AMD is to Intel what Microsoft is to Apple. Stolen OS, Stolen CPU...

Yeah

...sure

Apple is to Xerox what Intel is to I........wait whats your point again. It was wrong for AMD to take what Intel has done and make it better?

Curse those damn AMD-inites for stealing the CPU architecture in an agreement where they stopped developing their own and instead switched to producing x86 CPUs and improving upon them!

I love it when people make blanket statements like "AMD is faster than Intel" or viceversa.

It really is amusing.

And then again, sometimes it makes me want to cry in mourning over the apparent depreciation of the public's collective IQ.

Really, the Intel buyers (except for laptops) are completely stupid people. They go to stores and ask for a "Pentium 4"... As if that means the same as "computer"... I'm sick of those people. They don't care to check out if there's another option. They want a "Pentium 4". When you tell them that AMD exists then the surprise comes fast... Or they stay quiet and move on to the next stupid store that will gently sell them a "Pentium 4" that it's the best thing ever designed by a human being... Intel is pre-History. AMD is the future. Sadly, ignorant people will never see this...

I lost faith in Intel a long time ago, they are a dinosaur. The Pentium 4 line was a disaster from start to finish. They suck up power like crazy because they have to run so fast. Their latest dual core chips uses 50 watts while idle, doing absolutely nothing, and 135 watts under full load. That is absolutely freaking ridiculous. The thing puts off more heat than a blast furnace and still it gets beaten badly by a much slower clocked AMD dual core chip which itself uses only 11 watts at idle and 45 at full load. AMD uses less power under load than an idle Pentium 4 and still beats the pants off it. Now tell me, who makes the better chips?

AMD does, since they are faster, but you shouldn't compare watt usage. If you use watts to compare, then Via wins. I *think* I read somewhere that their newest processor uses ~1 watt for 1ghz(though it's maxed at 1ghz, one core). Right now they're boasting about it, since it generates so little heat it can use passive cooling.

That's true, I built a VIA C3 system a few years back and the processor didn't even need a fan. I liked that because it was really quiet; it was for an office and that was important to the person I built it for. I didn't include them though because performance wise they aren't even in the same universe as AMD or Intel, though they are fine for small workstations or embedded systems where heat is an issue. I brought it up mainly because the Intel chips simply run too hot and eat up too much power for their meager performance.

AHHHHH!!!!!!!! too mutch happening in the cpu market, i dont know if its worth to buy a new cpu & mobo now or to wait!!!! i want low power, fast ram and atleast dual core, for multimedia handling with several apps running in the foreground atonce, all running smoothly 24/7.

dvd-decoding x2, video-encoding x2, live AV scan, P2P, musikCube with 50K tracks, etc.

WHAT TO CHOOSE???? OR WAIT FOR BETTER HARDWARE???

People dont care about 65-nm or architecture. They care about SPEED & STABILITY.
AMD has proven over the years than they can produce preccessors with higher speeds and stability with lower clock speeds than Intel.
The same thing happened with 3dfx and nVidia when 3dfx underestimated nVidia and they paid the price.

Quality+speed+stability=AMD

Cant go wrong with that!

Not sure about that. One of the oft-overlooked benefits of Intel chips is built in temperature sensing and automatic clock speed compensation if it gets too hot. Whereas, if the fan falls off your Athlon, you're screwed...it'll go right ahead and cook itself to death. I liked AMD a lot, but believe it or not I had this exact experience in a custom-ordered Athlon PC, just a few months after reading about this difference in fact. The PC had to be sent back because it was fried.

That's it man, blow the market although your great CPUs have never been comparable with AMD Toys and you were Moving to Infinity
I Love you Intel (Mr.Innovation)

Uh, Let's get ready to ruuuuumble!!!

I'll definately be sitting back and watching this one. It's been an interesting round, so far. ;)

How the article should have read:

"Intel Plans New Offensive Against AMD [by promising less subpar CPU's at higher prices]"

"Intel set out at Tuesday's opening of the Intel Developer Forum to assure [mindless] followers that it would not let itself [further] fall behind its smaller [and surprisingly better] competitor. AMD has gained the upper hand in desktop chips [by producing chips at faster speeds and cheaper prices], and is beginning to put a significant dent in Intel's dominance in laptop processors, recent surveys indicate."

...and our anti-competitive tactics of kickbacks, chip-coding, .... aren't working. We are now going to have to actually develop/design new chips from the ground up.

myvce2006@hotmail.com

Here's a bright idea for Intel: how about a processor rating system that makes some damned sense? What the hell is "Intel 930" supposed to mean to me? And how the hell am I supposed to pronounce VIIV? Need to fire the entire marketing department.

hah.. at least Vista got a pronouce-able name, but ViiV.. looks nice when used as a nick name, but really want to present to the public with primarily novice users? marketing team needs some reconstruction indeed..

I am very happy to see that Amd is actually now getting Intel's attention. That is the beuty of competition. Before Amd was just a buzzing fly. Now that they are actually starting to steal their market share, their money in other words they have to start to actually do something about it, sad isn't it. I mean shouldn't they need less of a reason, like do it for the customer on their own even if amd didn't exist?

I mean face it if Amd didn't exist we would still be using 1 ghz pentium 3's with 128mb of ram and 5 gb hard drives. What does amd have to do with those other components mentioned, well why would you upgrade anything without faster speed? I know that would have stalled the entire industry.

Ironic that Intel basically gave AMD their start by letting them make clones of their 8088, 80286 and some later chips. Then Intel decided they wanted the whole pie to themselves and stopped licensing their stuff out, so AMD had to start making their own x86 compatible chips. The K5 and K6 series were a dismal failure but then came the Athlon and the rest (including Intel) is history.

IBM didn't want a monopoly, so Intel had to find a backup partner to produce chips and maintain a competative balance.

>> Also, the company plans to work with manufacturers to produce more innovative computer designs, including ultra-portable PCs based on Intel chips that are expected to hit the market in several weeks.

Eh...? You mean they're trying to act like Via now too?

So...they're trying to make processors for gaming, portable low-power solutions, and servers? Aren't they just about competing with every rival in existance?

"intel plans new offensive..."

yada yada yada.

No one with intelligence is believing any more (yes, I know Dell still does - I did say "intelligence", did I not?). AMD is 18 months ahead of Intel according to the latest technological projections from the leading analyst houses. in short, they're at least three business cycles behind and are demonstating that they're not only essentially technologically bankrupt but also incapable of formulating even a fall-back position, let alone an offensive.

Overpriced underpowered empty promises do not a success story make.

As long as AMD continues their relentless pace, Intel is Done.

save your AMD fanboy comments till Conroe for Intel and AM2 for AMD come out. Everyone can make empty projections until the products actually launch but nobody will know for sure unless they are an insider at both parties.

Intel won't be done until company like Dell stay offering them. As of this money, most of the big player offer Intel base PC. I would love to see they offer AMD too.

And if possible, give us the option to take out the OS too.

"AMD plans to transition to 65-nm as well, but not until the second half of this year. 65-nm Intel Core chips, which will succeed the Pentium 4 processor, are expected to start shipping in the third quarter"

Isnt the second half and third quarter the same time frame?? so why write it trying to make AMD look like they are going to be alot slower?? lol

Intel is actually shipping their 65nm CPU by the thrid quarter, AMD is planning to switch production to 65nm at about the same time, which means shipments will not go out till later.

you can already buy those 65nm CPUs you know, here in Japan it's already sold in Akihabara. Although the problem is that there isn't really a motherboard that supports those new duo core CPUs. Although I hear that they came out today or something.

Cedar Mill processors are already 65nm. AMD is late in this fab game by at least a year. By the time AMD do 65nm, Intel has already do 45nm.

This is by design, let the big boys do the R&D, then you find out how they do it, and then do it better..

AMD has always been this way. that's why they are slightly behind the curve... It is having a good affect, because Intel is doing much better with competition on their heels.

If you think Intel is SOOOO Great then why is it that: AMD can make a slower chip, IE the 1.2Ghz chip that totally stomps an Intel 3Ghz chip? AMD has always out preformed Intel in 95% of ALL benchmarks. Intel has had a few minor wins but nothing compared to AMD.

Intel is opening themselves up for a world of hurt when they change not only the size of the architecture but also the silicone at the same time....that is just a recipe for disaster. When AMD switches it will be a near flawless transition because they will have proven the product manufacturing before doing a mass role out, unlike Intel.

AMD doesn't have a 1.2Ghz Athlon chip that can beat a Pentium 4 3Ghz. And with Pentium M based CPUs, the performance advantage of AMD will be reduced anyway.

BTW, AMD transition from 120mm to 90mm was painful, and has too many delays. Intel's similiar transition process is more seamless than Intel.

Then explain to me why AMD migration to 90nm is more problematic than Intel's. Intel does it first, and they do it successfully. In fact, they are better at switching silicon fab size than IBM. The switch to 65nm is even better than the 90nm switch (which AMD has not done yet).