I'm pulling for them as well, love to see them up each other every round. Been a while since AMD has been at the top.

 Me too, I'd love to see AMD pull it off and produce a super quick CPU that gives Intel a run for its money... not because I'm an AMD fanboi or anything, but because the industry needs another viable CPU manufacturer that can bring back healthy competition and hopefully benefit consumers via better pricing across the board.  A few journalists and other industry watchers would have us believe that AMD is all but down and out, but I've been reading in recent times about various developments in the company, including the change of leadership, etc, and feel there are positives coming from it, with the newa of the new Zen architecture being the best news yet.

Go AMD!

It would be really nice for someone to give Intel a reason to push the envelope, if nothing else.  I'm getting tired of being stuck below 4ghz on stock speeds.  If we had 8ghz processors, Sins would run like a dream!

But why go above 4ghz when you can go from 4 to SIX cores? That's right! They jumped a motherfucking core. You thought they'd go to 5 after 4, but they went straight to 6!!!

That's the reason why we need AMD, well part of it, at least.  With AMD viable and producing high speed CPUSs that rival or even better Intel equivelants, Intel is going to step up to the plate and push the boundaries beyond current levels.  Whether you're an AMD or Intel user, having AMD challenge Intel for the crown is a good thing.

I have a CPU from both camps, an i7 4970K from Intel, and a FX 8350 from AMD, both their best units at the time of purchase, and I've been 100% happy with both in terms of performance, stability and reliabilty... though my 4970K will perform better when I upgrade to a Z97 chipped motherboard next week.  Currently it's on a Z87 board, which is slower and does not allow for optimum/peak performance.  However, I've again digressed and steered away from my original thought, which is that I have a great CPU from each company and would like to see them both produce bigger, better more efficient CPUs that clock well beyond 4Ghz, yet are stable and competitive price-wise.

LOL.  Oh, AMD.  You're announcing that your processor that's on the roadmap for 2016 will keep up with Intel, presumably based with what Intel has out now.  Have you learned nothing?

Don't get me wrong, I hope AMD does release something.  But their last attempt to make something keep up with Intel needed 220 watts to do so and still failed at it.

I've ran AMD for years and will continue to support them.  I have and old system running an Athlon II 250 processor, 3000 MHZ 2 core.  Good for what I do.

Maybe their only hope is to make the jump to the 300 THz range!

They're planning to jump from steam to electricity....

No, they're upgrading from the hamster wheel to nuclear power... with a solar backup.

but will it skylake ?
No  

What is this skylake of which you speak... and do we have to fear it overflowing from upon high? 

I hope not, cos here it floods downstairs when there's excessive precipitation.

Seriously, until both Zen and Skylake are releasded and benchmarked, etc, one should not draw conclusions regarding either.  Given the leadership and engineering staff changes, the architectural rethink, AMD may very well surprise everyone with a CPU that not only competes with Skylake but even surpasses it.  Who knows, while Intel is spouting Skylake to be its most significant processor yet, it may not live up to the hype and be a marketing failure.  I hope not, but anything is possible, right?

As for AMD processors, I have used a number of them over the years and cannot complain about performance, efficiency or stability, etc.  All delivered and met my needs/expectations, and with millions of satisfied users around the world, AMD is not the failure some would like to suggest.  Yes, Intel has been No1 for a long time now, but I don't know that it has been such a good thing from a price-point/consumers point of view.  Hopefully, AMD,s Zen range is the competitive turning point that benefits customers of both companies, both in price and performance.

Well, AMD can't do shit about performance pricing in their current state, but they have been controlling pricing at the low end.  As basically a bargain processor manufacturer, they've prevented Intel from participating in the majority market without charging significantly less for comparable performance than they do for their faster stuff.  The i5 2500k I have is a product of AMD's price points.  It released at just over $200 for a processor as fast as thousand dollar models from the line before.  It had to because AMD dropped the price on their six cores to under $200 and they were almost competitive.

yes please

we need competitive AMD otherwise well be stuck with 4-core CPUs from intel in mainstream till eternity...

just consider: 2005 first dual-core CPUs popped up, cca 2007/2008 the quads became mainstream, 2010 i happened to have the luck to buy the first 6-core CPU from Intel...5 years later the best consumer CPU you can buy is 8-core and even that is Extreme Edition (disregarding now AMD´s double-module CPUs as 8-cores)... granted you can only gain from increasing number of cores so much until its starts losing the efficiency, but still...quite a massive drop-off in progress we witnessed in recent years.   

