A 1-2-3-4 Plan For AMD To Beat Intel

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
AMD should build a research and development factory in Israel, like Intel did.
The Israelis engineers are those who develop the core and the centrino,
which helped Intel overcome the Athlon architecture.
 

hannibal

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,446
80
19,890
14
Intel has been there and done that allready... I even think that AMD shoul build development factory to India or China...
... And it does not take away the thing that Intel can put easily a lot more money to the research than AMD. AMD have to work in the areas where the money is not the desiding factor.
They need a co-operation with many companies. If Intel do everything, they allso block out meny companies. AMD should focus an co-operating with different companies that can develop together something that is more than the sum of their efforts.
And even then Intel is huge threath to companies like AMD. The fusion may be ansver for cheap one chip low power computer. The Intel will have the speed monsters for far future. But who knows if IBM can Help AMD to level the playing field and AMD can compete with their High-metal gate 32-22nm prosessors, but it seems very unlikely. Intel can move to the next prosessing tecnology so much faster rate because all of that money.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]hannibal[/nom]Intel has been there and done that allready... I even think that AMD shoul build development factory to India or China...... And it does not take away the thing that Intel can put easily a lot more money to the research than AMD. AMD have to work in the areas where the money is not the desiding factor.They need a co-operation with many companies. If Intel do everything, they allso block out meny companies. AMD should focus an co-operating with different companies that can develop together something that is more than the sum of their efforts. And even then Intel is huge threath to companies like AMD. The fusion may be ansver for cheap one chip low power computer. The Intel will have the speed monsters for far future. But who knows if IBM can Help AMD to level the playing field and AMD can compete with their High-metal gate 32-22nm prosessors, but it seems very unlikely. Intel can move to the next prosessing tecnology so much faster rate because all of that money.[/citation]

Um IBM already helps AMD A LOT with their technologies such as the IMC and their current process, 45nm. Its not about AMD being able to work with other companies since Intel works with them too.

Yes Intel works with a lot of other companies to bring much better hardware such as PCIe and faster USB solutions and many more. But what AMD needs to do is take these technologies it gets from IBM and incorporate them wisely.

Heck if AMD wasn't so stubborn and didn't head on a naitive quad at 65nm and waited till 45nm like Intel has done maybe they would be better off. This is especially true since in most markets except the server where quads are better. But in the rest if they had gotten a dual out that was better than C2D they would have been better off. Then they could have used the incoming money from the duals to work on a quad.

So in all reality AMD made a lot of wrong moves and in truth I am going to doubt they will even be able to truly take Intel head on. I am sure they will challenege Intel like they have done before but never push them to the bottom.
 

modtech

Distinguished
May 25, 2008
391
0
18,780
0
As the article stated, Intel is much much bigger than AMD. They have more funds for research, engineers, manufacturing facilities, marketing... you name it. Direct competition in such a situation is futile. BTW jimmy you're slightly wrong about AMD being "stubborn" about native quad cores. You think they wouldn't have preferred the simpler and cheaper route? This is AMD we're talking about you know. The problem was the way the K8's memory controller connects to the system, you can't tape two of those together and make it work. As for annonue's comment hold on a second and think, that's a pretty stupid thing to post. The quad to buy is still the aging Q6600, which is somewhat disappointing as I expected a full cache 45nm quad to replace it at the same price.

 

Mathos

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
584
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Um IBM already helps AMD A LOT with their technologies such as the IMC and their current process, 45nm. Its not about AMD being able to work with other companies since Intel works with them too.Yes Intel works with a lot of other companies to bring much better hardware such as PCIe and faster USB solutions and many more. But what AMD needs to do is take these technologies it gets from IBM and incorporate them wisely.Heck if AMD wasn't so stubborn and didn't head on a naitive quad at 65nm and waited till 45nm like Intel has done maybe they would be better off. This is especially true since in most markets except the server where quads are better. But in the rest if they had gotten a dual out that was better than C2D they would have been better off. Then they could have used the incoming money from the duals to work on a quad.So in all reality AMD made a lot of wrong moves and in truth I am going to doubt they will even be able to truly take Intel head on. I am sure they will challenege Intel like they have done before but never push them to the bottom.[/citation]

