AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel

Page 8 - 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.
[citation][nom]moricon[/nom]Well thats absolutely no problem AMD.I have made the move, i5 3570k and nVidia gtx 670, there is simply no other way to go I am afraid, you leave the average gamer no choice but to Intel, but yeah, best of luck for you in the future![/citation]
The "average gamer" owns an IB-Kepler system?

I'd be surprised if the average gamer owned more than a C2Q with 4890/275, and that's positively flying compared to my PII X3 710/4830 that I've been running for three years.
 
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]His comments bring to mind those supposedly attributed to Bill Gates what were they? "Who would ever need more than 1K of RAM?"????[/citation]

you mean "640K" not 1K!
 
A proof that AMD is doing its job is Trinity, I recommend everyone to read:
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/05/25/trinity-is-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts/
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/05/28/trinity-has-a-brain-and-a-queue/
 
i am not biased to intel but i want to say the truth.
(1) intel ivy bridge architecture provide 45% more IPC(instruction per cycle) over phenome II and 80% over FX
(2)and intel is transistor leader as we know intel is the first to manufacture 22nm chips
(3)hyper threading is the technology that pushed AMD out of server market and making the most efficient CPUs in the world improve multithreaded applications with the same power consumption even if you turned it off.
and what amd has ?bulldozer is just an attempt to fight back in server segment after intel captured 94.5% of servers market share by HT. i hope AMD just forget about server market and focus on desktop and laptops where i am sure they can compete with intel,as phenome x6 1090 was great product and even faster than quad nehalem i7 at 2010.
after all the only way for amd to fight against intel is to improve their cores (IPC) to at least match the IPC performance of intel cores.
 
[citation][nom]DroKing[/nom]They better come out on top in mobile section then use that $$$ to improve the Bulldozer architecture![/citation]

I have been building AMD for years... Now building my first Intel rig. I keep waiting to see if they come out with a new chip and surprise us but no....
 
This is ridiculous, AMD was offering amazing processors that were pretty close to Intel's in performance at much lower prices, what are the budget gamers gonna do now?
 
[citation][nom]Shayshunk[/nom]This is ridiculous, AMD was offering amazing processors that were pretty close to Intel's in performance at much lower prices, what are the budget gamers gonna do now?[/citation]

Amd used to out perform Intel at one point with cheaper prices. There are some gaming benchmarks that AMD is better than Intel. I think it's on the graphics side. AMD has a great graphics profile so to speak.
 
[citation][nom]darlok[/nom]Amd used to out perform Intel at one point with cheaper prices. There are some gaming benchmarks that AMD is better than Intel. I think it's on the graphics side. AMD has a great graphics profile so to speak.[/citation]
Oddly, CivV performs better on AMD processors in full render tests according to Anandtech.
 
I don't think AMD is giving up at all. I believe they are focusing their primary efforts in the budget/midrange notebook/ SFF APU market segment where they employ a commanding lead over ANY manufacturer in performance/cost ratio. As much us enthusiasts hate to admit it, our market segment is nothing compared to the budget/midrage notebook and the SFF/APU market is booming every day, so from a company success standpoint it makes perfect sense for AMD to pursue this genre of tech. As technology evolves it becomes smaller, not only the MFG processes but the physical products themselves aswell. I personally believe AMD is positioning them selves to innovate and be a leader in future generations of technology instead of continuing to butt heads with intel on pure speed. Does this mean AMD is 100% out of developing enthusiast CPU's ?? No it just means it's not their primary objective at the moment. There will still be AMD desktop CPU's and who knows maybe with intel scrambling to produce competition for AMD's APU's it will give AMD a chance to drop another game changer in the enthusiast CPU market, don't forget the original FX's came out of left field and ate the P4 EE's without batting an eyelash 😉

Just to take a preemptive strike against any claims of brand favoring (fanboi-ism) I am typing this on an HP Probook with an i3 2350M :)
 
In a nutshell, "Speed means nothing without Control." At least that's what I got out of Read's statement. Do we really need CPUs hitting over 7+GHz at a time? How about this? What if AMD backs down from making the fastest chip to making the most manipulative chip possible, while maintaining reasonable speeds of today? They've already dabbled with multiple cores and "modules", so the idea is there, the execution is just lacking.

With all due respect, AMD needs to become it's own entity, not a mere clone or adversary of Intel. They should carve their own niche in the market and create chips that can perform at a different level depending on the users end needs. Indirect competition is the best way to tackle the CPU markets.

As for competing with Intel exclusively, only Intel Fanboys really want that, because they now have to justify their purchase without having anything to compare it to. Otherwise it's Corvette v Charger. Both are nice cars, but there's no actual direct comparison between them. They both have their separate uses. It's up to the owner to be satisfied with the purchase.
 
If capital is whats missing from amd to compete on the scale and size of intel, then this new approach is smart and could make much more money for amd in the next couple of years then having stuck with the old approach. Sure shareholders /stockholders might get nervous, but then again maybe not. Amd probably wont stop making pc cpu's..
 
This is akin to car manufacturers saying "we're going to stop making american muscle cars", even though the demand is still huge. If there wasn't a demand for high performance cpu's Intel wouldn't be making them. Clearly the demand is there, so why AMD isn't going to cater to this crowd - notably where the highest profit margins are to be made - is mind boggling. I've been an AMD fanboy for 17 years and won't be buying another one on my new gaming rig in the fall. Partly because of their lackluster performance, and partly because of their assanine corporate "philosophy".
 
[citation][nom]atlasorion[/nom]This is akin to car manufacturers saying "we're going to stop making american muscle cars", even though the demand is still huge. If there wasn't a demand for high performance cpu's Intel wouldn't be making them. Clearly the demand is there, so why AMD isn't going to cater to this crowd - notably where the highest profit margins are to be made - is mind boggling. I've been an AMD fanboy for 17 years and won't be buying another one on my new gaming rig in the fall. Partly because of their lackluster performance, and partly because of their assanine corporate "philosophy".[/citation]
Where have you been? AMD stopped making "Muscle Cars" a whole generation ago. Nobody was buying them, everyone was running to Intel. So if that's where you want to be, have at it.

Should never be a fan boy of any manufacturer.

The other side of the coin, AMD hasn't released Vishera yet. Just because they said they weren't going along with the rat race, doesn't mean they will ignore great performing chips for home use.
 
[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 agree. Last time I had anything AMD was in 1999. Regardless, I like that they keep intel on their feet.
 


Real gamers don't need the graphics cranked all the way on every single title. And they don't need 10 trillion GPU cores that sucks a kW of power, and turns your computer into the house heater. Competitive gamers want the fastest speed, not necessarily the most eye-candy. And with that said, I usually have the graphics on medium or high. Ultra/Max greatly increases loading times, especially for online games, where the first few seconds are vital.

With that said, my old Radeon 5830 is still kicking today and doing well. It is actually faster than my GTX 570 thanks to bad vram that plagued the NGTX570 from MSI, which ironically I got from RMAing my 560-Ti Twin Frozr II for bad memory. I kinda wish they just sent me another 560-Ti with good memory. But I digress.

I usually don't spend more than $250 for a new GPU. That's usually the point where I can have the majority of the eye candy turned up, be the first on the field, and still have smooth gameplay without bad dips. Plus some of us like to save a little money, you know, for games (<-- hence gamer). 😉 😛
 
... how about intel need to start worry about GPU performance and OpenCL compatibility... AMD need to worry no more... with APU they have a winner... intel haz nothing like that... and with OpenCL AMD is getting better and better... WinZip 16.5, Vegas 11, CS 6 and more to come are using OpenCL now... and with OpenCL AMD APU can do more as an intel CPU... and for less money, AMD's APU haz game in laptops...
 

You do realize AMD's APU's are available for the desktop, right? Just because AMD is giving up on the performance sector doesn't mean AMD is giving up on the mainstream; in fact it's just the opposite. The APU is the best all around solution, especially with Trinity, providing the best idle power consumption, better multi-tasking/parallel computing, and as software evolves to utilize OpenCL, the so-so x86 performance may not be entirely relevant anymore. Overall, they are the best value for anyone who doesn't need single threaded x86 performance or low power consumption under load.
 
Now I know where the Cyrix people landed: AMD! It took them a long time but, that CEO's either a fool or know nothing about Cyrix (or Transmeta or IDT (WinChip, anyone?). DEATH = (SPEED - INNOVATION)-NEW CEO.
 
It is a shame i always loved AMD CPUs. But now with them only competing at the mid to low cpu range even many of the cheap intel cpus are eating the amd cpus alive sadly. Amd prices vs performance have dropped steeply. The A10-5800k which is an awesome cpu. But without the igp would it really be as good? If you do not try to push the performance of your cpu to the max it will always then lag behind your competition. It is no wonder intel is in no hurry to lower prices or to push their own cpus. It be nice if amd would wake up or another cpu maker would come on the scene to shake things up. Seems amd is following segas foot steps 🙁
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom