AMD Gaming Executive Departs, Joins Nvidia

Page 2 - 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]dudewitbow[/nom]their attention is making affordable chips in a non normal environment outside of gaming, like powering up screens on things like casinos and such rather than push for the fastest everything.[/citation]

i'm pretty sure they did the numbers and found that more money is bunch of medium performance chips than in few high performance ones. i am also pretty sure that they are aware that somewhere out there are couple of dudes whining about ultimate performance.
everyone likes performance but they have to make living and sell what sells better. and they do make top of the line products. other than Intel, nobody else can reach fraction of performance that AMD CPUs do. where are CPU powerhouses from Japan, UK, Germany, Russia or whatever country? Motorola, Cyrix, Via, NexGen, IBM, Transmeta and everyone else have failed but AMD is still alive and kicking.
 
[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]They haven't made a decent CPU in over 5 years now, maybe longer. Their GPUs are decent enough, but you can get a better performing, better supported Nvidia GPU for $30 to $50 less than AMD's offerings...[/citation]

As I recall, the Phenom II X4s were highly competitive with the Core 2 Quads and even some low-end 1st gen i7s when they first came out while being cheaper.

Second, do you remember who came out with the first DX11 GPU? Or rather an entire lineup of DX11 GPUs before their competitor had a single one. Did you ever read Toms best video card for the money list in the last 2 years? Now their 7970GE trade blows with the GTX 680. Do you even read hardware news?
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Neither Bulldozer nor Piledriver have any direct relation to AMD's issues. They are both excellent architectures that are marred with very poor implementations, granted Piledriver's is every so slightly less poorly implemented.[/citation]

BS. A product has to show performance to be called a good product. What's so "excellent" about a product which has "implementation issues(as you put it}" and can't compete with the competition?? That's like saying if i build a 10Ghz CPU it's excellent...but it still can't compete with a 1.5Ghz C2D CPU.
 
[citation][nom]darkavenger123[/nom]BS. A product has to show performance to be called a good product. What's so "excellent" about a product which has "implementation issues(as you put it}" and can't compete with the competition?? That's like saying if i build a 10Ghz CPU it's excellent...but it still can't compete with a 1.5Ghz C2D CPU.[/citation]

That's not relevant because the architecture, aka Bulldozer and Piledriver, are not the problems. The implementations are the problems, so blame them. These are great architectures that are being marred with automated design methods, crap cache, crap memory controllers, crap interconnects, and more. The CPU architectures are the only good things about these AMD CPU designs, but they can't make up for the crap that is put into implementing them well enough to compete with Intel in every way.

If AMD had the die masks designed properly, they would have exceptionally competitive performance that surpasses Sandy/Ivy Bridge's best efforts, but they probably wouldn't beat Haswell unless it doesn't live up to the hype. Honestly, I think that Haswell will and that AMD might need to increase the rate of releasing improvements or increase the effectiveness of their improvements in order to remotely keep up because AMD refuses to design their CPUs right the first or even the first few times. Heck, they might never design them properly with their current crap management.

Also, the FX CPUs at 10GHz would beat the crap out of an SB/IB CPU at 5GHz and the same core count, ignoring Hyper-Threading which would still not let a SB/IB CPU beat the FX. However, 10GHz is an unrealistic number whereas 5GHz is not, so that's not a fair comparison, but you brought up that number in the first place anyway.
 
i fear for AMD, the last thing i want is an intel/nvidia monopolization, They shouldn't give up on the gaming market, not only are the gpu's the better choice when it comes to selection and budget, but so are there cpu's, bulldozer didn't fail, not in the slightest, my 4100 has been a beast over the past year, maybe in the charts they are 2 fps behind an i5 or an i3, but for everyday computing, i would take amd. $120 for a monster that can destroy games and heavy threaded applications, I don't see why they are failing.
 


Keep in mind that AMD is going through a tough time due to the breakup with GF, among other such reasons. AMD is starting to turn things around a little, granted they need some more (maybe a lot more) time to recover significantly. There's also Intel's extreme marketing and AMD's notable lack of marketing that comes into play, as well as the myth crap about FX being complete junk that's still going around.

Haters are gonna hate, even if they're being irrational. However, I'm still thinking that except for in the mid-ranged, Intel and AMD kinda trade blows. The 4100, in no situation, is much better than an i3 overall, yet uses incredibly more power and that situation would only get worse with IB i3s if Piledriver doesn't get out soon on the AM3+ platforms. The 4100 is a very practical option, but it's really more of a personal preference and otherwise individual usage scenario choice.

For example, for general productivity, the i3 would have greater efficiency in most workloads, but the 4100 has far superior FP instruction compatibility with the newest stuff such as AVX, so there are situations where it could have a huge advantage while in other situations, the two could be very equal or an i3 could have a huge advantage. I wouldn't give either one an overall win because of this.

Contrary to popular belief, the situation doesn't get any less complex in the higher end FX models either, again, depending on the workload.
 
[citation][nom]bgrt[/nom]As I recall, the Phenom II X4s were highly competitive with the Core 2 Quads and even some low-end 1st gen i7s when they first came out while being cheaper.Second, do you remember who came out with the first DX11 GPU? Or rather an entire lineup of DX11 GPUs before their competitor had a single one. Did you ever read Toms best video card for the money list in the last 2 years? Now their 7970GE trade blows with the GTX 680. Do you even read hardware news?[/citation]

lets go back to dx 10, when amd was fully ready for it, but nvidia wasn't, they whined, and microsoft neutered dx10, and it took till dx11 for all the planed features of dx10 to be implemented.
 
2002 called, they would like their nVidia/ATI comparisons back. You guys do know that nVidia has the worse driver support and products per price range right now right?
 
[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]2002 called, they would like their nVidia/ATI comparisons back. You guys do know that nVidia has the worse driver support and products per price range right now right?[/citation]

Much on the opposite. AMD/ATI's video drivers are inferior in all aspects. Let's start with the installer. On Windows, you need to have .NET installed for the control panel to install! What the hell?!? The control panel is horribly designed, you have far less control over things than with the NVIDIA control panel, and NVIDIA's approach is by far the most logical one, with a general profile and separate profiles for each game. Also, ATI often releases a driver version only to have to release a fix for it soon after because it breaks so much stuff. Yes, that has happened to NVIDIA a couple of times, but with ATI that is the RULE, not the exception.

Then we have the pathetic OpenGL support. But don't take my word for it, get a computer with an average NVIDIA card and another one with a higher end ATI card, and the NVIDIA card will beat it hands down. OpenGL is not only much slower on ATI cards, but also a lot buggier. And I'm on Win XP 64, an OS not exactly known for great driver support from hardware manufacturers. Now before fanboys start crying that DirectX dominates PC gaming (which is true), that's no reason not to support OpenGL properly. Here's a list of a few popular OpenGL games and applications:

Games: America's Army (Mac OS X & Linux versions), Brink, Call of Duty (series), Counter-Strike, Doom 3, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Far Cry (defaults to DirectX but may use Open GL), Half-Life 1 & 2 series, Left 4 Dead 1 & 2 (Mac OS X version), Medal of Honor series, Minecraft, Portal 1 & 2 (Mac OS X version), Prey, Quake series, Rage, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Second Life, StarCraft II (Mac OS X version), Team Fortress, Warcraft 3 (defaults to DX but may use OGL), Wolfenstein, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, World Of Warcraft (defaults to DX but may use OGL).

Utilities: Adobe After Effects, Adobe Photoshop CS5, Adobe Premiere Pro, 3D Studio Max, Autodesk Maya, Google Earth.

If you use any of these programs with an ATI card, just try it with a cheaper, lower range NVIDIA card. You'll be amazed that the program will run faster and better.
 
To much knee jerk reaction as always, right now AMD has to restructure from past management failures, it is not a instant process either but AMD needs new ideas and approaches and that comes from new people. Even old tried and trusted go stale with ideas so new is not a bad thing.


As for AMD's status, both CPU and GPU markets are competitive. CPU's are progressing along, perhaps not the outright performance chips but still viable CPU's at good costings. The GPU market is still very much competitive, basically matching Nvidia at all tiers.
 
To much whinging and doomsaying going on here, people just need to step back and think about this for a second, ironically most of the sentiment echoed is by Intel/Nvidia fans, just saying.
 


And that was said by a guy who have AMD's logo avatar. :ange:
 
[citation][nom]acerace[/nom]And that was said by a guy who have AMD's logo avatar.[/citation]

I have like 130 processors all still working on many setups, do you not think that any of them are Intel or AMD??? As to brands I feel AMD are more consumer conscious and while the performance is down they do give you more. That said I don't have any quelms in brandishing my blue teams setups.

And for the AV it was a dare and I did so do I get bonus points?
 
