Analysis on IT trends and competitive strategies, with emphasis on micro processors, computer systems and networks. Based on latest news, backed up with real data, this site intends to provide a true and realtime picture of the fast changing IT landscape. This journal strives to be accurate on facts and sharp on criticisms. You may email your opinion to sharikou@yahoo.com or post comments here, be cool and intelligent.
Freelance journalist on IT matters. Some of my writings have been published on online IT journals. Any original content on this journal is Copyrighted, but it's free for non-commercial use. Any Trademarks used on this site belong to their respective owners. Some of the pictures are links. If there is any issue with the content of this site, please email sharikou@yahoo.com .
Intel is history, Dr. Ruiz reckons.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 6/21/2007 09:33:00 AM
45 Comments:
"he said, HP and Dell are Chipzilla victims with Intel being "another monopoly that is systematically raising prices and slowing innovation and has done so unchecked for years"
Has Intel done any of that during the last year?
I wonder if 6000+ would cost $999 if Intel hadn't relased Core2 and lowered their prices as low as they are now. I'd say thanks to Intel AMD highest end CPUs are selling at $241 instead of nearly four times as high as they used to when they were competing against Pentium4
AMD is history. Running out of cash and market share.
AMD BK Q2'08.
Ruiz flapping his mouth as usual.
All the while the company he runs loses millions of dollars day becuase he can't ship product.
If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.
What a f*cking hypocrit... $1000 for 6000+ and he complains about Intel. If Intel wasn't around, that jack*ss would slow innovation to a crawl and charge as much as they could for their slow CPUs.
Intel nor AMD is squeaky clean; this is a cutthroat business and instead of baby Hector crying, he should be touting the benchies of Barcelona as a superior product to any Intel offering. Oh, wait, I forgot....
Bueller, Bueller, Beuller?
In the summer of 2005 an X2-4800+ was selling for right at $1000... why? Because Intel had nothing that could come close to competing with it... and people bought it. At that point in the game AMD clearly had a monopoly on performance and did what any company would do in that position... charged out the a$$ for it. I just fail to see how this issue keeps coming up over and over again.
bawwww bawww bawwwww
cry cry cry
Thats all Hector does, cry. Oh no, Intel is so evil, It's holding everyone back.
Y'all should thank AMD for your existence. Baahhhhh cry cry cry.
I am getting sick of AMD crying about everything. They can't do jack shit so they blame it others.
AMD = Cry babies
AMD Fanbois = even bigger cry babies
I think its about time someone & especially the CEO of AMD to bring all these rumors to an end especially in this blog. What good does all this create for end users? Nothing! They could care less about "benchmarks". Why does a company(intel) continue to spread false rumors to sell their products.Is this because of a far superior product? I believe people are more intelligent then given credit for about buying the latest & greatest. Most only want something to download fast & send e-mail/watch downloaded movies. Period. Now please swamp me with more of your INEL FUD instead of speaking intelligently concerning facts not rumors.....
I think its about time someone & especially the CEO of AMD to bring all these rumors to an end especially in this blog. What good does all this create for end users? Nothing! They could care less about "benchmarks". Why does a company(intel) continue to spread false rumors to sell their products.Is this because of a far superior product? I believe people are more intelligent then given credit for about buying the latest & greatest. Most only want something to download fast & send e-mail/watch downloaded movies. Period. Now please swamp me with more of your INEL FUD instead of speaking intelligently concerning facts not rumors.....
People are indeed intelligent. Just because most only do the basic things with their computers, you're saying they should all go buy slower product and pay same or more for it? How is that smart?
Remember when AMD was ahead? Do you remember their pricing milking us the consumer? $300 for a x2 3800 was a joke....
Even when Intel released a faster product, one that has no competition, they still kept the prices LOW.
People are indeed smart, so they buy Intel. They know they're the lastest product, the faster product for a good deal.
What you're advising we do is since we only browse the internet, we should go spend our money on a falling product?
Very smart of you.
I'm sick of AMD's blithering and crying.
Amd talks about competition like it invented competition.
Even if barcelona is a faster chip, I refuse to support such a pussy company who's so wound up the ass about the competition.
AMD, go to hell.
Gotta love this:
A MAC from 1986 executes applications faster than an AMD X2 4800+
http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins
"For the functions that people use most often, the 1986 vintage Mac Plus beats the 2007 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+: 9 tests to 8! Out of the 17 tests, the antique Mac won 53% of the time! Including a jaw-dropping 52 second whipping of the AMD from the time the Power button is pushed to the time the Desktop is up and useable."