Well, being a redneck, you know I have an opinion.

It is my opinion that AMD is much preferred over Intel hands down, at least in my world.

I have 3 AMD 6 core processor rigs and one Intel core i7 rig. All self built, all having SSDs and 12 + GB ram, and similar GFX cards.  I much prefer the AMDs.

Intels are good, don't get me wrong. But the gain in performance doesn't match the increase the price. IMO...YMMV

There in lies the problem.  Intel is faster, how much depends on processor and usage.  For some economics makes AMD a consideration, but you're hard pressed to run a business based purely on that.  That's why Hyundai and Kia are trying to break into the luxury car market.  More money up there.  In addition, the gap is getting bigger which is going to make more problems in the future.  Right now I can get a 6 Core 5600 series Xeon that walks all over most of AMD's current offerings for $100 on eBay.  That level of disparity only hurts AMD more.  When you reach a point that your competitors 4 generation old equipment off eBay matches your current offerings, that's bad.  Fortunately for AMD, those system's chipsets (X58) were right before SATA 6Gb and USB 3 so there's still a reason to go new.  But that's not the case with the next generation.  Those will match the feature set of AMD's current systems.  AMD needs to figure out their strategy.  If they want to compete with Intel in the enthusiast segment they need to seriously rethink their game plan.  Or they can stick with what they are good at and pray Intel doesn't really try to start fighting them there.

Personally, I just replaced the last of my AMD boards with Intel and don't see myself going back any time soon.

How could we not know you'd have an opinion... on everything from barnyard politics to whether a one should warm their hands before milking the goat.

As for AMD vs Intel, many people opt for AMD because higher Intel pricing does not equate to whatever performance gains there may be.  In fact, I currently have an AMD FX8350 @4.2Ghz that's faster than my Intel i7 4970K... though that may change some once I've upgraded the 4970K.s from a Z87 chip Mobo to a Z97 one.

In any event, AMD's multi-core CPU's have not only been great value for money, they have been strong and reliable performers with more than enough speed for the average user.  So what if Intel's offerings are slightly faster for a somewhat heftier price, who's really going to notice the difference when doing average, day to day things?  Maybe some professionals like graphic artists and software developers would notice a difference here and there, but not so much home users, if they even had the need.  Besides, both my AMD 8-cores, 8150 and 8350, are quite quick and are up for anything I throw at them.

It's all well and good for Intel's fanbois to mock and ridicule AMD's offerings while lauding the efforts of Intel, but AMD had consistently produced quality processors and certainly has a place in the CPU marketplace.  My last CPU may have been an Intel i7, and the build in the works is an i7, but my next could very well be an AMD Zen.

Never had anything other than Intel....ever since the 8086 and a post that sounded identical to my first mobile...a Motorola 8200 .....oh wait....same chip....

If it ain't broke I don't fix it....

In a quarter century of PC use...I've had one machine keel over and die...from a suspected spike.  Not a fault of Intel...

How can you be so confident when neither company has released their Zen or Skylake offerings?  Both are based on 14nm and AMD has a complete new architecture we have not yet been able to test, so saying the gap is getting bigger is somewhat premature.

Have you not been reading the news lately?  AMD has done exactly that, with a whole new leadership team and engineering department.   Also, as stated before, the AMD chipset has had a complete overhaul and now has a new architecture that will open up performance potential.  And even if what you say is true, that Intel pips AMD the post, but only just, what real difference would that make to the average home user?  Would the slightly faster chip deliver real value for money?  I doubt it, though many would opt for Intel's offering because it will supposedly be better.

However, I am a fanboi of neither company.  I like my AMD FX 8150 and FX 8350 machines, and I like my Intel i7 4970K machine, so I'll remain out with the jury on which has the better processor range until each has been thoroughly appraised by the experts, etc.  And then it will not depend purely on performance alone, but also bang for the buck.

So, if something's better. more efficient than that which ain't broke, you don't go for it?

Like wouldn't that defeat the purpose/idea of upgrading?  Building a new machine?

Hmmm, yer showing yer age again, Paul.    Being a late bloomer myself, computer-wise, that is, I've only been messing with PCs since about 2003 - 2004, and I've not had a PC keel over and die, either, but because Intel equivelants were more expensive at the time, the switch AMD was more a budget, value for money decision than anything.  In fact, I still have my P4 2.6, with mobo and RAM to suit, and I've had thoughts about rebuilding it for a media server/games box to hook up with my man cave TV, all I need is a spare case to house it.