AMD Puts Positive Spin on Q1 Revenue Results

4

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

arkarkwin

I agree with the guy that post above or below me ( anyway this forum put it). I got i7 920 with 6 GB of ram from dell for about 1500$ with 24" monitor included. I feel that I am future proof for at least 1 to 2 year. By the time intel release new 32 bit processor, I bet i7 940 will be cheap enough for me. AMD at least need to show PC enthusiasts and gamers that it top flag ship chipset can beat i7 920 or at least level it out. I am not impress by it ability to catch up with old intel quadcores. That was last two year intel flag ship, I don't see any point in spending my money for Yesterday technology to play today game.   AMD pahtom II may be cheap but it is not so cheap when you compare it to i7 920. But of course, with i7 920, you gonna need to buy new mobo and DDR 3 memory. But if you are going to spend your money at all, don't you think you should be spending for a technology that gonna last longer ? specially with this economy.

avatar

HokieTechie

In response to the previous comment, I would point out that the vast majority of computer purchasers (consumer or business) aren't doing things that are "CPU Bound." They're running plain old Microsoft Office, Web Browsing, and maybe a little bit of streaming multimedia, and the sum of their "experience" has alot more to do with network speed, RAM capacity, RAM bandwidth, and disk drive speed than it has to do with Instructions Per Second. They seldom run close to 100% of their CPU for any significant length of time.

For this type of customer, there's no "future proof" from just a fast processor. By the time you hit the wall on the latest release of Microsoft Bloatware, you have enough slow components in the system that the whole thing will need replacement anyway. This is also why just a CPU upgrade is seldom an effective fix for an old, slow PC, even if there's a significantly faster part that can fit in the existing motherboard.

 If you are buying 1,000 desktops for Microsoft Office, the extra $300 for cpu cycles that will never be called upon is a giant waste of money.

 

avatar

Cache

The biggest problem being that AMD's commercial side was hit far harder than the consumer side.  Your argument boils down to the corporations; most are not buying into AMD at this time.

Consumers who are looking at desktops (I won't even delve into Intel's dominance with the Atom processor) are looking far more at Intel's new I7 series than with AMD's Phenom II (which honestly sounds like it was an alternate name for a Star Wars prequel than anything else).  Commercially, of course, Intel still dominates, even in this very anemic tech market. 

avatar

Cache

The fundimental problem with AMD's view of the PC marketplace is that it has never been 'paying for what you need', it's been about 'what you get for the money'.  If I can buy an I7 system for just a couple hundred more dollars, but it represents a better value in the long run, I'll spend the money. AMD's work to put out a chip that only barely outperforms Intels aging Core2 lineup does not represent value to me.

It's great if you are stuck on a narrow budget, but most of us are not building a new PC every 6 weeks, so we'll spend more money on components that have their 'A' game on, and have a good upgrade future.  Does anyone really think selling out for the lowest common denominator has a rock-solid future?  AMD had a good game once, now they are little more than the KMart of CPU's.  If I'm spending a thousand dollars anyways on a computer, I'd just as soon have a CPU that is looking forward rather than keeps the pace with what came out last year.

 

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.