AMD: We Innovate, Intel Copies

[crainger]

Yeah. DIdn't IBM have a 64 Bit supercomputer operational in the 60s? Don't forget the infamous Cray. Oh and the GIBSON!

Hack the Gibson!

[rhink]

Yeah you can go back decades and find 64 bit mainframes and supercomputers. But the companies I listed had 64 bit discrete microprocessors.... DEC Alpha, 64 bit Power PC, 64 bit Sparc.... all in the 90's, years before the Itanic.

[ViN86]

You're such an ass, chris. You should know that AMD is dominating the competition.

And by competition, I mean Cyrix (Via).
i think im going to become a Cyrix fanboy.

i used to have a 266MHz Cyrix II, so why not start running it again and bragging about it! :D

[AngelGraves13]

I wouldn't be surprised if AMD sold what's left of ATi to Nvidia. Nvidia's competition might soon be Intel.

Maybe then we'd get a decent Control Panel! lol

[ViN86]

I wouldn't be surprised if AMD sold what's left of ATi to Nvidia. Nvidia's competition might soon be Intel.

Maybe then we'd get a decent Control Panel! lol
that'd be cool if nvidia bought AMD too lol.

[CaptNKILL]

that'd be cool if nvidia bought AMD too lol.
Now THAT would be interesting...

Not good though for the graphics card market. Though I doubt it'd be much different than the current situation.

[Treason]

Actually I'd like to see that. nVidia buy AMD's discrete video card division. I want to see a nVidia monopoly for at least a year, just to see if all those alarmists who warn of $1000 video cards are wrong.

[a12ctic]

I doubt we would ever see 1000$ video cards. However, I doubt they would release new cards as rapidly.

[ViN86]

Actually I'd like to see that. nVidia buy AMD's discrete video card division. I want to see a nVidia monopoly for at least a year, just to see if all those alarmists who warn of $1000 video cards are wrong.
it's not prices that worry me. it's the fact that without competition, advancement does not go at a steady pace. what's the point in spending hundreds of millions on a new architecture today when you can wait and release it in a few years. i mean hell, youre the only video card/cpu producer. (nvidia/intel)

[Redeemed]

Actually I'd like to see that. nVidia buy AMD's discrete video card division. I want to see a nVidia monopoly for at least a year, just to see if all those alarmists who warn of $1000 video cards are wrong.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143107

We're already at $700 for one stinkin' air-cooled video card. Back when I first stepped into the "high-end" arena you could have the fastest video card for just over $400. And heck, nVidia doesn't even have a monopoly yet.

Yeah, for the uber-high-end (like the 8800 Ultra) we'd see $1000. For the "lesser" high-end (8800GTS) you'd probably be looking at $600-$800. For the mainstream (8800GT) between $300-$500, and the low end would constitute anything under $300.

Atleast, this is what I predict would happen. But, I'm really not worried cause I do believe Intel *is* going to start R&D for discrete high-end GPUs to directly compete with nVidia (I doubt they are too worried about ATi at the moment). So even if nVidia did buy ATi from AMD, I don't think we'd have to wait too much longer before we saw Intel pumping out their own complete line-up (low-end to high-end) to compete directly with nVidia. Leaving AMD with less debt to slowly lick their wounds till their healed and hopefully come up with an honestly competitive product once again... some time later. ;)

[sharvin]

I doubt we would ever see 1000$ video cards. However, I doubt they would release new cards as rapidly.


in australia that's usually what we pay when the newer top cards come out lol.

[Redeemed]

in australia that's usually what we pay when the newer top cards come out lol.

And even here in the States- the 8800Ultra (air-cooled) never sold for less than $800 upon release. Now you can get them near the $600 range I believe, but most still hover around $700-$800. For too much logically to spend on a single video card. I think $600 for the uber-1337-high-end is reasonable (still out of my price range) but $800+... :headexplode:

[crainger]

in australia that's usually what we pay when the newer top cards come out lol.

Yup. That's how much I paid for my GTX about a week after release. :o

[nekrosoft13]

and i got GTX for 70 bucks, thank you EVGA ;)

[v3rninater]

what if Intel bought Ati and reallllly did something?

[Treason]

what if Intel bought Ati and reallllly did something?

AMD would have to declare bankruptcy and fall apart first before that would happen.

[Tygerwoody]

what if Intel bought Ati and reallllly did something?
Intel has no reason to buy ATI. Intel owns the highest share in the GPU market already. They build low end gpu's and thats what they will stick with forever.

[Viral]

In theory, you are correct. However, real-world performance shows that Intel with its traditional northbridge has an advantage in everything except for memory latency. In this case, latency doesn't matter as there's enough throughput through the northbridge that it overcomes any sort of latency disadvantage.

So who's smarter here? ;)

Intel have the advantage because they have better chips. As has been mentioned, if there was a core 2 for AM2 with an decent on-die memory controller, it would undoubtedly perform better. However, this is much more apparent when you get into the multiple socket arena, using a FSB for such setups is quite a large hinderence. Not only does an on die memory controller allow for each CPU to have its own dedicated link to RAM, but HTT allows for direct communication between CPU's.

I can't see why anyone would argue against AMD having the better platform. However, it just manages to highlight how far their chips are behind when taking this advantage into play.

[Sazar]

DEC, Sun, IBM, and probably others all had 64 bit processors years before Intel, if you want to go out of the x86 space. AMD beat Intel to 64 bit x86, though. Mostly because Intel's management sucked ass at the time and thought they could use their monopoly to push the industry wherever they wanted with the Itanic. If it wasn't for AMD, they would have.

In the context of AMD v/s Intel, I fail to see how other groups come into the discussion :cool:

I agree with the latter comments but the point was to say that it is not like Intel was incapable of producing 64-bit products.

[rhink]

In the context of AMD v/s Intel, I fail to see how other groups come into the discussion :cool:

I agree with the latter comments but the point was to say that it is not like Intel was incapable of producing 64-bit products.

You claimed Intel created the "first true 64 bit product", which isn't the case. Itanic never was a competitor in x86 space, so it's already launching into the realm of a sidebar discussion not directly related to the main topic.

Anyways, I think comments about other companies is at least somewhat relevant in a discussion about AMD/Intel innovation vs copying... because for the most part, Intel or AMD weren't the first to implement many technologies.... just the first to implement them in x86. Shows a bit of the absurdity of the "we innovate, they copy" statement.

[SH0DAN]

in other news, The head of intel has responded by saying "yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad - so there"


Paul S Otellini (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/bios/otellini.htm) has class,manners,and true business acumen,unlike Wrector 'cry baby' Ruinz.

[maximillion]

They innovated with the first dual core and first 64 bit cpu. I don't really know about anything else. Intel doesn't use their 3d now instruction set, while AMD does use Intel's SSE instruction set.

[gstanford]

No, it's not the thread, it's Ruiz's words that are nothing more than flamebait.

Instead of weeping and crying like a baby, he should try and find a way to recover the horrible situation he put AMD in.

He destroyed Motorola's CPU business before Jerry Sanders hired him (worst mistake Jerry ever made) and he's hell bent on a repeat performance at AMD.

The 5 odd billion wasted on ATI would have built a new fab, which would have increased production, market share and revenue to plow back into R&D plus increase profits.