Hillsboro (OR) – During a recent forum discussion with employees at Intel’s Jones Farm production facility in Hillsboro Oregon, chief executive officer Paul Otellini said that AMD’s recent success in the microprocessor arena was short-lived, but the company hasn’t ruled out its competitor yet.

The success of the Core micro-architecture has injected a new sense of pride and confidence virtually across all layers of Intel’s organization. CEO Paul Otellini currently enjoys much more pleasant questions from his staff than just a year ago – when AMD was still gaining market shares from Intel, virtually unchallenged.  

During an event held this week, Otellini said that he today sees AMD’s success "like a comet passing in the night." While he also mentioned that Intel has to keep an eye on AMD’s “very real” competitive threat, he described Intel’s progress with the 2008 Nehalem architecture as “spectacular” – and he reiterated his believe that Intel has an 18 to 24 month lead over its rival. AMD representatives recently told TG Daily strongly disagrees with Otellini’s perception and said that the company will only be half a year behind Intel, when the 45 nm processor generation debuts.

Addressing concerns about growth challenges in mature markets and smaller profit margins in emerging markets, the executive explained Intel’s strategy to move into the Mobile Internet Devices (MID) segment – a new product category that apparently has evolved from the ailing UMPC concept and will bring connected devices that are slightly larger than smartphones, but smaller than today’s UMPCs. Developing the Silverthorne processor as the foundation for MIDs, Otellini called this market a "huge growth opportunity" for Intel and said that such products will help the company to grow faster than the usual 6% to 8% range of firm’s processor business.

Clearly, Intel is flying high these days. Gone is the time in which Otellini had to justify Intel’s disadvantage over AMD and market share gains and design: When Dell announced last year that it would use AMD processors in its product lineup he wrote in an email to employees that he was “very disappointed” about Dell’s decision: “This is a clear wake up call for us to improve our competitiveness in the MP server segment. It says we cannot take anything for granted. We have to continue to earn our success each and every day. Much will be written about this event. Inside Intel we need to keep a clear focus on delivering the new family of products this year and next that will allow us to win back share in all market segments and at all of our current and future customers."

Intel has an 18 to 24 month lead over its rival???

Jun 15, 2007 11:41     

Is it real?
Don report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

That night lasted 5 years! Comets also have a bad ...

Jun 15, 2007 11:43     

That night lasted 5 years! Comets also have a bad habit of RETURNING too.
Wingless report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Queue the AMD fanboys...

Jun 15, 2007 11:46     

Rabid responses to follow.
Froogler report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

"Is it real?" in manufacturing maybe. AMD was pret...

Jun 15, 2007 11:58     

"Is it real?" in manufacturing maybe. AMD was pretty late to 65nm, and even then their 65nm was far from mature. otherwise I'd say no.
Legenic report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

HereIam

Jun 15, 2007 12:16     

That is what CEO's do these days, tell there employees (and the rest of the world) a lot of blabla.
GhostHunter report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Heh...

Jun 15, 2007 12:28     

[AMD] "will only be behind by half a year WHEN THE 45NM PROCESSOR DEBUTS" so, has it debuted yet? the truth lies somewhere between what they are both saying...id go with 9-15 months, rather than 6 or 18-24.
me report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

"Comets also have a bad habit of RETURNING too" No...

Jun 15, 2007 13:20     

"Comets also have a bad habit of RETURNING too" No, this comet is unfortunately named "Shoemaker-Levy9". Everyone knows its headed for a spectacular crash. http://roborat64.blogspot.com/
roborat report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

years? months?

Jun 15, 2007 13:43     

I dont know about 18-24 but i have a close source to intel and he was working on core 3 years ago. maybe the CEO is talking about performance... remember intel showed there next CPU all over Computex2007 and AMD didnt have such luck with thier product... I hope AMD gets back on track so we all win... remember compatition helps drive down prices and makes better products.
right101 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

hmm

Jun 15, 2007 13:50     

if i turn this to a very simple math, even with 6months behind, if Intel stopped progressing (zero progression) then it'll take AMD 6months time to catch up. If AMD progress every 1months while Intel progresses every 2months, it'll still take them 1 year to catch up? (something like that...?) I dont kno how's the "months apart" estimated. At BOTH company's current progression rate or what? I do believe 6 months behind is fatal enough for a competing technologies or companies. AMD and ATI maybe just got used into catching up game, and I do believe they are trying their best to catch up in their technologies; making it sound like 6-9months behind is nothing. It also doesnt matter if the "last night" was 5 years, cause the 5years didnt seem to hurt Intel as much as the 1year it's hurting AMD now...

eeto report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

6 months behind on 45nm = lack of knowledge!

