Were would Intel be if AMD were awesome?
- Thread starter Okedokey
- Start date
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
^ yes may be but thats not the game. Ok, ill start.
I voted "R&D chips" because I reckon Intel's simple economic strength means they could probably purchase 90% of the rare earth materials and say FU, we have it.
Remember, Intel makes much more PROFIT in 1 quarter than AMD/ATi make in REVENUE for a whole year. And that inlcudes AMD's graphics card division.
BUT! IN THIS SCENARIO, AMD HAS JUST RELEASED A SUPER FAST CHIP.
I voted "R&D chips" because I reckon Intel's simple economic strength means they could probably purchase 90% of the rare earth materials and say FU, we have it.
Remember, Intel makes much more PROFIT in 1 quarter than AMD/ATi make in REVENUE for a whole year. And that inlcudes AMD's graphics card division.
BUT! IN THIS SCENARIO, AMD HAS JUST RELEASED A SUPER FAST CHIP.
Last edited:
claptonman
New Member
If they did somehow get an awesome CPU that would wipe the floor with intel, performance and price-wise, enthusiats would be AMD only.
But who has more money for advertising? Who has the largest share in laptops/OEM desktops?
If they did release it, the average non-computer-builder would still prefer intel from the sheer amount of advertising. I see a ton of intel ads on TV, but not one AMD ad. And even if they had money for advertising, people would still know intel better than AMD, regardless if AMD would be better. Its very hard to change the opinion of many. If you ask a stranger on the street what intel is, chances are they will say something to do with computers, while, most likely, they would not know what AMD is.
Sources? Uhhh...
1. The number of intel laptops/OEM desktops compared to AMD on newegg or any electronics store.
2. Me watching a ton of TV.
But who has more money for advertising? Who has the largest share in laptops/OEM desktops?
If they did release it, the average non-computer-builder would still prefer intel from the sheer amount of advertising. I see a ton of intel ads on TV, but not one AMD ad. And even if they had money for advertising, people would still know intel better than AMD, regardless if AMD would be better. Its very hard to change the opinion of many. If you ask a stranger on the street what intel is, chances are they will say something to do with computers, while, most likely, they would not know what AMD is.
Sources? Uhhh...
1. The number of intel laptops/OEM desktops compared to AMD on newegg or any electronics store.
2. Me watching a ton of TV.
I think it largely depends on how long AMD has been awesome. The argument that even if AMD was awesome, Intel would still come out ahead due to their huge profits advantage could very well be different.
Let's say AMD never lost its crown after the Athlon 64 era. Its processors have been consistently cheaper and better than Intel's processsors up until today. (or at least better after Intel was forced to eventually reduce prices) With AMD only on top during the Athlon 64 heyday, there wasn't enough time for AMD to gain a lot of ground on Intel's head-start (as a name, supplier to OEMs, money, etc). Athlon 64 certainly helped them, but Intel's name and connections were easily enough to carry them through that period unscathed.
Now if AMD had simply continued its reign since then, after another few years the status quo would have changed, possibly even flip-flopped. AMD would have slowly snowballed into being a true powerhouse, and who knows what would have happened. With this scenario, Intel's incredible profit lead over AMD would no longer be valid, as it would be an unknown. AMD could be the clear #1 processor company in the world, taking the spot that Intel used to hold years ago. AMD and Intel could be incredibly competitive and running consistently neck-and-neck. Or AMD could be much better off than they are now, but due to superior PR (as a whole) by Intel, or PR blunders (or lack of effort in this area) by AMD...Intel might still have a healthy overall advantage over AMD.
So yeah. I think the time that AMD has been awesome would be a huge factor. If they were awesome since Athlon 64, things would almost certainly be much different, possibly even in their favor. If they've only been awesome for the last few years...they would obviously be better off, but it would in my opinion merely be a repeat of the Athlon 64 days. Intel would still be the big bad giant it is today.
Let's say AMD never lost its crown after the Athlon 64 era. Its processors have been consistently cheaper and better than Intel's processsors up until today. (or at least better after Intel was forced to eventually reduce prices) With AMD only on top during the Athlon 64 heyday, there wasn't enough time for AMD to gain a lot of ground on Intel's head-start (as a name, supplier to OEMs, money, etc). Athlon 64 certainly helped them, but Intel's name and connections were easily enough to carry them through that period unscathed.
Now if AMD had simply continued its reign since then, after another few years the status quo would have changed, possibly even flip-flopped. AMD would have slowly snowballed into being a true powerhouse, and who knows what would have happened. With this scenario, Intel's incredible profit lead over AMD would no longer be valid, as it would be an unknown. AMD could be the clear #1 processor company in the world, taking the spot that Intel used to hold years ago. AMD and Intel could be incredibly competitive and running consistently neck-and-neck. Or AMD could be much better off than they are now, but due to superior PR (as a whole) by Intel, or PR blunders (or lack of effort in this area) by AMD...Intel might still have a healthy overall advantage over AMD.
So yeah. I think the time that AMD has been awesome would be a huge factor. If they were awesome since Athlon 64, things would almost certainly be much different, possibly even in their favor. If they've only been awesome for the last few years...they would obviously be better off, but it would in my opinion merely be a repeat of the Athlon 64 days. Intel would still be the big bad giant it is today.