You're not reading what the article was about though Jimmy. You're still banging your head on it has to perform better in benchmarks. Which isn't what the article was really about. 60+% of AMD's issues are Lack of Mass market advertising. How often do you see a TV commercial about any of AMD's products, video cards or otherwise? The answer to that one from my experience is Never. The only place you see AMD ad's is on computer tech sites, and computer enthusiast magazines. And more rarely in mags like Maxim or playboy. The main force that allowed Intel to outsell AMD in the P4 Netburst days wasn't performance, but the fact that when you turned on the TV, you'd see a commercial for the P4, think they were still using the blue man group at the time. And then you'd see a commercial with the dude your getting a Dell guy, where at the end it was say featuring Intel Pentium 4 processors.

It doesn't have anything to do with Native quad at 65nm. The biggest thing AMD is guilty of there is not catching and fixing the TLB bug before they tried to release the processor. At which point the TLB bug was then blown waaay out of proportion by Intel fanboys, keeping most people from buying phenoms until b3 revision. The place where the TLB bug hurt AMD the most was the server market, where buyers that were waiting to upgrade to Barcelona were forced to instead go with Intel due to the delays. And even now, even though Barcie is better than the Xeon, it's still biting them in the rear due to that delay.

OEM Manufacturers don't care about which processor runs faster on given benchmarks. They care about which processor they can get for cheaper. And they care about what is going to run stable. For a long time Intel had the advantage here because they could provide an entire platform to oem's that was guaranteed to work together, mainboard, chipset, igp and processor. AMD now has the ability to do this, but how many OEMs are selling systems based off AMD Phenom, 780/790g/x/gx/fx boards, and radeon graphics? And when you look at tray prices and see dead even, on certain area's it says something. Go do some research, by looking at Walmart, or bestbuy.com, then come back and tell me the ratio of pc's for sale that have Intel processor, to AMD processor, even in area's where the AMD would perform better or cost less at stock. So that should tell you, even today that something that isn't suppose to be, is still going on today.
 

martin0642

Distinguished
Oct 10, 2007
142
1
18,680
0
Build a research factory in Israel? Research factory? Sure, and while we're at it we'll buy a lot next to Stonehenge, cause it's lasted a long time. Then we can grab a spot next to the grand canyon because it's symbolic of how a small force can do great things, and lastly we can get a studio apartment above an apple store because their so snazzy.

Now all we need is some crystals to channel the "negative energy" and a shamanistic necklace to speak to the wolf gods so AMD can come out on top. I'm glad it's really just that simple, we can all go home now.
 

NightLight

Distinguished
Dec 7, 2004
553
0
18,990
1
It is tied to the status quo and isn’t willing to make major changes that would destroy the current revenue model.
I don't agree. Intel always pushed forward, even when there was
less competition. There was never a real lack of progress in new products. The only difference was the pricing. That's the only thing AMD is good for at the moment, to keep intel's prices (relatively) down.
If anything the industry is moving too fast, and logically, the weakest
shall fall. In this case, AMD.

 

kelfen

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2008
690
0
18,990
2
[citation][nom]NightLight[/nom]I don't agree. Intel always pushed forward, even when there was less competition. There was never a real lack of progress in new products. The only difference was the pricing. That's the only thing AMD is good for at the moment, to keep intel's prices (relatively) down.If anything the industry is moving too fast, and logically, the weakestshall fall. In this case, AMD.[/citation]
Yea look at the 4xxx series of thier graphics cards. NIVIDA was at the top for two rounds but... they are now on top
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
3
Rule #1 - There are already devices out there that do this, but they don't sell well. And if AMD was to design this and figure out a model so that MS got some type of royalty as you say, this would mean AMD would need to significantly raise prices to allow for MS to gain a share. And since you are asking for MS tie-in, I doubt they would be that interested in an exclusive deal.

