[QUOTE=Leather Belt;33489826]Sad news, Intel CPU prices or going to get insanely high.[/QUOTE]
I know, late, but they were high already.
[editline]29th November 2011[/editline]
I'm gonna miss AMD. My current computer has AMD CPU and ATI GPU.
New one will have Intel CPU (As opposed to my plans until hearing this news) and nVidia GPU.
I have an FX 8120, BF3 and Skyrim are both maxed and run 50+ fps, (with a 6870) also 3D renders and other programs are fast as shit, I have no complaints.
It wouldn't surprise me if the bulldozer's bad performance was deliberate just so as they had an excuse to change market.
I can see why they would want to re-focus their PC strategy
Zambezi was a total failure with high TDPs combined with a bad performance compared to their Intel counterparts but Llano is pretty kicking rad in the budget laptop line. For >500$ you can get a laptop that will outperform i5's and their HD graphics in gaming (well, not an i7/i5/i3 with a dedicated card but that's another price range).
It's a shame Llano is getting completely ignored by just about everyone.
God [i][b]fucking[/b][/i] dammit. Before I could buy an Apple desktop product for cross development and some shiny Mac OS X fun, Steve Jobs had to go off and die. Does this change anything? Not really, I can still buy an Apple product, but get this, now before I can build my very own first build, AMD has to go die.
Well that's just fucking great. I better not consider moving to Windows 8 when that comes out, because Microsoft might just say "lol, fuk u" and move on to focusing on tablet devices before I get to purchase it.
While I'm on the late train to everywhere in the tech world, I think I'll pass by Wonderland and have the Mad Hatter fuck my ass. But that's no good either is it? Because I'll be late for that very important date, too, now won't I.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;33490107]At least the new High perfomance and low power ARM chips will still be a competition to Intel[/QUOTE]
Only for casual computing.
To a PC Gamer or certain businesses with niche applications, backwards compatibility is crucial, perhaps the most important part when you really think about it (no one ever mentions this since we take backwards compatibility for granted).
Aw... but I like AMD Chipsets... I'm just not crazy about their GPUs.
[QUOTE=SataniX;33495128]Smaller for the same amount of power. Just because scientists can cram more power into a smaller area, there will always be the "performance entheusiasts" who want the [i]very best[/i] that won't fit into a small area.[/QUOTE]
Graphics cards are actually getting bigger. The longest graphics card ever was some ATi card that came out like 2 years ago.
But for non-gaming or professional video/sound editing or 3D rendering, PC's are getting smaller.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;33490031]Hopefully someone new pops up so Intel has competition..
A man can dream[/QUOTE]
Intel sues them out of existence.
Well guys, it was a fun ride. :suicide:
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;33499274]It wouldn't surprise me if the bulldozer's bad performance was deliberate just so as they had an excuse to change market.[/QUOTE]
this is not how corporations work
So... anyone wanna pull a Sherman Anti-Trust on Intel?
[QUOTE=Remscar;33500900]So... anyone wanna pull a Sherman Anti-Trust on Intel?[/QUOTE]
not until they actually have a monopoly
[QUOTE=acds;33491172]Companies are not your childhood friend. They do not care about you, they care about your money. If they can they'll screw you over for profits.
Considering anything other than cold hard performance statistics and price when buying a CPU is just foolish.[/QUOTE]
People get emotionally attached to things or ideas, and corporations tend to be one of them. See: Disney
[QUOTE=sHiBaN;33497800]No, damnit! I just bought a six-core Phenom II
I loved how AMD was quite cost-effective and it still kept up with Intel[/QUOTE]
No...AMD hasn't for a long time been comparable to Intel, their only saving grace was their prices are lower than Intel, but so too are their performance
[QUOTE=Clementine;33513492]No...AMD hasn't for a long time been comparable to Intel, their only saving grace was their prices are lower than Intel, but so too are their performance[/QUOTE]
not considerably, if you look at the phenom II it was released at around the same time as the first i7s and they perform about the same
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[url]http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/11/30/1510252/amd-confirms-commitment-to-x86[/url]
"...It's not going to be 'AMD versus Intel' anymore — it's going to be AMD vs. Qualcomm, TI, Nvidia, and Intel."
First eating ATI and leaving almost no support for their cards and now this?
Cmon man...
Damn. I really hope it doesn't end up like Nvidia's time of superior performance in the Geforce 8800 period. Graphics card prices were insane back then. Took ATI until the HD4800 series before they caught up and brought some decent competition to the table.
Fuck intel.
It costs [I]ridiculous[/I] amounts of money to open a silicon fab plant. The only reason Intel is able to open new ones is because they have experience with doing it. Unless an investor is willing to throw down [I]millions[/I] of dollars, no new competitors are really going to appear. Maybe Via will make some more powerful x86 processors, but I doubt it
Fuck, I better get an i5 quick before they theoretically go up in price.
And I was planning on getting a cheap CPU upgrade
NOW I AM STUCK WITH CELERON
People read, there going to focus more on the mobile market, not leave the PC market. Fucks sake intel said the same thing a while back.
[QUOTE=waxrock;33514820][url]http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/11/30/1510252/amd-confirms-commitment-to-x86[/url]
"...It's not going to be 'AMD versus Intel' anymore — it's going to be AMD vs. Qualcomm, TI, Nvidia, and Intel."[/QUOTE]
It's funny because Qualcomm acquired most of their SoC tech from AMD and if AMD hadn't have sold them it they could have a giant grasp on the mobile market right now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.