Intel price drops... why would anybody buy AMD?
 

I mean seriously AMD's become such a joke since core 2 came out. Is there any reason at all to buy AMD now?

The company would have been a good competitor in my opinion but when it bought out ATI graphics that was the fatal bad move. I think it is a matter of time before they are bankrupt and have to reorganize.

You're right.

I used to be hardcore AMD, but I switched over when the Core2 came out. Now I have 3 Quadcore rigs and i wouldn't trade any one of them for an AMD.

they have lost the war -- and unless they hit the market with an octocore soon, they won't make it.

AMDs are great in my experience

back in the Pentium 3 and Pentium 4 days I was all about AMD everywhere but my laptop... (still preferred Xeon for the big servers but went AMD on the small ones)

AMD just can't touch Intel in performance anywhere close to enough unless they drastically dropped prices. Even then the high end will stay all Intel for quite a while... I was hoping Phenom would do more but it hasn't.

buying ATI really was the nail in the coffin simply because now they don't have cash reserves to try to have a real price war which is their only hope.

Yeah, Intel Processors are better than AMD and its a good thing that they got cheaper and faster. Anyway, AMD is also a good one but in my experience, they tend to burn faster than the Intel Processors.

Intel ftw...

I was amd man for the last 10 yrs, just got one of the new 45mm intels.Its a great cpu.

AMD is dying. Ten years from now, I'd be surprised if they're still around. I believe they will continue to lose market share until eventually they are acquired by Intel in a hostile takeover.

Haven't followed AMD recently or used any of their chips in a while but it seems the general opinion is that nobody likes their stuff recently.

Both Intel and AMD seem to want to get into the GPU space. We'll see how that goes. I remember reading a quote from John Carmack that said he thought it was a bad idea and that it should stay on the graphics card.

I was a pure AMD guy...thinking about gettng the http://www.alienware.com/configurato...ubCode=SKU-ENT
High Performance Gaming
AMD Phenom X4 9850 BE
Dual ATI Radeon HD 3870
4GB DDR2 800MHz
500GB Hard Disc Drive

to answer your question:
1) people might buy amd think more expensive is better
2) not look at benchmark tests where q6600 outperforms AMD in almost every test

i got an amd quad core at the time i bought it was allmost as quick as the intel quadcore but $50 less.

That being said this week a local store had intel quad cores for $180 which rocked :)

I used to believe HT was the real deal until I got myself educated in the wisdom and beautiful ways of Core Duo......... It arranges data and runs applications simultaneously by using sexy Feng Sui.........

I personally endorse Intel's Core 2......

its funny how amd is marketing their failed quadcore chips as "tricore"

at a certain price the 3 core chips wont be bad.

why throw away chips you can sell ?

Same here:2 cents:

I do like my AMD Turion on my laptop and never had any CPU problems but that price drop is going to really make it tough for them...

Only ever bought Intel, only ever will buy Intel.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3086_7-....html?tag=lnav

AMD's acquisition of graphics chipmaker ATI should bear some major collaborative fruit on the laptop side in early 2009, when the company is expected to debut its newest mobile platform, code-named Shrike. The platform's centerpiece: a unified CPU, GPU, and chipset that form one "accelerated processing unit" (APU). AMD anticipates that Shrike will provide a better graphics and media experience and (because only one chip is drawing power) extended battery life for laptop users. A presentation delivered to analysts in late 2007 [PDF] also notes that Shrike will support UWB for high-bandwidth data transfer.

On the desktop side, AMD has more than just multicore ambitions in 2009. We expect that its line of 45-nanometer desktop chips will expand to include two, three, four, and as many as eight cores. It also has a design in the works, code-named Bulldozer, that will allow up to 16 cores slated for 2010. By this point, we expect quad-core chips will closing in on ubiquity in budget and mainstream CPUs, with dual-core bringing up the rear on only the bottom-end of the desktop market.

Core density is not the only change AMD on the horizon, however. By the end of 2009 we expect to see the first iterations of AMD's Fusion design, which will incorporate the graphics processing core directly into the same silicon as the CPU itself. We do not expect this change will bring about the end of the graphics card market as it exists today. But as the only vendor able to tap into the knowledge of design teams seasoned in both CPU and performance GPU design--and no, we don't count Intel's integrated graphics chip as a "performance" part--AMD's Fusion core may be unique in its ability to provide powerful graphics and general processing power in a newly efficient package.

Who fucking cares?

there can only be one highlander

you do since you bothered to post here.