All joking aside......people are freaking out over AMD's troubles, but is it really something to worry about? We've talked a lot about the issue in the forums, covering way too many threads, and to be honest, it is probably much ado about nothing.
People rant and rave that we need AMD for a competitive balance. to push technology forward, to keep INTEL honest, to keep processors affordable.....but do we?
True, before AMD caught lightning in a bottle with the s939 processors, we've never seen the "explosion" of advancement we have seen over the last two years.......but how much of that can be chalked up to technology advances as a whole and not the competitive tit for tat between INTEL and AMD?
Before s939, AMD filled a niche, albeit a simple one...one that didn't include cutting edge or enthusiast level processors, AMD simply offered more budget minded processors. Granted, AMD developed a rabid fan base with their Socket A processors (notably the T-Bred), which touted 64-bit processing and some pretty decent overclocking among its features. Non-conformists aside, INTEL ruled the processor roost, and all was still right in the world.
Jump back to today......whats the big deal? For those that say we need AMD to keep prices down...look at the market, and the available processors. Before you jump on AMD's newest offering, or are quick to bash INTEL, look at your favorite retailer, and scream at them. Using Newegg as an example, our favorite retailer always adjusts their prices based on supply and demand......its the free market world we live in.....which brings me to my next point. I don't know how many of you have really looked, but our economy isn't exactly in the greatest of shape right now. I know, Fox News loves to paint a rosey picture, claiming everything is great...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.....but unless you are one of those people that doesn't have to worry about money, all 1% of you, then your disposable income isn't quite what it used to be. That means that fewer of you are going to be upgrading as often as you might have 3-4 years ago (especially with the cost of hardware)..... and those that do upgrade probably won't be investing in an enthusiast level CPU (Not that many do to begin with). Unless you are a cutting edge enthusiast, there are plenty of options available. From INTEL's Pentium D dual core processors, to AMD's X2 processors, there is something for everyone, at every price point.
Another point to contemplate is technology as a whole. How long has it been since the processor was considered the bottleneck of a system? Maybe we need to start yammerin' about HDD technology and chipset technology.....neither of which can keep up with CPU or even GPU technology.... and don't even get me started on the software aspect of all this......with almost nothing taking advantage of two cores, let alone four.
To bring this to a close, and open the issue up for discussion, let me sum it up like this....
AMD has released their mainstream processors onto the market, and while they're maybe not the "Core 2 Killer" some claimed them to be, once the pricing and small performance issues shake out, the mainstream Phenoms will prove a competitive processor, and as painful as it will be for those who have to have the latest and greatest, AMD will slowly release their other processors, once the kinks are worked out, which if nothing else, give people more choices.
As those of us lucky enough to have INTEL's new Penryn processors know, INTEL has a monster on its hands....I can't emphasize enough how incredible these processors are, both in performance and energy consumption. Where does this leave AMD? Probably right back where they were before the processor wars started......filling that budget and mainstream niche they filled before their glory day with the s939.
