AMD Gaming Executive Departs, Joins Nvidia

[ojas]

[citation][nom]billcat479[/nom]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.[/citation]

TL;DR

 

[ojas]

Also, too much AMD hate here.

 

[eddieroolz]

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.

In select tests only.

Second, do you remember who came out with the first DX11 GPU?

Being first does not mean jack squat in the technology market, its how you capitalize on it.

Now their 7970GE trade blows with the GTX 680. Do you even read hardware news?

While using much, much more heat and producing an unbearable amount of noise in its reference form. How is that a win for AMD? It means they had to resort to raising clocks, ignore added power usage/heat output just to match GTX 680, not even surpass it.

 

[RADIO_ACTIVE]

Welcome to the darkside...

 

[verbalizer]

just a matter of time.... 😛
Poltergeist - "Come to the Light.."

 

[marthisdil]

[citation][nom]slabbo[/nom]if they are just gutting the management, that's fine. Just don't touch the smart engineers designing the good stuff from the company or they'll go belly up fast![/citation]
AMD is already working on going belly up. Their processors suck, and have sucked for a couple years now after making VAST advances.

 

[marthisdil]

[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]
I'm assuming you're talking about Linux driver support which ATI just opened up with...even though they still suck under Linux.

ATI drivers HAVE gotten BETTER on PCs, tho, but still suck compared to NVidia.

 

[marthisdil]

[citation][nom]sarinaide[/nom]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?[/citation]
They do give you more. Like, higher power bills since their new procs consume more power...right?

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Marthisdil[/nom]AMD is already working on going belly up. Their processors suck, and have sucked for a couple years now after making VAST advances.[/citation]

Your opinion is that they suck. Actual usage of them can disagree with you in much more than just a few specific applications these days, especially if you know how to use the CPUs well (it's a little more work than with Intel right now, but not by much, granted average users would probably not be able to do it without help). They haven't sucked for years, it's only with up until SB that AMD was very behind and AMD hasn't made vast advances.

They have hardly advanced at all since Phenom II launched three or four years ago. The only way that they have advanced in performance per core is when you take an FX CPU and disable one core per module, among other possible but more minor optimization tricks. The only advancement in highly threaded performance is with their FX-8xxx CPUs and even then, they aren't a huge leap over the Phenom II x6 CPUs except when overclocking is considered and even then, they probably wouldn't win in power efficiency.

FX did make a vast leap in FP performance that uses SSSE3, SSE4 (and derivative versions), AVX, XOP, and such instructions that the Phenom II CPU's FPUs don't support. However, this is more of a support advancement, not a hardware advancement. Phenom II CPUs can have more performance than FX when such newer instructions aren't used because Phenom II CPUs have more FPU hardware per core than FX CPUs do.

This can be considered advancement, but I wouldn't call it vast advancement. Keep in mind that I'm only talking about the consumer CPUs, not the Opterons. Including them would only complicate the argument more.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Marthisdil[/nom]They do give you more. Like, higher power bills since their new procs consume more power...right?[/citation]

SB i3s are between $10 and $30 more expensive than the FX-4100. The FX-4100 uses something like 60-75% more power than those i3s, so around 40-50w more at stock. Good luck making more than $10-30 back in the electricity bill in any reasonable amount of time to make the i3s truly far better than the 4100 overall for consumers who probably couldn't tell the difference between using a Pentium D 840 and an i7-3960X while using average applications averagely.

I don't think that I'd go as far as to say that they offer more, but they most certainly are still a good buy overall, especially if you're not playing older games on them. Most newer games don't run significantly better on the i3s than on the FX-4100 and the 4100 takes the crown if overclocking is concerned. I can give you such scenarios all the way up to the FX-8xxx CPUs if you want. Although I'm often a stickler for power consumption and would probably go Intel in this and most such scenarios, I won't deny that AMD is still viable for much more than they are given credit for, especially since games are becoming more and more well-threaded.

 

[dalauder]

[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]I agree with Otacon72. The engineers failed. AMD used to be amazing and competitive back in the slocket days! Now they are a joke. They haven't made a decent CPU in over 5 years now, maybe longer.[/citation]The Athlon 64 K8 was released in 2003. They have not improved much at all on per-clock efficiency since then unfortunately, so it's more than 5 years--more like 9.

The K8 architecture lost out a little to C2D, but then Nehalem left it behind, then Sandy Bridge (even faster) and Bulldozer (even slower) crushed AMD's dreams. Intel took 5 years to bring C2D to market to top the Athlon 64. Unless Steamroller shocks the world...Intel's gonna have a monopoly on its hands.

 

[alphaalphaalpha]

It's funny how blazorthon's post here is thumbed down and dalauder's post is thumbed up when they both agreed on AMD not making much progress. blazorthon simply gave a solution to help the current gen of AMD get a leg up while dalauder focused on performance per Hz rather than performance per watt and per core.

 

[silverblue]

I think some bored people happened upon the voting system. I wonder if votes are traceable...?

 

[zaxevil]

is it nvidi and amd will build new graphic card

 

[drkrazyrich]

I m not so sure whats going on but uh oh ?? Nvidia seems to be coming on strong for portable media APU s.
I m an AMD fan too but I m worried about their future directions 🙁