Jun 15, 2007 13:58     

People (incld/AMD) are saying only 6 months behind because they don't know how to compare process technology! Simply looking at the 6 month lag from start of 45nm and calling that only a 6 month lead is like saying 2 car engine companies have the same engine technology because they both are released at the same time and they both have 8 cylinders. First off, Intel will have product available in late Q3/Q4 while AMD has said H2'08 - this is more than 6 months. Not to mention AMD's claims have been vague as it is not clear whether this is STARTING wafer manufacturing or actual product available. Second - the 2 process technologies will be NOWHERE near the same technical performance at the start of their respective ramps. Sure AMD can print 45nm features but the performance at the start of their 45nm will essentially be 65nm performance. For those who don't believe me look no further than AMD's 65nm introduction as well as AMD's foils on CTI. While Intel will introduce products at higher clockspeed at the start of their ramp, their is a reason why AMD's initial products are often start lower than the previous technology. So please don't look at naively at the start of a ramp and use that as the sole basis for comparison (as some less than technically literate press often do).

Joe report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Additional comment on 45nm lead

Jun 15, 2007 16:18     

Third point (added to the 2 above) You need to consider the cost of the technology - this includes both yield and wafer cost. If at the start of a technology node the cost of wafer is much higher or yield is much lower, you cannot claim you are caught up to your competitor simply because you have some product at the same time. Now there is no way to know the difference between AMD and Intel's cost and yields (although you can infer the cost part a bit by looking at respective gross margins and factoring in ASP differences). Fourth point: You need to look not only at the start of the ramp but the ramp speed. Intel has indicated they will achieve crossover (meaning >50%) on ALL production (not just a single fab) from 65nm to 45nm in Q3'08. So you need to compare this to when AMD says 45nm crossover (and be careful it is not a single fab crossover like they quoted on 65nm, but crossover on total CPU production - meaning all internal fabs and Chartered outsource capacity) Bottom line - for AMD to say they are only 6 months behind based SOLEY on the START of 45nm schedule is amazing shortsighted unless they also have looked at respective cost , performance, and ramp speed of the 2 processes. To use schedule as proof or demonstration in order to pull the wool over most lay people's eyes is an example of "bad benchmarking" which is something AMD seems to whine a lot about in CPU performance space...

Joe report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

More clarification on 18-24 months

Jun 15, 2007 16:33     

Intel means that when their 45nm/32nm products come out it will take AMD roughly 18-24 to match performance. Although all these are speculation in terms of months
Michael report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

it is a simple case of misunderstanding

Jun 15, 2007 17:26     

They do have a 24 month lead over AMD; they are referring to process tech. 32nm. AMD is primarily 60nm moving to 45nm and Intel 45nm soon 32nm. Process is more important to profit than anything else you can have a crap slow 32nm cpu .. actual performance is another discussion all together.
noyourwrong report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

There should be fanboys for either side

Jun 15, 2007 20:46     

We need these two to be relatively equal, otherwise prices start rocketing while innovation stagnates. I don't know if any of you remember the PC market before the Athlon processor. Everyone who has a nice computer today should be kissing AMD's feet for propelling the market this far. It's not about sides but competition. If you're rooting for one side to win, you are an ignorant fool.
Colin report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

anyone remember the HP merger?

Jun 15, 2007 20:50     

Folks don't seem to remember their history, so here's a lesson. HP & Compaq merged. Market share was initially lost, and Dell took over the #1 spot while HP was working in the background to merge the two giant companies. After nearly a year, they bounced right back. So what happened recently? AMD merged with ATI forming DAAMIT. They are spending time and money during the merger, and it shows with the numerous delays. However, once they are done, they have access to all those nice tech patents ATI owned, and will start working them into the processor line. So figure a year for the merger, and another year or two for development before we start to see the outcome. But 2 companies that big don't merge only to go out of business so quickly. They will bounce back, and Intel will be in trouble. Mark my words, DAAMIT!

Wolf report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Short-lived?

Jun 15, 2007 21:12     

Short-lived? Oh, so that's why AMD's been leading for YEARS, that's why Intel had to lay people off and render most of it's own product line redundant! This is just Intel propaganda. Lest we forget that it was Intel's ARROGANCE that got the corporation in the unenviable position it was in before the David came and stopped Goliath picking on his friends. It does not look like Intel has matured much in that time.

