AMD and Intel General Discussion (not for getting help)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


ROFL - thank you, Dr. Sharikou! :)

I haven't been to his webpage in ages - wonder if he has updated his "BK by 2Q 09" prediction yet???
 
After a lil reading, it appears AMD had better do 1 of 2 things. According to testing, the current OS we have are actually inferior to xp, current as in Vista and W7.
Now, you may ask, what the XXXX is he talking about OS' in a cpu forum. For a few simple reasons. Like I said, xp is currently faster, or in essence, uses less to do more. Since it doesnt have DRM and a few other things the newer OS' have, it takes less to do the same amount of work.
Now heres where I tie it all together. Both Vista, and even moreso, W7 offer a much broader ability when it comes to MT (mulit threading), and tho they do MT better than xp, which has a few global blocks to MT, the others have shed them, and get down to the nitty gritty using MT in a much finer, better way.
Its currently estimated that W7 wont surpass xp in the "doing more to do the same" effort, even with its superior MT until we see 16 cores. Well, thats either a few shrinks away, or AMD needs to get HT or SMT working on their chips, because, whoever gets there first, the OS will give direct response to the number of cores pushing the OS, whether its SMP or hard cores. Just something to think about
 


OK, who are you & what have you done with the real JDJ???? 😀

Seriously, didn't you just post a whole truckload in the Istanbul DT thread about how nobody actually needs more than 2 cores, let alone 6? And since Intel was coming out soon with the i9 Westmere chip with 6/12 cores/threads, they "just don't get it"? Besides, IIRC I was the one to point out how W7's improved thread handling would probably show some benefit on HT-enabled CPUs like Nehalem & it's successors.

Now as to the OS question, I've been using 32-bit W7 RC for about a month now and find it to load & quit faster than XP, altho I hafta admit XP is loaded with bloatware whereas W7 is not (yet anyway). But the two are on different computers. However I'll probably be dual-booting XP and W7 64-bit on my i920 build as new installs, so I should be able to directly test how W7's improved multitasking works with 8 threads. From what I've read, many apps use less than 60% of the available clock cycles per thread, so that should be ideal for hyperthreading.
 
Thats today. As of right now, both W7 and Vista cant really make use of less than 16 cores and surpass xp. I see no 16 core cpus on the horizon, unless theyre using SMT in octo. A year or 2 down the road, yes. But a hex core wont show the benefits, and thats what I was saying in that thread, and is what Im saying here.
But also, in the other thread, we were speaking more on apps, not OS', which using apps, its even more useless.
Im differentiating the 2 here. Once fully loaded, W7 will be slightly slower than xp. That is, with the same loads.
Its like power uasge, as the best way to explain what Im trying to get across. 1 cpu may have a better TDP if you will, while the others is higher, but the higher TDP cpu gets its work dont so much faster, it still saves on power, same analogy here, but using OS'

Even tho xp doesnt have a greater MT usage, its still more efficient, until we hit 16+ cores in W7, even more with Vista, as its not as well defined in its MT usage
 
In AMDs defense, it took them no time to release their hex cores, and even jumped the gun on release. Even an octo core should be easily done, but again, it does little for what Im talking about here
 
Interesting article - thanks for the link. A few quibbles however - Infoworld seems to take a single test datum - database throughput - and generalize it to the majority of apps - I'm not too sure of the validity of such an overarching stretch, but then I'm no software expert. Seems peculiar nonetheless. I also recall reading that MS had made some significant improvements in W7's thread handling of display output - didn't see any mention of this in the article, but then I would guess database apps don't need to prioritize to the screen that quickly. However the lag time in an app displaying to the screen is what most users consider as "responsiveness".

A shame MS had to load down the Vista OS with DRM - should be in the apps that access entertainment media instead, like Media Center, Media Player, games, etc. I wonder how OSX compares.

My experience with Vista 64-bit on a Q6700 system is that it is comparable to XP 32-bit in speed and much "smoothier" :) in multitasking, esp. running two instances of, say, DVDShrink than XP, according to task manager. Typically in XP one core will be loaded to 80% while the other 3 much less, whereas in Vista they are all about equal. And of course if you turn off Aeroglass, that saves a significant amount of processing cycles as well.

I guess the takeaway would be that if you want a really responsive & quick PC, you'd oc a P4 Northwood to 10 GHz and run CP/M-86 on it :).
 
Was reading this thread http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1313868#post1313868
Look familiar? Some valid insights are the 2 links also
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=807&p=4 and
http://www.behardware.com/articles/759-8/amd-phenom-ii-x4-955-black-edition.html
Now, it appears that Im not the only 1 concerned by this, and as I said back then, we will see this mentioned more and more. Latest rumors has the 5870 between the 4870x2 and the 295 in performance, while the G300 will be 40%+ higher still, while the 5870x2 or R800 should be another 20%+ on top of that.

