that I don’t. I would rather have a faster CPU than a faster graphics card as that could help me in Excel.
The 2007 AMD PC will be:
When did AMD sell a PC? They make and sell CPUs and GPUs S E P A R A T E L Y. You talk as if Intel and AMD are building a console.
AMD Live is just a marketing copy-cat strategy to the Viiv which doesn’t really amount to anything. I’d rather buy a xbox360 or PS3.
AMD can price a CPU+Chipset+Video+HD combo at good price, Intel can only provide the CPU. The AMD Live notebook will ride the Vista and HD wave and will be far more successful than Centrino, which was just Intel CPU+ Intel wireless.
All PC’s are HD capable. All you need is the right media player. There is no special hardware required to run it. Not in today PCs. Why am I not surprised you don’t know this?
Intel can only provide the CPU
Intel sell’s its CPU, GPU and chipsets without any difficulty because it’s priced and targeted perfectly. AMD can bundle everything up and lose more money in the process if they want too. I can understand why they have too. ATI is losing money and losing the Intel platform and bundling may be the only reason they can get rid of such junk.
All in all you’re suggesting that AMD will be where Intel was in 2006. Great news indeed.
All those bloggers that posted negatives regarding the ATI merger please report to the snack bar and eat some crow.
Why spew such crap...link.
When you compare a Core 2 and a Turion 64 X2 with a system with the same specs, Intel come out on top. However since most of Intel's offerings use its integrated grahpics chipset which is crap, and AMD now touts its Turion 64 X2 + Radeon chipset, things even out on the performance front.
It is undeniable that the integrated graphics of Intel is no match vs ATI or NVidia, but since Nvidia doesn't know the meaning f battery life and ATI is now under AMD... Well.
sucko dijo...
"The 2007 AMD PC will be:
1) Low power, low noise (35 watt dual core)
2) HD capable
3) Doom3 capable
4) Vista premium capable"
wow i am so excited, finally a 2007 pc able to run a 3 year old game
10:48 PM, January 07, 2007
A lot of games are based in Doom3 engine, including NEW GAMES.
The string gets tighter, huh?
An Intel CPU needing to spare 60% of its power to a movie is still faster than 100% of an AMD CPU.
1 point you are partially right is the IGP, Intel IGPs, the processor maker´s IGPs, are a bit slower than the IGPs by GRAPHICS CARD MAKERS, but that doesnt matter considering those better IGP are bottlenecked by AMDs mediocre processors which results in Intel platforms being a considerable amount faster in 3D
You do have a point, Nvidea's and AMD's onboard graphics solutions indeed supply more then enough video power to be a all in one solution for onboard.
It makes the average user that doesn't game not need a video card at all. Sure you can game on these onboards but its only light/mid games. Intels onboard can't compare to even a Geforce 4. AMD clearly has the most powerful onboard video out there in a single solution with the best chipsets.
If intels chipsets where so good, why are the onboard graphics so crappy. Poorly made low quality chipsets that lack features I need? Yes! Thats why I stay with AMD and nvidea for my needs in a single solution.
Half of the people that buy stuff are average, and look for a all in one solution motherboard. Intel can never supply that to average users,and thats how Intel loses the high end game. AMD and Nvidea use the best of the best to make there chipsets flawless. Thats why they make the money and not so much Intel. Why would I spend $150 on a Intel matx with the same features as a AMD matx like a AMD Abit NFM2 AM2 when its $60 less. What a ripoff for a Intel specially if I chose a ASUS AM2 that costs $75 with superior onboard graphics compared to anything intels got.
They couldn't make a video card if there lives depended on it. they are as behind as 3dfx was before the end. If intel thinks they can get in the game they will fall like big titans do. 3dfx was the leader in graphics until they tried to do it themselfs, thats Intels same fate. It proves it only takes a year or 2 from being great to falling like a dieing man to the floor.
Intel will be BK by 2008 most likely making the same mistake 3dfx did back in the day.
"Well, Intel PCes may become HD capable by using AMD chipsets. Playing a HD movie on Intel PC will eat 60% of CPU. AMD's Avivo
does hardwarr HD Video decoding.. "
Have you checked this for yourself? My guess is no. I play HD encodes on my PC all the time. CPU utilization on my *INTEL* CPU? 9% on my E6400, 5% on my E6600.
Please post facts to your blog instead of utter garbage.