William report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Squandered lead

Jun 15, 2007 23:49     

AMD was simply complacent during the years of its success... it squandered its lead.. much like what happened with Intel during the days of Netburst...
dudde report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Pride Go-eth Before The...

Jun 16, 2007 00:26     

Hmm...you know, if it wasn't for the clear performance factor right now, I'd definitely buy non-Intel just on principle given such arrogance. I've generally stuck to AMD because of value and performance and Intel's overweening arrogance, and only switched for current computers due to AMD's current drought on coming out with a processor in the same performance and power consumption range. As soon as they are back in the game, my next system will be back with them again. Intel, take a hint...today's consumers hate arrogance and will vote with their wallets.

Mick report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Well....

Jun 16, 2007 04:38     

@William - You could not be more right Please don't flame me If barcelona doesn't turn out to be the second coming of Chr*** I'm buying a core2. HT is the fundamental amazing end-all-be-all of amd's chips right now. The problem is that they haven't been able to put out a chip that can compete with the core2s yet. And worse yet I don't know if they will, barcelona's architecture seems like it might just barely reach core2 performance in single-proc systems (see anand's writeup), though that's entirely speculation since we have no benches. But if it's true that they can't even get them to clock higher than 2.0 (at launch mind you - maybe even lower) then I see a dark time ahead for amd. Innovation and efficiency was their strong suit up till now and they've always been lagging behind Intel for manufacturing (though that might have changed) which also attributes to clock speeds you can attain (semprons are just athlons with 'imperfections' in them usually the cache goes first hence the smaller cache - or maybe that's celerons - or both) They will have to rely on the server market which is where HT comes in. I don't have the link but I remember seeing benches where the opteron might dwindle in 1 or 2 processor systems but in 8-way systems they rock. Even when spread across a farm of machines (which means each node is not connected by ht) the opterons definitely have an advantage. Now if the barcelonas can at least match or almost match the core2-xeon variant then they will take the lead at least there.

Andrei report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

pt2

Jun 16, 2007 04:40     

HT is far superior to an FSB. The consortium is even discussing an HT cable 1m~3ft long and has also released an HTX slot connector spec (which actually has products for it). If intel would just stop being so arrogant and adopt HT instead of making their own standard, meaning that now all hardware that uses htx cannot be used in intel systems (which might offer better performance), then ht might lose momentum and we'll be stuck with PCIe. PCIe (more so with 2.0) has same bandwidth as HT but it doesn't offer 1/10th of the capabilities of HT (read up on it). And (aside from engineering difficulties which might or might not exist - I believe they don't but I'm not an engineer) there is absolutely no reason for intel not to use it, even less so for them to make a new standard which with their influence on the industry coupled with a par or sub-par competition (cpu-wise) from amd could very well restrict HT to being an interconnect between amd cpus only thus destroying its promise as a high-speed low-latency interconnect for co-processors (graphics, physics, specialized... wtv). I'm curious to see how griffin performs though - as a proof of concept for graphics accelerators connected via HT3.0 (21 gbytes/s bidirectional - equal to pcie 2.0 I think) since I doubt griffin will feature any high end gpu - but I think performance should get a boost. If I'm not mistaken that is a small part of the reason why the ps2 was able to do so well with olderslower hardware than the xbox. Though I admit that I totally want a core2 and barcelona would have to be absolutely amazing to change my mind, I'm pretty sure if it weren't for amd's success, intel would have milked netburst until we were running 4 or 5 ghz cpus (with # cores maybe slapped together on one package since intel has always had multi core in mind) sharing the fsb with very little optimization ala Pentium Ds. Otellini's last statement is just perfect.

Andrei report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

I dont know what they babbling about

Jun 16, 2007 05:36     

Yes intel has the superiour architecture now, perfomance wise. But if you look at the people who buy computers. An X2-5600 is priced simular/cheaper to an C2D 6420 here in Europe. The 5600 performs better. These processors are in the mainstream segment atm. (Most sales in this price segment) Its only beyond this pricepoint where Intel definitly has the lead. The only thing really lacking atm is marketing from AMD to emphasise this imo. Also, most people will believe anything that is told. Specially when its told by reviewers. Seems most reviewers confirm what Intel says. Even if there own tests comfirm the above stated. The question would be ....Why?

Aristotelus report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Intel hasn't changed a bit

Jun 16, 2007 06:21     

I remember when they tied processor performance, purely to clock speed. So Netburst was born! AMD wanted to dispute this, so they went to the processor numbering system. Now Intel wants to tie performance, purely to fabrication process (how many nanometres). To show it they did a demonstration at Computex 2007, showing that 45nm is supposedly faster than 65nm. An obvious dig at AMD. Looks to me like they are up to their old tricks.

Eugene report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

45nm

Jun 16, 2007 07:58     

AMD needs to get ahead of Intel in process technology. AMD can not do this on their own. They should be partnering with IBM, adopting the Cell processor and partnering with the leaders in process technology. They need to join with their competitors at the leading edge and invest in countries with research programs designed to secure the lead.
Andy report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

pool full of fanboys...

Jun 16, 2007 09:04     

i see that fanboys only look at surface...
john report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

In a hypothetical scenario, if AMD were to go under...

Jun 16, 2007 09:52     

In a hypothetical scenario, if AMD were to go under. Would the gov't go after Intel like they did microsoft for having a monopoly?
Scott report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

gov't involvment

Jun 16, 2007 11:59     

the gov has gone after intel in the past. back in the day they were foreced to give up some of thier technology X86 and make it availible to everyone (public). this allowed some startup companies...IE AMD...
right101 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Intel IS arrogant but...

Jun 16, 2007 14:11     

right now thier processors rock AMD, hands down - unless you are trying to build a REALLY cheap PC. And from all accounts (including AMD if you read between the lines) they will continue to do so for some time. Lets admit it - Intel nailed them good, forcing them to sell thier procs way below price point to even stay in the market. That cannot go on forever of course, but in the near future it doesn't look like it will change. We must simply hope that the AMD/ATI merger will eventually create some crazy leaps in performance and put AMD back into the game. Otherwise, the future looks bleak - because lets face it, AMD is a much smaller company with nowhere near the infrastructure or financial backing that Intel has. I personally hope AMD stays in the game, because competition is good for consumers, but we all know that AMD isn't doing good and isn't going to in the near future. When a tech company is 6 (if not 18 ) months behind the competition, that company had better catch up ASAP.

Geeky Dude report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Intel and AMD

Jun 16, 2007 14:48     

@right101: Ummm... Intel is only 1 year older than AMD.
SpaceMonkey report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

2 year lead or not

Jun 16, 2007 21:16     

Even in Intel’s success the only adv is the heat dissipation and process per watt. AMD has Intel beat if you look at it they have a IMC which Intel has yet to factor into the processor’s heat expenditure. This with the coupling that AMD processor’s have more pins and a much much bigger FSB making them faster than there rival, and with AMD processors prices makes them hard to beat right now. so in reality AMD tries ways around Intel jest tries to drop a bigger engine into it (brute force theory) AMD's future is grate they've been working on 25nm tech with IBM from what I hear AMD has a solid plan and there a US based company (well no one cares about national pride anymore) I'm not and AMD fan boy I’m actually running a Intel to see the difference Iv noticed the FSB speed decrease from my older AMD 64 single core processor (heat exp with the factored north bridge reaches apx 120-140 watts at load with the quad around 180 and up)

Robert Holler report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Intel is way off base

Jun 16, 2007 23:54     

Good thing that 5 year long comet stopped by the Intel shop and hit them in the head - AMD's memory controllers, better power usage and dual core technology is now copied by Intel after they floundered with Hyperthread and cranking up the heat on their P4 egg cooking specials. Sorry Mr Intel CEO, but your cocky and wrong attitude just made you lose another customer.
Paul report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Um Robert...

Jun 17, 2007 00:17     

If AMDs FSB is so much better then why couldnt any of their processors even touch the Core 2? I love the ppl who told me AMD processors had a 2000MHZ FSB... Yea with a dual core so each processor ran at roughly 1000MHZ FSB. Also if anyone else has actually read up on Intels design plens(I would read up on AMD if there were any) you would see the advanced processors they are going to release. ALso IBM doesnt only work with AMD. They also work with Intel. I work for CitiBank on an old IBM site but IBM is still there and one guy was telling me that they are working on a few projects with Intel. That includes the 80 core processor and a 512bit processor. Intels next core Nahelem(however you spell it) is going to make a lot of advancements over even the Penryn core which will further widen the gap between AMD and Intel unless their "Phenom" core is as good as they are claiming. Although there are no sort of charts or anything to back it up. Which gets me kinda woundering if its not that they state it should be. At any rate, other than IBM, Intel is probably one of the most advanced processor manufactures out there. They have the money, the knowledge and the experience to build the best available.. And to tell you the truth, the IMC is nice but didnt do anything until the last core AMD released.

Jimmy report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Two sides to every story

Jun 17, 2007 02:19     

So far i've read a lot of pro intel or pro amd arguments, some good some bad and some ignorant people just make stupid comments like "here come the AMD fanboys. AMD is better in cheaper PCs because their Althons are better then their C2D counterparts cost wise. Also AMD motherboards tend to be $100~ cheaper (in Australia at least) than Intel mobos with similar features. Basically unless you're spending several thousand dollars on a PC AMD will probably be a better choice. The only thing that you get with Intel at the moment in the main stream sector is the upgrade path, which in itself is valuable.

FearMeMortals report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

I bless AMD

Jun 17, 2007 02:37     

Without AMD we would all be anchored to what Intel believes right for (herself) we, as an awful P4 or similar higly expensive device (who remember costly Rimm memory sticks?). I wish AMD my bests, regardless I'm AMD customer or not. Go AMD, go!
L'Oscuro report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Need Them Both

Jun 17, 2007 08:09     

Ya'know folks we need them both, think back of the great advances in technology that their competition has given us over the past 6 years.
Wayne report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

AMD outsource, Intel is mostly US made

Jun 17, 2007 11:38     

Forget about the whole David vs. Golia discussion. AMD lasterst chips are either made in Germany (their only 65nm/future 45nm plant) with support from the EU and German government or outsourced to TMC/UMC in Taiwan. The latest new is that they will be outsourcing all their chips in couple of years. Intel processors are mostly made in plants in Oregon, Arizona, Santa Clara, and New Mexicon (oversea plants in Ireland and Israel due to EU requirement). How about switching the discussion to support American jobs. The 10,000 people laid off by Intel is mostly American.

Blah report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Arrogance is irrelevant

Jun 17, 2007 12:06     

...and is quite common in the corporate world. A company's arrogance should have no bearing on whether or not a consumer should buy their product. It has no bearing on product performance. AMD had its strong time, but they got lazy when they were out in front. Intel learned from AMD's mistake, and is keeping the pressure up. I think it's time that AMD change their gameplan a bit. And 4x4? That's just silly. AMD, pick up your feet and bring something edible to the table.

spanko report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Re: AMD outsource, Intel is mostly US made

Jun 17, 2007 13:59     

Blah, Don't blame the companies. Blame the politicians we elect for allowing companies to do what they do. We should scrutinize and critisize the politicians the same way we do with the companies we invest in!
anon report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Jim...

Jun 17, 2007 19:21     

Jim the FSB doesn’t make the processor if you work for who you say you should know this. The FSB is the physical connection between the processor and the north bridge (located out of the processor on Intel chips). Intel has a problem with it as a bottleneck as most of you know. (the problem with the core 2, P4, ect...) Even with a fast FSB it still doesn't mean the processor will go "faster". (mainly stating the core is better at processing) AMD's FSB is a technically a 1000mhz FSB but it is capable of reading 2 chunks of data rather than 1 so it is considered a 2000mhz FSB, theoretically faster than the Intel’s FSB. Another subject you can look at it is the memory Intel’s processors tend to fight over who gets the memory another reason I like AMDs L1 buffer cash and large L2 cashes. If you also look it gives the processor a better float point calculation ability. Another subject brought up is Intel’s 80 core processor impressive yes from a technical stand point useless the thing congers enough heat to cook an egg on the outside of the case and it is 32bit (as of now). Now if they will get it to work right that would be amazing even though it is aimed at float point calculations so it won’t be available to normal people but research.

Robert Hollar report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Yeah! Force them to be in US only and..

Jun 18, 2007 00:00     

emerging countries would block them from their market and promote Samsung. Intel will be limited to stagnant markets(read US..)
Mano report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Blah...

Jun 18, 2007 00:20     

they both (AMD & Intel) are manufacture in Malaysia... both their manufacturing plants are quite near to each other here...
Loke report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Who mesures CPUs using months???

