AMD, trying to mount a comeback.
-
So I was finally reading a Tom's Hardware article on the upcoming CPU architecture changes. It doesn't sound like they are going to leap directly back into the performance lead, but may be close enough. Competition at the high end can only mean good things for consumers!
Also, a 32-core/64-thread cpu is just exciting for those interested in squeezing as much out of each server as possible. 128 or 256 threads in a single chassis.
-
Cool, I've always been such a fan of AMD. I hate being a "fan" of one vendor over another and Intel has had better stuff for years, but I'm excited to see an Opteron resurgence.
-
We just need strong competition again. Intel is ruling the market, AMD has always been behind. If only half of the available information is true...
-
@thwr said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
We just need strong competition again. Intel is ruling the market, AMD has always been behind. If only half of the available information is true...
AMD was actually ahead for like six years. 2004 - 2010 nearly all enterprise servers were AMD. They got years lead on Intel with 64bit processors. And Intel got stuck with the architecture being AMD64 (still today.) AMD Opteron was the best for a very long time. The entire early 64bit era was a pure AMD world.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
@thwr said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
We just need strong competition again. Intel is ruling the market, AMD has always been behind. If only half of the available information is true...
AMD was actually ahead for like six years. 2004 - 2010 nearly all enterprise servers were AMD. They got years lead on Intel with 64bit processors. And Intel got stuck with the architecture being AMD64 (still today.) AMD Opteron was the best for a very long time. The entire early 64bit era was a pure AMD world.
Sure, but what about the last 6-8 years? I wouldn't say that AMD was in lead in 2010, but that may be subjective. At least Intel Core i, a game changer IMHO, has been released end of 2008.
-
-
@thwr said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
@scottalanmiller said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
@thwr said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
We just need strong competition again. Intel is ruling the market, AMD has always been behind. If only half of the available information is true...
AMD was actually ahead for like six years. 2004 - 2010 nearly all enterprise servers were AMD. They got years lead on Intel with 64bit processors. And Intel got stuck with the architecture being AMD64 (still today.) AMD Opteron was the best for a very long time. The entire early 64bit era was a pure AMD world.
Sure, but what about the last 6-8 years? I wouldn't say that AMD was in lead in 2010, but that may be subjective. At least Intel Core i, a game changer IMHO, has been released end of 2008.
That's a very short time frame for "has always been behind." They led for quite some time. Even at the end of the 32bit era they were leading there, too.
AMD was leading pretty close to 2010. Core i Xeons took time to get into servers.
-
-
@scottalanmiller It's AMD
-
@scottalanmiller said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
@thwr said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
@scottalanmiller said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
@thwr said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
We just need strong competition again. Intel is ruling the market, AMD has always been behind. If only half of the available information is true...
AMD was actually ahead for like six years. 2004 - 2010 nearly all enterprise servers were AMD. They got years lead on Intel with 64bit processors. And Intel got stuck with the architecture being AMD64 (still today.) AMD Opteron was the best for a very long time. The entire early 64bit era was a pure AMD world.
Sure, but what about the last 6-8 years? I wouldn't say that AMD was in lead in 2010, but that may be subjective. At least Intel Core i, a game changer IMHO, has been released end of 2008.
That's a very short time frame for "has always been behind." They led for quite some time. Even at the end of the 32bit era they were leading there, too.
AMD was leading pretty close to 2010. Core i Xeons took time to get into servers.
Well, "always has been" was a bit too much, but saying that next to each server between 2004 and 2010 used an Opeteron is equally undifferentiated. I admit they had large market shares in this period, but I couldn't find a chart showing specific numbers for Opterons and Xeons. Does anyone have such a chart at hand?
-
@thwr said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
@scottalanmiller said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
@thwr said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
@scottalanmiller said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
@thwr said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
We just need strong competition again. Intel is ruling the market, AMD has always been behind. If only half of the available information is true...
AMD was actually ahead for like six years. 2004 - 2010 nearly all enterprise servers were AMD. They got years lead on Intel with 64bit processors. And Intel got stuck with the architecture being AMD64 (still today.) AMD Opteron was the best for a very long time. The entire early 64bit era was a pure AMD world.
Sure, but what about the last 6-8 years? I wouldn't say that AMD was in lead in 2010, but that may be subjective. At least Intel Core i, a game changer IMHO, has been released end of 2008.
That's a very short time frame for "has always been behind." They led for quite some time. Even at the end of the 32bit era they were leading there, too.
AMD was leading pretty close to 2010. Core i Xeons took time to get into servers.
Well, "always has been" was a bit too much, but saying that next to each server between 2004 and 2010 used an Opeteron is equally undifferentiated. I admit they had large market shares in this period, but I couldn't find a chart showing specific numbers for Opterons and Xeons. Does anyone have such a chart at hand?
It was dramatic, people were actually wondering if Intel was going to leave the server world completely. If you remember, for a few years AMD was the only 64bit server maker and the only one with virtualization. There was a couple years where Intel didn't even have an enterprise offering. And when they did they were really, really far behind. They caught up quickly, but only after dumping their netburst architecture. I know in some of the biggest shops the Intel buying rate actually dropped to zero. Which, sadly, is about where AMD is now.
-
Any competition will be good. The RISC space has solid competition with at least Oracle and IBM always keeping each other in check (and that's if you ignore ARM.) AMD was left without competition for years and look what happened. Now Intel has been, will be interesting to see if AMD is able to put some serious pressure on Intel and drive the market forward again.
-
They've been playing catch up for far too long for me to care anymore. I'm a lifer for Intel/Nvidia products sorry L0S3R!
-
@scottalanmiller said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
Cool, I've always been such a fan of AMD. I hate being a "fan" of one vendor over another and Intel has had better stuff for years, but I'm excited to see an Opteron resurgence.
Yea I've been a fan of AMD for a long time. Its a shame how Intel was able to effectively screw them over and their market share (and got away with it). I would love for AMD to make a comeback, we are a mainly AMD shop (except servers unfortunately)
-
@Brains I just buy whatever the best product is and stay out of the drama typically
-
@wirestyle22 said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
@Brains I just buy whatever the best product is and stay out of the drama typically
For us that is AMD and im very happy about it. I agree, my personal preferences normally dont matter when its not my money. But we dont need high powered machines, only ones that can run Office and IE, so AMD is the cheapest and best solution for all machines except IT ones (needs moar powah!)
-
@zuphzuph said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
They've been playing catch up for far too long for me to care anymore. I'm a lifer for Intel/Nvidia products sorry L0S3R!
One could say the same thing about Intel. Intel was playing catchup for just as long, just before AMD started playing catchup.
-
@scottalanmiller Yeah, I've only been in the game for about 13 years. I just recall heat issues back then and failures let and right. They're much more advanced from a market standpoint currently but I still see things like the infamous cursor glitch that make me steer clear of AMD and ATI products... Intel just makes more sense to me, it's what I grew up building with and tinkering with speeds on.
-
@zuphzuph said in AMD, trying to mount a comeback.:
@scottalanmiller Yeah, I've only been in the game for about 13 years. I just recall heat issues back then and failures let and right. They're much more advanced from a market standpoint currently but I still see things like the infamous cursor glitch that make me steer clear of AMD and ATI products... Intel just makes more sense to me, it's what I grew up building with and tinkering with speeds on.
Are you talking about desktop products? AMD were the cool running ones, not the hot ones, in the 64bit era.
-
@scottalanmiller Yes I'm talking desktop hardware, CPUs specifically. It could've been my own fault though. I was only 12-13 at the time but I recall my first build which was an AMD chip. I guess I'm just tainted...
