14 replies to this topic

[raymac46]

Although I’m a long way from being an AMD fanboy, I have always been willing to consider it as a possible supplier of processors or graphics cards for any system I choose. I refurbished an old AMD Athlon 2500+ machine that belonged to my late parents and it is a very nice system today. A few years ago I got an AMD dual core 4800+ desktop to run Linux, and it does so fast and powerfully to this day. Last year I deliberately went out of my way to buy a Dell AMD quad core notebook, knowing that I probably bought something that was slower and not as power efficient as its competition. Nevertheless I ended up with a very smooth and useful machine that easily does everything I want from DVD playback to photo management.
Now facing the replacement of a seven year old XP desktop that gets a lot of use, I wonder if I should really consider AMD at all any more. It seems after a couple of underwhelming CPU revisions, longer than expected development times on its Fusion APU chips, delayed launches, shortage of product and a revolving door in its management team - AMD is in sad shape. I read recently that the value of the whole company is now less than they paid for ATI a few years ago.
Intel has really eaten AMD’s lunch in processor speed and die shrink technology, and it looks as if AMD has now given up in any sort of competition. They’ll stick to niche markets and entry level OEM machines plus place their tablet bets on low wattage x86 and Windows 7 - exactly where Intel is ready to go. It looks like a depressing future.
Under normal circumstances I’d probably be very happy with one of AMD’s Llano A6 units for a new desktop around here. It’s got great graphics and OK performance to meet my needs. Cheap too. But I hesitate because of what I read about AMD and its future. How about you? Have you permanently switched to Intel?

[V.T. Eric Layton]

AMD is all I use for CPUs, usually. No graphics; I won't touch 'em... crappy Linux support. I'd be very sad to see AMD go belly up.

[raymac46]

Unfortunately it looks as if AMD is doing its best work today with the Fusion integrated graphics chips. The standalone FX processors haven't been that good when compared to Intel's Sandy bridge, and Ivy Bridge takes Intel to a higher level, with promise of a even better performer (Haswell) next time.
Both Phenom and Bulldozer have not been real winners for AMD. I have an Athlon 64 X2 and that has been a pretty good CPU for me, but that is 2006 technology now. It was seriously lagging Bruno's Core 2 quad even when in a new system in 2008.
I have had my problems with Linux and AMD largely because they stopped supporting my legacy X1250 integrated graphics with their proprietary driver. I got around that issue in the usual way - install Nvidia.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

I've run systems with: Athlon K-7 Thunderbird (a favorite of mine), Athlon XP 2600, Athlon64 3800, Athlon64 X2, and my current Phenom 9750 Quad. I've never had a lick of trouble with anyone of them. My Dell Inspiron 1521 laptop is and AMD Turion64.

I've only used a Pentium I and a Pentium M (laptop) Intel processors.

[raymac46]

I've been pretty much an Intel user as long as I worked in the PC space. My first serious AMD machine was the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ system I got to run Linux a few years ago.
My parents old Athlon XP 2500+ has turned out really nice with Linux, more memory, better HDD, wifi and a (wait for it) AGP Nvidia 6200 card. My notebook (a thing of beauty really) is an Inspiron M501 with a quad core P920 Phenom II. I have bought AMD with confidence in the past. I really hope to continue with them  in the future.

Edited by raymac46, 27 June 2012 - 08:05 AM.

[lewmur]

While Intel has better top of the line processors, I've always bought AMD mid level processors because of price.  I feel I get much more "bang of the buck".  My present  main box has a 6 core, 3.5ghz cpu I got for about $110.  At the time I bought it, all I could get in an Intel chip for that price was a two core.

I'm not a gamer so this is all the power I need.  I can run Mint with two Vbox sessions with no problems.

As to video, if you don't  use AMD, what else is there?  Have you heard Linus's comments about nVidia?

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Another reason I would hate to see AMD go belly up is that Intel would have a virtual monopoly on cpus. We all know how monopolies without viable competitors can affect/control the market.

[raymac46]

More bad news for AMD.
http://news.cnet.com...=news&tag=title
They are in for a tough time - still losing in the processor race, must compete on price, in a declining marlet (x86), and little presence in a growing one (tablets and smartphones.)
I'm only one data point but when I bought my desktop last month I went with Intel Sandy Bridge. I got a good price because it's now trailing edge technology but it's still better than AMD's latest stuff. AMD has the edge in graphics if you want an APU but Intel is plenty good enough for me in that department.

[LilBambi]

V.T. Eric Layton, on 27 June 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

Another reason I would hate to see AMD go belly up is that Intel would have a virtual monopoly on cpus. We all know how monopolies without viable competitors can affect/control the market.

And not just CPUs. Video card competition too would be hurt drastically. It would leave only nVidia and Intel as big contenders with ATI/AMD out of the running...

[LilBambi]

raymac46, on 10 July 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

More bad news for AMD.
http://news.cnet.com...=news&tag=title
They are in for a tough time - still losing in the processor race, must compete on price, in a declining marlet (x86), and little presence in a growing one (tablets and smartphones.)
I'm only one data point but when I bought my desktop last month I went with Intel Sandy Bridge. I got a good price because it's now trailing edge technology but it's still better than AMD's latest stuff. AMD has the edge in graphics if you want an APU but Intel is plenty good enough for me in that department.

Apparently AMD is not the only one hurting in this economy according to that article. But yes, it was the highlighted company for that article because they are apparently hurting very badly.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Guess I'd better start familiarizing myself with Intel's product line, huh?

[crp]

I wasn't paying attention to who made the CPU on the pc I just bought for myself.

[zlim]

My two newest purchases. based on low price, eMachine desktop and Acer netbook are both AMD. They have been working great for my purposes.

[crp]

crp, on 10 July 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

I wasn't paying attention to who made the CPU on the pc I just bought for myself.

okay , it was CPU AMD A-6 3650 X4 4MB 2.6GHz 100W, Mainboard ASUS micro ATX AMD A75 USB 3.0

[raymac46]

crp, on 10 July 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

okay , it was CPU AMD A-6 3650 X4 4MB 2.6GHz 100W, Mainboard ASUS micro ATX AMD A75 USB 3.0

That's one of AMD's better ones because it is a quad core CPU and has an excellent built in graphics core. It was certainly on my list of possibilities. You got a real good mobo as well.