http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17785464

That should kick the competition into touch.

Nick

I've always preferred Intel over AMD anyway. They have made some really impressive chips in late years.

Phil

Agreed.

But there was a time, probably about 12 years ago and again 5 years ago, when both companies were neck and neck technically, But even when the output performances were on a par AMD never quite appeared to get the seamless compatibility with other components that Intel did and does.

But budget restrictions have meant I tend to go for AMD.

Reading between the lines there should be some nice price reductions in Intel's other ranges and competitors stuff when this hits the street (This month ?).

Nick

I've always preferred Intel over AMD anyway. They have made some really impressive chips in late years.

Phil

Seem to remember that good few years ago Intel were let down by their address /data retrieval systems. Any one organising a filing system would ( as AMD did) would set aside an area for the information on where the data was stored, but in a set ascending order, with no gaps, or computations needed to work out where the data was stored. Intel ,on the other hand stored data in various places, and for retrieval, the address had to be checked, and calculations made to determine the location , leading to Intel based systems being slower than corresponding AMD systems .

personally ,I've always gone for AMD stuff, on purely price alone ,as my last CPU was half the price of a corresponding Intel one. And this one was equally so . It's like comparing Skoda ( AMD) AND vw(Intel) .

But there was a time, probably about 12 years ago and again 5 years ago, when both companies were neck and neck technically, But even when the output performances were on a par AMD never quite appeared to get the seamless compatibility with other components that Intel did and does.

I think I remember that time! When I built my first computer, a Socket 939, it was circa 2004/5 and AMD were undisputed. IIRC the Athlon 64 (I went for the Winchester chipset 3200) and related FX53 and FX55 CPUs were the generally accepted market leaders at the time. I seem to remember the Intel competition of mainly P4s being hot chips that were only 32 bit. Then within a couple of years when the Core 2 Duo came out, everything changed and has never been the same since.

Of course, I could be completely wrong on all of that!

One thing I've noticed however, is that Intel have always dominated the notebook and server market.

I hope AMD pull it back.

Not that I prefer their products, but at the end of the day choice is good for prices and tech development

Seem to remember that good few years ago Intel were let down by their address /data retrieval systems. Any one organising a filing system would ( as AMD did) would set aside an area for the information on where the data was stored, but in a set ascending order, with no gaps, or computations needed to work out where the data was stored. Intel ,on the other hand stored data in various places, and for retrieval, the address had to be checked, and calculations made to determine the location , leading to Intel based systems being slower than corresponding AMD systems .

personally ,I've always gone for AMD stuff, on purely price alone ,as my last CPU was half the price of a corresponding Intel one. And this one was equally so . It's like comparing Skoda ( AMD) AND vw(Intel) .

IMO, Intel got derailed slightly with the Pentium 4. It was a very complex, very hot-running processor, with long instruction pipelines meaning it wasn't very "responsive"; results of an instruction would take "ages" (relatively speaking) to emerge from it, while the Athlon that competed with it at the time had a much shorter pipeline meaning it could turn results around quicker. Hence the Athlon being more efficient, clock-for-clock, as a P4 twice its "speed" in GHz in most use-cases (although there were a few which specifically favoured the long pipeline of the P4, I think media encoding was one). I've used both manufacturers in the past and don't particularly have an affiliation, it's just about "bang-for-buck" at the time of purchase for me. Cheez is right though, having the competition is definitely a good thing in all areas, means that prices are competitive and the pace of change is good (which then contributes to the price as there's more price drops when new tech comes out)

I remember avoiding AMD chips in laptops because they run hot and were a bit heavy on juice so went Intel and have been happy. My last proper PC had an Athlon 64bit processor in it and was considered good at the time.