Different price range nawh hw u compare that

This post has been edited by kwlian: Sep 26 2011, 08:34 PM

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/26/leaked-...or-trinity-apu/

Trinity's release date seems really promising! Hopefully they don't delay it for too long

mobile processor? for laptop ah?

i am sick of AMD constantly playing in the "average" field.
i dun mind paying more for top range.

Hopefully the live up to the FX moniker....

It is normal for companies to cherry pick their comparisons to make themselves look better. Nobody wants a chart that shows that your product is inferior to the competition. It is a fallacy to even consider that BD having a much higher default clock would result in it having higher performance than SB. There are many other variables in play that will affect its performance as both of them are not identical in any way as they are made by 2 different person with differing methods. If your statement is true then I can assume that a 1.5L Toyota will have equal performance, top speed and mileage as a 1.5L Proton regardless of price.

It would be a lot better to actually wait for the user reviews to come out to actually decide whether BD does deliver as promised. I'm not saying that BD will annihilate or dominate SB but the numbers will show what is BD strong points and weak points.

When you're the underdog in the industry and you're against a competition that is dominating you have no choice but to be in the average field. AMD is only able to creep up slowly while gaining market share and not be an instant success overnight. Also to consider that AMD is much smaller than Intel therefore R&D budget is also constrained which will definitely affect the duration of making a product and how well a product will be made as there are less manpower to deal with the work. Nobody is forcing you to get AMD, if you have the money for a top range then get Intel. You have the money, you have the freedom of choice then buy what you want.

Average consumer dont really care about clock speed. as long as the price/performace is great. it will sell well.

If u're sick of it go leave a msg on their amd.blog nawh ~
Go buy a dual socket EVGA 1366 mobo and make ur own tip-top cpu ~


I'm the average customer

BD is the long awaited new architecture, & it carries the FX name.
i really wish it would b something more special.

a more knowledgeable user most probably will care about heat, & OC performance.
which meks them more likely to adapt to intel's offering.

a more so called average user who dun care about clock speed, then meaning they r too dumb & probably stick to the false idea of "AMD will over heat, better buy intel".

AMD is so small, Intel's R&D budget is larger than AMD's revenue.

As of Dec 2010:
Intel revenue = $43,623,000
Intel R&D = $6,576,000

AMD revenue = $6,494,000
AMD R&D = $1,405,000

References:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=INTC+Income+Statement&annual
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AMD+Income+Statement&annual

For those who forget, revenue = profit + cost.

AMD vs Intel is like you fighting a man seven times your height.

This post has been edited by everling: Sep 27 2011, 03:29 PM

That is a big negative .

The "average consumers" are usually people who do not know a lot about computer hardware and would rather buy and use, also known as "plug & play" in a figurative way . Most of these type of consumers would priotize processors with a high clock speed because theoretically the bigger the GHz, the better the performance. What they don't know is that there are other factors which affect the performance of a processor, which would not allow them to get the best of the best for their budget. Other than priotizing high-clock speed processors, they would also go for a processor with a bigger core count if possible .

Good point, but then the "avarage customers" won't even consider AMD, they trust brand more than anything else (price/performance). We have to admit that Intel really did a good job on marketing.

So called Brand conscious , Intel dumped alot of $$$ on advertising even using the famous SNSD as ambassador as well as the mentality of the people here in MY ... I wouldn't amazed that average user didnt even heard of the AMD brand at all lolssss ...

---

Added on September 27, 2011, 10:52 pmNot to mentioned so called enthusiast Smart@ss bought an i7 normal edition using water cooling and saying chassis fan is important to keep the CPU cool despite surrounding temperature and humidity LOL ...


Ratio
Intel 1 : 6.6
AMD 1 : 4.6

LOL @.@

This post has been edited by kwlian: Sep 27 2011, 10:52 PM

saw the paper today that AMD FX won in overclocking record
won by 0.304? if not mistaken

Personally, I don't buy this crap.
Simply because I think each company should produce something to beat competitor's. To produce something to outpace competitors.
I don't think this is too much to ask for.
Just look at the competition of ATI vs nVidia over the years.