Rule #2 - Focus? Focus? Are you serious? AMD has more fingers in more pots than Intel. Do you expect them to sell the Graphics or the CPU business? What about Rule#1? You just told them to diversify and now you tell them to Focus. Maybe you should focus?

#3 - Quality over Quantity? You don't think AMD is trying? So now they just need to decide to make good stuff? I must say that is a brilliant idea.

#4 - Marketing? Yeah..OK. So, a company bleeding massive amounts of money who is slashing products needs to do research to design better products, design totally new products in a market that does not exist yet while focusing and do less stuff and then find non-existent money to saturate the media with Advertising. Well, it worked for Apple because the MAC OS is very good for some people. When AMD does all the rest, they could then advertise. The Market leader can always advertise and say buy me because I'm the leader and the standard. Those who are not, actually need to give a reason.

Perhaps next time try to give some substance?
I realize it will be hard because AMD is in a tough spot.
I'm not saying I could offere a solution.
But I did not write an article outlining a series of contradictory and impossible "rules" for AMD to follow.
 

DXRick

Distinguished
Jun 9, 2006
1,315
0
19,360
29
AMD's tried to compete with the "same but cheaper" strategy, which bombed. People (like me) still see them as offering less for the same price. This is the same perception people have of the US auto industry, even though their relative reliability has improved.

It isn't just because of their CPUs that this perception continues. They have done nothing to distinguish themselves in the chipset and integrated graphics areas. They rely on 3rd parties to develop chipsets and make motherboards. They have done nothing with their merger with ATI.

So, how can advertising help much, when they have nothing special to advertise??
 

gaiden

Distinguished
Jun 23, 2008
85
0
18,630
0
To me there are two things that are attractive about AMD. 1) the price/performance for most of their products. 2) the merge of AMD/ATI. Though losing revenues, from a my point of view as a consumer, AMD seems to be picking up some slacks and moving forward with new products. I built quiet a few budget pcs for my relatives and all are AMD based, I'm talking about sub-$400 or even $300. while Intel based maybe possible, but bang/buck ratio seems to be greater. That, was one advantage i saw with AMD-its affordability for the budget consumers. Dont deny it. Everyone of us has a couple of these email/online social network type of relatives :) what i'm trying to say is that AMD (with ATI in mind) has enough source to put out their own mini budget consumer level PC at very competitive cost. Though this may not work in U.S. or possibly Canada. i think they should aim this plan on smaller countries where affordability is everyone's #1 concern. When comparing buck for buck on components AMD truely shines. AMD should reach out for China, India, and many other eastern countries because that is where they have a chance in a fresh start and compete for that majority of the budget pc consumer mass. AMD is not dead-they just need to repackage themselves. In a way HP have done the same thing and they are keeping up with all the other successful pc giants just the same. AMD, you guys have all the tools, try a new image in new places, go wild...

 

dario77

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
75
0
18,630
0
isn't anyone going to point out that the only reason apple has been allowed to continue is that they dump their toxic waste in little brown people's villages to save costs??

apple...marketing to the very people who would be aghast by their environmental record.
and every one of these nimrods say "save the planet!!" as they check their iphones...

you're f@#$#d, as a species, you know...
 
G

Guest

Guest
You could tell the quality of the article by the title... it's scary to think Mr Enderle is an analyst!

Problem A - Why does AMD need to 'beat' Intel? This is the fundamental problem that has as much to do with AMD's problems as anything else and the problem with most of these type of articles. Their goal should be to be a successful company, not beating another company. Until they realize that they are tilting at windmills. They are treating everything as one size pie and needing to fight with Intel to get a bigger slice of the pie... how about growing the pie? Or making some cakes? The article alludes to this but when it is titled how to beat Intel - it still seems that is the mistaken mindet.

So how do you do that... stop comparing yourself to Intel at every turn! What is AMD's mission statement, beat Intel? Make a name for yourself, not the little guy trying to break the evil monopoly - this plays for a while, but eventually gets old. Settle the lawsuit and get some short term cash inusion instead of making this personal (as Ruiz clearly has done) and viewing it as a potential lottery ticket. This is kind of like an aging star on a professional team - you may not get the value you think is worth for them, but at some point it is time to move on to a new direction and get what you can for them.

How is AMD viewed? Simply as the small competitor to Intel; they have no brand image! The fanboys will say price/performance or graphics, but to the mainstream world they are simply a small competitor to Intel. This gets to the marketing point but while you are setting up great marketing, you need a product to market. "We are cheaper" (ummm, I mean better value) is not a marketing campaign - it is the birth of a commodity business.
 

master9716

Distinguished
Jul 27, 2006
271
0
18,780
0
I think you guys are forgetting that laser processors are coming .

Amd should ask itself what sells? when amd was going strong it was because their processors ran at higher FPS in games than intel eventhough in cpu benchmarks it was slower. So I think they should do the same because when buying a processor most everyone lookst at how much fps it can push.

If AMD builds a new like of dualcore processors dedicated to make graphics run faster then It will outsell intel if the price to fps ratio is good. Just like they did in the begining
 

exit2dos

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2006
2,646
0
20,810
11
#1) Are you suggesting that the world's largest software company should give preferential treatment to AMD? Doesn't MS have enough problems with the EU?

Secondly, AMD doesn't have enough marketshare for third parties to create special form-factors and interfaces for a propietary system. AMD could try doing it themselves, but it didn't work for Apple (which now uses regular PCI cards, etc.).

#2) "Consumer, MIDs/UMPCs, cell phones, and home automation largely don’t care about Intel inside and are looking for something they currently aren’t getting"

Did you listen to the Earning Conference Call last week? AMD is selling off it's mobile and HDTV business to focus on CPUs and GPUs.

#3) "There is a large number, I would argue the majority, of buyers who would like a PC that would last for 7 or 8 years that would never crash and that would use less power. AMD will probably never sell more processors than Intel does, but they could build a platform that could be seen by some as better."

Crashing is usually a software issue, and AMD and Intel are both doing there best to use less power. To have what is perceived as a "better platform", you need to be able to back up your words. Right now, Intel hold the performance lead amond enthusiasts, so there is very little chance that AMD could get the "Better Platform" title.

#4) You have to have funds in order to fund great marketing.


AMD just need to continue to put out reliable products. They are very competitive now on the GPU front. They are also, a reasonable alternative in the low to mid-end OEM desktop and laptop front. Hopefully, with Hector no longer leading, they will quit the FUD-spreading and outright lyning about their performance and roadmaps. There is nothing wrong with being #2, and there best bet is to quit trying to be #1 when you don't have the superior product.

IMO, AMD should just concentrate on being a value-alternative at the moment. They've played that role for years, and grew as a company. The next time Intel stumbles (and, eventually, they will - history repeats itself), AMD will be in a postition to lead in performance again. Only this time, they better not sit on their thumbs when they have the lead.
 

jv_acabal

Distinguished
May 9, 2008
35
0
18,530
0
"AMD needs to let Intel overextend and pick and fund key strategic efforts in markets where the playing field is more even." - I think with the current state, the weak or even field in the dominance of Intel is the IGP. AMD had a great move in putting a powerful graphics into their recent mobos. Their IGP's will surely beat Intel GMA and this is a great factor when we talk about 'value.' In the lower arena, where processors (Intel or AMD) don't matter much, better value mobos, such as AMD's, could be the deciding factor for customers to choose for their platforms. I know AMD is on this one already. Just keep it up ("focus"), AMD, and use the funds you generate for product improvements ("quality") and make "great marketing".
 

