This is about the current rivalry of Intel and Amd but not selecting which is better or nything like that but more about the rivalry itself. So, do you think…
0 voters
Competition is healthy. If AMD hadn’t have smashed it out of the park with the athlon xp intel would still be wasting time on the netburst cpu architecture (pentium 4).
As a lament who basically learned the new tech after not building a computer since …2001, I chose the i7 just because intel is the popular brand to my knowledge.
Last year my i7 6700k was about $500US and change. I like it’s performance and works well with the asus pro mobo I bought and the Samsung 950…stick of gum harddrive? Coolio.
In the end I’m not surprised. The good health of an economy is competition. Monopolies would be silly.
I have a water cooled 8 core amd . Had an I5-3570 for years. The I5 was better for navigating my PC and populating lists but I honestly do not see a difference gaming.
It is Vishera FX8300 that has 8 cores at 3.6 and can go up to 4.5ghz stable with amd overdrive tool.
My point is as long as you get a decent performing processor I would say good RAM/board and GPU you see more bang for buck.
I5 cost me 300 pounds (near release day) this vishera cost me 100.
Those Vishera chips whilst slightly old are quite good. I agree with your basic tenet about processors, EVE would run on a pentium 4 i reckon.
People get fanboi about parts and components but there are diminishing returns these days as the bounds forward have gotten incrementally smaller. You can put together a decent gaming system for 500 pounds - you do not need a gtx1080ti 6gb and all bells and whistles parts you really do not - that said it depends what you want to use it for - FPS games are resource hungry but if you want fps buy a console …
i use a gainward 4gb 770gtx phantom that admittedly was expensive 3 yeaers ago but my pc guy still reeckons its one of the best cards ever made. yes newer cards trump it on clock speeds but i had my bi-annual mot and we removed 75% of the pc to upgrade but the gpu he says will last another 2 years for the games i play - EVE and heavy strategy games.
There are going to be swings up and down between the companies lines, intel has been on top for a while now, it’s just healthy competition that AMD can bring out something new and better. Give intel a year or two to react. Sure rebranding the top end i7s i9s is a bit silly but that is a very short run change, I’m waiting to see what they come out with in another year or two. Hype and over reaction are the realm of internet fanboys, I don’t really give that stuff a lot of weight. The only people even looking at it are also internet fanboys.
Personally, I wanted an Amd laptop due to the fact they have better graphics processors but when I learned the chips run hotter and only had a Tjunction of 90 I chose an intel processor. I needed something that could go at 70% CPU/100% GPU for long durations, that is the main thing that pushed me to intel… I went from a core 2 duo p9400 (not even acknowledged as a standalone chip) to an i3-6100u. I was praying Zen and Ryzen would come and make powerful yet cheap laptops, sadly that might be in a year or two…
I wonder how long it will be before we have CPUs that can out perform a GPU:
"Kilo Core CPUs with Femtometer architecture"
A guy can dream
With my system I went nuts and got a titanx. I liquid cooled CPU and video card as Titan x stock air cooler isn’t the greatest.
Well, I just saw some news of Intel name-calling Amd… that… was very childish 
When you have market titans like Apple, Dell and Lenovo sourcing AMD chipsets for graphical applications and Intel for multi-tiered mathematics, you have to realize, there is nothing classier than the prospect of an AMD-Intel hybrid chip.
I grew up with the AMD architecture. I loved it back in the days of windows 93.1/95. I used them all the way up through XP. Then I switched to the Intel core 2 quad in 2009 which I believe was intel’s first quad core series (I had the 3rd generation). I have to say it’s a more stable CPU than my experiences in the past as I’m still using it today.
My PC build is:
-nForce 790i Ultra SLI (slowly dying one port at a time)
-Intel Core 2 Quad q9400 @2.66ghz
-8GB DDR3 running at 1333mhz (board wouldn’t let me clock it to 1600 like it should have)
-Nvidia GeForce GTX 260 (I still say it’s one of the best GPUs ever created. This thing ran everything on high settings…and it would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for that meddlesome DX11)
With these powers combined I can still play EVE and most games on the max settings. She’s a reliable rig that’s for sure.
TL;DR
Moral of the story is I’m probably gonna stick with Intel.
Not sure it much matters because that ship has sailed:
AMD ranks in at number 2 with approximately a tenth of Intel’s revenue with only 15% of the market share.
this is about the general competition not the competitor’s products/rank, etc.
My comment is about the competition. Specifically, there is none. For what it’s worth, I worked for Intel for nearly a decade. My long-time associates there tell me that they couldn’t care less about AMD, other than the fact that Intel sometimes provides high end B2B services for them because AMD lacks the resources they need. Neither company has much interest in the PC/Laptop market because sales for this sector have been declining precipitously over the last few years, making Intel and AMD less head-to-head competitors than ever. And both companies are betting on other revenue streams - one of Intel’s primary focuses lately, for instance, is digital wearables.
Not that kind of competition, the act of their competition, be it one up-ing continuously or resorting to name calling, etc.
Not…
1.) resources
2.) popularity
3.) capability
4.) topics in relation to business excluding [marketing tactics, direct chart comparisons, employee fights, or direct attack on a product (idea or brand)
etc.
comparing ryzen to i9 doesn’t say anything about their act of competition but the competing products so it doesn’t fit, but a chart saying "this is how much better team red/blue is better than team red/blue.
That’s an awfully strict set of guidelines for discussing corporate competition. Most of what you put in your list is what makes up corporate competition.
That “act” of their competition would be specifically based on the principles you outlined above that says it shouldn’t be. If Intel’s newest processor outperforms AMD’s, of course they are going to gloat in any manner they think is either relatable to the consumers or simply markets the product in a fun way.
I think you’re trying to separate what can’t be separated.
PS @CCP - your spellchecker is out of date. “Relatable” is a word.