AMD would be better off today...

[Painbringer]

If only Intel never invented the Pentium 4 with Netburst architecture, and instead stuck with Pentium III's superior P6 architecture, while later adding improvements like Hyper Threading and dual-cores, until the release of the newer and superior Core 2 line.

Basically, Intel's Pentium 4 was, for the most part, a piece of crap. And AMD's Athlon line kept beating it in almost every benchmark, until July of 2006, when Intel released the Core 2 line and AMD has been struggling ever since - Especially with the recent disappointing release of the "Bulldozer" line.

My theory is that if Intel just stuck with P6 architecture, and kept improving it, AMD would have been pushed more to develop better products, and there would be plenty of close competition between the two rival companies, to this very day: The result would be better products and lower prices.

Thoughts?

INB4 "I dunno WTF U talkin' about"

[Thegluestickman]

When your rival owns the technology patents to make the best products, it's hard to compete.

[Painbringer]

At 11/21/11 05:53 PM, Thegluestickman wrote: When your rival owns the technology patents to make the best products, it's hard to compete.

True, but AMD were innovative enough to have the first; 1GHz CPU, on-chip memory controller, mainstream 64-bit architecture, and on-chip graphics card.

They just need to try harder these days.

[TruBluFoxx]

Eh. Maby.

I would like to see AMD try to compete more with intel. It seems like they are just lyin' down on the job.

Oh, and you forgot the pocket lint in Nvidya!

[Dogmeat]

At 11/21/11 07:02 PM, Rummy0 wrote: Nvidya is finished!
%u2022 1.7% yield.
%u2022 Woodscrews.
%u2022 Pork Shoulders.

Who?

[Painbringer]

AMD plans to release a new processor design every year until 2014. But will "Piledriver" and the rest keep up with Intel's latest offerings? Or at least make up for Bulldozer's epic fail?

AMD's 2014 roadmap:

[Painbringer]

At 11/22/11 03:08 PM, Rhinocerider wrote: I'm actually using a Pentium IV processor right now. A Celeron too, so it's a horrible piece of crap.

Is it at least a Celeron D? Regardless, any AMD processor from that era to today will beat the shit out of what you got - Especially Phenom II and Bulldozer: They will run circles around it!

If and I'm not sure how Bulldozer is such a disappointment, it hasn't been out for long, has it?

It just launched on October 12, and is AMD's latest offering.

The disappointment comes primarily from gamers who do not get any better performance from it compared to Intel's offerings, or even AMD's previous generation: Phenom II.

[EmmDubya]

At 11/22/11 03:04 PM, Painbringer wrote: AMD plans to release a new processor design every year until 2014. But will "Piledriver" and the rest keep up with Intel's latest offerings? Or at least make up for Bulldozer's epic fail?

AMD's 2014 roadmap:

Those names all sound like jokes, which incidentally is what Bulldozer's performance is in comparison to it's expectation turned out to be, even with all of those delays before the final consumer release. I remember the 'man with shovel' comparisons a few people made before the release, which I ignored thinking that by the time they were finally released things would have been tuned up nicely.

I personally have no problems with AMD's current position, with a comfortable perch in the value sector, where Intel still can't seem to budge them from, however the fact that Intel have a near-monopoly in the upper tiers of the industry is something that I don't like, a bit more competition could we what we need to keep on moving forward, although more improvement for Intel anytime soon would definitely harm AMD.

I remember a few months ago there being a lot of speculation about AMD's CPU arm being shut down if things carried on, and although I haven't really kept up since nearer the summertime, from the advertising I have seen their CPU/GPU fusion chips for laptops seem to have taken off more, they seem to be mentioned even more than Intel in the TV ads for mobile computing recently, which is definitely good, although once again it ties in with the GPU side of their business. The one thing that definitely is true is that they must be extremely pleased with their decision to purchase ATi, from the sounds of it that's what's keeping the company afloat at the moment. Bring on the next series of graphics cards, I say. :3

[Zeppelyn]

I dunno WTF U talkin' about

[HooglyBoogly]

Even though Intel is ahead of AMD in the processor game, I will still continue to support AMD. In my opinion, they have always made great hardware... Raden included.

Let's be honest here, for your typical computer user a dual-core AMD Athlon can still handle all the basic tasks. The newer quad-core Phenom easily handle the most avid gamer's appetite as well.

AMD till I die!

[Razz]

As someone that doesn't give a fuck what's inside my computer as long as it's new and showed in commercials as something flashy, I liked the Pentium 4 processors.

[Thegluestickman]

At 11/22/11 03:04 PM, Painbringer wrote: AMD's 2014 roadmap:

What's with the heavy machinery names? I don't get "Great, fast performance" out of "Steamroller."

[EmmDubya]

At 11/22/11 03:35 PM, Thegluestickman wrote: What's with the heavy machinery names? I don't get "Great, fast performance" out of "Steamroller."

I think it's more a "you don't want to be on the other side of this" kind of thing - not particularly accurate. It seems they're threatening to roll Intel's steam or... drive their piles.

[Painbringer]

At 11/22/11 03:35 PM, Thegluestickman wrote: I don't get "Great, fast performance" out of "Steamroller."

While a steamroller may not be fast, it is nearly unstoppable.

So instead of focusing on raw speed and efficiency, like Intel is, AMD is focusing on the ability to do multiple workloads, and that involves a shitload of cores.

In the context of games, in this case racing, a steamroller is unlikely to win, unless it's an endurance race. (More stable overclocking, maybe?)