Last edited:
tech savvy
Active Member
AMD vs Intel, reminds me of something like; Beta vs VHS, or AC vs DC. Outcome? One winner, the superior.
Last edited:
I disagree with this. AMD and Intel are merely two companies that produce the same product, not different products with differing overall technology. They've been battling it out for years, and regardless of the fact that Intel is (and has been) currently in the lead, this type of battle has really nothing to do with one supplanting the other and winning out.
For example, instead of Beta vs VCR, it would be Company 1 that makes VCRs vs Company 2 that makes VCRs. One is going to be in the lead at any given time, but its not like one is going to go obsolete. Even if one company went bankrupt and ceased to exist, it would be completely different than being supplanted in the way you describe.
Apples and oranges.
linkin
VIP Member
I think the problem is that AMD didn't start from scratch with a new architecture until too late. Bulldozer was less-than-impressive, and Intel continues to compete with themselves.
I think the focus will eventually shift from x86 to something else, for desktop. Might put them both on equal footing again.
I think the focus will eventually shift from x86 to something else, for desktop. Might put them both on equal footing again.
I voted for "counter-measure war". If AMD were to come out with some $1000 CPU tomorrow that wiped the floor over the 3960X, then Intel would just try to make something faster, and then AMD would take over again, and then Intel again and it would go on and on, and it would be like the whole "AMD vs NVIDIA game". Already this year AMD's 7970 has been beaten by NVIDIA's GTX 680, and sure enough next year I bet AMD's 8970 (should they make such a card) will hold the speed crown for a while, until the GTX 780 comes along. The same would happen for the CPU market as well. Intel's next generation Extreme CPU, let's call it the Core i7 4990X, would be fastest for say 3 months - and let's say the 4990X were to be a true octa-core CPU, then AMD would come in with some FX-2 8000 CPU, another true octa-core, and it would be fastest for 5 months, then Intel would come out with some crazy i9 12-core CPU that overclocks like crazy and would own the speed crown for 5 months and so on and so on. That would happen if AMD were "awesome". Technology would progress much faster I think we'd find.
Interesting question by the way.
Interesting question by the way.
Last edited:
TrainTrackHack
VIP Member
Questien is somewhat vague.
I would say, if AMD were awesome then they could potentially have the same economic strength as Intel and put up a fair fight.
But I don't know wha "awesome" means. Awesome as in making better/equally good products compared te Intel, awesome as in having large market share, awesome as in suddenly releasing a massively powerful chip that trounces everything intel has but still being in a piss poor financial situation (at least for the time being)...
I would say, if AMD were awesome then they could potentially have the same economic strength as Intel and put up a fair fight.
But I don't know wha "awesome" means. Awesome as in making better/equally good products compared te Intel, awesome as in having large market share, awesome as in suddenly releasing a massively powerful chip that trounces everything intel has but still being in a piss poor financial situation (at least for the time being)...
Aastii
VIP Member
I don't know about equal and I don't know about it being Intel or AMD that has it, or even ARM or IBM or any of the other big manufacturers and R&D companies.
All it takes is one innovation, a prototype, a few months/couple of years of development, throw it to market and if it really is innovative and an improvement over x86 and ARM as we have now, it will speak for itself, grow for itself and grow support for itself and unless Intel/AMd pay for this technology, they essentially have free market, unless either of the current two big companies have something up their sleeves.
tech savvy
Active Member
That makes no sense.
AMD vs Intel is like VHS vs Beta, or AC vs DC. The Company produce the samething(electric/videocassettes), but in a differnent way. Same with AMD vs Intel, they make essentially the same product(CPU's) but in a different way.
Edit: One will be the victor, but which one?
Sorry for being off topic.
Last edited:
I agree. AMD would have remained on top if they had come out with Bulldozer after Athlon 64, competing with the Core 2 series. Instead, they simply tweaked the current architecture as they went along until finally releasing Bulldozer. The Phenom 2 and APU lines are basically Athlon 64 chips on steroids, due to the same underlying architecture.
If AMD had simply released Bulldozer a couple years earlier, when they weren't in nearly the hole they were at the time, things would probably be very different today. Even if Bulldozer hadn't taken the performance crown (or even came very close), two years ago, that would have given them some time to improve upon their new architecture while they weren't quite so behind, and help them close the gap some. Fast forward to now and Bulldozer has had time to mature and be improved greatly.
It's all maybe and might and if, but yeah...AMD came out with Bulldozer too late. Way too late.
Guess we'll agree to disagree.
tech savvy
Active Member
That would be nice, but I dont see it happing.We can hope for the best though.
Aastii
VIP Member
Because Intel developed x86 and that has been the standard platform ever since. That foundation has been laid out, what was done with it since with the different generations and families of chips from Intel, AMD and all of the more minor chip developers, that was the paths chosen by their respective developers.
Intel hasn't set the architecture for the mobile market though and is really losing out massively on smart phones and tablets to the ARM based processors and with that market growing faster than any other at the moment, if Intel don't change quickly they won't have anything left to give for the likes of you and me, they will only provide to servers that are running your phones and tablets