CPU/Mobo Which has a lower Total cost of ownership, Intel or AMD?
- Thread starter lalitnagda
- Start date
While I agree that most of the OP's statements are unsubstantiated, I would still say that the only time AMD had superior processors was during the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2 era and that too till the time Intel introduced the Core and Core 2 series. Most of the other releases were either on par or inferior to their Intel counterparts. Even the Initial Pentium 4 era Athlon's were just on par. Its the Athlon 64 that bought any real difference.
Let me play the devil here.
AMD even managed to survive till they made their own innovations only because they stole, copied, reverse engineered Intel chips in their early days and made clones. Yes clones, something that's looked down upon these days. In fact there are many companies that did that. Some people also tend to attribute stuff like the on die memory controller to AMD, but that's not true. DEC Alpha had an on die memory controller back in the 90's.
Dark Star said:
Let me play the devil here.
AMD even managed to survive till they made their own innovations only because they stole, copied, reverse engineered Intel chips in their early days and made clones. Yes clones, something that's looked down upon these days. In fact there are many companies that did that. Some people also tend to attribute stuff like the on die memory controller to AMD, but that's not true. DEC Alpha had an on die memory controller back in the 90's.
greenhorn
Patron
have owned an Athlon XP 2600+, sempron LE 1100, and an X2 4000+. No overheating problems
but yes, the TCO of an AMD processor is a bit high currently. We did have to evaluate them from a purely ROI perspective when we had to buy some 12 systems for a commercial gaming setup, and the newer kuma's do have a higher TDP (about 50% higher) than the older brisbane cores, but the same as windsors. And a higher TDP would mean that we'd be stressing the stock PSU's more when we added gfx cards, then in terms of cooling and power for the UPS etc....
Still the Kuma won, because as a platform, the TCO (at least for us) was still lower - the whole AM2 AM2+ AM3 cross compatiblity was very reassuring. On the other hand, there is no assurance that the LGA 775 would be around for a long time, and core i7 was not feasible yet
However , ours was just a specific case. From what we looked at, for base and mid end systems, AMD has the edge with TCO. However, as you tend to higher end or more processor oriented systems, AMD begins to lose that advantage, and beyond a certain threshold, Intel makes more sense. But I'd say such a scenario would be the exception than the norm for most cases.
On an unrelated note, Our organization ( hint - 1 lakh+ employees, Indian IT major) was an entirely Intel shop when I got in a few years ago. Not a single AMD setup in sight back then. Now its hard to find an Intel rig anywhere these days I think my organization takes low TCO very seriously
but yes, the TCO of an AMD processor is a bit high currently. We did have to evaluate them from a purely ROI perspective when we had to buy some 12 systems for a commercial gaming setup, and the newer kuma's do have a higher TDP (about 50% higher) than the older brisbane cores, but the same as windsors. And a higher TDP would mean that we'd be stressing the stock PSU's more when we added gfx cards, then in terms of cooling and power for the UPS etc....
Still the Kuma won, because as a platform, the TCO (at least for us) was still lower
- the whole AM2 AM2+ AM3 cross compatiblity was very reassuring. On the other hand, there is no assurance that the LGA 775 would be around for a long time, and core i7 was not feasible yetHowever , ours was just a specific case. From what we looked at, for base and mid end systems, AMD has the edge with TCO. However, as you tend to higher end or more processor oriented systems, AMD begins to lose that advantage, and beyond a certain threshold, Intel makes more sense. But I'd say such a scenario would be the exception than the norm for most cases.
On an unrelated note, Our organization ( hint - 1 lakh+ employees, Indian IT major) was an entirely Intel shop when I got in a few years ago. Not a single AMD setup in sight back then. Now its hard to find an Intel rig anywhere these days
I think my organization takes low TCO very seriously amen to that Greenie.
Aces: agreed TCO is probably not the prime factor for an enthusiast, for whom 1fps makes a difference (in real world terms, there is actually very little difference between 60fps and 160). And this is just one example. And therefore the TCO would include the ability to upgrade, swap platforms and increase performance on the cheap, etc. along with bragging rights and the highest possible performance. Given that, none of the Intel or AMD platforms today has a particularly low TCO for the enthusiast/geek, not even the PII with its swappable memory/motherboard strategy with AM3 (still needs a new board and expensive memory, and i7 is a dead end as far as that goes..
And I take your point about architecture, basically the same, but then x86 has not evolved either. And neither (it would seem) have any of the major OSes (with the possible exception of OSX, but I'm no expert on that). Browsers are running on code nearly a decade old. Though it looks like innovation is a prime reason for the success of computing, nothing is further from the truth. The real reason is lower cost of manufacturing, and rampant and worldwide software piracy. And so, the processing platforms in use today are not even mildly stressed with 'modern' desktop applications, so there is no real push forward in terms of architecture. Hopefully that change will come in K12 and Intel's next 'tick' two years down the road.
For a business however, power consumption, heat generation (airconditioning costs, space) and low initial cost all fold into the equation. And that is where comparisons today kind of even out. Not that AMD always wins, but overall TCO is slightly lower. For some setups, low TCO may not be the primary factor either in the purchase or long-term.
If you look at ancient history, AMD ripped of Intel ripped off someone else ripped of someone else. There's really no end to it. The fact is that in this day and age, we have only two players. For our sake, I do hope that AMD survives and does well, as it's really the only thing that will keep Intel on their toes, processors advancing in technology and processor power, and prices down. There have been many stories about Intel's marketing (if that's what they call mafioso operations now) and the bulk of them are true. Imagine what it would be like if there was no competition, you'd still be paying 20K for the processing power of a Pentium3. I don't think anyone actually sees that.
However, AMDs motive has to be profits, no matter what the cost. If it doesn't make it in the next few years, shareholders will jump ship, and that will sink the company. Not technology, not products, just market success. And as we've seen, market success doesn't only depend on the best products and technology. The server market jumped on to the Opteron bandwagon ages ago, and that market is where the money is. desktop retail is such a small pie of both AMDs and Intel's profits, the business could die and the companies would not lose much, except cost. It's much more costly to cater to retail desktop products (read: boxed) than OEMs and institutional/server markets.
Which is why I find it surprising that the debates on forums like this tend to get so heated and passionate. Get real folks, the CPU guys couldn't care less if you didn't buy anything from either of them for the next ten years. They're in this game only for brand image and visibility.
I'll stop ranting now. Thanks for changing the thread title, it can lead to slightly better discussion.
Aces: agreed TCO is probably not the prime factor for an enthusiast, for whom 1fps makes a difference (in real world terms, there is actually very little difference between 60fps and 160). And this is just one example. And therefore the TCO would include the ability to upgrade, swap platforms and increase performance on the cheap, etc. along with bragging rights and the highest possible performance. Given that, none of the Intel or AMD platforms today has a particularly low TCO for the enthusiast/geek, not even the PII with its swappable memory/motherboard strategy with AM3 (still needs a new board and expensive memory, and i7 is a dead end as far as that goes..
And I take your point about architecture, basically the same, but then x86 has not evolved either. And neither (it would seem) have any of the major OSes (with the possible exception of OSX, but I'm no expert on that). Browsers are running on code nearly a decade old. Though it looks like innovation is a prime reason for the success of computing, nothing is further from the truth. The real reason is lower cost of manufacturing, and rampant and worldwide software piracy. And so, the processing platforms in use today are not even mildly stressed with 'modern' desktop applications, so there is no real push forward in terms of architecture. Hopefully that change will come in K12 and Intel's next 'tick' two years down the road.
For a business however, power consumption, heat generation (airconditioning costs, space) and low initial cost all fold into the equation. And that is where comparisons today kind of even out. Not that AMD always wins, but overall TCO is slightly lower. For some setups, low TCO may not be the primary factor either in the purchase or long-term.
If you look at ancient history, AMD ripped of Intel ripped off someone else ripped of someone else. There's really no end to it. The fact is that in this day and age, we have only two players. For our sake, I do hope that AMD survives and does well, as it's really the only thing that will keep Intel on their toes, processors advancing in technology and processor power, and prices down. There have been many stories about Intel's marketing (if that's what they call mafioso operations now) and the bulk of them are true. Imagine what it would be like if there was no competition, you'd still be paying 20K for the processing power of a Pentium3. I don't think anyone actually sees that.
However, AMDs motive has to be profits, no matter what the cost. If it doesn't make it in the next few years, shareholders will jump ship, and that will sink the company. Not technology, not products, just market success. And as we've seen, market success doesn't only depend on the best products and technology. The server market jumped on to the Opteron bandwagon ages ago, and that market is where the money is. desktop retail is such a small pie of both AMDs and Intel's profits, the business could die and the companies would not lose much, except cost. It's much more costly to cater to retail desktop products (read: boxed) than OEMs and institutional/server markets.
Which is why I find it surprising that the debates on forums like this tend to get so heated and passionate. Get real folks, the CPU guys couldn't care less if you didn't buy anything from either of them for the next ten years. They're in this game only for brand image and visibility.
I'll stop ranting now. Thanks for changing the thread title, it can lead to slightly better discussion.
Aces170
ex-Mod
Actually its the OEM's which makes up for the bulk of sales, and enterprise segment is not very ahead of retail in terms of unit shipments. Yep they may contribute more towards the profits.
I wouldnt worry of AMD disappearing completely, infact it would do the computer market a hell of good if AMD was acquired by some other company. We had a discussion on the same some years back, and Samsung was the logical choice. It has the money power, a brand presence and a developed retail distribution model, and with its leadership in emory, LCD panels etc, Intel would be less successful in its arm twisting tactics. Consider this Intel tells Dell dont buy AMD chips, else it will not offer the various discounts it gives Dell. AMD currently does not have any bargaining power, now if it was Samsung, it could counter with discounts on memory, panels etc...
The X-86 license AMD has is too valuable to just disappear completely.
lalitnagda
Disciple
hello !! please excuse me !! i am not saying that AMD has an over heating problem persistant. What i meant was all 4 of my CPU's used to cross 75 - 80 degrees and then eventually the system would shut down and i had to wait for the CPU to cool and restart. Gradually this thing increased day by day and in the end by the time the windows desktop showed up the comp used to get shut down due to CPU temp crossing 85+ degrees.
It could be possible that I may have not placed / fit the CPU correctly but guys i have been doing this since 286 days. but again the replacement CPU's that I received are working fine on the same boards.
Also i do not mean that AMD is bad, all i did was shared my experience. I have been using amd since 486 days at one time had intel did not come up with pentium then it would have been thrown out of the market as amd had mastered the 486 cpu's and there were the first to cross 100mhz on 486 dx2.
Also both companies have cross licensing agreements. But somehow intel always has the edge. due to some internal monopoly related legal and other patent related issues intel would always wish AMD to be present.
With regards to marketing and bribing there are no rules. When i received order for supplying equipment in big organizations or in govt departments i had to do small favors for the people there to secure business. executives of many top companies ask for favors in return for placing orders this is common. Sometimes I give them from my side some times they ask directly this is preety open.
Secondly all i did was shared my experience that due to my bad experience with AMD i dont mind paying more for intel based products as i am satisfied with them. you know as the saying goes "Garam dudh ka jala chaas bhi phuk phuk kar pita hai"
currently i am using Intel and AMD simultaneously and both are working fine. but the intel c2d's and the c2q have edge is what i meant.
It could be possible that I may have not placed / fit the CPU correctly but guys i have been doing this since 286 days. but again the replacement CPU's that I received are working fine on the same boards.
Also i do not mean that AMD is bad, all i did was shared my experience. I have been using amd since 486 days at one time had intel did not come up with pentium then it would have been thrown out of the market as amd had mastered the 486 cpu's and there were the first to cross 100mhz on 486 dx2.
Also both companies have cross licensing agreements. But somehow intel always has the edge. due to some internal monopoly related legal and other patent related issues intel would always wish AMD to be present.
With regards to marketing and bribing there are no rules. When i received order for supplying equipment in big organizations or in govt departments i had to do small favors for the people there to secure business. executives of many top companies ask for favors in return for placing orders this is common. Sometimes I give them from my side some times they ask directly this is preety open.
Secondly all i did was shared my experience that due to my bad experience with AMD i dont mind paying more for intel based products as i am satisfied with them. you know as the saying goes "Garam dudh ka jala chaas bhi phuk phuk kar pita hai"
currently i am using Intel and AMD simultaneously and both are working fine. but the intel c2d's and the c2q have edge is what i meant.
The only thing that has an edge is i7, C2d and C2q are no better than PII, IINM you must be comparing C2's wit either Athlons or Phenom I !
Also stop being so persistence, amd ran hot, duh :| You have no idea what you are talking ? Temps of cpu is not alone determined by CPU itself, the airflow inside the cabinet, the cable management, ambient temp and dust plays a crucial part in it.. Add to that you have to clean your system and re apply TIM and set HSF correctly.
So a person unable to learn car blames that the car is faulty :lol: Without fixing things don't jump to conclusion. and seeing you post I bet you cannot open and fix things inside cabinet,