AMD welcomes EU fine on Intel

killadoob said:
Ok so you never explained to me why amd did no developing before core 2 hit? Your only answer is intel stole their stuff. Why did amd only re-act when core 2 was released, intel released i7 before amd's new cpu's so why did amd not release another gen of cpu's when they had the lead? Why did intel have a quadcore out way before amd?
Click to expand...

AMD had one team working on their new chips. Intel could afford to have two. One of the Intel ones bombed out and the others made it big. AMD made a couple of mistakes in their team and this was the reason they were behind.

This would probably not have been the situation had Intel not been up to their dirty tricks. AMD was desparate to try and get into the lucrative corporate market and this is what Intel was preventing them from doing with the contracts in question. Thats also one of the reasons why they took over ATI. Had they been able to crack the business market while they were on top, we would probably be in a totally different situation now. The end result is that AMD have had to try and make money where they can and that was in the top end for a while. You act like AMD were just ripping everyone off, had that been the case, they would have had a lot more "profitable" years of late. If I remember correctly, they have only had 1.
 
No i am not acting like they ripped off everyone, i understand if you have a better product charge for it, all i am saying is they rested on that good cpu instead of developing a new one, they kept bringing out a 3200+ then 3400+ etc eventually getting into the 6000's while intel developed core 2 and destroyed amd.

I am sure they could have done more, i mean why did their quadcore take so long? Sure intel are a big company but amd was flying high, they just never used that flying high to get more into the market due to their expensive pricing. If i have a better product but very little market share i would not charge more i would charge less and try get market share, again i am not a marketing guru but to me it makes sense to get market share before pricing your cpu's higher than your competitor. That is what annoyed me, seeing a 6000+ got 600 dollars while the cpu was not much better than their lower products, the perf difference between their cpu's was a bit low compared to the price difference, they could barely overclock. I dunno i just think they went wrong in charging more than intel for their cpu's at one point.
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
they kept bringing out a 3200+ then 3400+ etc eventually getting into the 6000's while intel developed core 2 and destroyed amd.
Click to expand...
OK - lets set the record straight because you make it sound like intel made a CPU that was so awesome and fast it makes an AMD look like its a 286.

In reality Core2's are faster than AMD X2's - but only by a little bit - a few FPS in a game and perhaps you will save 1/8th of the time if you encode an HD video file or a make a massive compressed archive.

So Core2 really only had a slight edge over the AMD X2's. They not destroy them.

The only people that worry about this is the gamer types that have sleepless nights if there is something out there than can give the 5 or 10 frames a second more which really does not change a lot. AMD always has excellent alternatives to Intel - even if they are not as fast they are nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

porchrat said:
I'll wait for the chipset race that ATI is having with itself to calm down a little and pick up a machine with a nice GPU in it.
Click to expand...

My wife got a R5k HP laptop and it has a pretty impressive Radeon HD3200 inside :p

EDIT : Oh, and just for the record, I work on both Core2 and and X2 PCs (Core2 at work and X2 at home). The Core2 is marginally faster than the AMD and this is being tested for more than a year now, day in and day out, using WorldCommunityGird.
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
No i am not acting like they ripped off everyone, i understand if you have a better product charge for it, all i am saying is they rested on that good cpu instead of developing a new one, they kept bringing out a 3200+ then 3400+ etc eventually getting into the 6000's while intel developed core 2 and destroyed amd.

I am sure they could have done more, i mean why did their quadcore take so long? Sure intel are a big company but amd was flying high, they just never used that flying high to get more into the market due to their expensive pricing. If i have a better product but very little market share i would not charge more i would charge less and try get market share, again i am not a marketing guru but to me it makes sense to get market share before pricing your cpu's higher than your competitor.
Click to expand...

They had to charge more because they could not get into the business market. The home market is tiny compared to the business market. The problem AMD has was this:

Intel had 2 R&D teams working on the "next gen". One of those teams built the "quick to market", two CPUS on one chip version. The second went for the long term solution which was a proper 4 core solution using some of AMD's ideas relating to memory etc. AMD went for the long term solution with their only R&D team (they did not have a choice). When Intel released their "quick to market" option, AMD were suddenly in trouble. They could no longer claim to have the "best" solution. They rushed their Phenom to market. The end result is a problem 1st gen Phenom. They did things properly with the Phenom II but it was too late. They ended up further behind the times because the initially rushed. In the mean time, Intel were happily going forward and released the i7.

