AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel

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.
I think the main problem with AMD were the sheep following intel for years with their awful pentium iv. Even though it was a slow processor, people were buying that piece of crap. AND before talking sh about AMD, remember Rambus memory. Intel wanted to force the consumer to buy Rambus with their pentium 4 processor, and AMD opposed. Rambus proved to be slower, more expensive and worst overall than the competence. So when you buy a cheap DIM DDR3 Ram memory, thank AMD for that.
 
[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]
AMD is a US company....has been since the company was founded in 1969. Their Headquarters is even in Sunnyvale, California....
 
[citation][nom]julianbautista87[/nom]I think the main problem with AMD were the sheep following intel for years with their awful pentium iv. Even though it was a slow processor, people were buying that piece of crap. AND before talking sh about AMD, remember Rambus memory. Intel wanted to force the consumer to buy Rambus with their pentium 4 processor, and AMD opposed. Rambus proved to be slower, more expensive and worst overall than the competence. So when you buy a cheap DIM DDR3 Ram memory, thank AMD for that.[/citation]

LOL i would have still taken a P4 CPU then any dollar store CPU AMD had at the time
 
[citation][nom]xbeater[/nom]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"[/citation]
News, by definition cannot be old. Look up oxymoron. I fail to see the point of your post.
 
[citation][nom]willard[/nom]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.[/citation]

Actually, you're wrong on a few things.

Pentium 4 was never as bad as the junk AMD has today. Intel's best would beat AMD's best at certain benchmarks, and quite a few of them. Overall AMD chips were faster, but it wasn't like 99% to 1%, more like 70% to 30% of the apps.

The reality is, AMD chips even then were not excellent. They were mediocre to poor. Intel chips were very poor. The Intel line for their laptops were significantly better than AMD chips, over all. It was just compromises Intel made to power, and the fact they wouldn't use them for the desktop, that made this somewhat moot. When they moved this line onto the desktop, it was game over. AMD processor today are STILL inferior to the Conroes of 2006. That's really bad.

AMD's bulldozer, and Stars, etc... are complete trash. Complete! They are donkey excrement. Rubbish. The people who designed that rubbish should be sterilized.

Having said that, the Bobcat is as good as that stuff is junk. It's a great balance between power use and performance, as well as cost. The GPU is too powerful for the CPU, but that's nit picking.

AMD has complete rubbish for their "high-end", and a great processor for the low-end, that makes the Atom look entirely anemic, and hopelessly underpowered.

So, guess what? AMD is saying that high-end isn't important. You just need "enough" processing power. This isn't surprising, given their reality. And given the reality of the world, if you had to choose, you'd probably be better off with the Bobcat being what it is, and a miserable "high-end" processor, than the reverse.

There's a huge opportunity for the market where Bobcat is, and Bobcat is doing very well. AMD can't help but improve the miserable Bulldozer, but obviously it will be years before they can reach the Conroe of 2006, given their glacial rate of improvement. They simple don't know how. They lack talent. They can't even copy well, or they'd at least have caught the Conroe. It's a travesty. Better to just kill that line off if they can't do better, and stop embarrassing themselves.

Luckily, the Bobcat will save the day, as it already is.
 
The shift parallels what all electronic manufacturers are expecting to be a distancing from home computer to all that is mobile. So the growth will come from laptops and soc instead of duking it out on frames per second. Given the lead intel already has in R&D, it probably is a wise move to save AMD from continuing in a losing competition.
 
jajaja, boy o boy, none of you are getting the point...the real money in computers is NOT enthusiast, or Gamers...it's the mass generic consumers, and small scale products, that offer, SUFFICIENT performance, for lower prices, and greater battery life on portables....thats the real business, also, PC companies will undoubtedly be attracted towards AMD because of the lower prices, and APU's....the future is energy savers, and portables, not enthusiast performance.....just look at how so many things are going cloud...Intel better take a real hard look at this, or risk being antiquated....hardcore gaming is not the future of the CPU business
 
Let's all climb in the way back machine to November 2011:

"We're at an inflection point," said AMD spokesman Mike Silverman, according to a Mercury News report. "We will all need to let go of the old 'AMD versus Intel' mindset, because it won't be about that anymore."


This isn't news, it's just reaffirming what the company had already announced half a year ago. There's no way AMD can compete with Intel any more at the cutting edge of performance when you compare the pools of revenue/profit that each company commands. This is a logical step by AMD to keep them afloat. Some enthusiasts will bitch a moan, but any enthusiasts that care that much about pack leading performance have been using Intel systems for years anyway since the intial Core 2 CPUs were released. If performance and a budget is your market, AMD should still be there to serve you.
 
