AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just shows how clueless the new guy is. IMHO, this will kill innovation at AMD, if not the company itself in due time. For me, though, it is too late. I went Intel after years of building AMD.

His comments bring to mind those supposedly attributed to Bill Gates what were they? "Who would ever need more than 1K of RAM?"????
 
“I think we come in and steal the bacon around the whole thin-and-light movement and capture a significant portion of the opportunity there,” Read said.
Click to expand...

How does AMD compete on thin and light when Intel's designs are more efficient and manufactured with manufacturing process superiority?
 
[citation][nom]ram1009[/nom]This is NOT news. It was announced months ago.[/citation]
Then it's still news, just old news. 😛

Anyways I've been a loyal AMD builder, and whilst I have no interest in upgrading my machine now I've already felt for a while that my next rig will be "Intel Inside"
 
Guess you could say when AMD fans heard the annoucement they were hopping amd.
 
Nothing is changing. It is just a shift in the mentality... They don't need to worry about gigahertz... They need to worry about MARKETING and BALANCED PRODUCTS...
 
It's a shame, but it had to happen. AMD cannot compete with intel's size or budget. With no competition, we as consumers will suffer as Intel innovates less on high end computing.
 
He has a valid point. Why others cannot see the reason behind this baffles me.

Yes, enthusiasts will suffer because the highest-end AMD chips won't be/is not competitive with Intel chips. But we enthusiasts represent a minority in the world PC market. AMD is an order of magnitude smaller than Intel is, and AMD simply does not have the R&D money it needs to develop a true contender against Intel architecture - in fact, it's amazing that AMD was able to take a lead for half a decade with their Athlon lineup.

Instead of pursuing a bloody, costly speed war against Intel, AMD simply decided that focusing on the general consumer market - which represents a HUGE chunk of the world PC market - was the better choice. And this makes sense; normal PCs cost somewhere around $500-600. For every enthusiast PC sold the brick-and-mortar stores sell multiple of normal PCs.

 
[citation][nom]tofu2go[/nom]How does AMD compete on thin and light when Intel's designs are more efficient and manufactured with manufacturing process superiority?[/citation]
well said.
i Don't know what this new director is talking about, If you are not able to compete or research and develop on x86 x64 field that is you bread and butter, i dont know how you intend to compete in any other field where you have no clues about it. 1-They joined the video card debacle, they where doing good at the beginning, but look like they became lazy and nvidia is eating good now, Amd is not far behind but is not at the top of the hill as they used to be.

Also it is good that this happened to them, they should had taken the Monopoly sue against intel more seriously, and not with that half ass approach they did. They should had sued intel so bad that i would had shaken their R&D department. It looks like, amd don't see how this whole monopoly move that intel did, harmed them. At that time AMD was on the very very top, the situation was very similar to what we see now, but only with amd on top. Will all that rug that intel pulled out from bellows AMD feet "money" Amd would have being in a very different position today.
 
AMD RIP. Instead of innovating, they've thrown in the towel essentially. The combination of lackluster Bulldozer performance/competition and the Shakey launch of the HD7xxx gpu's( driver/dual monitor issues) makes this a very predictable but sad announcement.
 
[citation][nom]daswilhelm[/nom]im sorry, when was AMD on the "very very top"?[/citation]
About 7 or 8 years ago. Intel was still chasing clock speed and made some really awful chips in the Pentium 4 line. At the same time, AMD made some really awesome chips, and they were the undisputed king for a while.

Basically, it's the same thing that happened with Bulldozer, except instead of Intel chasing clock speed, it's AMD chasing core count. Intel was also able to leverage their huge manufacturing advantage to widen the gap even more.
 
I better hurry up and order that i7 before the rest of you guys bid up the prices. I don't like this Rory guy.
 
I think the CEO is right, but I think maybe he made a mistake saying it. Stockholders will get nervous. The future belongs to smaller more portable computers. I'm thinking mini ITX format, and smaller, and chips that combine functions. SOC architecture. If I was king at AMD I would get the company into more things besides middle to high end x86 PC CPUs.

I would want a foundry, for starters. I would want my own foundry that can make ingots in the 18" diameter size and etch chips onto wafers in the smallest size currently considered cutting edge. However, I would not be terribly worried about being the smallest and firstest CMOS foundry because we all know that race is about to end. The future in foundries, in my opinion, is being the quickest producer with the highest volumes, the lowest costs, and highest yields. That means massive ingots and enormous factories and automation of the likes we have never seen.

AMD needs to break out of the x86 paradigm, do it first, and be the most amazing company doing it. That's how they will beat intel.
 
This sucks I don't want to see AMD give up or fail. I really like having a choice. All companies care about now is owning the market, patent trolling and squeezing every last cent out of consumers. I would really like to be able to choose. I haven't owned a AMD cpu in awhile.
 
sounds like words of defeat.

I normally built my systems with Intel although sometimes I have chosen AMD for some systems.
Never had a problem with either company, but is always good to know that regardless what I choose that there will be an option.

Options, also help to keep prices down, this could be a very bad move, both for AMD as a company and for the consumer, given Intel no reason to lower their prices to stay competitive.
 
Continually increasing processing power is not really so much innovation, just progress. Switching over to focus on efficiency and usage is innovating, and a good strategy for AMD. This may not benefit high end gamers immediately, but eventually you'll see technologies spread to other computing devices. Right now you'll see this in your phones.
 
he CEO is crazy. In 4 years Intel will be offering chips 2 times as powerful as AMD.

People may not need faster chips for a laptop... but when given the choice of twice as fast ... then they are going to go for it.

MAD is all fail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom