«

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...m-slowed-again

At this rate I wonder if it will be around for long....

Its new server cpus were a dis-appointment, now they follow that with
poor desktop CPUs...

They bought ATI which is beginning to look very second rate one has to
wonder why...

regards

Thing

Somewhere on the interweb "thingy" typed:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...m-slowed-again
>
> At this rate I wonder if it will be around for long....
>
> Its new server cpus were a dis-appointment, now they follow that with
> poor desktop CPUs...
>
> They bought ATI which is beginning to look very second rate one has to
> wonder why...

I rejoiced when Intel dropped the space-heater P4s and embraced the old
Tualatin architecture again and developed it into these Core CPUs, via
Pentium M. (After they'd dropped the Tuis I went AMD for years.) Now I'm
thinking maybe rejoicing isn't a good thing... These Core CPUs are so good
that they could be ringing the death-knell for AMD. Especially with Intel
starting to ship their 45nm CPUs around now (albeit in small numbers and at
high prices).

If AMD go under we'll be back to the old situation of Intel having a virtual
monopoly on the CPU market and prices will likely triple overnight. Remember
when a Pentium 100 cost close to a grand? Now, you can get a 64-bit capable
Celeron 440 (Conroe, basically Core Solo) that runs at 2GHz that'll beat the
pants off any previous generation single-core processor for under $100.
Overclock it (easilly done) and it'll romp over anything single-core at it's
reduced multiplier, power-saving setting. More than adequate for any home PC
except for a gaming rig.

I worry about AMD. I hope they get it together.

Cheers,
--
TTFN

Shaun.

~misfit~ wrote:
> Somewhere on the interweb "thingy" typed:
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...m-slowed-again
>>
>> At this rate I wonder if it will be around for long....
>>
>> Its new server cpus were a dis-appointment, now they follow that with
>> poor desktop CPUs...
>>
>> They bought ATI which is beginning to look very second rate one has to
>> wonder why...
>
> I rejoiced when Intel dropped the space-heater P4s and embraced the old
> Tualatin architecture again and developed it into these Core CPUs, via
> Pentium M. (After they'd dropped the Tuis I went AMD for years.) Now I'm
> thinking maybe rejoicing isn't a good thing... These Core CPUs are so good
> that they could be ringing the death-knell for AMD. Especially with Intel
> starting to ship their 45nm CPUs around now (albeit in small numbers and at
> high prices).
>
> If AMD go under we'll be back to the old situation of Intel having a virtual
> monopoly on the CPU market and prices will likely triple overnight. Remember
> when a Pentium 100 cost close to a grand? Now, you can get a 64-bit capable
> Celeron 440 (Conroe, basically Core Solo) that runs at 2GHz that'll beat the
> pants off any previous generation single-core processor for under $100.
> Overclock it (easilly done) and it'll romp over anything single-core at it's
> reduced multiplier, power-saving setting. More than adequate for any home PC
> except for a gaming rig.
>
> I worry about AMD. I hope they get it together.
>
> Cheers,

me too....ditto ATI....I was very sad when Matrox left the 3d games market

regards

thingy wrote:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...m-slowed-again
>
> At this rate I wonder if it will be around for long....

It would be a real blow if they went under. Last thing we want is a
complete monopoly on cpu's though unless they do something it could be
heading that way, the only way they can remain compeditive now is by
pricing but they still have to make a profit somehow and have enough
money to fund research etc...


>
> Its new server cpus were a dis-appointment, now they follow that with
> poor desktop CPUs...
>
> They bought ATI which is beginning to look very second rate one has to
> wonder why...

ATI were always second rate when compared to Nvidia, they should have
splashed out and gone for Nvidia.

>
> regards
>
> Thing

~misfit~ wrote:
> Somewhere on the interweb "thingy" typed:
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...m-slowed-again
>>
>> At this rate I wonder if it will be around for long....
>>
>> Its new server cpus were a dis-appointment, now they follow that with
>> poor desktop CPUs...
>>
>> They bought ATI which is beginning to look very second rate one has to
>> wonder why...
>
> I rejoiced when Intel dropped the space-heater P4s and embraced the old
> Tualatin architecture again and developed it into these Core CPUs, via
> Pentium M. (After they'd dropped the Tuis I went AMD for years.) Now I'm
> thinking maybe rejoicing isn't a good thing... These Core CPUs are so good
> that they could be ringing the death-knell for AMD. Especially with Intel
> starting to ship their 45nm CPUs around now (albeit in small numbers and at
> high prices).
>
> If AMD go under we'll be back to the old situation of Intel having a virtual
> monopoly on the CPU market and prices will likely triple overnight. Remember
> when a Pentium 100 cost close to a grand? Now, you can get a 64-bit capable
> Celeron 440 (Conroe, basically Core Solo) that runs at 2GHz that'll beat the
> pants off any previous generation single-core processor for under $100.
> Overclock it (easilly done) and it'll romp over anything single-core at it's
> reduced multiplier, power-saving setting. More than adequate for any home PC
> except for a gaming rig.
>
> I worry about AMD. I hope they get it together.
>
> Cheers,

The latest CPU out will always be $1K plus... in five-eight years
you'll be saying "remember when a quad core 2.3Ghz cpu cost close to a
grand"
as you compare it to the then-current crop off (8+?)core CPUs.