Xec

Distinguished
Jul 22, 2008
1
0
18,510
0
Simple
-release a 8core cpu ($300)
-dual cpu motherboard with 5 16x pci-e 2.0 and ddr2/3 mem ($350)
-beefy gfx card that can fully handle crysis maxed out($400)
-get valve etc.. game companies to sign on with amd cinema 2.0
-create some kind of playable amd cinema 2.0 demo game


All = (win win)
 

Lans

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2007
46
0
18,530
0
Like others, I have my reservations about the steps outlines.

1.)
I think the idea of changing the battle field is a good one but I also believe AMD has been trying already and that the example cited will probably not work. I think the perfect example why the idea of working with Microsoft on a shared resources model will not work is Athlon64, Windows XP x64, and Intel's eventual adoption of AMD's x64 technology. That is to say if Microsoft did with AMD, AMD wouldn't be able to enjoy it for long before Intel has something similar. Maybe shared resources model will be different but is highly highly unlikely to be a "ace in the hole" for "beating Intel".

I think AMD should have done a lot better on the consumer side (in the Athlon/Athlon64/pre-Core2 preiod) and that the lawsuit against Intel was warranted.

I personally believe the best AMD can do is to be on a level playing field with Intel (50-50 market share and the occasional balance shift of who has 60 and who has 40). AMD can "beat" Intel but definitely not in the sense of AMD and Intel's roles reversing.

2.)
Focus is good.

3.) and 4.)
"perceived quality" and marketing? There is just no way AMD is going to win this one when Intel can simply out spend AMD in marketing! I also agree that a system not crashing has much more to do with Windows than with the hardware! Haven't AMD been doing (relatively well) until the recent screw ups?

I think AMD should just do a variation of 1.) and 2.)
 

jv_acabal

Distinguished
May 9, 2008
35
0
18,530
0
^^^^^^^^^^
lol.. Do you think that AMD might be applying the economics' ratio of 80-20? In the market share view, 80% for Intel - 20% for AMD...Bad joke.
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,376
0
25,780
0
1) Intel is clearly not tied to the 'status qou'. For that matter, there has never been a 'status quo' in the processor market. Were Intel tied to some form of whimsical internal 'status quo' they would have continued producing substandard products and selling them through advertising. That this tactic was slowly failing against AMD’s then superior products is undeniably demonstrated by the shifts in overall market share. For whatever reason, Intel clearly did not maintain its 'status quo' and responded to the threat AMD was presenting to its market share.

The real question is, just why do you presume that should AMD challenge this notional 'status quo' again, that Intel would not respond as it did in 2004? Good will perhaps?


2) Interestingly, you speak of focus, yet you recommend AMD do this by attacking multiple fronts?
"Pick the areas where Intel is most exposed - graphics, OEMs, Microsoft and end users - and resource them. This is actually a set of things that AMD has been known to do well, but they tend to under resource the efforts, which has reduced the returns substantially."

Perhaps you should reference a dictionary as to the meaning of the word "focus". What you recommend, trying to expand, was precisely the factor that put AMD into its current predicament. The purchase of ATI to expand into platform, graphics, and aid development of integrated CPU/GPUs stretched AMD far too thin, both in assets and operational funding.

3) Quality over quantity. Saying that AMD needs to improve its quality is a no-brainer. Congratulations on that particular armchair quarterback pass, even if it is 2 season too late. Perhaps you should study your history a bit more as AMD was on the path of quality over quantity. They abandoned that path when they purchased ATI. In the 2 years following the purchase of ATI, AMD delivered products that were at best, nothing to write home about (X2, Brisbane) at worst abysmal phailures. (Phenom, 4x4) Rather than delivering "the goods", AMD delivered 'the Intel'. That is, AMD delivered lots of adver-hype with little quality or performance... For them, the real trick will be doing that on their ever shrinking recourses; cash, talent and equipment. If you want to demonstrate some true analysis rather than some 2-season too late arm chair quarterbacking, why not actually devise a plan for AMD to dig its way out of its quality conundrum, given its current recourses factoring in its current rate of cash loss. You should probably plan to demonstrate results before Intel releases its next generation micro-architecture.

4)Fund great marketing:
AMD Quadfather: "The Ultimate Enthusiast Platform"
"AMD Phenom processors: exceptional next-generation architecture designed to provide advanced multitasking performance for today’s more demanding PC users"
"Quadcore for dummies", or 'how to bury your face in the egg 18 months before you have a product'

Shall I go on? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So to is advertising. Frankly, even if AMD could afford it, which they can’t, given their track record with "Great Marketing", they would be better off burning the money. The money they spent on marketing Quadfather and Phenom did far more damage than good by raising the various markets expectations, (while publicly belittling their competition) then phailing phantastically to deliver. This is not an exaggeration.



What AMD needs to do, in 4 short paragraphs

1) Get back on the battlefield. To “change the battlefield”, AMD must actually be on the battlefield. AMD is currently somewhere in the rear with the gear, lying on a stretcher in the hospital tent, moaning in agony. To get back on the battlefield they need to focus.

2) Focus. Duh. Not your version of focus, but the real meaning; to concentrate. Focus does not mean spreading yourself further by trying to identify and attack all of your opposition’s weak points. It does not mean building more graphics cards while working deals with software manufactures to specialize and trying to make deals with OEMS. In case you didn’t notice, the deal with Dell hurt AMD as much as it helped. AMD lacks the capacity to supply everyone at once, so they must focus. OEMS or Channel. Graphics or CPUs. They are no longer in a position to fight a war on multiple fronts, and at this point, they have gone so far down the path to CH 11 that its going to be up to governments to bail them out since it is unlikely (given their product record and stock performance the past 2 years) that commerce is going to invest much more in them.

3) Quality over quantity. Focus efforts on producing a quality product rather than producing mediocre products for multiple markets. They lack the recourses to produce multiple products for multiple markets, and they have used up the reputation they struggled so hard to build. They must now get ‘back to basics’, focus on building one product and building it well, in order to rebuild both their reputation and their finances

4) Great Marketing. NOT. The very last thing AMD needs to do now is spend more money advertising products it can not deliver. AMD needs to take that money and spend it on improving the quality of their products, not the quality of their advertising. While you may live in the micro-cosmic world of BS sells, they rest of us live in the ‘Money talks, BS walks world’. No matter how much AMD spends on marketing, they will continue to lose if they don’t have the product to back their claims….You can fool some of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cant fool all of the people all of the time, and no amount of marketing can mask the failure of a product that can not provide performance, reliability or value. Don’t believe it? Look at Intel’s Netburst and how AMD ate away at Intel’s market share even when Intel was dumping ridiculous amounts of money into marketing. Intel learned its lesson…if you build a better mouse trap the world will beat a path to your door...will AMD learn its lesson?
 

Mathos

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
584
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]DXRick[/nom]AMD's tried to compete with the "same but cheaper" strategy, which bombed. People (like me) still see them as offering less for the same price. This is the same perception people have of the US auto industry, even though their relative reliability has improved.It isn't just because of their CPUs that this perception continues. They have done nothing to distinguish themselves in the chipset and integrated graphics areas. They rely on 3rd parties to develop chipsets and make motherboards. They have done nothing with their merger with ATI.So, how can advertising help much, when they have nothing special to advertise??[/citation]

.....Yeah they've done nothing, other than put out a complete platform using AMD/Ati Chipsets, processors and video cards. The 780g and 790gx chipsets both have fairly powerful IGP's capable of even playing some modern games, and lower res.

As far as advertising, they've got a lot of things they could advertise or use to gain sales and OEM support. Lets see, they've got a fairly powerful htpc solution with the 780/790gx chipset, paired with a lower power phenom 9150e etc. It doesn't outperform Intels part, but they can advertise native quad, and point out the area's in which their processors are strong. Only thing they can't do is make false claims, like their processors are the fastest and what not. Note that Intel can't make that claim either, because all it takes is for someone with a k10 to point out a benchmark where the Phenom does better to debunk that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS