AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel

Page 2 - 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.
Kinda sad to here this sounds like AMD is raising the white flag when it comes to the enthusiast market. Also from the way the story reads you would also think AMD might be looking at getting out of the desktop market completely.

AMD has always stood for the budget enthusiast while there processors might not be the fastest they where a sweet deal for the money. I remember the 2500 Barton Socket A and the Socket 939's both where really sweet and a steal for the price.

Its these new generation chips the AM2 and AM3 generations that have been a real let down or at least a let down to me. Also them buying ATI I think was a horrible idea AMD should have just stuck to producing quality CPU's.

Before anyone flames me calling me a Intel fan boy. My system right now is a AM3 990FX - Running a Phenom II X6 1055T Processor.
 
The argument from the Intel fan bois is typical... "AMD was never on top", "about time" or even the uneducated comments about "How does AD compete on thin and light..." blah blah blah.

This is the right move by AMD... WHY you ask? When Intel stops innovating... and they get lazy... who will you blame... AMD for not competing... it isn't their fault... it is Intel's for not pushing their tech faster and with more innovation.

So AMD won't be pushing high end CPUs... the CPU game is over anyways. How was it AMD beat Intel in the past... they beat Intel to true 64 bit computing in x86... and then Intel built on it and added it to their chips... AMD created the first TRUE dual core chips... not Intels lazy solder two CPUs together on a single bus... and AMD broke the monolithic approach to making processors when they created these chips... paving the way for Intel to be what it is today... a company with 100 times the resources as AMD... but always trailing close behind to jump on the next big breakthrough they might make.

Oh... and as far as thin and light goes... try reading... while the new trinity chips don't crunch Pi as fast as Ivy Bridge... 11 out of 15 games tested ran faster on higher settings in laptops running Trinity. The only things Ivy bridge chips have over Trinity are pure computational specs, and slightly longer battery life in the highest priced offerings from vendors.

While it saddens me to hear that AMD will not be competing at the high end CPU market... that doesn't mean some kick ass chips aren't coming down the pipeline... and I for one already know the score...

Intel CPUs, Ivy Bridge, HD4000: 1 AMD APUs, Trinity, Radeon: 3

I'm not even going to dignify the garbage about Radeons vs Nvidia chips... it was already proven moving the 7 series reference boards from 925mHz to 1gHz puts the boards back in 1st place in almost every category and test
 
So many terrible comments, you make it sound like AMD won't improve their CPUs -.- AMD will continue but it's just not going to be their first priority! AMD is quite versatile now with their graphics, desktop, mobile, ultra-mobile etc. divisions. Go back in time and AMD was just about CPU and its speed. I will be that this will only give smarter decisions such as try out new architectures on smaller. So instead of starting with the Bulldozer architecture on a high-end CPU, to start it on a smaller CPU or APU, then scale it upwards. Just like they do (or did?) on the graphics sector.
 
What I think AMD needs to niche is the budget gaming market. While intel focuses on speed, as their prices on their processors will increase, it will increase in price as well. If AMD can develop a middleman processor that fits the slot between the i3 and the i5, with approximately the same power at a lower cost, several budget builds would be built with amd processors.

TL;DR: AMD should rival all the budget cpus on the intel side, and have roughly the same power at a lower price. It will catch the niche in the market of budget gaming.
 
AMD says they are out then a few months later they say they are back and now they are saying they are out again. this company flip flops more than Republican party :)

in the end everyone knows AMD is just the dollar store CPU of the computer world. i wish ATI wouldn't have sold themselves to this failing company
 
[citation][nom]phamhlam[/nom]As long as AMD keeps producing amazing GPU then it would be fine. Intel honestly have the performance crown for CPU.[/citation]

true but if Intel buys or makes a deal with NVIDIA down the road AMD will join Cyrix in the land of extinction
 
I think the APU's are great for quite a few things. Inexpensive gaming laptops and HTPC's come to mind. And like someone mentioned earlier, most people aren't enthusiasts. Any current CPU will be fine for most people.
 
From a business perspective, this is a perfectly reasonable idea, because the lower end represents the largest portion of the market. Good for AMD, the high end is really just a niche...
 
Sounds like a great plan. Efficiency and cores are the future of computer, not, clock for clock speed, especially for laptops and 95% of desktop users. Let Intel have the enthusiest segment.

Who's the loser in this? The enthusiests. Intel will once again be able to charge whatever they want without any competition.

Extreme Edition anyone?
 
I think he should have worded his statements a bit differently. Instead of saying that its not going to focus on speed and the intel race, just say what the new focus and strategy is...
 
Didn't AMD take market share lately?

I can see his point. Lets say they made a chip faster than an i5k. Great. But is that needed when sites like this one say a CPU past an one generation old i5 is past the point of reason (more money not giving a whole lot of performance)

Tablet/phone/PS/360 = masses. Masses = $$. IMO, untill those need an i5 or more AMD is not gunna bother with it. Rather, they will aim to make smaller, cheaper, and less power hungry chips for the devices that the masses buy. It is kinda like going all "tick" till a "tock" is really needed. (that could be the other way around)
 
[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]

By focusing on efficiency and not just having the fastest products which is what this whole article is about.
 
Kill innovation at AMD? It will kill innovation at Intel as well, without a rival Intel will become another bloated monopoly that does not listen to it's customers.... because it feels it does not need to.
 
I don't think this is AMD giving up...
I think this is AMD focusing on the low-end processor market. After all this is their traditional strong point. If they can out price/perf intel at the $100 and under sector they will always have a place at the CPU table.
 
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]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]

More than just us enthusiasts will suffer. We enthusiasts help to push that bleeding edge technology that in the past ten years has changed more of the world than any period before it. But if AMD does not compete with Intel enough, Intel wont try and innovation on both fronts will start to stagger. We will stop seeing this massive leap in performance and be stuck with stuff thats not better than previous stuff by enough to justify the price.

That said, Intel may still push ahead with or without AMDs competition. I don't see why not but knowing that AMD is nipping at their heels helps to push them more.

Its sad to me as I think AMD has the potential but the new CEO seems to want to focus on a market thats currently dominated by ARM, already breeched by Intel (who will have a hard time too) and think they will do better. I think it will be much harder than they think.
 
The Bulldozer chips are fairly competitive, despite what some "enthusiasts" on this site proclaim just because they think gaming is all there is, and yet they can only capture a small fraction of the market.
Focusing on mass market mobile chips instead of trying to gain ground in the relatively small high end market is probably a smart decision.

It could backfire though, if ARM turns out to be "the future" for all mobile computing.

[citation][nom]izajasz[/nom]FAIL. It seems to be some kind of plot to remove european companys from the game . First Nokia now AMD...[/citation]
*cough* AMD is not European *cough*
 
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]Fire that CEO.[/citation]

Intel has lots of resources to stay 3 steps ahead of AMD, and WILL win a war of attrition. Why serve a minor market when the current big market consist of tablets, smartphones and laptops. No need for i7s for those devices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom