AMD's Console Strategy Nets Additional x86 Market Share

3

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

D00dlavy

A lot of my PC building friends are Intel zealots now to the point of retardation. I still build AMD systems. They are quality, stable, cheaper and with the money you save on the processor you can throw a faster GPU and better PSU in the case.

I'm still playing the same games as my Intel friends at the same visual settings at 40+ frame rate. I can still develop on VS 2012 and my compile times are just fine. Why pay extra and support the monolithic Intel on top of it?

avatar

wumpus

Yeah, the "reason" is likely benchmarks. On the other hand, the reasons that would lead me to buy an i5/i7 are likely the same reasons I would buy an AMD over an i3 (geek lust for more cycles, application benefits be d@mned).

Any measureable difference between compile times on 8 thread jobs on Bulldozer/i7? I expected bulldozer to be a bit better on integer jobs (such as VS2012) but have heard otherwise.

Also, AMD has largely abandonded the parts needed for PC builders. What they emphasize now might be ideal for using a laptop like a laptop (instead of trying to force it into desktop duty), but those integrated graphics chips just aren't what most PC builders wants.

PS. What bugs me most about buying Intel chips is more a direct consequence of monolithic and monoplostic practices: the way they cripple each chip for market segmentation. The only Intel chip I have ever owned that wasn't deliberately crippled was my 300MHz Celeron, every other one was limited in some way. Most of the time when I've bought other chips limited in the same way, I could unlock them (such as simply cranking up the bus speed on the Celery), not so the Intel chips. Overclocking enabled is the best you can hope for, and expect to pay for that (and the bit flipped that changes an i5 to an i7).

avatar

nick779

simple, benchmarks..

for a budget build, amd is great, but all top end pcs have intel for a reason...