Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Feb 2006 17:08 UTC, submitted by Nehru
AMD "The thing I find most interesting in [the] battle of silicon supremacy is just how unbelievably thick (or perhaps slow) AMD has been lately. For the entire life cycle of the Pentium 4 family, AMD was far ahead. The company made the best processors in terms of performance with cost efficiency in mind. However, it had a nice 1-1.5 years of time span where it could've evolved or innovated enough, but it didn't. Granted that AMD is still leading the desktop and server markets in terms of performance, it's not the point. The point is the lack of evolution and innovation from AMD."
Thread beginning with comment 99717
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I wonder what this is all about
by Ford Prefect on Mon 27th Feb 2006 17:25 UTC
Ford Prefect
Member since:
2006-01-16

Chip design is difficult and we've seen many false announcements and expectations before.

"Lack of evolution and innovation" is just what happened to Intel the last years, which made AMD getting the lead. So if one expects AMD with much less ressources, a difficult competition against Intel as marketleader, and so on, will hold the leading position forever, this is just hilarous.

So it's just AMD did a very, very good job, and perhaps does a good job as well nowadays, but intel just got to do something about it and did. And finally will catch up again, for sure.

Reply Score: 5

Tweek Member since:
2006-01-12

Intel has always been playing catch up...

they havent been better than AMD in, well I cant remember when their chips were better

they cost more, they are slower (price perfomance ratio) and now they run hotter)

they were never a leader (except in sales)

Reply Parent Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Apparently you missed the K6-2, K5, and on down. I remember when Cyrex was better than they were.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

This is not true. In times of the 386, 486 processors Intel had the problem of Noname-competitors like AMD who brought in some "compatible" processors which weren't as performant as the original ones.

This lead Intel to start a branding like "Pentium", as it wasn't only a number so others couldn't call their processors the same.
Others started to bring out "586" processors or AMD the K5. It wasn't as good as the Pentium, floating point lacked a lot in performance compared to the Pentium!

Even the K6 was still behind Intel. One have to say that it also was much cheaper. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1