Intel vs AMD

Can someone help me to understand AMD's marketing strategy?

Phenom 9700 - $319 (Amazon)
Intel Q6600 - - $279 (Amazon)

If you look at the sales numbers, Intel quads are outselling AMD nearly 10
to 1. If you look at the reviews, the Intel quad out-performs anything from
AMD. But the $319 price tag is no where near competetive. So am I missing
something, do I have my facts wrong, or what?

We know that competition is a wonderful thing for the consumer, but what is
AMD trying to do here?

-james

James wrote:
Can someone help me to understand AMD's marketing strategy?

Phenom 9700 - $319 (Amazon)
Intel Q6600 - - $279 (Amazon)

If you look at the sales numbers, Intel quads are outselling AMD nearly
10 to 1. If you look at the reviews, the Intel quad out-performs
anything from AMD. But the $319 price tag is no where near competetive.
So am I missing something, do I have my facts wrong, or what?

We know that competition is a wonderful thing for the consumer, but what
is AMD trying to do here?

-james

Maybe its the "collector's edition" :-)
Is the box it comes in, artsy looking ?

The price might reflect the product they'll be
selling next quarter, with the TLB bug fixed. I
don't see a reason to buy one today. Wait for the
fixed stepping, and for someone to rerun the
benchmarks.

Paul

This is the beginning of the end of AMD. They simply can not achieve intel
actual CPU's performance. They have almost the same problem with their GPU
(i.e. ATI vs Nvidia).

Best regards

Sid

"James " anonymous a écrit dans le message de
.. .
Can someone help me to understand AMD's marketing strategy?

Phenom 9700 - $319 (Amazon)
Intel Q6600 - - $279 (Amazon)

If you look at the sales numbers, Intel quads are outselling AMD nearly 10
to 1. If you look at the reviews, the Intel quad out-performs anything
from AMD. But the $319 price tag is no where near competetive. So am I
missing something, do I have my facts wrong, or what?

We know that competition is a wonderful thing for the consumer, but what
is AMD trying to do here?

-james

Not sure of the marketing strategy but the pc newsgroups are focused on
single and dual core so much, that it surprised me when I saw a gateway on
hsn, quad core, for $1300 (had monitor, etc.). I like do build my own, so,
I think I will be going for quad core next time around.

From my perspective, there is going for raw power and there is going for the
most bang for the buck. AMD has good price/performance ratios, so, I do not
agree this is the end for them, etc. Who is the fastest shifts back and
forth, Intel has the lead and it could very well shift back the other way in
the future.

--g

"SL91" wrote in message
...
This is the beginning of the end of AMD. They simply can not achieve intel
actual CPU's performance. They have almost the same problem with their GPU
(i.e. ATI vs Nvidia).

Best regards

Sid

Did you say it was the beginning of the end for Intel when AMD was the
performance king? Did you say Nvidia was done for when ATI held the
performance crown?

Hi,

I did not say that. My first and last experience was with the old K6. This
experience was so bad that even when the horsepower of AMD CPU was higher
than that of intel ones I sticked with intel processors and also with intel
chipset. Do you remember how many issues there were with VIA chipset
(AGP,...)? These were software and/or intel issues. Well what I want to say
is that intel has had and has the best x86 technology (cpu/chipsets). We are
speaking about technology. Don't forget Intel is doing mass production with
45nm silicon. At the same time AMD is just starting its 65 nm production.

PS: Do you remember that time (not so far) when AMD CPU could be used as
home heaters (this is just a small joke). I don't work for intel at all. I
am just speaking about my 18 years x86 experience.

Best regards

Sid

"Mephisto" a écrit dans le message de
news:u7ccj.15155$DP1.440@pd7urf2no...

"SL91" wrote in message
...
This is the beginning of the end of AMD. They simply can not achieve
intel actual CPU's performance. They have almost the same problem with
their GPU (i.e. ATI vs Nvidia).

Best regards

Sid

Did you say it was the beginning of the end for Intel when AMD was the
performance king? Did you say Nvidia was done for when ATI held the
performance crown?

Well what I want to say
is that intel has had and has the best x86 technology (cpu/chipsets).

Intel chipsets are designed to work with other Intel hardware. Saying they
are the best is like saying HP Unix is the best Unix out there. It is
pretty good but it only runs on HP hardware.

My experience with AMD is the opposite. I have an A8V and have never
encountered issues like you mention. It is your decision to choose what
computer you want but to say it is the beginning of the end for AMD is a
little far out there.

--g

"SL91" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I did not say that. My first and last experience was with the old K6. This
experience was so bad that even when the horsepower of AMD CPU was higher
than that of intel ones I sticked with intel processors and also with
intel
chipset. Do you remember how many issues there were with VIA chipset
(AGP,...)? These were software and/or intel issues. Well what I want to
say
is that intel has had and has the best x86 technology (cpu/chipsets). We
are
speaking about technology. Don't forget Intel is doing mass production
with
45nm silicon. At the same time AMD is just starting its 65 nm production.

PS: Do you remember that time (not so far) when AMD CPU could be used as
home heaters (this is just a small joke). I don't work for intel at all. I
am just speaking about my 18 years x86 experience.

Best regards

Sid

"Mephisto" a écrit dans le message de
news:u7ccj.15155$DP1.440@pd7urf2no...

"SL91" wrote in message
...
This is the beginning of the end of AMD. They simply can not achieve
intel actual CPU's performance. They have almost the same problem with
their GPU (i.e. ATI vs Nvidia).

Best regards

Sid

Did you say it was the beginning of the end for Intel when AMD was the
performance king? Did you say Nvidia was done for when ATI held the
performance crown?




You may have spent 18 years experiencing something, but whatever it was, it
wasn't PC technology.


Trev

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:39:22 GMT, "Mephisto"
wrote:


"SL91" wrote in message
...
This is the beginning of the end of AMD. They simply can not achieve intel
actual CPU's performance. They have almost the same problem with their GPU
(i.e. ATI vs Nvidia).

Best regards

Sid

Did you say it was the beginning of the end for Intel when AMD was the
performance king? Did you say Nvidia was done for when ATI held the
performance crown?


Not for long and they never made money from that achievement. When AMD
bought ATi, they bought a horribly-performing company barely eking out
a profit. AMD's stupid management and their combined egos got them
into this $2-3billion black hole, while Dave Orton laughs all the way
to the bank. If AMD had concentrated on their CPU-knitting instead of
squandering resources and now held hostage by the banks, they indeed
would have had a new range of CPUs handily competing with Intel. Not
that I really care, since I made a chunk of money selling AMD short
at the time the ATi acquisition was consummated. It was obvious that
ATi was going to drag AMD down.

John Lewis