AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[wh3resmycar]

5ghz wall? i'm pretty much sure an overclockable sb/ib pentium can go way past 5ghz. such a shame for intel for not letting us do that.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

^ Who is stopping you from overclocking an I7-3770K to 5.7GHZ ?

(apart from physics, who can be a little bitch most of the time)

 

[truegenius]

^ my wallet

 

[12345eking]

I am a fan of AMD, and I hope that the new processor will be competitive in the market.

 

[daerohn]

well I am no fan of AMD nor Intel yet I am supporting AMD as they are the company that pushes the competition this far, helped the prices drpw down. I remember paying an intel mid segment PC 2500$ way back. Even it is slower than an Intel CPU I will purchase a 8350 soon. Another reason is AMD do not play with their cpu slot too much, as intel does, and you can upgrade a better AMD cpu as soon as it is released. Intel on the other hand, changes the socket architecture everytime they release a new family. which renders your old hardware useless.

 

[earl45]

FX-60 =1000.00 vs E6600 =300.00 who dropped the price on CPU's again?

 

[griptwister]

@earl45, You're obviously stuck in the past...

Anywhozle, I'm buying a FX 8320 soon just to have a cheap CPU until Steamroller comes rollin' down. (I have a friend who's going to hook me up with a great price) I think I'll support AMD this year, they're putting effort into their customers, They can expect my business. I'll be purchasing a HD 7870 LE first, simply because my current GPU with 512mb vram is no fun in modern games. I could also use the better video conversion

Also, I'd be more than glad to post benchmarks later... Way... Later. I'm not buying the GPU till late April and the CPU till about June-ish.

 

[earl45]

Stuck in the past, we are enjoying quad core CPU's at a low price because of Intel not AMD.
remember the first cheap quad core was Intels Q6600 started at 500.00 and ended at 300.00
and we all have been buying cheap quads because Intel made it possible, also remember when
AMD had the lead with the FX cost 1000.00 the E6600 came out and beat it at everything for
300.00 and AMD haven't produced anything from that date forward that can top the 300.00 Intel chip.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Well, I do know AMD has the lead in what the future holds, or part of it, and Intel still charges more.
The two igps arent comparable, moreso than the cpus.
And, you can argue, more cpu power isnt as useful for average Joe as having more gfx power etc etc.
Theyre both in business to make money, their approaches and costs to the consumer are set in how theyre viewed within the market they share
If values are of a personal perspective, the values of each will be all over the map, that applies now and yesterday as well.
Weve been thru this a zillion times, yes, they both want to make money, and yes, if Intel charges more for their new units that fill the old slots, AMD will likely up the costs of theirs as well, which is bad for us, good for AMD.

 

[earl45]

Well, I do know AMD has the lead in what the future holds, or part of it, and Intel still charges more.
The two igps arent comparable, moreso than the cpus.
And, you can argue, more cpu power isnt as useful for average Joe as having more gfx power etc etc.
Theyre both in business to make money, their approaches and costs to the consumer are set in how theyre viewed within the market they share
If values are of a personal perspective, the values of each will be all over the map, that applies now and yesterday as well.
Weve been thru this a zillion times, yes, they both want to make money, and yes, if Intel charges more for their new units that fill the old slots, AMD will likely up the costs of theirs as well, which is bad for us, good for AMD.

Well JDJ you have been takling about greatness from AMD since they sold off everything they own but
ATI, and every quarter AMD is losing or making very little money, so my ? is what good is the lead if
it generates no revenue?

 

[palladin9479]

Well, I do know AMD has the lead in what the future holds, or part of it, and Intel still charges more.
The two igps arent comparable, moreso than the cpus.
And, you can argue, more cpu power isnt as useful for average Joe as having more gfx power etc etc.
Theyre both in business to make money, their approaches and costs to the consumer are set in how theyre viewed within the market they share
If values are of a personal perspective, the values of each will be all over the map, that applies now and yesterday as well.
Weve been thru this a zillion times, yes, they both want to make money, and yes, if Intel charges more for their new units that fill the old slots, AMD will likely up the costs of theirs as well, which is bad for us, good for AMD.

Well JDJ you have been takling about greatness from AMD since they sold off everything they own but
ATI, and every quarter AMD is losing or making very little money, so my ? is what good is the lead if
it generates no revenue?

They scored at least two major wins for providing the APU's for the next generation of consoles. That is a big deal. And while Sony & MS will initially sell the consoles at a loss, they are still paying full price to AMD for the components.

The reason AMD has been posting loss's is they don't have the volume in the OEM sector. Real money isn't made by selling high end chips but by selling massive quantities of cheap disposable chips. In case nobody's been following the PC market has been in a major slump the last few years, it's hit full saturation already. People aren't buying that many new computers and instead opting for tablets.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

And people say, they already had 2 of the 3 consoles, but that was only gfx, not cpus, so the sales will be several fold comparatively.
I said back then, if AMD stands at the point of decent improvements, Im all for them, as we need them, even Intel needs them.

Back when, I championed gaming , said how important it was. Consoles and still enthusiast rigs in the PC market are still good sellers, having decent gfx is very important as I pointed out long ago, and now we are starting to see it, and AMD are holding their own here, which may transcend down into mobile as well, which is where AMD has a decent chance with their all in one solutions, and can make some money.
If youre asking what difference does it make when they have a lead, it all depends on leadership at the time as well.
When AMD had the lead, and sold their chips ONLY comparable to Intels inferior (at the time) chips, it was a mistake, as they made some money then, but it didnt do them any good then.
So, money isnt the only solution, as we never saw AMD gain the mindshare it needed to truly compete, for varying reasons as well, but nonetheless, todays leadership isnt comparable to yesterdays leadership, the markets shifting, they have better leadership, they only need mindshare now.
Thier products can compete, but they have to be steady, and we have seen their roadmaps turn inside out, which means they arent willing to put something out there just to have something out there, as they did in the past, and thats leadership, and I expect more consistency with this new leadership, and so far, its looking alot better.

 

[griptwister]

Which is exactly why it was smart for AMD to invent the APU and to do it better than Intel does. (speaking about tablets here)

I think AMD is going to knock it out of the ballpark with SteamRoller. They might be behind in technologies, But they are currently ahead in value despite earl45s logic.

Also, check this...

JC2 interesting bench...

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_and_fx_6300,6.html

 

[de5_Roy]

Weve been thru this a zillion times, yes, they both want to make money, and yes, if Intel charges more for their new units that fill the old slots, AMD will likely up the costs of theirs as well, which is bad for us, good for AMD.

i disagree with you sir. that is never going to happen because amd is a benevolent corporation working for the betterment of mankind (through innovation and invention) and they will keep selling $100 quadcore apus and cpus while intel sells $200~ dual cores. here's the proof (core i5 3470t, 2c/4t)!
http://www.shopbot.ca/pp-intel-core-i5-3470t-intel-price-391010.html
i know no one cares about this cpu. but strictly technically, amd is massively undercutting this evil, overpriced intel cpu with their winners - amd fx4300 and a10-5800k. heck, amd is so nice that they sell a hex core (fx6300) well under that dual core's price.
amd is too nice to take advantage of the massive price margin intel will open up. amd will always prioritize customers over epic revenue opportunities.

Which is exactly why it was smart for AMD to invent the APU and to do it better than Intel does. (speaking about tablets here)
I think AMD is going to knock it out of the ballpark with SteamRoller. They might be behind in technologies, But they are currently ahead in value despite earl45s logic.
Also, check this...
JC2 interesting bench...
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_and_fx_6300,6.html

you're absolutely right. amd invented apus (i.e. putting igpu on the same die as cpu) and are doing it better than intel, especially in mobile sector.
don't you know that if amd wins a gaming bench it's either due to an anomaly or driver glitch or the game is gpu bound. if intel wins, it's because intel has the better gaming cpu for money (and starcraft and skyrim).
i totally agree with you on amd being ahead of intel in terms of value.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

And in terms of value they must continue to win, even when on even terms cpu wise, and of course maintaining their gpu side.
Time heals all wounds, people eventually like change as well, if done right, AMD can gain mindshare and marketshare.

 

[gamerk316]

And in terms of value they must continue to win, even when on even terms cpu wise, and of course maintaining their gpu side.
Time heals all wounds, people eventually like change as well, if done right, AMD can gain mindshare and marketshare.

^^ Except, financially, AMD doesn;t have a lot of time for this to happen. As of Q1, they had about a years worth of cash left (though selling their campus adds an extra two quarters to this timeframe...)

Secondly, the fact AMD can sell tons of 6300's is irrelevant; what is relevant is how much they are making (or loosing) per chip sold. Point being, there's a reason why Intel has locked down OC'ing in recent years: They are ensuring there will never be another Q6600 that undercuts the rest of their product line.

 

[guskline]

When was the last verifiable AMD statement on the progress of the Steamroller?

 

[Cazalan]

When was the last verifiable AMD statement on the progress of the Steamroller?

The CTO said it was done last year, but that was before they switched to TSMC for production. So they had an ~12-18 month reboot to start over. Thus the huge delay in launching it.

 

[de5_Roy]

this is the last i remember:
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/
and the last official statement was prolly way back when amd unveiled steamroller arch, before sr being delayed after initial failure to pass internally (rumored).

 

[mayankleoboy1]

When was the last verifiable AMD statement on the progress of the Steamroller?

Well, the last rumours were that AMD is not making Steamroller CPU's.
Some people like me assumed that this means that Steamroller will only be available in an APU.

 

[Cazalan]

^^ Except, financially, AMD doesn;t have a lot of time for this to happen. As of Q1, they had about a years worth of cash left (though selling their campus adds an extra two quarters to this timeframe...)

Most of AMDs losses have been from large one time fees due to the "divorce" from GF. Assuming we've seen the end of those, AMD should be on track to recovery. Market wise once the hemorrhaging stops they become more attractive.

 

[Cazalan]

Well, the last rumours were that AMD is not making Steamroller CPU's.
Some people like me assumed that this means that Steamroller will only be available in an APU.

I don't recall that rumor. Steamroller was pushed back to 2014 though.

 

[guskline]

I'm beginning to wonder if Steamroller will even be on an AM3+ socket?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

No more GF costs, console wins start rolling in, the timing is there.
Now, for upward mobility, they need mobility heheh

 

[de5_Roy]

i cautiously hope that amd will break even by q4 and start making money from q1 2014.
tablet design wins and consoles' success should earn amd some needed revenue. if amd scores some good design wins from oems like asus and lenovo and gets a part of the surface pro pie.... mobility is where amd needs to make money.