Now, take a look at the other 2 links. Notice how the fps keep going up until youve reached the highest i7 . This shows that theres more to be had from the 295 being tested there, and itll be no more than mid high end in a few months time. Cpus are slipping. Todays games require much more from a cpu than ever before, and its only going to get worse, with the usage of MT in games, SMT wont be turboing all those threads, and SMT isnt equal to a real core.
Now, another reason for problems is this. All the things we see coming from DX11 enhances fps abilities other than tessellation, which will be HW compliant as a necessity, and also provides more access with greater usage of the cpu in games, which again means even more than currently anything weve seen being asked of cpus.
Just thought Id keep you up to date, I know some have forgotten, and or written this off, but, again I say, youll be hearing more and more about this
 
^ thumbs down for the new forum rankings 🙁.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it seems the street is expecting AMD to post yet another large loss this afternoon - 47 cents a share, or about $300M+. If true, makes you wonder how the heck they stay in business - 11 or 12 consecutive losing quarters, totalling something like $7.5B since December 2007, which is as far back as MSN Money takes me. I know AMD had at least one losing quarter in 2006, after Core 2 started demolishing the K8 sales, but I'm too lazy to go look it up 😀.
 
 


Here's yet another "anal-list" who's not too hot on AMD stock:

Advanced Micro Devices (AMD):

On Tuesday, the California chip company is due to release its second-quarter earnings.

Some quick thoughts:

1. The Street is looking for a second-quarter loss of $0.48. It could beat that number, but so what? Have you looked at the red ink these guys are expected to generate in 2009 and 2010?

2. I’m not saying a comeback is impossible, but from an investment standpoint, I don’t see the company playing on the same field as its much larger rival Intel (INTC) anytime soon.

3. At $4 or so, it’s just not going to receive loving from me. I assume many analysts and traders feel the same way.

4. With insiders apparently sitting on their hands, why should I belly up?

5. If I were asked to sum up my feelings on the stock, I could do so in one word: indifferent.

Sorry, AMD bulls, but the company is going to have to show me the money and prove me wrong before I take a glass-half-full approach. I’ve been burned one too many times.
Click to expand...

GF will have to (1) demonstrate superiority in an already overcrowded field, and (2) overcome the billions in debt from the AMD bailout, before they attract a lot of new customers who can actually pay them in $$ instead of shares whose long-term value is questionable, and get in the black.
 
And now for AMD's actual 2nd quarter results:

AMD reported revenue for the second quarter of 2009 of $1.184 billion. Second quarter 2009 revenue was flat compared to the first quarter of 2009 and decreased 13 percent compared to the second quarter of 2008.

In the second quarter of 2009, AMD reported a net loss attributable to AMD common stockholders of $330 million or $0.49 per share, which includes the net favorable impact of $86 million, or $0.13 per share, primarily from the sale of inventory written-down in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2008 as described in the table below2. AMD’s operating loss was $249 million.
Click to expand...

So without the one-time favorable book-cooking adjustment, AMD would have lost 62 cents a share. AMD's stock shed 9 cents by market close today, but in after-hours trading it's down 45 cents additional.

I guess it's pretty clear by now which company "gets it" when it comes to profitability 😀.
 
I'm guessing one reason why AMD fell far short of the street expectations of -47 cents per share (which do factor out the one-time favorables, so AMD's street loss was figured at -62 cents per share) - Istanbul is probably hurting AMD's margins - down to 27% for Q2 according to the report. ~50% larger die size than Shanghai, but they can't sell it for much since Nehalem still outperforms it significantly in most server apps.

With Intel releasing 32nm in a few months, AMD really needs to get caught up in both process and marchitecture. I don't see how AMD expects to be profitable in the next 2 years, let alone by the end of this year...
 
Theyve cut into their losses, but theyre still losing.
What was Intels margins this years 2nd qtr compared to last, cpus only?
Im just wondering if 13% is actually good in this eco climate, and Intel is the only other one in this market
 


Obviously Intel did much better than expected in this economic climate, much of it driven by consumer sales since corporate is not buying at the moment. AMD however did not perform up to expectations, which is why its stock is down nearly 15% in after-hours trading. Of course, AMD's stock benefited a lot from Intel's gains last week, but this week the crows came home to roost.

AMD likes to crow about how the company is doing great, competitive products across the board with tons of new stuff coming out shortly, Intel doesn't get it, yadda yadda. Unfortunately for them, the truth comes out 4 times a year. Bottom line on the quarterly reports tends to blow away the smoke & fog, leaving a busted business plan for all to see...
 
AVERAGE consumers have become mindless robots. They are bound to destroying our existance with idiotic "revolutionary" practices. Our current state of recession or economic bleakness is likely a major factor in in AMDs lack of monitary generation. I am certain that in the slim chance of an eco-comeback, did I say slim, AMD will gain some ground. How much I am not certain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom