AMD accuses Intel and SYSmark of shenanigans

Discussion in 'AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by power, Jan 20, 2016.

  1. Apokalipse

    Apokalipse Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,161
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Maybe you missed the part where AMD did have the superior product (Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4) and they still couldn't get market share.
     
  2. OP
    OP
    power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    52,060
    Location:
    brisbane
    They did get a certain amount, but 1 generation doth not make a company.

    Also, their chipsets were garbage and boards almost non-existant. So they could not provide a platform solution which is a big deal for OEMs.
     
  3. Apokalipse

    Apokalipse Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,161
    Location:
    Melbourne
    The Pentium 4 was around for many years. They definitely should have gotten more market share than they did.

    The chipsets used in OEM machines didn't need to be particularly good for a machine that was only intended to run at stock settings.
    The people that did overclock and tweak their systems were going with motherboards that used nvidia nforce chipsets, and they were actually pretty good.

    I mean, the integrated graphics from Via was pretty terrible, but then so was the integrated graphics from Intel too. A lot of them would have at least used a basic AGP graphics card, such as a Radeon 9200SE, or Geforce FX5200.
    It was only when the 780G chipset came out that integrated graphics got a big kick in the pants.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2016
  4. OP
    OP
    power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    52,060
    Location:
    brisbane
    they need rock solid first party chipsets, which AMD could not provide and third party stuff like VIA and nVidia was all over the shop.

    The biggest dent they made was the enthusiast sector.
     
  5. Apokalipse

    Apokalipse Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,161
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Everything was all over the shop at that time. There wasn't a nearly as much consolidation of manufacturers in general.
    It would have been a much bigger deal choosing hard drive manufacturers. And there were a whole bunch of unreliable hard drives used in OEM machines.
    IBM "Deathstar" (Deskstar), Quantum Fireball, Maxtor were pretty bad at some points (Maxtor did also acquire Quantum).

    There were also a lot of absolutely terrible power supplies used all over the place, too, which would often die and take a bunch of components out with them.
    Really, I'm surprised SHAW is even still in business making power supplies today.

    Then there's the fact that so many manufacturers were stingy on the amount of RAM they would put into machines.

    Yeah, I think the quality of Via chipsets would be pretty low on the list of things wrong with OEM machines generally.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2016
  6. OP
    OP
    power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    52,060
    Location:
    brisbane
    Intel chipsets and boards are accepted industry wide as the first choice when you want reliability for good reason - regardless of all the other shit.
     
  7. Apokalipse

    Apokalipse Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,161
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Today they are.
    But I remember back when the Pentium 4's were around. I wouldn't say their chipsets were leagues ahead of the better third party chipsets. Especially the Nvidia ones.
    The Via chipsets were definitely reasonable enough for stock/OEM systems. They were about in the same league as Realtek LAN/audio chips. They were cheap, but solid enough for a pre-built machine running at stock, though they were definitely not an enthusiast part.

    Nvidia did have a large portion of the enthusiast chipset market with Core 2's and Athlon 64's. But then:
    • AMD acquired ATI and started making their own chipsets that were actually good
    • AMD lost a lot of the enthusiast market to Intel, so Nvidia lost interest in making AMD chipsets, especially when competing against AMD's own chipsets
    • Intel shut Nvidia out of their chipset market entirely, by denying them the ability to make chipsets using QPI, which is used in all the core i7/i5/i3 chips starting from Bloomfield/Lynnfield - Intel took them to court and won, arguing they were only allowed to make chipsets for CPUs using a FSB.

    And of course Via had nowhere to go in the chipset market, because AMD's own chipsets covered all market segments including the low end, with vastly superior onboard graphics in the 780G chipset that also saved people money by not having to buy a cheap PCI-E graphics card.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2016
  8. mAJORD

    mAJORD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,909
    Location:
    Griffin , Brisbane
    How so?

    Theres bugger all to a chipset anymore, and I would say Todays AMD chipsets are easily on par with Intel's when it comes to platform stability. In fact they've had less (none?) critical bugs than intel have in the last ~5 yrs or so (critical enough to cause recalls, and re-spins)

    They also answer the problem mentioned by Power by being all in house now.

    As I think I mentioned before perhaps in another thread. It's the most significant plus to come out of the Ati aquisition. And whilst they may have paid far too much, it's hard to imagine what their platform would look like right now if they hadn't Aquired them.
     
  9. tunksy

    tunksy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    300
    Location:
    SA
    All this reminds me of is how much i wish amd were competitive again. The market has shrunk so much. Not enough variation. Nit enough choice.
     
  10. Toliandar

    Toliandar Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Messages:
    210
    I also recall Intel being brought to court by AMD over this era due to Intel's anti-competitive business conduct (something about Intel coercing brands like HP by withdrawing their product entirely if that company offered AMD products) and AMD won the court case. The damage was done though and although hefty the anti-competitive actions seemed to have worked out better for Intel in the long run.
     
  11. lionman

    lionman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,874
    Location:
    Perth,WA,Earth
    In all but the highest tier of CPUS, AMD are competitive. Most people don't need i7 performance. Facebook and word don't take that much CPU power.

    price/performance they are not bad value.

    There is no real reason why Intel have so much more market share than AMD. For the end user there is very little difference between the two.

    I don't think dodgy benchmarks have anything to do with the gap though. Most people wouldn't know a thing about CPU performance. They buy products, not performance. It has a lot more to do with marketing and OEM contracts with OEM marketing.

    There is also the rise of ARM. x86 is fast becoming a niche in the consumer market.

    AMD might drop a bombshell with Zen and I bet it wont change diddely squat. AMD will move a few more high end parts as enthusiasts try out their new offerings but in the mainstream it wont matter. i5/i7 is all people think of and with out some seriously clever marketing (ie not like the video in the OP), they wont get penetration regardless of performance and not without successive highly competitive generations, which will be 5+ years.
     

Share This Page