Isn’t a bit odd that most AMD fan boys and employees deny the facts – AMD doesn’t have good enough processor to compete at that market, neither in terms of power savings (go beat P7450 if you can, and any 1.15V Penryn too), nor performance wise.

We are still wondering how did AMD managed to release the 45 nm Caspian with 35W TDP?

We do not think that the “battery life”war is good for business. People don’t care so much about it, and that comes from a reseller’s view, which you never bothered to ask for.

AMD should concentrate on videocards, so many good ones an all they suffer from bad driver support and even BIOS bugs (HD4570 DDR3).

And why is that battle anyway? The trend shows people are buying more and more systems with discrete graphics, and Intel is still lagging and doesn’t have even decent integrated solution. But the flame war goers on and on…

I just want a satisfacting reason; why apple didn’t go for AMD,,and until now,,although there was a big improvement,,??

thanks a lot
hope AMD will get ahead in the CPU market soon!

and thanks Pat, for posting

Take Care and God Bless us all!

Sinceely speaking, this is NOT good and I hate to see AMD in the current condition they are facing right now.

Good to see that AMD is winning the antitrust battle against nasty intel, but no one (but AMD) can fix their current micro-architectural flaws.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3570&p=1

We have to give AMD credit for what they have done, and they have done an excellent job with Phenom II.

Core i7 is not even that success that Intel hoped for, but Phenom II is that success that AMD hoped for.

Peace!

Phenom II IS a good processor.”

It’s good, but not good enough.

AMD needs a better performing chip to price it above to what the competition offers currently. I root for a high-profitable AMD, not a barely-alive chip company.

And I guess everyone have heard about this common saying: Second place is the first looser.

I am SO tired to here this again, and again, and again from different people.

Phenom II IS a good processor. Phenom II IS a powerful processor. Phenom II BEATS Core i7 in many different reviews, for example: http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=293&Itemid=63 or http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=5410

Of course Orochi will be a much more powerful processor than Phenom II, but Phenom II will do the job just fine until the release of Orochi.

Now I know why.

However, in recent years, that has changed, as Intel have used their ill-gotten gains to actually come up with a very good high-end chip in the i7. Now, the i7 may only be 1% of the market, but most consumers see the company with the best chip overall (discounting price/performance ratio) as being the best company, full stop. This means that, when debating with themselves whether to go with Intel or AMD, they are swung towards Intel by the i7, even if they don’t have the cash to buy it, and instead settle for a lower performance chip. That being the case, it seems to me that, despite this legal case being a good step forward for AMD, you shouldn’t rest on your laurels – you need to come up with a chip that competes very favourably with the i7, or, preferably, soundly beats it, even if your predicted sales for such a chip are a negligible fraction of the total chip market.

Just want to know 1 thing… Why is AMD not gng for any virtual cores like intel??

nd why no multi chip module chips??

by the way… I just got an AMD Kuma Core 7750BE few days back…and I am verrrry pleased!!! (3350Mhz on stock heatsink… Insane!!)

These yelling people have little merrit, they view only one side and say well if you want your AMD machine there are plenty to choose from.

And yes you can still manage to buy a AMD laptop or desktop, not that hard.

Where it differs is that the loud people with the one sided view tend to goto is that all is fine has been fine and will be fine.

What AMD been missing is a big chunk over all these years even if they couldn’t compete with Intel their share would be bigger these days.

The problem lies in that certain big corporations can get away with anything (dont ask me there are plenty of bad examples over the last 10 years).

A level playing field will simply not exist not just due to financial backing but also through companies who thrive on being exclusive like Dell used to be (yep Dell).

The least of Intel’s problem is the money. They have plenty Intel is not a one trick pony it does many things besides making microprocessors.

The focus should not be why Intel is punished by the EU but why wasnt Intel punished a long long long time ago for the same thing ?

Lets just hope that in a way AMD can get some benefits from this issue not just in the EU but worldwide and maybe they have a better change of supplying consumers worldwide.

