AMD-Intel Parity

[Brooke Crothers]

x86watch (http://www.x86watch.com/) survey: AMD-Intel
Parity...Question: Has AMD achieved real parity with Intel? Or
exceeded parity in some segments?

Background: One general interpretation is that AMD now has the
manufacturing and marketing skills to compete equally with Intel in
all market segments at all large computer makers-i.e., the notebook,
desktop, and server segments at HP, IBM, Dell, and high-end computer
makers like Sun Microsystems (servers). Admittedly this is an open-
ended question and parity can be interpreted in many ways.
Nevertheless, I am looking for rational (and unemotional) responses
(very brief is fine) that I can later post on x86watch. Email:
(e-mail address removed)

 

[JAD]

I never found AMD to be equal to intel in any way, however much of the problem has to do
with 'chipsets' available to AMD and not the CPU directly.

 

[jim_bob]

x86watch (http://www.x86watch.com/) survey: AMD-Intel
Parity...Question: Has AMD achieved real parity with Intel? Or
exceeded parity in some segments?

Background: One general interpretation is that AMD now has the
manufacturing and marketing skills to compete equally with Intel in
all market segments at all large computer makers-i.e., the notebook,
desktop, and server segments at HP, IBM, Dell, and high-end computer
makers like Sun Microsystems (servers). Admittedly this is an open-
ended question and parity can be interpreted in many ways.
Nevertheless, I am looking for rational (and unemotional) responses
(very brief is fine) that I can later post on x86watch. Email:
(e-mail address removed)

I think Intel still has those five billion Pentium IV chips they're
digging a hole in the desert for. That's a plus right ?

 

[Paul]

x86watch (http://www.x86watch.com/) survey: AMD-Intel
Parity...Question: Has AMD achieved real parity with Intel? Or
exceeded parity in some segments?

Background: One general interpretation is that AMD now has the
manufacturing and marketing skills to compete equally with Intel in
all market segments at all large computer makers-i.e., the notebook,
desktop, and server segments at HP, IBM, Dell, and high-end computer
makers like Sun Microsystems (servers). Admittedly this is an open-
ended question and parity can be interpreted in many ways.
Nevertheless, I am looking for rational (and unemotional) responses
(very brief is fine) that I can later post on x86watch. Email:
(e-mail address removed)

February is a slow news month, no question.

Paul

 

[Brooke Crothers]

February is a slow news month, no question.

Paul

Well, AMD now seems to have chips comparable to Intel in all
segments. But then that's just my impression...I may be wrong...Thus
the question...wondering what the user consensus is.....

 

[Paul]

Well, AMD now seems to have chips comparable to Intel in all
segments. But then that's just my impression...I may be wrong...Thus
the question...wondering what the user consensus is.....

Intel has ten times the R&D staff of AMD.

This is not a balanced fight.

Intel is one step ahead of AMD in the fabs.
Intel has a ton of fabs. AMD has to buy
capacity from Charter.

It is definitely a David versus Goliath contest.
And if David loses even one foot-race, he loses
big time.

Intel wouldn't be where they are today, if it
wasn't for some work in Israel. Intel probably
throws away more ideas and intellectual capital
than AMD uses. The only way Intel can lose, is
if they fall asleep again, like the last time.
And probably, in some Intel executives compensation
package, one of the clauses says "don't fall
asleep again"

The problem in big companies, is staying focused on
what is important. And not becoming arrogant. And
that second factor will remain with Intel, the
"blinded by arrogance" factor. Having worked in
a large company, where the arrogance factor was
present, then seen the company kicked in the nuts
for its arrogance, I know what that looks like.

Paul

 

[Brooke Crothers]

This is not a balanced fight.

Intel wouldn't be where they are today, if it
wasn't for some work in Israel.
The only way Intel can lose, is
if they fall asleep again

I agree with these statements. The work done in Israel is practically
legendary now. Having said that, I think Intel took its eye off the
ball (as you pointed out) and AMD didn't. AMD brought out some
processors that were price-performance better than Intel's. But Intel
seems to be back. AMD is now overextending itself (e.g., ATI
purchase, aggressive facility plans despite high debt load) in its
quest to compete with Intel in every single market segment.

Brooke

 

[not_otto]

I agree with these statements. The work done in Israel is practically
legendary now. Having said that, I think Intel took its eye off the
ball (as you pointed out) and AMD didn't. AMD brought out some
processors that were price-performance better than Intel's. But Intel
seems to be back. AMD is now overextending itself (e.g., ATI
purchase, aggressive facility plans despite high debt load) in its
quest to compete with Intel in every single market segment.

Brooke

I'd say Intel's problems are corporate corruption and greed.

I don't mean this in a bad way, but it's just the nature of the
beast that when you get that big a company, they're more interested
in the cheap buck than a practical CPU. eg Rambus, P4, etc, etc.

Even now, the Core2duo architecture isn't all that great for where
they should have been. I'ts mostly a good die shrink and
controlling the metrics. Too bad about all the spyware too.