Can AMD gain significant share from Intel in 2006 and beyond?
155462
Sure, it can.  Will it, is another question.  Yes, they do care.
256039
AMD, they're more efficient, and an improvement on Intel's stuff. Intel pioneers, AMD improves. Clock speed isn't everything.
58333
No, he is talking about how the raw processing power has typically doubled within 16 to 18 months.  It pretty much already has.  They have reached the limit as far as pushing the GHz limit.  Processors top out at 3.8GHz or 4GHz but with water cooling and overclocking it is possible to get them to 6GHz+ but that pretty much voids the warranty and should not be attempted unless you know what you are doing.\n\nNow they are finding more efficient ways of pushing data through the processor, better architectures, more efficient data paths, higher cache memory directly on the chip and so on.  Soon that limit too will be reached and they will have to find entirely new technologies to produce processors.  Some say optical processors, or something to replace silicon chips is making them with carbon nano-tubes.  Neural net processors are also being tested (one was taught to fly a plane - virtually).  None of these technologies will reach the mass market no sooner than 10 years but probably more like 15.
1001784
amd 2500+  >= P4 2500\namd 3000+  >= P4 3000\namd 4000+  >= P4 4000\namd 4600+  >= P4 4600\nand remember that the numbers on amd arn't the ferequency . they are  numbers to make compares more real between amd and intel .
388771
I do not believe the maximum number has been reached yet.  Intel has some information on their new technology for 300nm wafer however.
778031
Intel's Core 2's are the undisputed kings of processors at the moment.  even the AMD guys have had to admit that the new Intel chips are far superior.  the larger cache memory is important, but you should also know that the Intels are 64-bit processors as well, so they are both Windows Vista-ready.
796600
Look, don't listen to all the nay-sayers.  They are instinctively defending the underdog, which in this case is AMD.   AMD has always been the inferior brand and the proof is in the fact that Intel had always dominated the CPU market.  For every favorable AMD statistic they throw in your face, there are 5  statistics that favor Intel.   Stick with a winner.  AMD is for people who favor the underdog.  You would be wise to bear that in mind.
672533
Basically Intel and AMD are rival processors. They both are same in capability. AMD is new in market, so no one is aware about its capacity. But Intel is quite old one which has gained much publicity and trust in people. I heard AMD is more  powerful than Intel processors. \n\nIf you want to use computers for high end job like graphics design, 3d, animations then i recommend Intel Pentium. If it is for normal use like Office, emails n nets then Celeron would do for you.
323347
Currently the AMD CPUs give you better performance at a slower click speed as well as at a price point too.\nI've used AMD and Intel chips right from the type of my first 386. As I obeserved, the Intel Pentium I from the 90s were really good. They out performed my AMD K6 at the time... but eventually I found the K6-II and K6-III giving similar performace to an Intel Pentium 2 or 3.\nAnyway, that old news... check out the link below to see come comparisons.
12196
Most people would say you can't answer that and that even if you could take advice, it would depend on what your goal and timeline is.\n\nWith that said, if I had money to invest in one stock (since you said stock instead of mutual fund or otherwise), I would put it on Apple.  They have arguably the best operating system right now, and come fall/winter of 2006, their computers will be running on Intel processors.  Look ahead another year or two and they'll have those processors in their notebooks, and it looks like they want to put G5 level chips in their notebooks.  They have a solid market in mp3s with itunes and I believe many will try switching over to Apple once Intel powered notebooks come out.  I believe their stock will be possibly twice what it is valued right now in 3-4 years.
986573
Because AMD chips are less expensive than Intel chip.\nBecause AMD owner is less money thirsty than Intel owner.
266805
It's a BIG number that means absolutely nothing. They stick big numbers in there to intice you into buying it. Who knows with AMD?  They know Pentiums are better.
1187819
according to me,\n\nu shud put the 256 ram and 80 gig hdd on the amd proccessor and sell the remaining(i.e, intel with 176 ram and 20 gig hdd)
91489
It becomes increasingly more difficult to compete when what you’re up against is cheaper, faster and being touted by most of the press as the only solution that makes sense.  On the flip side of the coin, things can get pretty tough when your chief competitor has the marketing muscle, dollars and trust in their brand name to convince over 70% of the market that they are still the right choice.\n\nThis is the predicament that both AMD and Intel happen to find themselves in.  They each have a different set of issues to deal with and in a sense, are both fighting an uphill battle for control in the x86 microprocessor space.  \n\nAMD’s solution is one that has been promising since it’s introduction.  The Athlon processor not only outperforms everything Intel can offer in almost all situations, but the Athlon is also selling for extremely low prices.  The flagship Athlon 1.4GHz processor can be found for under $180 while Intel’s Pentium 4 1.7GHz processor will set you back over $300.  The only problem AMD has really had with acceptance of their Athlon processor is platform reliability and it appears as if NVIDIA may be the one to solve that issue very soon.  \n\nThe Pentium 4 processor has been Intel’s answer to the very successful Athlon.  Although capable to run at very high clock speeds, the processor’s NetBurst architecture has not even been slightly tapped by currently available clock frequencies.  The unfortunate result of this is that the real world performance of today’s Pentium 4 systems is below that of what AMD can offer.  When you combine lower performance with a higher price, you can easily see why AMD has picked up a lot of market share recently.
221377
go to this web site and you can read there all the stuff about Intel and AMD CPUs and a lot of comparisons.\nhttp://techreport.com/reviews/page.x?pg=processors
332067
Chipset as in the motherboard Chipset like Intels 975x or do you mean the processors?  \n\nIf you're talking processors AMD is kind of spanking Intel the last year.  They're chips are running quicker at slower Speeds and in the last couple large benchmark tests done by Cnet and a few other sites like anandtech.com AMD seems to be the better processor in almost all benchmarks and not to mention they also win the Price war with Intel. \n\nMy last PC that i bought, a $3000 Alienware, i got the 3.0Ghz Intel Dual core,  Now i'm kinda jealous of the new AMD chips that seem to run all over the Intel chip that i have. \n\nIf money is no object get the new AMD Athlon 64 FX-60+.  You won't be disappointed.
406836
AMD is always cheaper then INTEL. AMD had heat sink problem but they have resolved it now. AMD gives very good results while playing games with high graphics. AMD 64 and all are much more advanced then intel counter parts. I would always go for AMD.