On one hand, they tell "average user" doesn't need that kind of performance.
On other hand, they tell "average user" needs more cores.

Bullcrap. Hypocrites.

I'd say just let the performance of the product speak for itself.
We say "yay" if the product is good.
We say "boo" if the product is inferior.
Show us the performance. Show us the price. People will judge for themselves.

This post has been edited by ALeUNe: Sep 27 2011, 11:43 PM

The big difference between AMD and Intel vs AMD and Nvidia, is that AMD and Nvidia are using the same manufacturers, TSMC and GloFo, for their chips. AMD and Nvidia differentiates on when they jump to the next process shrink and on architecture, and this is how competition between the two is possible.

AMD and Intel however, competes not only on architecture differences, they also compete on different process shrinks. Intel is at about one generation ahead, working with 22nm on Ivy Bridge, when AMD is only going to start with 32nm with Bulldozer. This difference enables Intel to deliver up to TWICE the performance for the same power consumption—or deliver the same performance for half the power consumption. Process shrinks are nothing to sneeze at. And Intel is committing heavily on process shrinks to reduce their power consumption so that x86 chips can compete with ARM chips.

However, AMD (or rather GloFo) can hardly afford to pay for all those process shrinks, as they cost billions of USD just to build a single fab. Last year, their profit was only USD0.5 billion at best. Intel's was USD11 billion, which they can blow on building two fabs.

Furthermore, even if AMD can consistently produce the better chip, the market will still be buying Intel anyway because AMD will not be able to meet market demands because AMD doesn't have the manufacturing capacity.

As long as Intel commands that price premium, market volume and doesn't make more blunders (like Pentium 4), AMD will eventually find itself obsolete. Fortunately for AMD, the end may be near for process shrinks. Unfortunately for AMD (or rather GloFo), each process shrink will get more and more expensive and time consuming. It may cost $10 billion to build a single 11nm fab, if it hasn't reached that price already for 32nm or 22nm.

And all this even before we talk about R&D expenditure! You may choose not to buy it, but it is not crap.

If you want another analogy, it is like playing Terran with a single base vs another Terran with seven bases on a planet sized map in StarCraft 2. Do you think you can overcome the other Terran's economic advantage if the other side doesn't make a blunder?

steve jobs did it
he is plying terran single base vs microsoft seven base during the past
but now?
look how apple turn tide of battle against microsoft during 2000s
all amd need is a smart CEO

The vast majority of Apple's growth is due to its mobile products like iPod and iPhones. Microsoft has failed at both. If you force Apple to compete with Microsoft only on the OS, Apple would lose.

Average user? they just buy OEM Desktop/Laptop like DELL HP ACER LENOVO etc.(pre-assembled no headacre ) which Intel platform dominate that part lolz

The former AMD CEO(Dirk Meyer) was a smart one, but he left AMD but at least with a life line which is graphic department and Bobcat cores.

everling has made a good point but I will make a brief statement.

If I give you RM50 to make me a sandwich, it would almost definitely taste good wouldn't it. Now I give you RM10 and I want you to give me the same quality and taste equivalent to the RM50 sandwich made earlier. Can you do it within the stated budget and get the same quality?

You're looking at Steve Jobs who before the 90s was pioneering in the things they make. Apple has not changed since the first day till now. Also Steve Jobs is legendary and a one in a million CEO therefore not possible to think that AMD will have similar luck. Rory Reed apparently has done a good job with Lenovo so I would like to see whether he could do the same with AMD.

Apple is also in the business of selling devices, not semiconductor parts therefore they wouldn't have to rely on their current technology like AMD and Intel does. If Apple wants to sell a product, just rebrand it like the A4 and A5 chips.

Dirk Meyer is not as good as you think. He had no foresight for the mobile space which is where most consumers would spend their money on now. Another would be Rick Bergman who recently left which I think is more likely fired. No matter how good he has been with AMD in the past, clearly he is not making the situation any better at the present moment.