AMD don't have the money to contend because when they did get ahead, Intel locked them out of the business market illegally. As I said in another thread, the problem with this fine is that the damage has been done.
 
Very well summarised Abe.

No one here is denying that intel has the lead in the CPU market - that is a fact. It might be a very small lead that few people worry about expect fanatical gamer kidz.

The article and point I am trying to bring across is that intel got there because they are bigger than AMD and also played dirty and tried to kill off the competition.
 
I would like to see AMD manufactured boards though just like the intel branded motherboards that are nice and cheap... should make things interesting.
 
AMD makes chipsets for motherboards, they leave the making of the boards for proper motherboard makers like Asus, Gigabyte and Biostar. Some of the best performance boards for AMD is the T-Series from Biostar. I bought a socket AM2 T-Series in 2007 and the onboard graphics was good enough to last me until last year December when I upgraded to an HD4650 PCI-E card.
 
Rouxenator said:
AMD makes chipsets for motherboards, they leave the making of the boards for proper motherboard makers like Asus, Gigabyte and Biostar. Some of the best performance boards for AMD is the T-Series from Biostar. I bought a socket AM2 T-Series in 2007 and the onboard graphics was good enough to last me until last year December when I upgraded to an HD4650 PCI-E card.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it's nice to have more variety, cheap AMD boards are not widespread enough... like at some online shops the cheapest AMD board starts at R800 while intel ones are around R500 odd.
 
Rouxenator said:
AMD makes chipsets for motherboards, they leave the making of the boards for proper motherboard makers like Asus, Gigabyte and Biostar. Some of the best performance boards for AMD is the T-Series from Biostar. I bought a socket AM2 T-Series in 2007 and the onboard graphics was good enough to last me until last year December when I upgraded to an HD4650 PCI-E card.
Click to expand...

Actually as far as I know AMD don't make anything anymore, they have moved away from the manufacturing side because they couldn't afford to run the foundries anymore. All they do is design the chipsets and CPUs and license other companies to manufacture. This is pretty much the same wat that ATI operates, ATI doesn't make chipsets or graphics cards etc. it leaves those up to other manufacturers that just pay a license fee.
 
porchrat said:
Actually as far as I know AMD don't make anything anymore, they have moved away from the manufacturing side because they couldn't afford to run the foundries anymore. All they do is design the chipsets and CPUs and license other companies to manufacture. This is pretty much the same wat that ATI operates, ATI doesn't make chipsets or graphics cards etc. it leaves those up to other manufacturers that just pay a license fee.
Click to expand...

Ja - intel are paying the shops to sell them that way :p
 
THe only reason I bought a Core2 duo was because the lack of availability of AMD based Cpu and Motherboards in my area,it was simply more convenient to get Intel instead of struggling to get AMD.

I have no doubt in my mind that Intel has something to do with this monopoly of sorts with similar tactics here in SA as they have been busted for in EU.

Suck it up intel, time to shell out a cool 1 billion Euro, haha!
 
porchrat said:
Actually as far as I know AMD don't make anything anymore, they have moved away from the manufacturing side because they couldn't afford to run the foundries anymore. All they do is design the chipsets and CPUs and license other companies to manufacture. This is pretty much the same wat that ATI operates, ATI doesn't make chipsets or graphics cards etc. it leaves those up to other manufacturers that just pay a license fee.
Click to expand...


AMD has two Fabrication Plants in Dresden, Germany.
They have Packaging & Testing facilities in China, Malaysia & Singapore.
They are currently building another Fabrication Plant in Saratoga County, New York.
They have 7 Design Facilities, 6 in the USA & 1 in India.

ATI on the other hand was fabless until now.
 
ponder said:
AMD has two Fabrication Plants in Dresden, Germany.
They have Packaging & Testing facilities in China, Malaysia & Singapore.
They are currently building another Fabrication Plant in Saratoga County, New York.
They have 7 Design Facilities, 6 in the USA & 1 in India.

ATI on the other hand was fabless until now.
Click to expand...

Well there you go I was wrong AMD do have fabrication plants. Thanks for the info ponder.

When you say "fabless until now" do you mean that ATI are currently considering building a fabrication plant? I can't see why they would want to do that as I doubt they would be able to compete against the likes of MSI, HIS etc. In terms of production volume and quality.

Although it would be nice to have some uniformity in terms of memory frequencies etc. in the ATI cards, and presumably an ATI fabrication plant would provide that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X