Well at least we know the AMD fanbois don't fall far from teh tree.
They whine just as much as Hector does.
WAAAA! We are making slower chips, cannot easily afford the transition to 45um and we are even thinking of dumping our fabs. Not to mention we haven't been making a profit... WAHAHHAHAHAHA
you can gauge amd's problems by the amount of times they cry "monopoly":
2003 - massive losses - MONOPOLY!!!
2004/2005 - making money - INTEL is TOAST!
2006 - making money - MONOPOLY BROKEN!!!
2007 - massive losss - MONOPOLY!!!
lol...
I think you said it best Roborat.
Most only want something to download fast & send e-mail/watch downloaded movies.
Ah. It's the "AMD is fast enough" reasoning now. Did you claim that the Pentium D was "fast enough" when AMD was in the lead?
If all people did was send email and simple stuff like that then CPU speed increases would cease to exist.
My mother does those things above, easy thing along with running Office and browsing the Internet. She uses my old 1.8Ghz P4 just fine for that task.
I, OTOH, use Photoshop and encode video regularly. I can take advantage of a quad core 3Ghz CPU.
They can keep making faster CPUs: People will always be able to take advantage of them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey expert - you're a complete idiot.
Forbes is talking about net margins, not gross margins. That means the "massive overhead" as you put it has already been paid.
What's AMD's net margin? Around -30%
Intel at +20% looks pretty good.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your non-formatted post. I can only assume you failed primary english.
When will you AMD fanboy morons learn to shut up? Every time you guys open your pie hole you show the world how amazingly stupid you really are.
On second thought, please don't stop. It's great fun laughing at you. I just called my wife over to read your post. She still can't keep a strait face over the fact that someone would quote something as an argument, without even knowing what they were quoting
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Every knows photoshop runs best on AMD opterons.
I can encode two different videos at once while running a ton of batch operations in Photoshop at the same time. All that from a single CPU. Try that on your vaunted AMD CPUs that are stuck at dual core.
AMD '45W' TDP CPUs consume more power than Intel 65W CPUs: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3003&p=9
AMD is clearly trying to mislead people.
Lets look at all the exciting new stuff AMD has bought out since the start of 2006 shall we?
First there's DDR2 support for servers and desktops! Just two years after Intel did it.
Next there's a dual core mobile CPU; about six months after Intel launch the Core Duo.
Then there's the 4x4. Wow! A dual socket motherboard! We've never seen one of them before!
Next? 65nm desktop CPUs. A year after Intel.
After that? R600. Direct X 10 graphics slower than Nvidia and seven months late.
Now? 65nm mobile CPUs. Intel had them back in late 2005 as their first 65nm CPU!
Pathetic. There's nothing even remotely interesting out of AMD lately. Their quad core technologies will be useless as well, already prefragged by Clovertown.
oneexpert said...
Intel needs 40% profit margins to support there massive overhead and now because of AMD price reductions they are under 20% profit and sinking.
And remember that Intel's revenues are artificially inflated by approximately 20% this year due to the U.S. dollar (as most of the U.S.'s largest companies).
Bubba said...
When will you AMD fanboy morons learn to shut up?
You'd recognize an Inteler anywhere!
---
As for the article... I'm deeply disappointed by Ruiz! I loved the guy since day one, but now I'm starting to doubt his position.
a) AMD is suing Intel... let that course of action play itself out and stop making public comments!
b) Although I agree with his view... concentrate on day to day operations and accept the facts. If you can't deal with it, no matter how bad, he needs to resign!
c) My position has changed in regards to AMD's native quad. Dr. Ruiz really should have put pride and ego aside and made a quad core with two dual-cores. MISTAKE 1!
d) I'm starting to realize that it is absolutely unacceptable that AMD had not released the K10 after over 3+ years. The K10 should have been released by now. MISTAKE 2!
Isn't it 'three strikes your out'?
---
As for all the rumors going around of late that AMD will be going private! Sharikou, if you allow me your patience in this little divergence. I'd like to share a little story with everyone!
I worked for a company (TouchTunes Digital Corp) a few years ago. We made digital jukeboxes and we had a lot of potential. After about 7 years of operations, the management figured we were close to making profits. They decided they could make more money if they took the company private and pile the profits. Then in a few years later, they would issue an IPO and go back to being public... and hope for hundreds of millions more.
So they concocted a plan to take massive losses and they delayed product life-cycles and releases in order to make the shares drop to record lows before buying every share back.
The V.P. of R&D and CEO would go around bragging (aloud) about losses and how they had aimed for larger losses, but fell short of their goal.
They eventually got the OK from the SEC to go private. I know many people who had hundreds of thousands and some millions invested and lost most of it.
I no longer work there but now I'm hearing rumors that they soon want to go public with an IPO.
I personally lost A LOT! I complained with the SEC but basically they don't care!
Where I'm getting at is that AMD lately has been piling on massive losses. They give no news which creates speculation and have been releasing so so products (ATI). If Barcelona gets delayed, this would add even more revenue and market share losses. All of this would significantly drop the share price which would make it easier to go private.
Ruiz and management stands to make a lot more money this way. Call me paranoid, but I'm seeing 'deja vue' with all of this.
oneexpert
"The fact in point, intel has never operated at a lower margin than they are now according to forbes because of AMD competition."
Do you have any theories why are they still earning profits then?
"There are a lot of new AMD products this last year but not too many intel."
Sure, there were more than one thing but was there anything good and significant from them?
jeahc!
"And remember that Intel's revenues are artificially inflated by approximately 20% this year due to the U.S. dollar "
Same goes for AMD.
I wish AMD would really go BK so you'd all kill yourselves :)
AMD barcelona available in July..
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1591&Itemid=1
Agena – Phenom can reach 2.8 GHz
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1590&Itemid=1
I wonder if Sharikou gets anything for consistently breaking hundreds of posts in every one of hie threads.
It seems like he's leading you guys around by the nose and doesn't even comment much in the posts anymore.
It's like watching a big bully trying to get the little guy to be afraid.
And for the record not only do I not want EITHER company to ch11, I don't either can.
I can see either Chartered, TSMC or maybe IBM going in on the Luther Forest Fab.
AMD has the majority of OEM orders with HD2600 and wo could really turn down a 6000+ at the current system price?
The low-end is where the volume is and now the low-end is based on price not perf as 6000+ is faster than FX62.
That means that BE2350 will be the new Sempron. I'll let you know when I start spotting them in retail.
AMD paper launches AGAIN
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/12727
Hey oneexpert, how many products is AMD going to launch this year? How many will they actually ship?!?
Bubba said...
AMD paper launches AGAIN
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/12727
Hey oneexpert, how many products is AMD going to launch this year? How many will they actually ship?!?
The article was talking about a company going out of business not any launch news.
I wonder if 6000+ would cost $999 if Intel hadn't relased Core2 and lowered their prices as low as they are now.
If Intel as processors that cost as much as 999$ today then the price was not high.
Unless you think Intel prices are also too high?
And you should also thanks AMD that Intel P4 and PD didnt cost even more than that.
AMD '45W' TDP CPUs consume more power than Intel 65W CPUs
And AMD 130W CPUS consume the same of Intel 65W CPUS.
AMD 130W = Intel 65W
Sharikou
Can you point me to an AMD dual-redundancy fault-tolerant server?
Maybe this will draw you out.
Aguia
Power Consumption
AMD was trying to make extra profit by ripping consumers off. $300 for an Athlon 64 X2 3800+? Pathetic.
With Intel pricing the Q6600 at $266 AMD will be drawn into another price war with quad core CPUs.
Yields will be low at Barcelona launch, supplies will be extremely limited. Meanwhile Intel will offer plentiful supplies of relatively cheap quad core CPUs.
Even with Barcelona AMD will continue to lose market share. AMD will be dead; BK in Q2'08.
Hector Ruiz won't be on the streets though, he made a cool $16m last year working at AMD.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Onedouchebag says: If not for AMD there would be no c2d.
If not for opteron killing intel market share there would be no c2d.
If intel could still sell you a 186 for $1000.00 they would do so.
If not for AMD intel would not have make a c2d.
Ahhh yes the argument of the ignorant AMD fanboi.....would you like me to start listing where AMD would be if it wasnt for Intel paving the way for them?????
This comment has been removed by the author.
oneexpert
If not for AMD there would be no c2d.
If not for Intel there would be no K10.
If not for opteron killing intel market share there would be no c2d.
If not for Xeon killing Opteron's market share, there would be no K10.
Just like intel has not produced any new products in the last year, just AMD offers new and different products.
