AMD Setting Itself Up for a Fall

[therealwesty]

Article: AMD Setting Itself Up for a Fall @ INQ

Thoughts anyone?

I agree with the article on a lot of points. AMD really ought to be trying to make the best of their recent gains over Intel. With things being so close now AMD really needs to set itself apart from Intel with either pricing or performance. I'd love to see AMD crank out a 3GHz chip and steal a big lead over Intel for the performance crown. With their 64-bit architechture catching on so well all it would take is some nice aggressive marketing and some high GHz to ensure their continued success.

[Avid6eek]

I totally agree with the article. I even posted my thoughts about how AMD was going to mess up the progress they have made so far.

****************forum.pcstats**********/showthread.php?t=26231

AMD really does need to ramp clock speeds. If they are having problems doing that, then they need to add more performance enhancing features, whether it be more L2 Cache, dual core...whatever they can come up with. Being the first to market with dual core processors by a few months would really be a big plus for AMD. It would show they are still the company leading innovation.

I disagree with the article about AMD making their own chipsets. I do think it's great that AMD introduces the first chipset for the server market, but I don't think they should make deskop chipsets. nVidia and VIA are already doing a great job. AMD needs to devote their resources to making great processors.

I don't know what Intel has planned for the future, but in the event that they ever did build a desktop processor based off the Pentium M, I feel that they could do some serious performance damage to AMD. Add an integrated memory controller onto a Pentium M, clock it to 3.0Ghz, and give it AMD64 instructions, and you've got yourself one kick @ss processor. I guess from what I've read about the BTX form factor, you cannot have an integrated memory controller because of the layout of the motherboard. If you consider that the main reason for BTX is to better cool Intels extremely warm processors, you can see that it really wouldn't be needed if the Processor was based on the Pentium M as it runs much cooler. If I was Intel, that is the direction I would be heading.

[Nova]

yup, i to agree, amd should do something but i doubt they can get a 3ghz proc on a god heatsink, so here's my suggestion, bump up the chips to 2.6-2.8 ghz, and bump down the prices like 10-20%, that way they will be faster, and cheaper

[gokusimpson]

How much does it cost Intel to make one proc? If it's really cheap (like 50 bucks) then they're just ripping us off....I knew i shoulda built an AMD rig...

[Avid6eek]

I don't know the actual cost of the processors. I'm sure the R&D costs more than the actual silicon used. Have you scene Intels profit margins? Of course your getting ripped off!

[gokusimpson]

And I'm gonna get even more ripped off because I'm going to get a 3.0 Northwood soon. (This year) I think that will be my last P4 478pin upgrade.

[EWeezy]

thats too bad to see a way better CPU manufacture waste its lead

[Nova]

from what i've heard on the discovery channel (way back in the day, i believe it was in 2000) was that future cpu's (past and present (we live in the future whoohoo, beam me up scotty, err sorry)) will cost more to test then to make, so my guess is, around 50-70$ to make one, add another 100$ to have some guy test it (programs, machinery, blah blah) and then they sell it for around 1000$ and call it the best cpu on the planet, oh and this is called "milking", they sell the damn thing for so much so that it pays for everything intel invested in it within a month or two, the rest will be pure profit

[Avid6eek]

And I'm gonna get even more ripped off because I'm going to get a 3.0 Northwood soon. (This year) I think that will be my last P4 478pin upgrade.

that would actually be a pretty worthwhile upgrade for you. You'd definetly see a noticeable speed increase.

[JoshKorn12]

I don't even think it costs 50 to make a processor. But yes, think of all of the research and trial and errors that need to be brought into the equation. It's basically the same concept for games. The sell new for 50+. The disc costs them probably 1 cent. The rest of the cost makes up for the time in the development stage. If you owned AMD or Intel, I'm sure you do the same.

[Avid6eek]

If you owned AMD or Intel, I'm sure you do the same.

If I owned Intel, I'd sell it, and buy AMD

[phill9800]

i agree that amd should go faster, not try and hope that dual channel memory saves them at the same or slightly faster speeds..

in this game the faster the better.. who wants second place? ever heard of Top Gun??....

[Rudegar]

**********************.overclockers**********/articles1112/
response to the article

[PCgeek]

U tell em Ed!!! lol I totally agree with him. Of course like shizzy said they should work on dual core cpus...

[Nova]

and who says they aren't?

[coffdrop007]

I hate giving my hard earned money to Intel. But Ive never had any problems with them. If I didn't weigh five hundred pounds (lost one hundred over the last year), then i might consider an AMD just to see what you are all jizzing your skinny selves about.

[ElrichMeister]

lets see some benchies coffdrop007

[Assimilator87]

And I'm gonna get even more ripped off because I'm going to get a 3.0 Northwood soon. (This year) I think that will be my last P4 478pin upgrade.

I remember you saying that you're not overclocking very high because of your heatsink. Why don't you just get a new heatsink and overclock your processor to 3Ghz. It's a Northwood core so I don't think it will have any problems. I know RAM clocks aren't a factor because the bus speed is 100Mhz at default and the multiplier is 22 so clocks should go up very high with only a small increase in FSB. Does anyone have an idea as to how the lower FSB Northwoods overclock?