Intel or AMD

[dillip]

Since 2-3 years AMD had been leading the race of the most powerfull processor available in market with their flagship athlon fx series. Do you think that Intel with their core 2 duo and core 2 quads have finally beaten the AMD off the pole position?

[rhino56]

So far they have done nothing short of destroying AMD as a company.
right now the AMD 5600+ and Intel E6300 are closely priced in which the AMD performs better so in that instance they win. however that doesnt take into account the fact that if overclocking is an option the E6300 is going to clock much better than the 5600+ so you are still better off with the E6300 if you plan on overclocking.


plus intel is also dropping prices tommorrow on theirs so they are making it very hard for AMD to stay in the game. This is great for the consumer but i bet it has been pretty hard on AMD as a company. to think of buying a 4000+ san diego chip for under 300 would have been a pipe dream not very long ago. now look at them, they are nearly down to the 50.00 price range.
while this happens no matter what as new technology comes along i would have never thought it would have happened this fast.

Once the Dothan cores came out i knew it was trouble for AMD, i sold my 4000+ for 260.00 used while i still could, and that was a deal at the time.
So i feel bad for AMD loyals but hopefully they can come back into the game like they always manage to do and start owning the new intel chips.

when the companies answer to compete with the competition is price cutting its kinda scary if your a stock holder.

[rhino56]

AMD reports $611 million loss


Sunnyvale (CA) - Declining microprocessor sales as well as dropping average selling prices for its microprocessors have pushed AMD deeper into the red. The company reported a net loss of $611 million on revenues of $1.233 billion, which is more than 20% below the guidance the company expected at the end of Q4 2006.

The loss includes charges related to the ATI acquisition in the amount of $113 million, but is mainly a result of the increasing competition with Intel in the microprocessor market. The company said that its Q1 margins were 31%, down from 40% in Q4 2006 and down from 59% in Q1 2006. "The decrease from the prior quarter was largely due to significantly lower microprocessor unit shipments, lower microprocessor average selling prices (ASPs), and the inclusion of the former ATI operations, which generally have lower-margin products, for the entire quarter, AMD said.


AMD had revenues of $1.332 billion and a profit of $259 million in Q1 of 2006; in Q4 2006, the company reported revenues of $1.773 billion and an operating loss of $529 million.

"After more than three years of successfully executing our customer expansion strategy and significantly growing our unit and revenue base, our first quarter performance is disappointing and unacceptable," said Robert J. Rivet, AMD's chief financial officer, in a prepared statement. "We are aggressively addressing the issues that led to our significant revenue decline. We are aligning our business model, capital expenditures and cost structure with the goal of accelerating our return to profitability."

In a press release, AMD said that computing solutions group sales were $918 million, down 38% sequentially. "Year-over-year server and desktop processor unit shipments and revenues declined significantly, while mobile processor unit shipments and revenue increased significantly," the firm said.

Last week, AMD warned the financial community that the company would report significantly lower revenues. The company also announced that it plans to restructure its business model to increase operational efficiencies and lower its operating cost structure.

AMD's stock dropped about 2% in after hour trading late Thursday.

AMD reports $611 million loss | Tom's Hardware UK and Ireland

[Kruten]

Well right now Intel is in lead with Core 2 Duo, price and performance.

[J2T]

Lets just hope for all consumers sake that AMD does recover from this..because if they go down (I doubt it..but..) it is bad news for us consumers.

[sigs]

I prefer Intel instead of AMD. My friend has AMD and he is facing problem with that. Still there is a problem of heating in AMD processors. However , they are good in graphics.
I am using Intel from last 8 years and satisfied with that.

[gillbot]

I have been an AMD fan since the K5 days, though those processors were quite lacking!

Today I'm having a real hard time justifying stepping up from 939 to AM2 when the intel platform looks SOOOOOO much better.

[PoisonWaffle]

AMD's new Phenom line (AKA K10/K8L/4x4) is supposed to be 40% faster than Intel's new Penyrn line (that isn't even out yet!). Also, with the Phenoms, you can run two of them (either dual or quad core) in tandem for a total of 4 or 8 cores!

Intel's Penryn line may be 45nm, but it is still way behind AMD. AMD has always planned for the future--64-bit before it was mainstream, chipsets that could handle twice as much bandwidth as was required by the CPU (for faster/multi-core CPU's that hadn't even been released yet), etc, etc. If you want future upgradability, high performance, reliability, low power consumption, and low price, go with AMD. The only time that Intel has been ahead of AMD lately was with the release of their C2D line, and even that wasn't as good as expected (1 Kentsfield = 2 Conroe... wasn't even true quad-core!)...

[geekatinfinity]

Well, people over here talking about the speed of processors. I think the majority of the computer users use them just for normal purposes .I mean they don't use computers for high graphics or some thing like that.So, the speed hardly matters for them. I am also in the same list.

When i bought the computer i hardly consider the clock speed. I stress on overall performance! Thats why i prefer AMD rather than Intel and satisfied with this!

[aronmartin]

I guess I have always had more of a liking towards intel.