

AMD plays the blind squirrel, but that won't last says analyst






Comments     Threshold


RE: "flaw"
By vol7ron on 4/4/2011 10:13:45 PM , Rating: 3
I think some people are missing the point that many enthusiasts are waiting on the Z68 chipset. H67 and P67 (even patched) aren't worth it. The thing I'd like to see is how many of these enthusiasts are able to effect the market, or it could be that many consumers nowadays are knowledgeable about computers and do their research as enthusiasts would.

Still, the buzz is around the Z68, why buy the proc and then wait? If the Z68 comes out too expensive (more than the P67 right now), then I'm switching to AMD. Like others said, it's a much cheaper system. I know someone that upgraded their CPU and GPU for $300 (mostly the gpu) - both are decent. For me to have a comparable upgrade with Intel it would cost $600+ ($200+ for cpu/mobo/gpu) because most proc upgrades require a new socket - a game I'm not willing to play anymore.

RE: "flaw"
By 7Enigma on 4/5/2011 8:27:14 AM , Rating: 1
This is true for desktops not for notebooks however.

RE: "flaw"
By Samus on 4/5/2011 11:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
Right, the Z68 chipset isn't really "delayed" as it is just further down the marketing pipe. The mobile sector was what Sandy Bridge was targeted at as Nehalem is still more than adequate for the desktop market. As Anandtech said, Sandy Bridge isn't a convincing enough solution to warrant replacing (or even upgrading) an existing Nehalem desktop. It offers better video encoding performance, better overclocking potential and about 5% more performance clock-for-clock.

I run a Core i7-950 (which I upgraded recently to from a i7-920 just for the better turbo mode overclocking curve) but for just about anybody, even myself, its wasted power. The only CPU intensive tasks I run are games, where single and dual core performance matter (hence wanting the second=gen turbo mode clocking curves.)

But I appriciate the low power consumption (for a desktop) and reliability the x57 chipset has given me.

My laptop, however, is an AMD Brazos. It was a great replacement for my aging T40 which never cracked 2 hours of battery life (first-gen Pentium M 1.4ghz) but was completely reliable for nearly 10 years.

I feel bad for Intel's uf up because they've traditionally provided rock-solid solutions, something AMD has been spotty on, mostly because of the chronic failure of nVidia mobile chipsets (and even some desktop nForce 6150 series) giving THEIR chips a bad rap. All the more reason buying ATI was an attractive solution. When the Athlon launched with the original AMD 760/761 chipset (1999?) I remember it being the most stable AMD platform I'd even used to that date. Gone were the days of the K5 on a VIA or SIS chipset (although the SIS 735 was pretty good) and we can thank Intel and Netburst for giving AMD that chance to push that into the common market.

RE: "flaw"




RE: "flaw"
I agree, AMD is still in the race.






Related Articles