Jun 18, 2007 05:50     

The whole "We are xx months ahead of them" kind of talk sounds like a lot of hot air PR talk. How can you compare two different designs and say "this one is 12 month more advanced then the other"? AMD cpus has IMC for years while Intel still using the older FSB. Will Mr Otellini admit that memory wise Intel is 5(?) years behind AMD? Who cares! right now C2D wins every test using old technology. Show me the benchmarks. Anything else is noise for me

Nir Dinur report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

OMG INTEL 4TW

Jun 18, 2007 07:59     

Who cares if they are 1 month ahead for 24, they are ahead and cost effective, that is all I care about.
Chris report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

I prefer AMD

Jun 18, 2007 09:31     

I prefer AMD since it supports competition. I look for AMD main boards/computers. If Intel was the only cpu maker, they would be the Microsoft of CPU's. They would not really care about quaility and would charge whatever they wanted. Competition not only keeps them improving products but also helps keep the prices competitive.
TomLeeM report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Clearing missunderstandings

Jun 18, 2007 12:36     

In the article Paul is talking about Intel leading by x months in MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY. Not in bus technology, not in CPU's or anything else. This is not clear from this article but I saw the complete forum discussion somewhere else (forgot the link). The second clarification is on the cocky comment. The comment was made at a private forum for employees. I don't see it as cocky to give encouraging or motivational talks to the people that work for you. Had this happen at IDC or any other public event it would have been arrogance ad infinitum. Just sayin'

Javier report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

These comments are rediculous, know some facts

Jun 19, 2007 08:37     

Those of you who do not believe that Intel is crushing AMD are living in a fantasy world. Read and understand a few things first. Intel released 65nm mainstream to 3 markets, at the same time, along WITH a fabrication shrink. AMD has just now released 65nm for mobile, a full year behind Intel. AMD will be the first to native quad core, but performance benches show that AMD is anemic compared to the competition. http://www.legitreviews.com/article/521/1/ Intel is planning on releasing 45nm THIS year, and moving to onchip graphics and memory controller in 2008. Let's face it AMD fanboys, the only clear cut advantage in architecture AMD had over intel was the onchip memory controller. That advantage will disappear in a years time. After that, what technology will AMD have to leverage more performance than their competition, latency and small caches were what made AMD CPU's just that. Not only this, but AMD and Intel are going at it price war style. AMD posted a $600 million loss in Q4'06 because of it. That was 1/3 of their "on hand" cash. Because of ATI, AMD has no money, or man power to spend on shrinking the fab or for developing a "revolutionary" architecture. Intel is dead accurate when they state that AMD is 18-24 months behind, perhaps that's pushing it 6 months too many, i'd be more comfortable with 12-18, but seriously, don't hold out for barcelona, Intel already has them beat, on underclocked pre-production processors, of a die shrunk CURRENT Core architecture.

Ken report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

We do need them both however...

Jun 19, 2007 19:09     

in one fell swoop Intel comes in with things that desimates AMD. AMD releases so many processes it's rediculous but then Intel just comes in with a few new core ones that blows AMD out of the water, ie Core 2 Duo. AMD does little steps for weeks/months but then Intel comes in jumps over them by a LONG shot. The comsumers win the way things are now keeping prices low but in the end...AMD has no chance of ever "beating" Intel.

otacon report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

the only stipulation here...

Jun 20, 2007 06:13     

The only stipulation here is that intel has been ahead of AMD for a longggg time when it comes to manufacturing processes. Even back in the netburst days.. its just that AMD was able to "do more with less" at the time due to a more efficent design and the IMC. I hope AMD is able to pull somethin out of their collective arse to remain competitive or we are all gonna be hating intel in a year or two...

brian report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Intel is Still the Leader

Jun 20, 2007 21:55     

Intel is the most trusted and reliable processors.Here in our country im working in an i.t company and almost of our customers and clients always using the intel's processors as well as the motherboards because they are proud using intel products and the only words they say is the quality.And last 95% of our customers are using intel...
eisenheims report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

I work in IT. 95% of people use intel because of ma...

Jun 21, 2007 06:35     

I work in IT. 95% of people use intel because of marketing and name recognition. Don't get me wrong, theres nothing wrong with the quality of intel CPUs, but there is nothing wrong with the qualtiy of AMD cpus either. As a side note we have also been using ATI cards for as long as i can remember. Intels chipsets/motherboards and network cards on the other hand are total garbage in my experience.... i have 3com NICs that were made in the 90s that are outlasting fairly recent intel gigabit NICs....

brian report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0