AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel

[pdxalex]

Does he actually work for AMD or is he on Intel's payroll?

 

[the_creed4]

@echanger , that is exactly what i was thinking, AMD is doing so well with price for performance, intel doesnt even have anything close to what AMD has in that department, an fx 4170 for $130, at 4.1ghz stock speed...WTF thats crazy, they might not be the best in gaming, but they are just awesome. AMD or die

 

[the_creed4]

I cringed when it said, "laptops have enough processing power"

 

[mikenygmail]

[citation][nom]professornob[/nom]I was wondering why AMD's stock was down 1.5%.[/citation]

Intel's stock is down 2.5%!

 

[leaderWON]

i hear "we are trying to make i5's instead of i7's" and i'm ok with that. i think trinity is definately a step in the right direction and i5 level chips are within reach.

 

[jerm1027]

I think it is an interesting, and smart move. Just because AMD is focusing more on general consumers doesn't mean we are going to see lack-luster chips. The APU is defining what can be done in the mobile market and continues to blur the line of netbooks and tablets and push the performance of sub-notebook computers. Trinity's Piledriver CPU core went through huge refinements and works to improve on Bulldozer's shortcomings. Trinity is impressive. I'm going AMD on my laptops now, especially given the potent GPU cores of the their APU's. However, on my desktop power-house, I'm siding with Intel... as long as they don't inflate their prices (anymore). I'm sure AMD will re-appear in the value segment offering solid performance with a modest price tag.

 

[mikenygmail]

[citation][nom]hotsacoman[/nom]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. [/citation]

You've got it backwards. If anything, Intel is the console and AMD is the PC. The reasons for this are simple: Intel forces you to buy a new motherboard, RAM and CPU every year for greater performance. AMD allows you to keep the same motherboard longer, for years even, and only upgrade the CPU for greater performance. It's been this way for many years.

 

[mikenygmail]

[citation][nom]jerm1027[/nom]I think it is an interesting, and smart move. Just because AMD is focusing more on general consumers doesn't mean we are going to see lack-luster chips. The APU is defining what can be done in the mobile market and continues to blur the line of netbooks and tablets and push the performance of sub-notebook computers. Trinity's Piledriver CPU core went through huge refinements and works to improve on Bulldozer's shortcomings. Trinity is impressive. I'm going AMD on my laptops now, especially given the potent GPU cores of the their APU's. However, on my desktop power-house, I'm siding with Intel... as long as they don't inflate their prices (anymore). I'm sure AMD will re-appear in the value segment offering solid performance with a modest price tag.[/citation]

Exactly, laptops have been outselling desktops for a couple of years now. This is a smart move. AMD will continue to be successful with their A6/A8 APU's, Trinity APU's and graphics cards. Anything else is just gravy!

 

[Guest]

Yes so true speed is not necessary... this IS WHY SANDY BRIDGE WAS SUCH A SUCCESS because it was so slow!!! People that bought a sandy bridge and even switched back to Intel all wanted to buy a tablet REALLY NOT.

 

[Trance4c]

Just because they are not following the norm does not mean it is a bad thing. So many of you have it all wrong, do you honestly believe the future is in desktop computers? We are coming to a new age of mobile technology. AMD will continue and advance in other areas which the future is taking us. I believe it is a smart change of course for their long-term outlook. Actually, I believe they beat Intel at their own game - proved they can make a top of the line product, provide user flexibility and beat the best at their own game. They have nothing to prove, now they wish to pursue and innovate in other areas to advance technologies of our future. I wish them the best!

 

[alidan]

[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]

lets also not forget that even when amd was better, did that really do anything for their marketshare?

amd does better, less than 1% move to it, amd does worse less than 1% leave...

the smart move is focus on a mid cpu, like said above, we already have more than enough power, and anything where a cpu sint good enough alone, can be offloaded to the gpu and be done FAR faster than a cpu can.

once gpgpu takes off in everything, the cpu will take a definite backseat.

 

[anxiousinfusion]

I first read the title as: "AMD Breaking out the CPU Speed Wars against Intel". Geez, what a letdown!

 

[anonymous_user]

[citation][nom]jp182[/nom]By focusing on efficiency and not just having the fastest products which is what this whole article is about.[/citation]
Did you read his comment? He is saying Intel's CPU's are efficient.

 

[pat]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]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]

Yes because the same processor in a 400$ and in a 1000$ system cost the same. Other parts, unless they use AMD chipset or video card don't really help AMD to make money. But would you rather sell 1000 CPU with 10$ profit or 1000000 at 1$ profit?

The enthusiast crowd is nothing compared to mainstream. With recent game being ported from console to PC, the few that remain won't really justify the investement for a company unless it can benefit for a more profitable niche. Now, with mobile computing, and cloud computing, everyone can have supercomputer power ready at home. Even tablets can do professional work if connected to the cloud. All that using les power and a more convenient way.

Even on the software side, we start to see some change. We not start to use simple app that does one thing well rather than bulky suite that do too much most of the time. Even Windows 8 is going the lean way letting down Aero interface and some other stuff the most user don't really use. And that demand less powerful machine but rather more efficient one. Will this be a good move? I don't know. Only time will tell.

THat's why AMD is not going to design faster and faster chip. They might not be needed anymore in some years. Rather, efficient multithreaded design might be the need for cloud computing, helped by distributed computing and faster network speed. And if it is the case, experimenting with new design now may give them an edge in a few year. Or it may hurt them too. Do you remember when they first make 64 bits cpu? Most of the peoples would not believe it and even Intel was pushing Microsoft for not release a 64 bits version of Windows. Sure Windows XP 64 was a bit rough at time, but thank to them, they believe in 64 bits and today, we can use more than 4 gigs of RAM in our computer.

With current state of computer technology, when brand new can easily be obsolete in only a few month, if you don't anticipate the next 5 years or more, then you'll lose the game.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Intel monopoly = your CPU prices will triple

 

[Guest]

AMD is onto something with the APU but they still need to keep the cpu side in the ballpark of intel. Also intel made huge improvements in their integrated graphics for ivybridge, I think there is the possibility that intel will eventually be faster on both the cpu and graphics portion of the APU.

 

[Guest]

14nm Haswell. The die shrunk Haswell will be the last great CPU. Intel will end the line along with the i64 stuff. Intel will only make ATOMs from here on out since we are maxed out on CPU usefullness. Who needs a great CPU to play angry birds. AMD is right. People aren't doing enough with their computers these days for any of this stuff to matter. If it can run a web browser, play angry birds, and update facebook, it is all anyone really needs. Long live the ChromeBook!

 

[funguseater]

LOL ... and we'll never need more than 640k of RAM right??? Who does this guy think he is telling us we have enough CPU power in our laptops, Fire this Joker.

 

[Guest]

yes angry, but if what you are saying is correct their might not be room for intel or AMD. The type of computing you describe will probably be accomplished cheaper and more efficiently by newer ARM chips like qualcomm's krait S4.

 

[davemaster84]

This is sad, old new tho. I bet Intel fanboys are reading this right now with a big smile on their faces, but guys do you really think giving Intel a monopoly would be good for anyone? In the near future when you buy a processor you'll see a 30% price increase.

 

[CaedenV]

How on earth did this happen?
AMD was the first to implement x64, the first to make duel core mainstream, the first to start moving parts of the NB onto the CPU, the first to have real thread prediction and out of order processing, the first to focus on efficiency instead of raw clock speed. They had everything right during those glory days, and then stalled out with their Phenom II series.
During those glory days Intel was still chasing their personal pipe dream of 10GHz CPUs and netburst architecture at the cost of everything else. Intel was baggaged with Rambus memory. Intel was the one with the CPUs that nobody could cool properly. Intel was the one that focused more on 'platform performance' instead of actual performance (VIIV, Centrino, etc.) which we all knew was a load of crock.
Now we see AMD selling the 'platform' game with vision and APUs. AMD is pushing needless cores instead of solid core design. And lastly AMD is not the one defining the future of tech (many-core, manufacturing process, effective chip redesigns, wifi on CPU, etc.) anymore, and that is the #1 reason why they are failing right now.

Purchasing AMD was the only thing that kept the company alive during the PhenomII days, and (other than driver issues) has done very well for themselves. But today we see nVidia killing them in the dedicated GPU market, Intel quickly catching up in the integrated market, nVidia's ARM chips beginning to eat at AMDs low end CPU market, and Intel killing them at the high end and !/W end. It is like a noose slowly coming around their necks.
I may not like the near defeatest philosophy behind this new CEO, but he simply may not have a choice. If AMD does not re-invent themselves (perhaps as a PC maker like Mac? or a patent holder like IBM or Microsoft?), then they will simply be engulfed by the pressures coming from above and below, and I wish them luck.
I have only ever built 1 AMD machine (AMDs was not supported by pro audio software before that, and then Intel came back to life after it), but it was a good machine, and it still runs great 7 years later. they are a good company, and I hope they find a new route to take.

 

[Energy96]

Translation: Our engineers suck and our company is too poorly managed to be innovative and competitive so we have given up and won't even try. Hey! someone has to be mediocre, might as well be us!

 

[belardo]

AMD does make quality products... But I think mentally, they are accepting that they will always be #2 - but in this market, #2 is pretty much last.

Recently, a client bought both an i3 notebook and an AMD A6 Llano class quad core desktop. Both feel about the same, even tho the i3 easily faster CPU wise, the desktop hardware is a bit faster. They are happy with both computers for their needs. The AMD Quad replaces their 6.5 year old AMD 64 CPU.

So yes, for many people looking to buy that $200~400 computer, the AMD setup is more than enough to handle Windows7 or 8. For the person who wants a hot-rod, i5 is the way to go.

Problems thou... Intel owns the market. Prices *WILL* go up abit, but I don't think too high. Intel is already showing their slow down in their tic-toc. So who knows, maybe in 4-5 years, AMD may surprise us and come out with another "Athlon 64" that knocks intel off the throne.

I will continue to buy AMD products, when applicable.

- AMD buying ATI was a good thing for the long run.
- AMD needs to keep on top of their GPU game... Its okay that the new GF cards are a bit faster, they came out about 6 months after AMD.

 

[pedro_mann]

I've been a loyal fan since I built my 386DX-40. 'twas the fastest 386 available. I've probably swayed at least 200+ other people to go AMD. And this, sorta feels like a breakup.... Ummm, I really don't want to go Intel, it feels like trading. Alas, they have a point, it's not always about having the fastest system, but the most balanced system. But, blatantly throwing in the towel like this isn't going to help.

 

[rdc85]

I hope that they keeps competing and make great chip for low end market like how they used to, not like now, they charge mediocre chip for high price.