AMD and Intel call a truce

Haych · Post by **Haych** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:37 pm

Apparently the infamous rivals have taken a course of action straight out of left-field, and decided to be buddies. Or at least not keep a knife held to each others throat.

http://technologizer.com/2009/11/12/int ... -of-sorts/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33882559/ns ... _business/

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/ ... 20091112ra

Is this good or bad in your opinion? What does it possibly mean for the consumer? I'm by no means a 'techie', so I'd love to see what more knowledgable people think of it all.

Thanks guys

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:20 am

I liked the Anandtech analysis:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3675

Bottom line - this is good for AMD, as it gives them the ability to continue to try to compete with Intel and not have to suffer the oppression of Intel's constant market manipulation and hardball tactics specifically designed to put AMD out of business. The downside is that Intel is a great design and production company, so even competing on a truly level playing field is no simple task for AMD. They have their work cut out for them, but without this agreement, they'd have been out of the CPU business in a year.

psiu · Post by **psiu** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:24 pm

Hope it's good news for Team Green. I don't think Intel is going away anytime soon, and they have the resources to stay on top. However, I certainly enjoy the low-end alternatives AMD offers as they fall right in my budget area (cheap

).

And it wasn't long ago that K7 and K8 were busy giving Intel some big headaches. Although they definitely seemed to have learned from those mistakes with their new approach (the tick-tock release method).

Two other points, something else AT had mentioned quite a while ago regarding Nvidia and ATI, these companies come up with ideas and have to implement with fairly long lead times--this can definitely give a company an advantage when the competitor has a bit of a flop while they match or exceed expectations. And also, this will make it possible for AMD to dump piles of their cash into R&D, which they need to help catch up.

I like having competition...technology keeps improving and getting cheaper

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:09 pm

Well, it isnt a truce, it's an anal pillaging.

Little Viking Suppositories

that's a lot of cash. Too bad amd can't make a profit, this could have been a great addition to the companies cash flow. I think it just helps with the debt. That's sad!

frostedflakes · Post by **frostedflakes** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:30 pm

Nice to see both companies looking forward. I don't think even $1.25B can make up for Intel's anti-competitive practices back when AMD had the superior architecture and was well-poised to increase their market share, but oh well. What's done is done.

The important thing is that they've extended their cross-licensing agreement for another five years. Also, the way I understand it is that the agreement now allows AMD to outsource fabrication to anyone they want (the original agreement required that the fabbing was done in-house, which is why AMD had to own at least 50% of Global Foundries so it could be classified as a subsidiary). So I think this means that AMD can now sell off some of their stake in Global Foundries, which is a nice option to have if they're ever strapped for cash.

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:33 am

AMD can only compete on (low end) value. Sorry AMD, you'll always be the bridesmaid. Keep at it though. Someday, you might actually make some money.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:29 am

Sorry AMD, you'll always be the bridesmaid

You only have to look back a few years to see that the bridesmaid had a large strap-on, and was using it. AMD probably deserve more than they have got out of this. $1.25B is a lot of cash, but they have been stifled for 10+ years, I am sure they would be in a better position right now (even without $1.25B) if Intel had not been such bastards.

Lets hope AMD pump it into R&D, and get their long awaited Fusion products out into the marketplace, then they can get that strap-on out of the wardrobe and into use again.

AMD can only compete on (low end) value.

You have to remember that the "low end" is 90% of the market, AMD have always been weak in the busniess sector, this is due to stupid people choosing a name they recognise from the TV vs the people who know whats a better product for the money, and also Intel's antic of the past. This should give AMD easier access to big wins.

Andy

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:53 pm

I've been an AMD user for almost a decade so I'm not speaking totally out of ignorance. But, like a footballer who's spent most of his career at one club, through the highs and lows, it's time for me to join the club the other side of the river to end my career.

Granted that AMD has good value products but it's not just about pricing and value for money. Dependability, stability and compatibility are more important than the numbers on the invoice. It could be argued all day long by proponents from one side or another but Intel has always had a reputation to be better in those regards. AMD seems to always get the rubbish end of the industry, whether due to the fault of others or their own.

The way I see it is AMD is good at the low budget end because that's where they can specialise and beat Intel. (Not that Intel really care; they have enough other sectors covered.) ATI has always had good multimedia experience and this has helped boost AMD's profile in recent times.

We all love to hate the rich, big, bullying side (just like I hate Man Utd and Real Madrid) but we can view it this way: they are there to make the other side(s) work harder. That way, we get a better competition and value for our hard earned money, whichever side you choose to join or support.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:33 pm

amd only is beat by intel if you think that spending 200 dollars more for the same bench speed is a better deal.

the new unlocked 3.4 quad from AMD cranks and is cheap. The issue is power usage. If this was near intel, it would blow them away.

The amd boards are cheaper for more features, like 100 dollars cheaper in many cases. the chips are, obviously. The ram can be ddr2 for a small perfmorance hit until ddr3 is cheap and you are ready to buy that. Stability wise, you are buying 3 amd components if you buy an ATI video card. chipset, cpu and gpu can all be amd.

The problem is tpd. Really, the 3.4 cranks and is a contender.

I wish they made a slightly faster clocked 720, x3 type. THey have held off that for a long time now.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:49 pm

I've been an AMD user for almost a decade so I'm not speaking totally out of ignorance.

Same here.

it's time for me to join the club the other side of the river to end my career.

I already have, just look at my sig.... forget that idea until Antec sort out their mess. I will happily use whichever product is the best fit. Currently (and for the last ~9 years) that has been AMD, not Intel for PC's I build for customers because they offer better value for money at the performance and feature level that I excpect.

For me, my performance level was above and beyond what AMD could offer at the time for my budget, so there was no choice in the matter, Intel it was.

The way I see it is AMD is good at the low budget end because that's where they can specialise and beat Intel.

Like having good graphics, and still be cheaper overall for the same money and performance level, that is a specialisation if I ever saw one.

You seem to have forgotten the several years that Intel were trailing AMD in the top performance stakes, let alone where it really matters - the actual chips people buy - the ones that they can afford.

I am not denying the fact that AMD trailed Intel performancewise for years, then overtook them for years and then lost that lead again. But they have always been better value for money than Intel have and thats what keeps them in the game. The fact that they kicked Intels arse for several years in the top end of the market merely helped them reach an audience that were ignoring them before - remember that the vast majority of CPU's that are sold are below 50% of the performance of the fastest chips, thats what really counts, the bulk sales, not the few record breakers.

ATI has always had good multimedia experience and this has helped boost AMD's profile in recent times.

Yes it did, and it has also been much needed in recent times as nVidia are pulling out of making chipsets for the AMD platform, and who knows what would have happened if AMD had not bought ATI.

On the negative side AMD chipsets are almost like Intel were a decade ago, everything else was junk, so it was a one horse race. I would like to see more AMD chipset competition before Fusion negates most of it.

Dependability, stability and compatibility are more important than the numbers on the invoice. It could be argued all day long by proponents from one side or another but Intel has always had a reputation to be better in those regards.

Yes they have - says Intel (with an evil grin).

That was a rumour put round by Intel, and I can personally vouch that is exactly what Intel did. Some people still believe things they heard 10-years ago to be true, even without a scrap of proof. AMD CPU's have been fault free for a decade or more, the problems with chipsets vanished 9+ years ago (from memory).

If the claim that AMD CPU's/platform are unreliable then I must point out that I have had more Intel system failures than AMD system failures in the last 4 years when I have only had 1 Intel system, but 6 AMD systems. So I conclude that AMD systems are more reliable than Intel systems. I hope that my arbritary facts clear everything up for everyone reading this.

Andy

PS: I am not joking about personally knowing that Intel bribed companies not to sell AMD stuff, or that Intel lied to people about the reliability of AMD products just so they could sell more chips and keep their monopoly.

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:30 pm

andyb wrote:Yes they have. That was a rumour put round by Intel, and I can personally vouch that is exactly what Intel did. Some people still believe things they heard 10-years ago to be true, even without a scrap of proof. AMD CPU's have been fault free for a decade or more, the problems with chipsets vanished 9odd years ago (from memory), so if the claim that AMD CPU's/platform are unreliable then I must point out that I have had more Intel system failures than AMD system failures in the last 4 years when I have only had 1 Intel system, but 6 AMD systems. So I conclude that AMD system are more reliable than Intel systems. I hope that my arbritary facts clear everything up for everyone reading this.

It's true that a modern CPU (for argument's sake, let's just say between Intel and AMD, and in the last four or five years) itself isn't any more reliable than the other. (Unless there is a very bad batch that can't be sold on as a cheaper product.) Rather, it's the entire platform which includes the chipset, RAM, GPU, drivers etc. I blame a lot of AMD issues I've had on the chipsets and drivers it had to be paired up with: VIA, SIS, nForce. I've used AMD's chipsets too and they have managed to give me grief also. When it's working, it's brilliant. The value, quality and satisfaction is nothing Intel can match at the same price level, or even higher. But I don't recommend a full AMD platform (CPU, chipset, GPU) for home users who aren't so knowledgeable or tech minded.

I agree that Intel's marketing and tactics is pathetic and packed full of "untruths" but it's not unusual for big, dominant companies. They do whatever they want because they can as long as they can get away with it. It's up to the consumer to make their own informed buying decisions. Unfortunately, most people are (mis)led by advertising and gel-slicked salestaff in Mum and Dad stores who offer five years interest free deals to people who can hardly afford to buy a pack of biscuits let alone a new computer.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:42 pm

I think the most stable is intel cpu and intel board. Not just intel chipset. THis has been the best way for stability in the past.

Previously, before Abit kicked the bucket, I have had the best luck with them. kt800 via chipset 754 was awesome (still works perfect), their p2 boards were awesome and many in between. Even right before they went under, the most loved board resurfaced as Abit.

it isnt the cpu or the platform, it is the motherboard maker that makes something stable. I love Tyan the most but can be expensive.

Shamgar · Post by **Shamgar** » Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:12 am

~El~Jefe~ wrote:I think the most stable is intel cpu and intel board. Not just intel chipset. THis has been the best way for stability in the past.

That's what often gets recommended. Audio enthusiasts for example had always preferred Intel+Intel over anything else. I think that's still true today although some DAW folks use AMD quite happily.

~El~Jefe~ wrote:it isnt the cpu or the platform, it is the motherboard maker that makes something stable. I love Tyan the most but can be expensive.

Yeah, the CPU is brought to life by a good motherboard. Pity so many of them are crammed full of unnecessary features these days. It's a shame some of the smaller manufacturers went under. Most stores only seem to stock the main two now, and some of them only one.