"Saying AMD PC will be HD capable does not mean an Intel PC will be non-HD capable. The Intel retards can never get simple logic right and I am tired of answering these retards."
Another shining example of your phd coming through. The only retards are here are you and anyone that believes the dribble you spew.
What?!
Only the E6600 and up beat ALL AMD Cpus. And these are like 2% of all Intel sales.
Actually, it is only the most popular dual core of all time on Newegg with 478 reviews.
Only the E6600 and up beat ALL AMD Cpus. And these are like 2% of all Intel sales.
The E6300 is the one with largest volume.
AMD's Athlon 64 x2 3800 (which costs $125) frags 75% of Intel's processors, including the Pentium XE 965.
It is a pity to see AMD fanboys are now dependent on ATI GPUs to make themselves feel great. So different from Athlon FX 62 heydays.
Intel is a CPU company by a large measure. Yes they make GPUs, but thus far, it has been only for the low to mid range and they do well in that market. Remember Intel is a market leader in the graphics market segment they operate in.
I've done some research and it appears that Intel's latest integrated chipset, the GMA X3000, maybe both Doom 3 capable and Vista capable. It is their first chipset to support hardware T&L and vertex shading. Way to go Intel, finally implementing technology that was released in 1999.
The G965 Express Chipset uses the GMA X3000, which is offered by Dell in the Dimension 9200C & Dimension E520. This means that Intel now has the potential to be Vista capable out of the box. I say potential, because we will not know for sure until Vista is actually released. Intel graphics are the most unreliable and incompatible chips on the market. I would say there is a good chance they will fail to deliver as promised.
LOL the desktop and mobile platforms of choice are all INTEL..
Go check it out folks.
Only cheapos and loser have to go the AMD route to save a few pennies and get a far slower, poor supported platform.
Games are irrelevanat for the majority of user. Any monkey that is playing games will add a graphics card. In the end Core2 whips AMDs platfrom across all benchmarks.
The 35 watt dual core is one neutered PC. Kind of like Sharikou's manhood
Quote:"Remember Intel is a market leader in the graphics market segment they operate in."
That's because no one wants to go THAT LOW!
I think people forget that most of the PC's today run intel pos Dell's with integrated crap graphics from Intel. And also forget that the majority of people dont know what a graphics card is :). Or any other specifics.
At the CES show it seems three things stand out this year; Graphics, Graphics and Graphics. Price per premium HD pixel makes AMD extremely compelling. The vendors are reaching for your wallet thru your eye-balls.
If AMD can’t parley the ATI deal into profits after a perfect timed gift horse like the CES show and Vista release, then Hector needs to open up a can of whoop-ass on his own staff.
Forget about the Intel crowd, they have there own problems and niche.
Lets, see, I just ran Doom 3 on a G965 board with an E6300 at very playable frame rates and high settings - so that shoots your little made up point #3 right in the arse.
I run Vista on a P4D 930 at work, Ultimate edition, with Aero turned on.
I run Vista on a Thinkpad T42, Centrino Processor, with Aero turned on.
I can watch HD on both.
My C2D's outperform both of the above boxes, run cool, and are very quiet.
So please - for everyones sake - TEST these things out before you make statements, then maybe you might begin to, in a dimwitted sort of way, know what you're talking about.
I find Sharikou's obsession with Intel's low performing IGPs to be a constant source of humour.
Why don't we establish some facts?
1) Intel's GMA 950, GMA 3000 and GMA X3000 are all fully capable of running Windows Vista Premium, with all the glass effects
2) Intel's IGPs were never designed for gaming. Suggesting that they were intended for gaming is simply rediculous. That being said, I've got a system here that uses the GMA 950 graphics that runs games like Hitman: Contracts and Civlization IV just fine. They do run on the lower detail settings, but it works fine.
3) None of ATI/AMD's IGPs support shader mode 3 graphics. This means that newer games like Splinter Cell: Double Agent will not work on them. This includes the upcoming 790 chipset that AMD boasts has four pixel pipes. Following your logic I could write something like the following:- "AMD IGPs do not even fully comply with the DX9C standards are not suitable for running new and upcoming games at all".
Nvidia produces the best IGPs with the most horsepower and full DX9C support. Even Nvidia states that they're not designed to take the place of a discrete GPU for gaming.
Post a Comment
<< Home