[citation][nom]ismaeljrp[/nom]jajaja, boy o boy, none of you are getting the point...the real money in computers is NOT enthusiast, or Gamers...it's the mass generic consumers, and small scale products, that offer, SUFFICIENT performance, for lower prices, and greater battery life on portables....thats the real business, also, PC companies will undoubtedly be attracted towards AMD because of the lower prices, and APU's....the future is energy savers, and portables, not enthusiast performance.....just look at how so many things are going cloud...Intel better take a real hard look at this, or risk being antiquated....hardcore gaming is not the future of the CPU business[/citation]

LOL ok so AMD would rather cater to the mainstream that will only buy crappy HP PC's at 400 bucks instead of catering to the enthusiast crowd that will spend up to 1000 - 5000+

AMD FANBOI FAIL
 
[citation][nom]loomis86[/nom]I think the CEO is right, but I think maybe he made a mistake saying it. [/citation]

Yes, I've been saying this for awhile now. AMD as a company needs to shut the hell up and not make any more foolish statements about what they will and won't be doing. They should just put their heads down and work very hard at putting out compelling products. It doesn't matter if they have the fastest processors, as long as they have something that no one else does and can charge a fair price for it.

When AMD first acquired Ati, many folks said it was the death of AMD. Ironically its their graphics division that is really doing well now.

 
I think their best move now is to team up with IBM and license some IBM patents. Big Blue has some awesome IC tech that AMD could leverage that well against Intel. And I bet IBM would like to keep the Intel monopoly in check also.

- Chas
 
At best, a very poor choice of words.

Improving processing power / watt HAS to be high on AMDs list of goals if they want a prosperous future.
 
[citation][nom]geekapproved[/nom]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?[/citation]

Looks like you didn't even read the article.
 
This is the best thing that could happen to AMD. Why? Let's look at this in terms of gaming, specifically a PC vs. console war, which is what many people like to fuel on this site anyway, ha. Think of Intel as PC's and AMD as consoles. Now what happens in a PC's lifecycle? You have room for upgrades or if it's outlived its usefulness, you can simply put together a new one, so the innovation takes place with new generations of hardware. In relation to gaming, this means utilizing the highest resolutions and graphical effects. On consoles however, you have a closed ecosystem, so innovation takes place within its specifications, specifically by utilizing what you have more efficiently. If you look at first generation games that were released for the 360, PS3 or even Wii, you can clearly see an upward trend in terms of graphical quality when comparing them to those released within the last year, with say 50% of the credit given to game engine advancements. How about the other 50%? It wouldn't be unrealistic to assume that this might be due to a better, or perhaps more innovative use of the system's resources. So AMD's engineers can't produce a product that is competitive with Intel's finest. That's fine. So what will they do? They will take their existing hardware and develop it further, getting as close to maximizing its potential as they can. Who knows? Maybe down the line this method of optimization will bear fruit in the form of a feature or product that can compete with Intel. Just because they're taking a different direction, doesn't mean that their products will be less competitive as a result.
 
[citation][nom]hotroderx[/nom]Also them buying ATI I think was a horrible idea AMD should have just stuck to producing quality CPU's.[/citation]Are you nuts? Their graphics division is doing pretty good. They recently stumbled a bit in the highest end on graphics, but GCN does pretty darn good at prices beneath Kepler (they really lit a fire under Nvidia). Namely, the 7700 and 7800 series are doing great and are the only current-gen architectures in those price ranges. The mobile GCN chips are also pretty impressive, if laptops are your thing. That doesn't even include all their successes with 4000, 5000, and 6000 cards.

They also wouldn't have the APUs that they do now. Llano did good for them, and Trinity looks to improve on that further. Their CPU-only business is getting decimated. Do you really think if they had taken the money they spent on ATI and invested it in their CPU business that they would have had a chance in hell of beating Intel, the sleeping giant? It was too late by then. Once they really woke Intel up and got the Intel war machine moving, there was no way. Intel's R&D and fab investments dwarf anything AMD could remotely muster even back then.[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]Trinity does have some pretty low-power efficient bins. But they'll mostly be competing on price. If it wasn't for AMD's pressure on this front, Ultrabooks would probably be pegged at around $1000. But AMD started talking about thin and light Trinity chips, and lo and behold Intel is trying to push Ultrabook prices down. The problem there is that Intel is not really willing to reduce the prices of their ULV chips, nor adjust their Ultrabook design requirements. Instead they're going to release lower-end ULV chips AND try to squeeze OEMs/ODMs more, for example pushing them to use cheaper battery designs (there's a news article here on THG that talks about cheaper cylindrical designs).

So AMD is going to get some well-deserved design wins, especially in the entry level thin laptops, such as Sleekbook.
 
He's doing the right thing. It's a business after all... why shell out chunks of $$ on Product improvement if the bigger share of the end user market is waiting to be tap.. besides they can compete on intel on the future if they dominated the end user market..
 
Honestly, if Piledriver is decent and can at least compete with the i5s, I'll consider it. I have a few Pentium 4 machines that I need to replace sometime, and I wonder if Trinity or Piledriver is a good idea - as it is, the APUs aren't great for desktop use (definitely not bad for a budget gaming laptop though). Heck, I even wonder if Bulldozer is a decent idea for low-end use...
 
LOL ok so AMD would rather cater to the mainstream that will only buy crappy HP PC's at 400 bucks instead of catering to the enthusiast crowd that will spend up to 1000 - 5000+

AMD FANBOI FAIL
Click to expand...

crowd thats only few millions, where the generic users on the planet is about hundred millions or perhaps billion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom