Anyone else noticed(well its not hard to notice) how AMD's stuff is always slower than intel/nvidia (phenom is a faliure, 2900xt is a faliure, 38x0 is slower than 8800gt). I reckon ATI/AMD will close down soon, anyone else agree rofl?

a lot of their stuff is cheaper, and is bought by people with a tight budged (so definitely not me, my comp is worth about 2500 euro's)

 

and when their first dualcore was released, they had a pretty good market share for a while, not a very long while though

Saying AMD was 'always' slower then Intel is a pretty strong comment, a few years back they were just as good, if not better, then the Intel chips.

 

 

 

Source

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I can't see (and I hope they don't) AMD just bow out of competition anytime soon, after all someone has to compete with Intel otherwise it'll be hell for us consumers. The continuing lower prices, better overclocking speeds and all that is great. Also, like Harold said not everyone can afford to have the most top of the line chip due to budget limits, and thats where AMD has dominated.

 

 

 

I can't really say much for the ATI/Nivada battle, I've always been a Nivada fan. :)

 

 

 

 

 

It'll be interesting to see how AMD/ATI play out during the next few years, I'm not the most tech savvy so I'll just leave with my opinion stated. :P

Anyone else noticed(well its not hard to notice) how AMD's stuff is always slower than intel/nvidia (phenom is a faliure, 2900xt is a faliure, 38x0 is slower than 8800gt). I reckon ATI/AMD will close down soon, anyone else agree rofl?

 

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? You newed to look at the price to preformance ratio. You can't compare AMD's high end to Intel's when they are hundreds of dollars in difference.

 

 

 

The Phenom was not a failure, it just wasn't as fast as everybody hoped. It can still beat or tie the Q6600 and do it a little cheaper (like $10). The 38xx series of graphics cards are not even priced near the 8800GT, so don't compare them.

 

 

 

I hate when people say Nvidia is faster in every way because of the 8800 ultra. Yeah that's true but if the competitor doesn't even have a product up in that price range, then of course Nvidia is faster. If AMD can get a graphics card to beat Nvidia in the midrange sector that is faster and cheaper, then they win. The midrange sector is what really matters too, more people buy $150-$200 graphics cards than $500 graphics cards.

 

 

 

AMD is in a tough position here. I'm starting to see them go to a route that is going to make them more money. For graphics cards they are leaving the $500 high end range out of the picture because there is less money in that range than any else. AMD is also starting to focus on the OEM processor market, there is a lot more money to be made buy HP and Dell than anybody buying their chip off Newegg. They are also and have been in a very close integrated graphics chipset war which is huge money because even if the OEM picks and Intel chip they can still go with an ATI graphics chip.

 

 

 

BTW I am not an AMD fanboy. I currently have a Core 2 duo (4300 @ 3ghz) and a x1950XT (best performance under $200 when I bought it, it still might be).

I guess that by speed, you mean overall clockspeed, and yes that's true. However, perhaps you didn't realize that clockspeed isn't everything to a processor, eh?

 

 

 

The Phenom are actually a very improved quad-core processor, which (I hope) would revolutionize the way people do quad- or more processing. Theirs uses a revamped architecture (whereas the Core 2 Duo/Quad uses an existing architecture, which outlines its flaws even more so), which calls power on demand. Now, I dunno about you, but 89W is a lot for a processor to use all the time, so I'd rather have PowerNow! technology.

 

 

 

It's at least a close competition. Slow and steady, slow and steady...

ati was good before amd bought them, now the 2 gens or so ati has owned them and their cards:

 

2900xt - completely destroyed by 8800gts/gtx, used 200w+

 

hd2400-2600 - weaker than nvidia equivs.

 

 

 

and now:

 

38x0 - the price range its at isnt one many people buy at.

 

hd2400-2600 - weaker than nvidia equivs

 

 

 

lets look at amd in a couple of times they where "good", and now:

 

 

 

athlon xp out- basically the same as P4 at stock, but less known. overclocked to be slightly better than P4.

 

 

 

athlon 64 out before core2 - destroyed everything intel had, but much more expensive than netburst p4s, and less people know about AMD so intel STILL made more money off netburst than k7 and k8.

 

 

 

now - athlon 64 x2 and phenom x4 both destroyed by core 2 duo and core 2 quad. average user buys the intel cos they dont know amd, in the enthusiast market, even a e2140 clocked to 3.2ghz+ can destroy everything amd has in single/dual thread apps, and q6600 clocked to 3.2ghz+ can destroy everything amd has, period.

I guess that by speed, you mean overall clockspeed, and yes that's true. However, perhaps you didn't realize that clockspeed isn't everything to a processor, eh?

 

 

 

The Phenom are actually a very improved quad-core processor, which (I hope) would revolutionize the way people do quad- or more processing. Theirs uses a revamped architecture (whereas the Core 2 Duo/Quad uses an existing architecture, which outlines its flaws even more so), which calls power on demand. Now, I dunno about you, but 89W is a lot for a processor to use all the time, so I'd rather have PowerNow! technology.

 

 

 

It's at least a close competition. Slow and steady, slow and steady...

 

EIST is intel's version of coolnquiet, both exactly the same.

 

 

 

AMD make up more of the mass-produced and mass-sold pc world/dell boxes than this "l0l0lpur3" guy thinks, AMD wont die anytime soon.

No.

 

 

 

If you want to play Far Cry 2 on highest settings on a big resolution for example, and have money, nVidia.

 

But if not, ATI.

 

You can simply say that nVidia has the most high-end cards, but normally a bit more expensiver than ATI.

 

If you don't have much money to spend ATI is the way to go.

 

 

 

Although AMD/ATI has made some mistakes recently (having to delay forthcoming processors, graphich cards..), but they wont be out of business for a loooong while.

Amd is worth less than they bought Ati for, thats pretty bad. But as stated, nothing beats ati 3870/570 in the mid price range. I myself have a 8800GTS G92 512mb and a x2 4400+, so im a bit mixed here. But im a AMD/Nvidia fan so...

Amd is worth less than they bought Ati for, thats pretty bad. But as stated, nothing beats ati 3870/570 in the mid price range. I myself have a 8800GTS G92 512mb and a x2 4400+, so im a bit mixed here. But im a AMD/Nvidia fan so...

 

 

 

The thing AMD did wrong is they took on too much load at once. AMD knew they were going to be in hot water when Intel anounced the Core 2 Duo and instaid of foucusing on the things they needed to do to compete in the proccessor section, they take on more work.

 

 

 

They got a little to spend happy and know they shot themselves in the foot because of it. They had tons of cash after the 2 years on top with the Athlon 64 and X2. The loans from the ATI purchase are killing them, without the ATI loans they would be doing a lot better. They may have even been in the black this holiday season without ATI.

 

 

 

After they got threw the Core 2 Duo storm and came out with their own quad core and it because successful, then they should have considered buying ATI.

I can't really say much for the ATI/Nivada battle, I've always been a Nivada fan. :)

 

 

 

This part of your post actually made me laugh. You realise it's nVidia right? Nivada sounds like a band or something.

 

 

 

And no, AMD/ATi won't be dying any time soon.

I hope it never happens, then Intel would be the holder of a computer chip monopoly. And I run on AMD, (And nVidia is my GPU brand :) ) and it works nicely.