[Pollux]

http://www.theregist...s_intel_retail/

http://news.com.com/..._3-5303705.html

http://www.forbes.co..._1019chips.html

http://www.forbes.co...18006258r1.html

[BUDMAN]

i always had AMD ahead fo intel :-p

[Bucu]

doesn't mean intel is out, circular flow my man circular flow

[Mwarhead]

Neither company is going anywhere. AMD is not ready to handle 100 percent of the market (not even 60) and Intel still dominates the laptop market and most of the server market as well.

[Darkenreaper57]

Mwarhead said:

Neither company is going anywhere. AMD is not ready to handle 100 percent of the market (not even 60) and Intel still dominates the laptop market and most of the server market as well.

This may be true, but the percent of AMD based servers is rising siginificantly. This is mostly due to the Opterons being a better performing chip overall, when compared to the zeons.

It also looks like AMD will have the edge when dual core chips are released since the opteron was designed for dual cores since the beginning. There will also be no needed change in socket, so the old chips can be swapped out, and new ones put in, offering a major boost in performance.

Now, if you are talking about the Itanium 2, thats a different story. These chips, however, are extremely unpopular (when compared to the Zeons and Opterons) due to their high price margin.

As for the laptop market, Intel does have the upper hand, no doubt. Their pentium-M and centrino systems are extremely popular, and also very good. You cannot, however, ignore that the mobility athlon 64 chips are becoming more mainsteam, especially with the highly acclaimed emachines M68xx model line at a low price of $1299.

[Struzor]

Indeed, I wish more companies would put the low-power AMD64 chips in laptops, but companies like Dell have special contracts with Intel and won't use them.

[GoldElderDragon]

are there even any major differences between the 2 chips when it comes down to gaming?

[Bucu]

http://www.infoworld...touseamd_1.html


just saw this article

[Darkenreaper57]

GoldElderDragon said:

are there even any major differences between the 2 chips when it comes down to gaming?

In terms of gaming, definetly. The on-die memory controller and high IPC nature of AMD chips help out a lot. In 90% of benchmarks, AMD's athlon64 (especially 90nm 939) chips have a significant increase in performance. These chips are also cheaper (and considering you can overclock a 90nm socket 939 3000+ to 4000+ levels, and these chips are as low as $160, this is a great bargain).

[Pollux]

http://www.theregist...s_intel_retail/

http://news.com.com/..._3-5303705.html

http://www.forbes.co..._1019chips.html

http://www.forbes.co...18006258r1.html

[BUDMAN]

i always had AMD ahead fo intel :-p

[Bucu]

doesn't mean intel is out, circular flow my man circular flow

[Mwarhead]

Neither company is going anywhere. AMD is not ready to handle 100 percent of the market (not even 60) and Intel still dominates the laptop market and most of the server market as well.

[Darkenreaper57]

Mwarhead said:

Neither company is going anywhere. AMD is not ready to handle 100 percent of the market (not even 60) and Intel still dominates the laptop market and most of the server market as well.

This may be true, but the percent of AMD based servers is rising siginificantly. This is mostly due to the Opterons being a better performing chip overall, when compared to the zeons.

It also looks like AMD will have the edge when dual core chips are released since the opteron was designed for dual cores since the beginning. There will also be no needed change in socket, so the old chips can be swapped out, and new ones put in, offering a major boost in performance.

Now, if you are talking about the Itanium 2, thats a different story. These chips, however, are extremely unpopular (when compared to the Zeons and Opterons) due to their high price margin.

As for the laptop market, Intel does have the upper hand, no doubt. Their pentium-M and centrino systems are extremely popular, and also very good. You cannot, however, ignore that the mobility athlon 64 chips are becoming more mainsteam, especially with the highly acclaimed emachines M68xx model line at a low price of $1299.

[Struzor]

Indeed, I wish more companies would put the low-power AMD64 chips in laptops, but companies like Dell have special contracts with Intel and won't use them.

[GoldElderDragon]

are there even any major differences between the 2 chips when it comes down to gaming?

[Bucu]

http://www.infoworld...touseamd_1.html


just saw this article

[Darkenreaper57]

GoldElderDragon said:

are there even any major differences between the 2 chips when it comes down to gaming?

In terms of gaming, definetly. The on-die memory controller and high IPC nature of AMD chips help out a lot. In 90% of benchmarks, AMD's athlon64 (especially 90nm 939) chips have a significant increase in performance. These chips are also cheaper (and considering you can overclock a 90nm socket 939 3000+ to 4000+ levels, and these chips are as low as $160, this is a great bargain).