AMD is losing two more high-ranking executives.
AMD Confirms Departure of CIO Mike Wolfe : Read more
AMD Confirms Departure of CIO Mike Wolfe : Read more
- Status
zeratul600
Honorable
- Mar 11, 2012
- 138
- 0
- 10,680
man please someone help amd! cant they initiate a a kickstarter project???? save amd goal 100m XD
stickmansam
Splendid
- Oct 30, 2011
- 3,719
- 0
- 23,460
DRosencraft
Distinguished
- Aug 26, 2011
- 743
- 0
- 19,010
Okay, for everyone who is panicking over AMD's future, here's a little bit of an optimistic take. If you think that AMD's problem was in not hitting the mark on design, then this is actually a bit of good news. It means there is some house cleaning going on, and that new people with fresh ideas (hopefully) are coming in or getting a chance to lead.
Honestly though... I can't make a judgment call yet. Personally I don't think that AMD's lineup in the CPU arena is that bad. Yes they don't have a top tier that can compete with Intel's top tier, but I personally don't see that as so important considering how niche that portion of the market is. I could be wrong, but I just don't think that's their problem. I've said this before - on any given day I seen at least half a dozen commercials for Intel on TV and on the internet. The only AMD advertisement I ever see is a banner ad that is occasionally here on Tom's. That needs to be addressed. They have a decent offering of chips, but when Intel has such saturation in just knowing who makes processors, there are a lot of people who would be entering at the lower end of the market, where AMD is strong, but see AMD and think "who are they?" while looking at Intel and saying, "Oh, I saw their commercial a couple times". If they can't turn that around, then they will forever be stuck playing catch-up.
Maybe these changes will help, maybe they won't. I hope they do make a difference, but It's a little too soon to say.
Honestly though... I can't make a judgment call yet. Personally I don't think that AMD's lineup in the CPU arena is that bad. Yes they don't have a top tier that can compete with Intel's top tier, but I personally don't see that as so important considering how niche that portion of the market is. I could be wrong, but I just don't think that's their problem. I've said this before - on any given day I seen at least half a dozen commercials for Intel on TV and on the internet. The only AMD advertisement I ever see is a banner ad that is occasionally here on Tom's. That needs to be addressed. They have a decent offering of chips, but when Intel has such saturation in just knowing who makes processors, there are a lot of people who would be entering at the lower end of the market, where AMD is strong, but see AMD and think "who are they?" while looking at Intel and saying, "Oh, I saw their commercial a couple times". If they can't turn that around, then they will forever be stuck playing catch-up.
Maybe these changes will help, maybe they won't. I hope they do make a difference, but It's a little too soon to say.
Teeroy32
Distinguished
- May 23, 2011
- 173
- 3
- 18,695
Come on AMD, a few months ago I built my first AMD system, I supported you with my cash even though I was an Intel fan boy, my rig is awesome, sure a top of the line i5 or i7 will eat it for breakfast but it does all I want. Lets hope the PS4 will use a Trinity APU, and Apple does choose to use AMD even for low end machines it will keep you in the fight and keep Intel honest. Hopefully your 8 core pile drivers start showing up a bit better, love to upgrade my fx-6100 to a FX-8320
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]It's really astonishing that a company once neck and neck with Intel has fallen so far so fast. The entire R&D department should be fired.[/citation]
It was an upper management decision to no longer compete for the top end CPU and just move toward other areas (ie. APU vs. CPU and integrated GPU ) which they felt would get them more sales in the laptop\mobile device area - so can't really place the blame on the Research and development units as they were just doing what they were told !
It was an upper management decision to no longer compete for the top end CPU and just move toward other areas (ie. APU vs. CPU and integrated GPU ) which they felt would get them more sales in the laptop\mobile device area - so can't really place the blame on the Research and development units as they were just doing what they were told !
Hint, hint. Sony and M$ will be backing out of graphics deal with AMD regarding their upcoming consoles. Ssssshhh don't tell no one, k?
esrever
Splendid
- Dec 27, 2011
- 5,386
- 0
- 26,160
[citation][nom]zeratul600[/nom]man please someone help amd! cant they initiate a a kickstarter project???? save amd goal 100m XD[/citation]
100m is barely going to do anything. AMD's operation cost for 1 quater alone is more than a billion. The R&D budget for a year is about $2 billion. They will need at least $2b to just have a chance to push out better products in 2 years time.
100m is barely going to do anything. AMD's operation cost for 1 quater alone is more than a billion. The R&D budget for a year is about $2 billion. They will need at least $2b to just have a chance to push out better products in 2 years time.
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]It's really astonishing that a company once neck and neck with Intel has fallen so far so fast. The entire R&D department should be fired.[/citation]
blame intel, they flexed a monoply mussel when amd was beating them badly, and amd never recovered from it.
than look at the p4, intels first thread solution... that sucked
look at bulldozer, amds first thread solution...
only problem is intel got their crap together behind closed doors, while amd doenst get that luxury.
[citation][nom]DRosencraft[/nom]Okay, for everyone who is panicking over AMD's future, here's a little bit of an optimistic take. If you think that AMD's problem was in not hitting the mark on design, then this is actually a bit of good news. It means there is some house cleaning going on, and that new people with fresh ideas (hopefully) are coming in or getting a chance to lead. Honestly though... I can't make a judgment call yet. Personally I don't think that AMD's lineup in the CPU arena is that bad. Yes they don't have a top tier that can compete with Intel's top tier, but I personally don't see that as so important considering how niche that portion of the market is. I could be wrong, but I just don't think that's their problem. I've said this before - on any given day I seen at least half a dozen commercials for Intel on TV and on the internet. The only AMD advertisement I ever see is a banner ad that is occasionally here on Tom's. That needs to be addressed. They have a decent offering of chips, but when Intel has such saturation in just knowing who makes processors, there are a lot of people who would be entering at the lower end of the market, where AMD is strong, but see AMD and think "who are they?" while looking at Intel and saying, "Oh, I saw their commercial a couple times". If they can't turn that around, then they will forever be stuck playing catch-up. Maybe these changes will help, maybe they won't. I hope they do make a difference, but It's a little too soon to say.[/citation]
in 5-10 years, all you will need is a good enough cpu, as everything cpu intensive will be shifted over to the gpu. really, amd has good enough cpus, but they need to last till the gpu really takes over in homes.
blame intel, they flexed a monoply mussel when amd was beating them badly, and amd never recovered from it.
than look at the p4, intels first thread solution... that sucked
look at bulldozer, amds first thread solution...
only problem is intel got their crap together behind closed doors, while amd doenst get that luxury.
[citation][nom]DRosencraft[/nom]Okay, for everyone who is panicking over AMD's future, here's a little bit of an optimistic take. If you think that AMD's problem was in not hitting the mark on design, then this is actually a bit of good news. It means there is some house cleaning going on, and that new people with fresh ideas (hopefully) are coming in or getting a chance to lead. Honestly though... I can't make a judgment call yet. Personally I don't think that AMD's lineup in the CPU arena is that bad. Yes they don't have a top tier that can compete with Intel's top tier, but I personally don't see that as so important considering how niche that portion of the market is. I could be wrong, but I just don't think that's their problem. I've said this before - on any given day I seen at least half a dozen commercials for Intel on TV and on the internet. The only AMD advertisement I ever see is a banner ad that is occasionally here on Tom's. That needs to be addressed. They have a decent offering of chips, but when Intel has such saturation in just knowing who makes processors, there are a lot of people who would be entering at the lower end of the market, where AMD is strong, but see AMD and think "who are they?" while looking at Intel and saying, "Oh, I saw their commercial a couple times". If they can't turn that around, then they will forever be stuck playing catch-up. Maybe these changes will help, maybe they won't. I hope they do make a difference, but It's a little too soon to say.[/citation]
in 5-10 years, all you will need is a good enough cpu, as everything cpu intensive will be shifted over to the gpu. really, amd has good enough cpus, but they need to last till the gpu really takes over in homes.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]madjimms[/nom]When some more Piledriver CPU's come in I'll definitely buy one. They are pretty cheap for the performance also (even though they are 4 REAL cores)[/citation]
The FX-8xxx CPUs have eight REAL integer cores. Scaling isn't nearly 100% due to a front-end bottle-neck (such as the insufficient x86 decoders) that is to be fixed with the next generation AMD arch, Steamroller, but that doesn't change how many cores that there are.
The FX-8xxx CPUs have eight REAL integer cores. Scaling isn't nearly 100% due to a front-end bottle-neck (such as the insufficient x86 decoders) that is to be fixed with the next generation AMD arch, Steamroller, but that doesn't change how many cores that there are.
AMD is design only, they outsource to Fab, therefore the greatest asset they have is the people who work for them, and those are draining away fast. I am afraid the hole in the bucket is just to big at this point!
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]moricon[/nom]AMD is design only, they outsource to Fab, therefore the greatest asset they have is the people who work for them, and those are draining away fast. I am afraid the hole in the bucket is just to big at this point![/citation]
No, they're simply being replaced. It's not the same.
No, they're simply being replaced. It's not the same.
azraa
Honorable
- Jul 3, 2012
- 323
- 0
- 10,790
Really? Again that silly argument about FX-8xxx not being 8 cores?
Jeez, its been explained hundreds of times, there is NO true definition of a core. According to AMD 2 cores share a few things to work together on a module. Its no different that what Intel does, designing 1 cores to act as 2 from the thread perspective.
Quit it already, its called CPU architectures, its not hard. Intel nor AMD are the standard.
@topic: I really agree with DRosencraft. I've said it before and I repeat it: AMD needs advertising, to make people know that they are good enough and actually a great option depending on budgets and tasks. But there is no reason to panic right now. Just fanboys being fanboys, saying AMD doesnt produce good chips and stuff. Utter BS.
Jeez, its been explained hundreds of times, there is NO true definition of a core. According to AMD 2 cores share a few things to work together on a module. Its no different that what Intel does, designing 1 cores to act as 2 from the thread perspective.
Quit it already, its called CPU architectures, its not hard. Intel nor AMD are the standard.
@topic: I really agree with DRosencraft. I've said it before and I repeat it: AMD needs advertising, to make people know that they are good enough and actually a great option depending on budgets and tasks. But there is no reason to panic right now. Just fanboys being fanboys, saying AMD doesnt produce good chips and stuff. Utter BS.
bustapr
Distinguished
- Jan 23, 2009
- 1,613
- 0
- 19,780
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]It's really astonishing that a company once neck and neck with Intel has fallen so far so fast. The entire R&D department should be fired.[/citation]
R&D employees arent the problem. They do massive achievements considering the lousy investment they get for R&D. they just need better execs and marketing, and more money for R&D. I feel the departure of alot of these execs can open the door for someone competent to take on those important roles. The bad thing is stocks always plummet when an exec leaves.
R&D employees arent the problem. They do massive achievements considering the lousy investment they get for R&D. they just need better execs and marketing, and more money for R&D. I feel the departure of alot of these execs can open the door for someone competent to take on those important roles. The bad thing is stocks always plummet when an exec leaves.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]azraa[/nom]Really? Again that silly argument about FX-8xxx not being 8 cores?Jeez, its been explained hundreds of times, there is NO true definition of a core. According to AMD 2 cores share a few things to work together on a module. Its no different that what Intel does, designing 1 cores to act as 2 from the thread perspective.Quit it already, its called CPU architectures, its not hard. Intel nor AMD are the standard.@topic: I really agree with DRosencraft. I've said it before and I repeat it: AMD needs advertising, to make people know that they are good enough and actually a great option depending on budgets and tasks. But there is no reason to panic right now. Just fanboys being fanboys, saying AMD doesnt produce good chips and stuff. Utter BS.[/citation]
What AMD does with a module and what Intel does with their SMT implementation (Hyper-Threading) are two very different things. AMD's modules are literally two merged integer cores with some shared resources such as the FPU and the front end. Regardless of what is shared, there are still two integer cores and that's what matters for core count.
With Intel's Hyper-Threading, you have a single core that can run instructions from two threads. This lets it more effectively utilize its resources in that resources that one thread wouldn't have used at a given time may be able to be used by another thread at that time, reducing the waste of processing power. It's still a single core whereas AMD's modules are two cores.
What AMD does with a module and what Intel does with their SMT implementation (Hyper-Threading) are two very different things. AMD's modules are literally two merged integer cores with some shared resources such as the FPU and the front end. Regardless of what is shared, there are still two integer cores and that's what matters for core count.
With Intel's Hyper-Threading, you have a single core that can run instructions from two threads. This lets it more effectively utilize its resources in that resources that one thread wouldn't have used at a given time may be able to be used by another thread at that time, reducing the waste of processing power. It's still a single core whereas AMD's modules are two cores.
darkavenger123
Distinguished
- Feb 22, 2010
- 353
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]DRosencraft[/nom]Okay, for everyone who is panicking over AMD's future, here's a little bit of an optimistic take. If you think that AMD's problem was in not hitting the mark on design, then this is actually a bit of good news. It means there is some house cleaning going on, and that new people with fresh ideas (hopefully) are coming in or getting a chance to lead. Honestly though... I can't make a judgment call yet. Personally I don't think that AMD's lineup in the CPU arena is that bad. Yes they don't have a top tier that can compete with Intel's top tier, but I personally don't see that as so important considering how niche that portion of the market is. I could be wrong, but I just don't think that's their problem. I've said this before - on any given day I seen at least half a dozen commercials for Intel on TV and on the internet. The only AMD advertisement I ever see is a banner ad that is occasionally here on Tom's. That needs to be addressed. They have a decent offering of chips, but when Intel has such saturation in just knowing who makes processors, there are a lot of people who would be entering at the lower end of the market, where AMD is strong, but see AMD and think "who are they?" while looking at Intel and saying, "Oh, I saw their commercial a couple times". If they can't turn that around, then they will forever be stuck playing catch-up. Maybe these changes will help, maybe they won't. I hope they do make a difference, but It's a little too soon to say.[/citation]
It is not so much they can't compete at the top tier, which is a niche market anyway. It's that they can't compete in the low to mid tier which is killing them. They can't compete in price, performance or even performance/watt....so what is there to compete???
It is not so much they can't compete at the top tier, which is a niche market anyway. It's that they can't compete in the low to mid tier which is killing them. They can't compete in price, performance or even performance/watt....so what is there to compete???
azraa
Honorable
- Jul 3, 2012
- 323
- 0
- 10,790
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]What AMD does with a module and what Intel does with their SMT implementation (Hyper-Threading) are two very different things. AMD's modules are literally two merged integer cores with some shared resources such as the FPU and the front end. Regardless of what is shared, there are still two integer cores and that's what matters for core count.With Intel's Hyper-Threading, you have a single core that can run instructions from two threads. This lets it more effectively utilize its resources in that resources that one thread wouldn't have used at a given time may be able to be used by another thread at that time, reducing the waste of processing power. It's still a single core whereas AMD's modules are two cores.[/citation]
Oh yeah I know, I assure you.
I was just making a relation, a parallel, about core count. The two have different aproaches, but they both manage to get a given number of threads.
Oh yeah I know, I assure you.
I was just making a relation, a parallel, about core count. The two have different aproaches, but they both manage to get a given number of threads.
iam2thecrowe
Glorious
- Jul 4, 2010
- 10,590
- 21
- 44,965
AMD needs to be bought by someone like Samsung or IBM. Someone that can actually do something with the company.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New build wont post Gigabyte B650M Gaming Plus wifi , AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU, 32GB T-Force RGB DDR5. Need help!
- Started by Notmiserable
- Replies: 26
-
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Question Pc turns on for half a second then turns off, don't know if it's a psu or RAM error.- Started by albert pbs
- Replies: 2
-
Question Best HDD for data recovery, reliability and perfomance
- Started by sabertoothgx
- Replies: 10
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram