Why release things if it doesn't compete? Seriously just spend an extra couple months on the processor and try to get it on par with the competition THAT IS RAPING ALL OF YOUR PROCESSORS?

Oh how I wish for AMD to be competitive again...It's almost time to upgrade and I really don't feel like dropping the coin on an Intel build.

Am I the only one who remembers when AMD ruled? I miss those days.

if they could compete at least in price...
lets see how much it will cost here in this jungle.

I remember when you could always count on AMD processors to be faster than their Intel counterparts, especially the budget-priced chips. WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?!?

AMD 'ruled' only because Intel committed a major roadmap blunder back then. But AMD can't count on Intel stumbling from one major blunder to another. No, only Motorola is that (un)reliable. Things are back to normal now and Intel is back to eating AMD's lunch again.

I really hope AMD can bring their A game soon. If MS keeps making crappy bloatware like Vista we're going to need faster processors now more than ever.

@boe:

T_T . That didn't take long.

@tundraboy: Yep. AMD had their chance when Intel was mired in NetBurst/Pentium 4. Now though with the Core 2 architecture and pretty soon the Core 3 architecture, AMD is really falling behind.

I wonder how much of this has to do with the price wars that AMD and Intel had last year. Intel could suck up the costs a lot easier than AMD could.

I agree. I used to have an AMD Athlon 4200, but then I upgraded to an Intel e6850, and I couldnt be any happier. I know these aren't quad core chips, but I've noticed that AMD has been kicked around a lot lately, and yes, I remember the good old days when AMD ruled! Both have their ups and downs, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see if AMD can offer better solutions for those who still support them in the near future.

I,m kinda stuck at the minute.... my PC is old ..AMD athlon 64.. FX55...and I wonder do I NEED a quad core processor ?.. This thing keeps crunching the data just about fast enough

Not surprised at all.

@vividaurora: well you have a choice - either do the smart thing and buy Intel, or waste your money on an AMD processor.
In the long run, too much brand loyalty does a company no good as it means they never have the same motivation to match or beat the competition as they would if all their customers deserted them. So do everyone a favour (you, AMD, Intel) and buy a Core2 processor.

@vividaurora: Why not, you get a faster computer for your money?

@fastmike: I recently replaced a FX53 with a dual-core E8400 (and a new Gigabyte P35 MB) and it was a tremendous speed boost overall. The customer spent about $400 total for the new CPU/MB/Memory (2GB), and he reported that Crysis would finally run at High settings, and the computer felt much faster running apps.

If your FX55 is in a Socket 939, you're not going to find a dual-core upgrade better than the Opteron 180. It's about $140, and may be just the thing for a quick upgrade. The Opteron 165 is $100 and a little slower.

Beats a complete mainboard swap any day, but gets you a little less performance than the Intel chips.

Check your motherboard specs and make sure it will take the CPU and that you don't need a BIOS update.

@boe: yeah if it sucks so bad taddle off and use loonix

The AMD isn't that much slower but it's noticeable. Pricewise in the UK it's about £170 with the Q6600 coming in about £155 and the Q9300 about £170.

At the moment I'd still get the G0 version of the Q6600 and overclock it because it's pretty easy to get it to run stable at 2.8-3.2 GHz depending on your particular chip and cooling system.

@Step666:
Waste your money on an AMD processor? Brand loyalty does a company no good and gives them no motivation?

I wouldn't consider spending money on an AMD chip to be a waste, even if it's not as fast or faster than Intel right now. That's like saying don't waste your money on a Ford when you could buy a Chevy. Even if the Chevy irks out a bit more power, speed, etc., there will still be people that prefer Ford. I don't, mind you, but some people do.

Now, your point that brand loyalty does a company no good? Hello.... repeat sales? If the company fails to innovate and keep pace, the customer will leave. There's your motivation. The problem is that Intel still has a significant market share and can therefore have more money to work with and develop new stuff than AMD does. AMD took a lot of market share from Intel back in the "good 'ol days" and now they may be losing a bit but I still think they're an awesome company and I'll stay true to AMD until they do something completely stupid or Intel makes some tech moves so advanced at a good price that it seems dumb to stay.

@fsusmithc2: so something even more stupid than the Phenom debacle then?

'If the company fails to innovate and keep pace, the customer will leave.'
Exactly, that's what I'm saying - AMD have failed to innovate and keep pace, so that's precisely the position we should be in just now except that there are weird people out there that seem determined to buy AMD even if it means paying more for less.

So no, I don't think that fanatical, misguided loyalty does do a company any good - it's going to allow AMD to limp along, rather than forcing them to produce something halfway decent which can directly compete with Intel.
You say yourself that if a company can't compete, it'll lose it's customers, which is part of a natural cycle which results in it having to shake things up and pull it's finger out. But if it doesn't lose them when it can't compete, where's the impetus going to come from that forces it into that next stage?

In the long run, if AMD isn't forced to compete with Intel, they'll just stagnate and that's no good for anyone.

@daftrok: it's cheaper for a relatively similar ship. I'd personally go for the intel chips, but it's showing that AMD's not just going to give up the fight just yet.
@Step666: AMD had innovated for years, it's just that... now, they're taking a beating because they're losing what they had that was good. if AMD/ATi steps it up, they could easily out power intel/nVidia, but that's something that's not going to happen. intel's taken a lead because they're actually pushing technology and experimenting with both garbage and quality goods. nVidia is the same. ATi has made a push for a few things, but it's still far from what it could be producing. AMD, though, disappoints me. they were damned good back in its day, and now they're the bottom of the ladder. if AMD gets off their asses and produces something that's good, then i'll go back, gladly.

This means nothing with out a price connected.

@deathscent: I know they innovated in the past but we're in the present and the market doesn't just stop because AMD have.

I have to disagree with the comment about how AMD and ATi could out-power Intel and nVidia if they wanted to.
Right now they're on the rack, I don't think they could best the what the competition is releasing at the top of the market but, in AMD's case, they could at least try and make a push for mid-range.

while the cpus arent looking like they are 'better', they are likely going to be cheaper in the near future. theres nothing wrong with saving x% of the price for x drop in performance, as long as the drop, and price difference are fairly balanced.

another thing to consider is that gpus are starting to look like they could be more important to us in the future for things other than gaming. amd now owns ati, who are experts in that field. if gpus do take off and become more important, they will potentially be better positioned than intel to take advantage.

(this coming from a guy who has used intel/nvidia for the last 5 years)

The sad thing is that AMD's best quad core cpu gets owned by Intel's cheapest quad core cpu. Get your act together AMD and get those 45nm's out!

Intel isn't just far beyond AMD, they are far beyond the rest of the semiconductor industry.

@undeadmachine: I doubt that AMD's advantage over Intel will be that great when it comes to CPU/GPU integration - after all, they're still distinct components which will be purchased separately by a lot of customers.
If, say, for a CPU and GPU to be able to interact with one another, you had to buy a system with everything pre-intergrated (ie the graphics cards hard-wired into the motherbvoard as opposed to being removable), then there would be more of an advantage but that would be unlikely to be particularly popular, so I think things are far more likely to be very similar to the way they are just now.

A lot of it will come down to the motherboard and the software/OS, and Intel also make motherboards and neither Intel nor AMD are all that big on the software side of things.

Also, nVidia have an advantage in some ways as they produce their own motherboiards and have bought Ageia - they're possibly best placed to take the next step.

@Step666:
I wouldn't underestimate the CPU/GPU integration market. Man consumers don't care about top notch performance and just want the best bang for their buck.

@Step666: all good points. the main reason for my speculation was to show that amd still has a reason to fight/exist, even though they are pretty much getting destroyed right now. intel has virtually nothing in terms of gpu technology, so they would be behind if the race turns towards gpus....i didnt mention nvidia because its likely that they will kill everyone if gpus take off like that =)

Apologies for the lateness of this reply - I was one of the people who was inadvertently ban-hammered...


@do_tell: different people have different needs.

Some people want a cheap computer and performance isn't their number one concern, this is the only group who are liable to be AMD customers at the present time.
Some people (myself included) will want decent performance but still at a good price, most people in this bracket are liable to be Intel customers just now.
And some customers (mostly gamers) will pay whatever it takes to get the best performance they can - they're definitely Intel customers just now.

That's not much of a market-share for AMD...



@undeadmachine: I agree that AMD has every right to exist but I just don't see why anyone would buy their processors just now.
Even in the examples I've listed above, when spending just a bit more can get you a vastly superior performing processor, even budget customers will be looking long and hard at Intel's current range.

I do agree though that as GPUs become a bigger factor, Intel will be squeezed more and more, especially if nVidia continue to hold out when it comes to SLI.
But, if they continue to produce CPUs that kick the arses of what AMD can offer, they'll never be in too much trouble - after all, the sort of people who'll be interested in CPU/GPU interaction are the sort of people who'll want the best CPU in the first place (gamers).

Of course though, this is all merely speculation - we'll have to wait and see what the future holds.

Love the Q6600.

@Step666:
Intel is going after the same market. Intel already has teams designing high performance graphics cores meant for integration rather than discreet chips. So this is a market being sought by both Intel and AMD.

Comment on AMD Quad-Core Phenom X4 9850 Reviewed (Verdict: Owned by Intel Quad Cores) Have to say these are all good points however seeing there are no good quad testing applications and I have both amd and Intel systems I have found two things first the amd cpu is slower but when I put it with my 2 8800 ultras and 4 gig of ocz and aquamark it the results show that under load my 6400 cpu is higher than q6600 at least on the cpu rating so then i tested it under vista and again it was higher although the overall score was very slightly lower the amd cpu was on top strange

@fsusmithc2:

I agree with you.

to say that AMD chips are no worth buying is really stupid. if you are a benchmark freak then sure buy an Intel, but if you want a workhorse, buy AMD. I have a 5600+ Dual core AMD chip with a 8800gt 512mg video card that scores a little over 12,000 on the 3dmark06 test.thats with a single card. We have lan parties every year and quite a few of the guys run c2d chips and many run AMD, but I was not impressed with the performance of some of the c2d systems. playing counterstrike source, running everything on high @ 1680x 1050 There was not one Intel system that turned any higher frame rates that my AMD system. AMD still makes a good cpu and so does Intel but to say that thier chips are basically no good, is crazy step666.