What have they released that you would consider "new and different" in the last 2 years?
As toms hardware has pointed out intel does not make a energy efficient cpus and platorms like AMD.
Because Intel is not dumb enough to create another batch of C2D, and undervolt/underclock them, and label them as EEs.
AMD has the most energy saving chips and platforms of any semiconductor mfg.
Which one?
Intel will not make any new product offerings until they loose market share back to AMD.
Intel will release Penryn, which was developed after they took the market share back. Same with Nehalem.
It took intel 5 years to respond to the opterons.
It will probably take intel 5 years to respond to k10.
This is a groundless statement, that only a mindless fanboy will make.
AMD is the only forward thinking technology force.
Intel has stopped innovating and only responds to market share declines.
Again, groundless statement mixed with fanboy opinion disguised as facts. AMD's advancement is the result of C2D, not by their own drive. If there is no C2D, we'll probably be using 2.6Ghz FX-62 running at 70C.
After all intel only took a old pentium 3 and reworked it into a c2d, hardly a innovation just antique restoration really.
Yet, it still outperforms AMD's K8 by a considerable margin. C2D is an improved version of P-6 (not P3). The same concept can be seen with K8 and K10.
Intel has really good spin and fud but advertising is not a product, just a expense.
AMD has real products and real release dates.
So, are you telling me that Henri's "We're going to launch R600 from top to bottom" is a real statement?
Please, take your fanboyism elsewhere. (wait... I think I'm the one who's not supposed to be here, since this site is the main base of AMD's fanboyism.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Putting all fud aside. If it wasn't for competition from both Intel & AMD what prices would we be paying for a decent CPU? Stop & consider the fact of jobs created by each in every field involved with using a computer. Each company will buy what their IT department recommends not necessarily based on the best product. I've seen this happen over & over because of someone’s preference of a so named product. I repeat again "benckmarks" are not behind the purchasing decisions of a corporation of what to purchase on their servers. Combination of IT staff & the strongest sales force w/lots of PR. I personally have a server running w/Opterons (2) cpus & I also edit DVDs for an industry with this. Great sys! Maybe an upgrade soon to Quad but time will tell if it’s needed or better then what I have.
enumae,
Toms tests where done with C&Q enabled EVEN with the CPU at LOAD!
The site you posted only show C&Q enable at Idle.
I can’t remember of one real world scenario where some one would enable C&Q when its system is doing nothing and would disable C&Q when was going to do something with it.
AMD 4600+ VS Intel 6300
Since K8 was released 4 years ago all power consuming tests where done wrong. Now imagine if they enabled C&Q when the P4/PD was out...
Because Intel is not dumb enough to create another batch of C2D, and undervolt/underclock them, and label them as EEs.
If that’s true then Intel doesn’t like us, the consumers. I would go for a Core 2 Duo 6320 EE over one 6320. You wouldn’t?
Aguia
You should look up what Cool and Quiet does, and also look at your link a little closer...
Intel 2 x CPUBurn 108W
AMD 2 x CPUBurn 135W
Intel 2 x Prime 95 117W
AMD 2 x Prime 95 120W
Under 100% load, Cool and Quiet and Intel speed step are NA.
----------------------------------
So to be clear, is your comment about AMD using less power refering to Load or Idle?
enumae,
I mean both.
Real world scenario.
Processor is doing something + doing nothing.
Thats what Toms and the link I provided to you shows.
aguia
Although I'm not trying to call foul on the benchmark, but my E6300 runs at 43C with Prime 95 x 2.
I guess I'll do some test to replicate their E6300 benchmark.
aguia
The test samples are provided by AMD itself....
I wouldn't call that benchmark entirely independent....
yomamafor2,
If that’s the case then maybe AMD changed something, who knows.
Well at least they are both HP computers.
You can try to replicate their test but I think it’s impossible. Unless you have that precise HP model.
Don’t confuse your processor + your components VS the same processor you have + other components.
Because your 6300 does 43C doesn’t mean all Intel 6300 processors with different cases, different boards, different ambient temperatures, ..., ... will all give the same results.
Aguia
Processor is doing something + doing nothing.
Well it would then depend on the user, but in your defense, yes, AMD for the average user (email, web browsing, etc...) would use less power.
People who use CPU intensive applications, that utilize both cores for an extended amount of time would benefit from Intel.
So your real world scenario statement would vary greatly from one user to the next or from field to field.
Post a Comment
<< Home