I'm absolutely stunned at the amount of downvoting here. Heaven forbid the day comes where they remove the feature and the anonymous haters have to actually wade in with *shock* a point of view. If you like NVIDIA, that's fine, but jumping on the Hate AMD bandwagon is a bit out of scope for this discussion.

Bulldozer's architecture is actually very good, however it's severely handicapped by a small front end, a poor IMC and high latency caches. Piledriver won't fix these areas completely, but it's a start; certainly enough to overhaul the i5s in most multi-threaded scenarios. For gaming, however, the i5 is a safe bet.

AMD's graphics drivers always seem to get brought up but I almost never suffer from such problems. YMMV, perhaps?

Also, AMD didn't create the APU "because they lost to intel". They've been talking about Fusion since 2007, a period in time where they were doing very well for themselves, even though Core 2 had just appeared and was causing them real issues. Considering they bought ATi in 2006, wouldn't it be a tad presumptuous to suggest it was an act of desperation?
 
I knew this bad feeling I had when this new CEO took over is proving to be more than just paranoia.
When he started to gut the management (while some think nothing much in this area) to me it's the best way to kill a company. I wish they would can that CEO and go down on hands and knees to get the orig. group back because when someone gets on top and starts to get rid of people that have been with the company a long time what that guy is doing is looking for a lot of people termed (yes people_).
In case you haven't seen how really poor business's get poor is by having a top end that doesn't question or say NO to the leaders bad idea's and in doing so worry about loosing their jobs.
This is what I see going on at AMD with that yahoo CEO gutting the company saying they are going into new and ground breaking area's. That is a ton of bullsh*t because in the business they are entreched in every area is being worked on by their competitors and they have no really new area to dazzle anyone with.
The only thing I could see them doing having both AMD and ATI was to totally intergrate the cpu/gpu into more than both on one chip but both working together in all aspects of software where each helps the other to make both more effient if this is possible.
I think the stock holders should show that CEO the door and try like hell to get the orig. back on board. At least then the company would have real direction instead of a lot of smoke screen noise coming from their new leader or better said confuser because they have lost most of their best people.
If AMD falls we are all in a world of hurt and if ATI can separate and go back to what they were doing fine but if ATI falls with AMD expect a huge slowdown in new products because of no competition for Intel and Nvidia there will be no need to pour a ton of money into R&D and also see prices skyrocket in these areas.
And to all the folks to bailed on AMD when Intel came out with the core duo or what ever it was called and the performance was still neck and neck everyone can give you a huge thanks for AMD's current troubles because they lost a lot of market share which took a lot of money from their R&D budget which in turn is seen by the huge time lag and problems they had with their new line of CPU's. R&D goes hand and hand with their profit's and Intel has such a high margin that it should have been no surprise that AMD had to push their release dates back and back with tons of pressure to get the new cpu out the door and had to release the new line before they got all the bugs out of them to perform as good as they could have.
And the funny part is that AMD's new cpu's are not that bad at all. They arn't as fast as Intel in games but they still lead in a few area's that will be playing more roles in future computing but this was totally bypassed in the reviews. One review on Intels new cpu AMD beat it on a good number of tests but it got no mention because the review centered more on the new Intel chip versus their previous one. That review got me pretty mad but it was to be expected as same old same old that I've come to expect from this site.
But it's never a surprise that people can only see the short term and do a lot of bitching when the effects of short term thinking comes in contact with the long term effects which we are seeing NOW.
I am still more bugged by these hardware sites that did more harm to AMD than Intel did because it took these sites a long time to even give AMD any attention while sporting Intel inside ads all over the place. Back when AMD had Intel beat all the rage on these sites was about the huge MHZ that the Pentium 4 was sporting that was a real great attention getter even when they knew AMD at that time had Intel beat except in memory benchmarks with the costly RDRAM setups. It was a huge joke and a publishing crime all rolled into one with AMD and eventually us that got screwed by it.
But money talks and it was obvious how much it influenced this site and Anands site which were the more popular sites and boy were they in Intel back pocket big time to a point that I stopped even looking at these sites. They got better and are worth checking out but has the bias gone away? Not completely.
 
Oh yeah, one more thing, while AMD's new cpu's can not do as well in some area's one thing I sure noticed over my intel setup is I can run a lot of programs at the same time with very little slowdowns that I see using the intel setup.
This is the direction AMD took when they designed it, but they still didn't have the money/time to perfect it. If they got the cache/memory latency down and better branch prediction it would have been a real competitor. We got to hope they can really work these area out. It's still a very good cpu though. It may come up with better numbers with Win 8 as well but the timing there is also not in AMD's favor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom