AMD Corporate VP and CTO of Graphics Departs Company

[MaddPuppy]

[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]First, there is nothing I see that is showing how the AMD FX (bulldozer/piledriver/whatever heavy machinery name they want to use) module design is going to get much better in the future. The updates to Win7 results nil changes (slightly better or slightly worse). Win8 may squeeze out an extra 3~5% of of an FX chip, but it may also get even more out of an Intel I-Number-mystery-chips as well.AMD took a page out of intel and made their own version of the SLOW Pentium 4. Hyper-threading and long-pipes = severe latency issues. Hence, the top-end $280 FX-8150 is sometimes slower than a two-year old AMD PII-X4 chip that sells for $130. When a person buys a $280 intel I5 CPU, it will be faster in every way than an intel $150 CPU. Hence, AMD FX = FAIL. The functionality of the FX shows its really a 2 / 3 / 4 core design with modules that acts like cores, sometimes. Remember, the P4 did the same thing. Along with CPU throttling... ugh.There is nothing wrong with AMD being the master of the low and mid-range markets, if they can survive and compete. Agreed that for MOST typical people, with Windows7 - they can get away with a dual core modern $50 CPU & 2GB of RAM and still be content with the performance (sans crapware).But AMD has a cluster-F of a mess on their hands. The released the nice A-series chip, which costs as much as a PII with a decent $40 discrete video card. But it only plugs into the FM1 motherboards which have native USB 3.0 (yeah). But the phasing out PII CPUs only work on 700 thru the latest re-labeled 900 series mobos... AND the "Top end" FX CPUs only work on the "900" series boards which don't support USB 3.0 native. FM2 is due to come out later this year or 2013. But FX may or may not fit that platform... so if the user wants to upgrade, they are screwed.On top of that mess, back to the first part (kind of), the $280 FX 8150 is typically a lower performance part than the Intel i5-2400 which sells for $150. Why would I or most people pay almost double for a typically slower part? yeah, sometimes the 8150 is faster than the i5-2500K... okay, pay $20 extra for the i7-2600K and leave the FX in the dust in every benchmark.It'll hurt profits, may improve sales. But AMD needs to reduce to a single consumer socket (The Socket AM1~3 have worked quite well) to FM2, end the "Phenom" line. A-series become standard with the quad core costing $100 or less. The FX8150 should retail for $150 as its performance doesn't equate a higher price compared to other products.I see no reason for my next upgrade to be an AMD. I was looking forward to getting a Bulldozer.[/citation]

Thank you For this information.

Intel has a long history of having the consumer buy a new motherboard to support their "NEW" CPU's.
You can take a 5 year old AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000 (2.5 GHz Dual Core) and put it in a new ASUS or MSI 9xx motherboard and it will still work!!! (YEAH) That is supporting the little guy, not "We have a faster CPU (Core 2, I5,I7) but to use it you have to have a new Socket/Chipset".

AMD has held on to the same socket for so long that it is now hurting their performance. IMO I think AMD should have a "NEW" Socket (FM2 or a future one) that supports USB 3.0, SATA 3, PCI-E 3,and Quad Channel Memory.

I have 2 Sapphire Toxic 6950's unlocked to 6970's in CF and they rock. If AMD has the HIGH-END, why should they not charge a little more to make some money??? Intel and Nvidia sure do.

This is just how I feel about this BS
Thank You For Your Time