And I like my space heater P4.. the exhaust fans on my case keep my toes
nice and warm in winter

In message <472e6d23$>, Puddle wrote:

> ATI were always second rate when compared to Nvidia, they should have
> splashed out and gone for Nvidia.

Then if AMD were to go under, they would be pulling Nvidia with them,
leaving us with ATI...

Puddle wrote:
> thingy wrote:
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...m-slowed-again
>>
>>
>> At this rate I wonder if it will be around for long....
>
> It would be a real blow if they went under. Last thing we want is a
> complete monopoly on cpu's though unless they do something it could be
> heading that way, the only way they can remain compeditive now is by
> pricing but they still have to make a profit somehow and have enough
> money to fund research etc...

8><----

Agree....

I think AMD's saving grace was Intel lost the plot on two counts, the
netburst fiasco and the belief that they (Intel) could dictate the speed
products were delivered to market...ie why sell a new faster chip when
we can keep the older one in production and milk the maximum return from
it screwing customers in the process...then intro the "new" cpu when its
suits us, forcing a complete and expensive upgrade....this I think gave
AMD a lot of breathing space and allowed AMD to leapfrog the netburst
rubbish...

These days though I think Intel have "got it" they have the R&D and
production to outpace AMD and at the rate they are doing it they are
going to be 2~3 generations better in very few years, at which point
AMD's CPUs will be effectively worthless....bye bye AMD....

Then we as customers could well suffer huge price increases and slower
updates....Intel will get lazy.....

Though in terms of generational updates I wonder how much better the
newer CPUs are going to be, ie 4Ghz or at most 5Ghz is probably going to
be the effective upper limit of CPU speed.......so it is going to be
multiple cores, something like 80 of them....software has a lot of
catching up to do....games cant even do 4 cores properly yet 8 core CPUs
are a year away.

regards

thing

Squiggle wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Somewhere on the interweb "thingy" typed:
>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...m-slowed-again
>>>
>>>
>>> At this rate I wonder if it will be around for long....
>>>
>>> Its new server cpus were a dis-appointment, now they follow that with
>>> poor desktop CPUs...
>>>
>>> They bought ATI which is beginning to look very second rate one has to
>>> wonder why...
>>
>> I rejoiced when Intel dropped the space-heater P4s and embraced the
>> old Tualatin architecture again and developed it into these Core CPUs,
>> via Pentium M. (After they'd dropped the Tuis I went AMD for years.)
>> Now I'm thinking maybe rejoicing isn't a good thing... These Core CPUs
>> are so good that they could be ringing the death-knell for AMD.
>> Especially with Intel starting to ship their 45nm CPUs around now
>> (albeit in small numbers and at high prices).
>>
>> If AMD go under we'll be back to the old situation of Intel having a
>> virtual monopoly on the CPU market and prices will likely triple
>> overnight. Remember when a Pentium 100 cost close to a grand? Now, you
>> can get a 64-bit capable Celeron 440 (Conroe, basically Core Solo)
>> that runs at 2GHz that'll beat the pants off any previous generation
>> single-core processor for under $100. Overclock it (easilly done) and
>> it'll romp over anything single-core at it's reduced multiplier,
>> power-saving setting. More than adequate for any home PC except for a
>> gaming rig.
>>
>> I worry about AMD. I hope they get it together.
>>
>> Cheers,
>
> The latest CPU out will always be $1K plus... in five-eight years
> you'll be saying "remember when a quad core 2.3Ghz cpu cost close to a
> grand"
> as you compare it to the then-current crop off (8+?)core CPUs.
>
> And I like my space heater P4.. the exhaust fans on my case keep my toes
> nice and warm in winter

When I got my first p3-1000 it was somewhere over 1K.....I had a dual
board and got the second CPU just as they stopped selling them at the
bargin price of $450....gee those were the days....no kids....

Just think what that end of line $450 will get you today, a quad core
2.4Ghz CPU....which is towards the top of the mainstream CPU charts....

regards

Thing

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <472e6d23$>, Puddle wrote:
>
>> ATI were always second rate when compared to Nvidia, they should have
>> splashed out and gone for Nvidia.
>
> Then if AMD were to go under, they would be pulling Nvidia with them,
> leaving us with ATI...

What? Does not compute.

thingy wrote:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...m-slowed-again
>
> At this rate I wonder if it will be around for long....
>
> Its new server cpus were a dis-appointment, now they follow that with
> poor desktop CPUs...
>
> They bought ATI which is beginning to look very second rate one has to
> wonder why...
>
> regards
>
> Thing

Their dual core XP cpu's were good (I've got a 3800xp dual core) until
Intel released the Core 2 Duo arse kickers. Maybe it's not so much a
matter of AMD failing, but Intel succeeding. Their Core 2 cpu's are top
notch really, at a great price too.