Originally Posted by Horsemama1956
I don't think so. I'm no Intel fan(haven't had an intel chip since my old pentium 100/200) but I'm guessing Intel is holding back on each release since Conroe. No reason for them not too.
I don't believe AMD will be anymore then the best bang for buck(Not even really true with SB around now) and a reason to keep Intel pricing in check. They're damn lucky they bought out Ati.
If Bulldozer was as good as people think it could be, we would be seeing a lot more of that from AMD. This release smacks of Fermi. Decent but not what was promised.
that is my point from an earlier post.
AMD can not compete with intel, on price or performance much anymore.
it was once said, if intel stopped making and selling cpu's today, they could survive for the next 10 years, as they have other markets they got their hands in, and each x86 cpu that is sold, there is a "royalty" fee paid back to them.
Intel is a technological juggernaut, it has 8 times the employees amd does, and 10 times the sales revenue that amd does.
compared to it, intel has infinite resources it could dedicate taking the market back, look what they did with the core 2 architecture, which was based on the P6 architecture (pentium, pentium II and III were based on this) which was abandoned for the ill fated netburst. so intel was able to recycle a old architecture, improve upon it, and released one hell of a chip.
now for nehalem and sandy, i'm not sure if they are "new" architecture like bulldozer will be, but they are definately an improvement over core 2.
given now i think intel is just toying with us, why improve another smashing core 2 hit, when your only real competition can barely even compete with core 2, let alone nehalem and sandy now. might be a different story with bulldozer tho, and i hope it is, cause when amd shows real improvement and becomes a threat, us consumers win, right now, its bullies kicking puppies, it just sad.