AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel

Page 5 - 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.
Intel needs AMD to have competition. That way the development and progress in technology keeps going. That CEO is just going to crush innovation. Way to go, and yes I'm an Intel user.
 
[citation][nom]davemaster84[/nom]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.[/citation]
Lets go back to 1999-2000. The top end CPUs were the intel P3 866~900Mhz CPUs. They were about $800 each. An AMD CPU was about $400 or so... nothing wrong with the chips, but the motherboard chipsets were crap back then. Go further back, the spanking NEW Pentium II 400Mhz was a $1000 part.

How about the $1000 Intel EE CPUs back in 2004~2006... which lost out to AMD's $250 2.0Ghz bottom end A64/X2 CPUs.
 
CadenV
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.
Click to expand...
Nvidia and AMD/ATI are always trading blows. In 6~-9 months, AMD will have the fastest GPU... but guess what? The market is not the FASTEST GPU, its the GPU that offers good performance at the right price. Most serious gamers only spend $100~200 for a graphics card. I won't go beyond $200.
 
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]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?"????[/citation]

i disagree. AMD is clearly losing the enthusiast CPU battle against intel. insanity is the repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. AMD needs to cut their losses and expand into areas where they can excel.
 
[citation][nom]davemaster84[/nom]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.[/citation]

No, you won't. Not unless there is some unkown killer app coming down the pipe in the very near future that will require significantly greater CPU power than current applications. AMD's lowend CPU's are more than enough for probably 90% of computer users. We are a decade past the point where having a highend CPU brought about tangible performance benefits to even mundane office apps. The percentage of hardcore gamers among PC users is incredibly small. Intel knows this, and can't jack up prices when most people already have computers that are "good enough," and won't layout huge amounts of cash for computer that won't run any faster than what they have.
 
[citation][nom]mikenygmail[/nom]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.[/citation]

Actually I think you may have it backwards, ha. Intel has had the performance crown since the Core 2 era and even Bulldozer cannot compete performance wise with the first generation i7 (1366). So if you think about it, the time you could potentially hold onto your Intel system is much greater than that of AMD's because the performance of the older generation Intel chips is still higher. What you're speaking of is future compatibility, but keep in mind that just because the board allows you access to future technology, doesn't mean that said technology will necessarily be worth it. My Core i7 920 at 2.66 ghz is still superior to an FX-8150 at 3.3 ghz in all real-world applications, though the 8150 does come out on top in those that are synthetic:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043.html

Though, my 920 is oc'ed to 3.6 ghz so that makes the point even stronger.
 
All these arguments about "good enough" and "no real improvement" is the same debate idiots have been making in the PC world for 30 years, even though they've been proven wrong every single year. How about someone come out and say "You'll never need anything faster than 4ghz" or "You'll never need more than 32g of ram". Do it. I need something to link back to for forum posts 5 years from now. With more computing power comes more powerful software. If you think we are anywhere near done with what is "good enough" you are so dense - you are ignoring the history of civilization.
 
Where's the link to this interview? Like 5 quotes from Rory Read and we're all supposed to believe AMD's
ship is sinking. There's no news I've found of this on AMD's website.

There's always more to the story than 5 quotes and doom-and-gloom dinky paragraphs with a bunch
of hot air.

Oh, and AMD looses the fastest GPU crown for a week or so, and they're falling to pieces.... Yeah, right.
 
I think now days CPUs are becoming powerful enough for most anyone besides someone who doesn't like to wait for videos to encode or huge programs to compile or the gamer who demands top notch graphics. AMD chips are at a point where they are powerful for most anything and so what if Intel's CPUs are 30-50% faster, AMD won't be that far behind and 5 years down the road a new AMD chip I'm sure will be much faster than Sandy Bridge.
I guess it's just a matter of how long you want to wait to get the performance level you need to make you happy for all your computing needs. I think nowdays we can forecast what sort of things we want to do on our computers in the future and so you know what hardware will satisfy. Maybe Intel is the only one that has the performance level you want right now, so you have a choice of going that route or wait a while for Piledriver revision 1..
 
[citation][nom]olaf[/nom]im fairly certain i won't be buying AMD ever again ....[/citation]
You're also aware CEOs can be replaced like batteries, no? X)
 
[citation][nom]moonzy[/nom]You're also aware CEOs can be replaced like batteries, no? X)[/citation]

yes but that won't make for a worthwhile product overnight, they don't have a decent cpu since K7. And none of there promises turned out to be anything but ink on paper, and if this new policy keeps up they won't be making anything good for decades .... i smell bankruptcy protection just so Intel won't have monopoly....
 
AMD needs to be a contender. That is not the kind of talk you want to hear from the CEO. I bet AMD stock went down a little after that comment.
 
What? They re-posted the same article and people are commenting on this as if it's new???

@Toms: why would you re-post the same article a few months later? WITHOUT even refreshing the comments?
 
I love how eveeyone assumes prices from intel will rise, even though amd has not been competive for many years now, but intel's chips have been getting cheaper. For wxample, entry level x58 chips were near $300 a few years ago, and even though intel has been getting better and better then amd, their good chips are niw about $215.

So stop claiming intel is some evil being thats going to trie chip prices. Thats as far from reality as can be.
 
“That era is done,” Rory Read said in an interview and added, “There’s enough processing power on every laptop on the planet today.”

Would you dare saying the same thing about GPU department? I think not.
 
I also LOLED at the user who said "real gamers don't spend more than $100 or $200 on GPUs. Thats pretty far from the truth. Serious gamers want to run 1920 x 1080 120hz 2ms monitors @ 60+ fps without any dips. Or 2560 x 1600 @ 60+ fps. You don't get that at max settings with aa cranked up with 100 buck gpus lol.

Hell, last time I bought a sub $400 gpu was back in high school and I got a voodoo2 from 3dfx lol.
 
[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]I love how eveeyone assumes prices from intel will rise, even though amd has not been competive for many years now, but intel's chips have been getting cheaper. For wxample, entry level x58 chips were near $300 a few years ago, and even though intel has been getting better and better then amd, their good chips are niw about $215. So stop claiming intel is some evil being thats going to trie chip prices. Thats as far from reality as can be.[/citation]

What you say is very true. Intel may not have to compete with AMD at the enthusiast end of the market but it does have to compete with existing enthusiast Intel parts. There's also another aspect to this. I paid $2400(NZD) for a i7-965 back in Feb 2009 and it was at that price for quite a while. About a year later Intel introduced its Sandy Bridge CPUs with the i7-2600K @ $1500(NZD). Performance wise they're about the same. Intel's fastest CPU is currently the i7-3960X which is $1400(NZD). Even the new new CPUs are cheaper than the old new CPUs... errr yeah... In any case, I'm glad there's someone else who hasn't yet fed from the bromidic slop bucket.
 


People are seriously misunderstanding what he's saying. He's not saying "we're not competing with Intel" or "we're not making faster processors". What he's saying is that current generation mainstream CPU's are not being utilized to their fullest by current software, not even close. And that to continue to increase pure processing power is not the answer when so much of it is going unused. Instead they want to devote silicon space to providing more enhanced capabilities, aka the onboard GPU.

Take the I5/I7 (exact same silicon with a single flag enabled). There are four cores inside on of those, the heaviest hitters in the consumer space for processing power is "games" yet current games use one to two cores. Hence all those "gaming
bench's showing an I3 running the same as an I5/I7 at the same clock. What this illustrates is that while "gaming" half of the I5/I7's processing power is simply unused. This becomes an even bigger issue on something like the BD uArch which heavily favors wide processing, in it's case 50~75% of the CPU's power is going unused. What sense does it make to keep adding processing power to consumer CPUs when it's not going to be used.

Instead take that same die space and add more capabilities and a vector coprocessor (iGPU). Rather then make the next eight core CPU, make a four core and put a bigger iGPU next to it. If you look at Llano / Trinity die shots you can see that half of the space is dedicated to the iGPU. With their advancements into HSA soon the iGPU will be treated as a vector math coprocessor instead of a graphics processor.

That is what he's talking about. Making integrated CPU's for mobile platforms and other content consumption devices. The desktop will not go away, especially the heavy gaming desktops, but in all honestly gaming is more about the GPU's then the CPU. Current CPU's can run games just fine, and as time advances software programmers will finally catch up and start making code that can use 3~8 cores full time. Then and only then will we need "more powerful" desktop processors.
 
hmm strange thing to say by company CEO....in AMD case, i think it is a smart move, but it something he had to say in close doors. Well I guess Intel can slow down now...or they can invest more time in to graphics and mobile market.
* Never could understand hardware vendors fan boys...I guess that thought of having best hardware for available budget some how evades them...
 
AMD just shitted over their own ideals.
Remember the Bulldozer's launch? Amd were boasting that their processor has 8cores and can be overclocked to ~8ghz (ofc not on all 8cores active), of course they still fail to a clocked 4ghz intel i5 CPU and they realized that. Now they tell us that it doesn't matter anymore.
Bravo, AMD. Now you start a war in the "efficiency and thin-'n-light market" where Intel was always the strongest. Even with the APU, Intel can still win this with their way better CEO's management. At least Intel's CEO is not a hypocrite
 
AMDs RIP started with the sale of Global Foundries. Now they have no control over the manufatring process, and thus cant innovate fast enough. they depend on TSMC and GF to make better FAB process.
Intel has kept its own FABs and thus is the market leader in manufacturing. which leads them to being the overall leader.
Now AMD is going to suffer for that mistake even in the Graphics section. they have to compete with Nvidia for the same FABs at TSMC.
we can assume that the AMD investors are not going to be happy in the near future. company made a bad call and it has come back to bite them in the ass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom