The AMD are doing fine in benchmarks but unfortunately the majority of clients are still ordering Intel based servers likely 5 to 1(when there are AMD options).
This argument assumes business between AMD and Intel are equal. Which they are not even close to equal.
Dell and HP sell the most computers and they both favor Intel.
The CGI graphic industry does have a choice between the two and over the last year new purchases have been AMD because of performance.
my arguement assumes nothing. I work for a reseller and thus have access to sales data for all of 2005. AMD is doing well but your SMB to Enterprise customers are still buying Intel based servers. I don't know what the content creation firms are doing but they don't purchase in the abundance that your fortune 500 companies do.
The problem really is that once you've setup your network with Intel servers and have standardized on images you just can't socket an AMD system in as easily as just duplicating your image "safe" desktop or server hardwar.
Just curious, Why the lovefest for intel all of a sudden? Before Apple announced the move to Intel you would have thought Intel had spawn Satan. Now all I read here is how wonderful htings are going to be in 18 mos. It is sickening!
Just curious, Why the lovefest for intel all of a sudden? Before Apple announced the move to Intel you would have thought Intel had spawn Satan. Now all I read here is how wonderful htings are going to be in 18 mos. It is sickening!
Because many of us know the P4 Netburst architecture sucked for the most part and ran outta gas. However the saving grace for Intel was the Pentium M. Thus when I read that the nextgen Intel processors are built around a melding of two I like that. I like AMD as well but they don't have the comperable overall product regarding laptops.
AMD executives seem to definitively state Intel won't regain its lead.
While of course I know about IBM's race to win the consumer gaming platform and the markets profitability.
What makes this confusing is IBM's propaganda push for "Power Everywhere" campaign.
I wouldn't be concerned about what AMD says. The ONLY reason AMD is having a resurgence is because the performance of their top chips exceeds those of Intel.
But despite what AMD fanboys say, the performance isn't that different so as to be insurmountable.
I'm convinced that AMD is biting its collective fingernails, waiting to see what Intel will provide, performance-wise, in late 2006, and especially 2007.
The problem really is that once you've setup your network with Intel servers and have standardized on images you just can't socket an AMD system in as easily as just duplicating your image "safe" desktop or server hardware.
A great deal of this is because infrastructe and support in place favor Intel.
The same argument is made for Windows. Windows dominates the market because it is the best. When it is not the best, so much is already in place for Windows that it can be easier to use.
The example I gave in the post above was mostly to say that there are industries that go for performance over legacy.
Because many of us know the P4 Netburst architecture sucked for the most part and ran outta gas. However the saving grace for Intel was the Pentium M. Thus when I read that the nextgen Intel processors are built around a melding of two I like that. I like AMD as well but they don't have the comperable overall product regarding laptops.
Also because the PPC IS the better design, with the most potential.
That still remains true, even with the switch to Intel.
However, no matter how superior a design might be, without the investment to propel it into the future, it doesn't matter.
Intel is willing to do this. IBM, apparently, is not.
A great deal of this is because infrastructe and support in place favor Intel.
The same argument is made for Windows. Windows dominates the market because it is the best. When it is not the best, so much is already in place for Windows that it can be easier to use.
The example I gave in the post above was mostly to say that there are industries that go for performance over legacy.
The example I gave in the post above was mostly to say that there are industries that go for performance over legacy.
Right on man. I'm building a dual core athlon for my next PC. AMD is the reason why Intel chips must be relatively affordable nowadays. I'm not eager to see that go anytime soon.
Just curious, Why the lovefest for intel all of a sudden? Before Apple announced the move to Intel you would have thought Intel had spawn Satan. Now all I read here is how wonderful htings are going to be in 18 mos. It is sickening!
You might be right. I wasn't one of them though. While I did have a thing against Intel several
years ago, I found some respect for their products when I bought a used Xeon workstation several years ago. Before then, I was trying to stay away from x86, I was using an Alpha-based workstation, but one crucial program that I needed didn't run well under emulation. Anyway, the Xeon, and others I bought since then was rock-solid and never gave me a kernel panic or a BSOD. They really didn't choke with excess load either. I've also been pretty impressed with PIIIm and Centrino laptops.
AMD is cool too though, I am impressed with their Opterons, but affordable Opterons weren't available then and I like what I have now.
Just curious, Why the lovefest for intel all of a sudden? Before Apple announced the move to Intel you would have thought Intel had spawn Satan. Now all I read here is how wonderful htings are going to be in 18 mos. It is sickening!
I like that intel had to completely throw out their legacy designs that were giving them so much trouble, and built a few entirely new processor families from the ground up. That takes balls, but they had no choice. That is a learning experience that is just indescribable, and probably unfathomable to the regular user. Now they have seen, and experienced how to go about dropping something that isn't working for them, and just starting something from nothing. That type, or level of competency only comes from experience.
That's a big help when it comes to liking them. The old processors were just standing still. Although I admittedly always liked the Xeon's potential, and hope it's offspring are going to be in future PowerMacs. At least one PowerMac anyway.
The other thing is the # of designs intel has will be extremely beneficial to Apple. Now if they decide to design something totally cool they don't have to worry about finding a processor for it. Intel has the whole spectrum covered. I would expect a lot of new innovative Apple products soon.
These new processors that will be going into Macs have no real resemblance to the old Pentium processors, and according to their reports are going to be kicking ass. This is a whole new processor we are dealing with. I never disliked intel as a company, it was the majority of their processors that I thought were typically horrible.
I still like PPC, but IBM just isn't getting the job done #1,
#2 is they cant supply all the different processors Apple will need ON DEMAND.
#3 With Apple using the new intel processors they have no way of falling behind the competition, and they also have a larger variety to choose from.
On to IBM
The thing that is, and was bothering me about IBM (I thought this before the announcement) is that just because Apple alone doesn't represent a big enough cash crop for them to cash in on, they seem to give a rats ass about what Apple is in need of processor wise. They choked that 3GHz thing big time. And the Dual core PPC for Apple should have been ready way before now. Competition was just kicking their ass.
Xcode uses universal binaries, and I wouldn't doubt it if Apple was still looking into the CELL processor as an optional design for future NON desktop/laptop Apple products. It would be unwise to ignore it.
I don't know, but its enough to keep AMD a viable profitable growing company.
The same as Apple is a small company, but we all buy enough Mac's to keep Apple a profitable growing company.
What I meant was; as a percentage of all of the chips sold for that purpose.
Intel still sells many more chips in those areas. The point being that they can outspend AMD on R&D easily.
Now that they see the Netburst technology doesn't work anymore, they are concentrating on areas that are closer to what AMD itself is doing. Even following the PPC to some extent. Shorter pipeline, more registers, etc.
They will catch up.
By the time Apple goes to those desktop chips it needs, there won't be much of a lead by AMD, if any.
Comments
Melgross stated; anyone who thinks Intel won't regain its former lead isn't thinking clearly.
I was just stating AMD executives say Intel won't regain its lead.
I'm of mind that no one knows exactly what will happen. We will wait to see.
The AMD are doing fine in benchmarks but unfortunately the majority of clients are still ordering Intel based servers likely 5 to 1(when there are AMD options).
This argument assumes business between AMD and Intel are equal. Which they are not even close to equal.
Dell and HP sell the most computers and they both favor Intel.
The CGI graphic industry does have a choice between the two and over the last year new purchases have been AMD because of performance.
my arguement assumes nothing. I work for a reseller and thus have access to sales data for all of 2005. AMD is doing well but your SMB to Enterprise customers are still buying Intel based servers. I don't know what the content creation firms are doing but they don't purchase in the abundance that your fortune 500 companies do.
The problem really is that once you've setup your network with Intel servers and have standardized on images you just can't socket an AMD system in as easily as just duplicating your image "safe" desktop or server hardwar.
Originally posted by xsmi
Just curious, Why the lovefest for intel all of a sudden? Before Apple announced the move to Intel you would have thought Intel had spawn Satan. Now all I read here is how wonderful htings are going to be in 18 mos. It is sickening!
Because many of us know the P4 Netburst architecture sucked for the most part and ran outta gas. However the saving grace for Intel was the Pentium M. Thus when I read that the nextgen Intel processors are built around a melding of two I like that. I like AMD as well but they don't have the comperable overall product regarding laptops.
Originally posted by TenoBell
AMD executives seem to definitively state Intel won't regain its lead.
While of course I know about IBM's race to win the consumer gaming platform and the markets profitability.
What makes this confusing is IBM's propaganda push for "Power Everywhere" campaign.
I wouldn't be concerned about what AMD says. The ONLY reason AMD is having a resurgence is because the performance of their top chips exceeds those of Intel.
But despite what AMD fanboys say, the performance isn't that different so as to be insurmountable.
I'm convinced that AMD is biting its collective fingernails, waiting to see what Intel will provide, performance-wise, in late 2006, and especially 2007.
The problem really is that once you've setup your network with Intel servers and have standardized on images you just can't socket an AMD system in as easily as just duplicating your image "safe" desktop or server hardware.
A great deal of this is because infrastructe and support in place favor Intel.
The same argument is made for Windows. Windows dominates the market because it is the best. When it is not the best, so much is already in place for Windows that it can be easier to use.
The example I gave in the post above was mostly to say that there are industries that go for performance over legacy.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Because many of us know the P4 Netburst architecture sucked for the most part and ran outta gas. However the saving grace for Intel was the Pentium M. Thus when I read that the nextgen Intel processors are built around a melding of two I like that. I like AMD as well but they don't have the comperable overall product regarding laptops.
Also because the PPC IS the better design, with the most potential.
That still remains true, even with the switch to Intel.
However, no matter how superior a design might be, without the investment to propel it into the future, it doesn't matter.
Intel is willing to do this. IBM, apparently, is not.
Originally posted by TenoBell
A great deal of this is because infrastructe and support in place favor Intel.
The same argument is made for Windows. Windows dominates the market because it is the best. When it is not the best, so much is already in place for Windows that it can be easier to use.
The example I gave in the post above was mostly to say that there are industries that go for performance over legacy.
Yes, but how many chips do they buy?
The example I gave in the post above was mostly to say that there are industries that go for performance over legacy.
Right on man. I'm building a dual core athlon for my next PC. AMD is the reason why Intel chips must be relatively affordable nowadays. I'm not eager to see that go anytime soon.
Yes, but how many chips do they buy?
I don't know, but its enough to keep AMD a viable profitable growing company.
The same as Apple is a small company, but we all buy enough Mac's to keep Apple a profitable growing company.
Originally posted by xsmi
Just curious, Why the lovefest for intel all of a sudden? Before Apple announced the move to Intel you would have thought Intel had spawn Satan. Now all I read here is how wonderful htings are going to be in 18 mos. It is sickening!
You might be right. I wasn't one of them though. While I did have a thing against Intel several
years ago, I found some respect for their products when I bought a used Xeon workstation several years ago. Before then, I was trying to stay away from x86, I was using an Alpha-based workstation, but one crucial program that I needed didn't run well under emulation. Anyway, the Xeon, and others I bought since then was rock-solid and never gave me a kernel panic or a BSOD. They really didn't choke with excess load either. I've also been pretty impressed with PIIIm and Centrino laptops.
AMD is cool too though, I am impressed with their Opterons, but affordable Opterons weren't available then and I like what I have now.
Originally posted by xsmi
Just curious, Why the lovefest for intel all of a sudden? Before Apple announced the move to Intel you would have thought Intel had spawn Satan. Now all I read here is how wonderful htings are going to be in 18 mos. It is sickening!
I like that intel had to completely throw out their legacy designs that were giving them so much trouble, and built a few entirely new processor families from the ground up. That takes balls, but they had no choice. That is a learning experience that is just indescribable, and probably unfathomable to the regular user. Now they have seen, and experienced how to go about dropping something that isn't working for them, and just starting something from nothing. That type, or level of competency only comes from experience.
That's a big help when it comes to liking them. The old processors were just standing still. Although I admittedly always liked the Xeon's potential, and hope it's offspring are going to be in future PowerMacs. At least one PowerMac anyway.
The other thing is the # of designs intel has will be extremely beneficial to Apple. Now if they decide to design something totally cool they don't have to worry about finding a processor for it. Intel has the whole spectrum covered. I would expect a lot of new innovative Apple products soon.
These new processors that will be going into Macs have no real resemblance to the old Pentium processors, and according to their reports are going to be kicking ass. This is a whole new processor we are dealing with. I never disliked intel as a company, it was the majority of their processors that I thought were typically horrible.
- I still like PPC, but IBM just isn't getting the job done #1,
- #2 is they cant supply all the different processors Apple will need ON DEMAND.
- #3 With Apple using the new intel processors they have no way of falling behind the competition, and they also have a larger variety to choose from.
On to IBMThe thing that is, and was bothering me about IBM (I thought this before the announcement) is that just because Apple alone doesn't represent a big enough cash crop for them to cash in on, they seem to give a rats ass about what Apple is in need of processor wise. They choked that 3GHz thing big time. And the Dual core PPC for Apple should have been ready way before now. Competition was just kicking their ass.
Xcode uses universal binaries, and I wouldn't doubt it if Apple was still looking into the CELL processor as an optional design for future NON desktop/laptop Apple products. It would be unwise to ignore it.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don't know, but its enough to keep AMD a viable profitable growing company.
The same as Apple is a small company, but we all buy enough Mac's to keep Apple a profitable growing company.
What I meant was; as a percentage of all of the chips sold for that purpose.
Intel still sells many more chips in those areas. The point being that they can outspend AMD on R&D easily.
Now that they see the Netburst technology doesn't work anymore, they are concentrating on areas that are closer to what AMD itself is doing. Even following the PPC to some extent. Shorter pipeline, more registers, etc.
They will catch up.
By the time Apple goes to those desktop chips it needs, there won't be much of a lead by AMD, if any.
Even following the PPC to some extent. Shorter pipeline, more registers, etc.
The irony of the switch.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
The irony of the switch.
Lemon Bon Bon
You noticed huh?
By the way. An interesting article here about this very thing.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1873590,00.asp