Goodluck

Besides that, do you get off on the fact that your start menu appears 0.001 seconds after the overclock? Obsessed with maxing out your folding PPD? Seriously?

My PhII720 and 4870 1gb get a 6.7 and 6.8 respectively on the Windows experience index in Windows 7 (link: 3533608026_bd3357826e_o.jpg), and you know what, that’s more than processing and graphics power than the average consumer needs for the next 3 years. As much as we’d all like to see faster, more advanced technology, there is no need for it today for the overwhelming majority of consumers. AMD’s current line destroys the competition in price/performance, so deal with it.

Instead of trolling around with your incessant woulda/coulda/shoulda nonsense, why don’t you just ______ <– insert expletive here.

The ATI purchase did not have to hurt so badly if Intel had played fair and not blocked AMD’s ability to gain market share. From what I’ve seen, relative to size and position, AMD is still kicking Intel tail, despite the current i7 advantages, made possible largely from AMD innovations like on-die memory controllers. It’s important to me that companies play fair and so I stay away from all Intel and Microsoft products, whenever possible.

I am curious though, how much innovation has Intel really made? I mean, they are huge and loaded, so one would expect them to present innovative products on a regular basis. However, the only true innovation that I ever read about comes from AMD. Intel may get there first, but they don’t generally come up with it first. Of course, I could just need additional information

I won’t comment on netbooks because honestly I have not done my research in that market. I have been interested in purchasing one recently now that prices are getting pretty low and I’d like to have something a little smaller than my work laptop to bring around with me for general use.

Regarding the high-end market, I haven’t looked at sales numbers, I’m just commenting from my perspective and I generally tend to buy high-end for PCs every 2 years or so. I agree that your CPUs at the $100-200 dollar price range are competitive, which is why I used one in my brother’s gaming rig. A cheaper CPU that performs very well allows you to spend money else where, and that’s great. And I know that price point, along with OEM sales, is where the bulk of the money is, not with the high-end market. So to answer your question, of how important it is to be faster than what is selling in that range- from an overall company sales perspective, probably ‘not very’.

But I think that being able to push on the high-end front more would help drive more innovation in those markets, which would be good for everyone, particularly the enthusiast/gamer community. I bought my i7 in January of this year. I don’t see anything on Intel’s roadmap that will really outperform it any time in 2009 (being that my 920 is running at 3.8GHz). I guess I’ll get my money’s worth out of this CPU, but that’s kind of disappointing to see. I would really like to see AMD be able to challenge Intel more there, so that the competition forces prices down and products out.

Also, on a sidenote, the Phenom 2 X4’s really aren’t that much cheaper than the i7 920, which was being sold at Microcenter for $230. You can look at the stock clock speeds and say the Phenom will out perform it stock to stock, but no one runs those CPUs at stock anyways.

For the majority of the market their may have been perfectly competitive products at the time, but I could not find one at any price that would suit my useage patterns.

Now that we have very price competitive Phenom 2 solutions on the market this is not an issue, but at that breif moment in time when I needed a new product there was just simply nothing there.

I have been a subcontractor to intel in the past and my experinces in dealing with their personnel and management makes me avoid purchasing their products at almost any cost, but you (AMD) need to have a product for me at any time so I can say…. “ahhh yes here is what I need.” or “This is close I bet if I overclock it will do the job.”

Do I think intel deserves this fine? You bet I do. There is no reason why the K6, Athlon, and Athlon 64 shouldn’t have out sold intel products every day of the week. I remember looking in various catologues of system builders at the time and wondering why there were no AMD products in these prebuilt machines. The answer was simple intel was “strong-arming” them.

Keep on truckin’ we need your processors and GPUs in the market to keep prices in check. The AMD graphics line-up is killer right now and I will tip back a whiskey and coke for you all and hope that the next will give the same reality check to your competitors that the last did.