Intel vs AMD: Why AMD is the Overall Loser

If we said ROM and RAM are the brains of the computer while motherboards are the blood vessels of a computer, then processors are the heart of a computer. Processors are what makes a computer operatable in the first place; without a processor, your CPU won't be called a CPU after all. Take notice: CPU = Central Processing Unit. Notice the word "processing"? Yup, processors are the main characters of CPU after all.

In terms of processors chip, Intel and AMD are the major global players out there; I would be surprised if you tell me that you're using anything other than these two, because they are simply the best there is. Problem is, if there are two different processor chip manufacturers out there, which fabrications are the best? Which are more suitable for user's PC?

If we are to judge from a commerce point of view, Intel surely has been the more dominant one; In the first half of 2008 it is reported that Intel, with its Core 2 line of processors, completely outsold AMD and its Athlon and Turion line of processors. AMD, on the other hand, suffered financial woes and just recently had most of its share sold to an Abu Dhabi company to create a new semiconductor company. It's not a bad move, considering that the gobal financial crisis struck a month or so after that deal. However, with AMD no longer in full control, its troubles are not over yet.

But for now, let's just shuffle the two manufacturers' respective market shares and global revenue aside, and focus on what consumers care most: How does the two stack up together? How do they perform in terms of performance, price and even power consumption?

We'll take the processors, Intel Core 2 and AMD Athlon as comparisons.

Here's a point of view for MOST of the PC users out there:

"Intel has a stranglehold over AMD ever since 2006 when they led the charge by introducing the Core 2 line of processors, which pioneered the concept of pure double processors. However, AMD would of course, not let Intel walk away with it; they introduce competitive pricing strategies and forces Intel to follow its lead in pricing strategies. As Intel are to supply a wide range of Core 2 processors, AMD had its answers ready through its vast range of AMD Athlon x64 X2 model of processor chips. But if we are to talk of performance pioneers and quality products, Intel rules over AMD."

This shows that users generally favor Intel over AMD, but why?

We shall justify the point of view from most users:

So, if Intel Core 2 wants to be the King of Processors, here's some of the AMD Athlon chips they have to beat:

Model	Clock speed	Cores	L2 cache (total)	Fab process	TDP	Price
Athlon 64 X2 4400+	2.3GHz	2	1MB	65nm	65W	$170
Athlon 64 X2 5000+	2.6GHz	2	1MB	65nm	65W	$222
Athlon 64 X2 5600+	2.8GHz	2	2MB	90nm	89W	$326
Athlon 64 X2 6000+	3.0GHz	2	2MB	90nm	125W	$459
Athlon 64 FX-70	2.6GHz	4	4MB	90nm	125W x 2	$599
Athlon 64 FX-72	2.8GHz	4	4MB	90nm	125W x 2	$799
Athlon 64 FX-74	3.0GHz	4	4MB	90nm	125W x 2	$999

If AMD are to become the King of Processors, here's some of the Intel Core 2 chips they have to beat:

Model	Clock speed	Cores	L2 cache (total)	Fab process	TDP	Price
Core 2 Duo E6300	1.83GHz	2	2MB	65nm	65W	$183
Core 2 Duo E6400	2.13GHz	2	2MB	65nm	65W	$224
Core 2 Duo E6600	2.4GHz	2	4MB	65nm	65W	$316
Core 2 Duo E6700	2.66GHz	2	4MB	65nm	65W	$530
Core 2 Extreme X6800	2.93GHz	2	4MB	65nm	75W	$999
Core 2 Quad Q6600	2.4GHz	4	8MB	65nm	105W	$851
Core 2 Extreme QX6700	2.66GHz	4	8MB	65nm	130W	$999

So, basically if Intel Core 2 and AMD Athlon are to go head to head, this is what will happen:

Model	Price	Model	Price
Core 2 Duo E6300	$183	Athlon 64 X2 4400+	$170
Core 2 Duo E6400	$224	Athlon 64 X2 5000+	$222
Core 2 Duo E6600	$316	Athlon 64 X2 5600+	$326
Core 2 Duo E6700	$530	Athlon 64 X2 6000+	$459
Core 2 Quad Q6600	$851	Athlon 64 FX-72	$799
Core 2 Extreme QX6700	$999	Athlon 64 FX-74	$999

We can see that quite clearly now: Although Intel has the Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Extreme performance advantage over AMD, AMD has the pricing advantage over Intel processors; the less high-end Intel Core 2 processors compared to, the cheaper. At the price between $ 170 and $ 459, AMD simply pawned Intel's Core 2 Duo processors. However, AMD's processor performance generally start struggling at the peak of Athlon x64 X2 6000+. That was where Intel's processors started standing out. After Core 2 Duo, Intel has some more monsters in the form of Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Extreme. At this point, AMD has to roll out their best Athlon processors, the FX series. However even with the big FX series, AMD had reached its performance limits, while Intel still had some to spare with its Core 2 Extreme 6800, priced similarly to the FX -74 processors of AMD.

Here's a reality catch:

Price are ALWAYS the major considerations for PC buyers. Very few people out there, excluding the gaming geeks, will want to purchase a high-end performing PC with a high price if their motive of using a PC is just to do some office works, play some cards or flash games, surf the web and some occasional media entertainment. From here, it sounds as though AMD has won the battle. However, there are people who perceive low pricing as an implication that AMD is struggling with performances and are keeping their price low to stay with Intel on the battle and therefore, will favor the seemingly better Intel. Again from here, it is obvious that AMD, whose processors are known for low price with standard performances, might not have the upper hand at all....and AMD continue to play this low-price marketing strategy till this day, perhaps, without even realizing what they have done might cost the company its reputation...So once again, Intel has the upper hand.


A normal PC users' most likely point of view is as simple as ABC: Intel not just have the equal if not better performances and quality over AMD, they actually have the technical and moral advantage over AMD. AMD tried to ammend the lack of front-running performances by applying pricing strategies, but while this will work in their favor, it will backfire to a certain degree. Judging from all the perspective i've discussed above, most users will still flock to Intel processors because they are assured of equal quality and performances at an expensive but reasonable price. However, AMD will only gain through some of its cheaper-priced processors. By applying pricing strategies, AMD still failed to prevent its larger and more performance-wise processors from being killed by Intel's because they are not as high-end as Intel's, but their price (see the chart above) are not in any sense, much lower.

In my opinion, AMD should stop using pricing tactics on their product and get on with the development of their processor chips, or else in no time they will lose even more customer's confidence in their processors while falling behind Intel even more in development. Intel simply outperformed them in terms of chip quality and performance; they should worry more about their technical progress instead of their market performances. Intel has already came up with Core i7 (aka Nehalem) in the form of 940, 950 and an even monstrous i7 Extreme 965. What would AMD do?

Core i7 is Intel's latest effort to extend its market dominance over AMD. All i can say is that if AMD fails to impress, then we shall see a processor-monopolying Intel in the future market.