AMD: It Won't Be About 'AMD vs. Intel' Anymore

Page 4 - 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.
amd ain't dead. doomsayers and fearmongers be darned. 😛
amd's strongest point is still 'more hardware for price'. they don't seem to move away from that. however the few percent of people who build pcs using liquid cooling and tower cases (i don't think i'm exaggerating:)) and stuff will be disappointed for sure.
amd was this close to make some more money and fell short. it's just bad luck (aka glofo).
 
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]Perhaps this is good news, but I'll take the wait and see attitude.If they are always chasing Intel, then they lose the opportunity for innovation because it is like playing "keep up with the Jones." Perhaps BD was "inspired" by hyperthreading. Now, we know that tact was a failure for some aspects of the CPU marketplace. So, instead of saying why are we not doing what Intel is doing, AMD is free to move forward on their own. AMD always has been. They brought x64 to the market, the first FX, etc. What they need to do to knock some sense into Intel is to come up with more innovations like x64. They will never do that if they try to copy what Intel does. If that is what is being said with this, then this could be good for AMD. I highly suspect that there are AMD engineers working on BD MkII at this very moment, and it would not surprise me if the next gen x86 CPU out of AMD is like what happened with Intel between Core and Core 2. Core was an embarrassment for Intel just like BD is for AMD.[/citation]

I agree with everything you said except you last point: Core was not an embarrassment... It was a capable product. Still less than AMD's offerings, but much closer than they had been with NetBurst. You could feel the potential when you were using the M series processors on notebooks... It lacked AMD64... But, it was the break that let them move over to Core2, which is still a great chip line, and eventually the i series...

BDmII should be a nice addition... I just wish they shouldn't have hyped this stuff so much... Especially since their marketing department seems to bungle everything else, historically...
 
This is bad news for consumers. I realize that AMD needs to make money so this was inevitable, but now Intel will have no competition. How long before the feds step in to break up the monopoly? It happened to M$ back in the day, it can happen to Intel too.
 
AMD is not leaving the desktop scene by any means, just like Nintendo didn't leave the console business after the Gamecube sales. No, they went for a different audience & approach, so while the Wii can't compete technically against the PS3 or X360, it still managed to sell more units then either one. This is a smart move for AMD before they end up the way Cyrix did. Yeah, I still have a P166+ board around...

I think AMD bit off more than they could chew by buying out ATI at the time. They were coming off the high of having Intel play catchup with x64 instruction set, but didn't have the resources to take on Intel + Nvidia concurrently. They faired well with Radeon 5xxx series and continue to do well in that area, but completely lost ground after Nehalem took off.

There's certainly a segment out there for AMD. Not everyone buys hardware for running max FPS in the latest games. The market will also shape and dictate the need for new segments as we are seeing with tablets and 1Ghz+ phones. Intel will not remain complacent either - this is not like Microsoft and IE. IE was merely a "feature" for Windows users, so competition from Firefox lit the fire under MS, but Intel is in a different area where chips must meet market demand and expectation or someone else will fill in. This is Intel's bread and butter, so they will remain competitive since x86 is not the only platform out there.
 
You don't make an announcement like this without an official press release from the company CEO. I question the validity of the statements made. This was an interview with a spokesman, which often times make statements that are misinterpretted by the press or missinformed by the spokesman. That being said, what may have come out of this Mike Silverman's mouth may have cost him his job.... and AMD stock is probably going to fall because of this interview. Can't see AMD pulling out... doesn't make sense...
 
[citation][nom]schizofrog[/nom]Why do so many people sound like complete retards. The biggest issue for ANY company is finding the point of sale for their product. This is the level that they 'can' charge that we the customers can afford/will pay. If like many comments have mentioned that Intel suddenly raised prices due to a 'lack of competition' I would not be paying £1000 for a mid range CPU, would you? For years the budget segment has been sub £75, Low-Mid £75-£100, Mid-High £100-£200 and High-Extreme £200+ and this is still true today and AMD hasn't been competition now for over 3 years.I think praise should be heaped on Intel because they are pushing technology advancements while not having a serious competitor and still keeping their CPUs within established price brackets and lowering power requirements.[/citation]

This is certainly the dumbest thing I'v read all day, although I just woke up... it's still pretty dumb. You have no logic skills, economic skills, nor common sense. Everything you wrote in that paragraph was wrong. People who comment "intel suddenly will raise prices" may be exaggerating, but you took it literally because you are a retard. The price raise will be gradual, and intel's R&D will slow gradually. Without competition from AMD, intel is in a monopoly position for desktop processors. You either are the dumbest person registered to tom's, or you work for intel.
 


so you are saying AMD is offering quantity over quality? sounds about right


 


that sucks. I buy intel always but I like competition and see if AMD comes out ahead for a little bit and then Intel pulls ahead, price wars and competition are great and good for technology.

I forgot to quote on ARM. Screw arm.... wtf. I mean yeah we DO need to advance past x86 some day but ARM? Maybe if they use the $ they make off ARM to come out with something better.



Seriously... they will find a way to price gouge on silicon (remember it is made out of sand like the worthless stuff you walk on at beaches or what most of the middle east is made out of..plenty of it out there)



that will make me a sad panda. I don't plan on ever paying $1000 for a cpu let alone 500 bucks. I see some people buy xeon for e-peen $1200+ it is a colossal waste of money. Remember the Pentium Pro? Those are only worth scrap value now because they have gold. The rest of the chip is crap. (Remember those used to be the high end chip)

Time to Intel chips price Skyrocket
Click to expand...

yeah the hard drive prices will stabilize and then Intel will charge a lot for ivy 🙁 It is all planned.



LOL this reminds me back in bbs days I used to troll a few people that touted the Cyrix aka 6x86 or 686 cpu or whatever. Lol. "This is better than Intel Penium because it is 64bit and can do preemptive multitasking" or whatever. I'd just troll and troll.... I mean yeah I did own a cyrix 486 that fit on a 386 main board and it was great and even had a decent FPU but I only bought that because it was cheap.

more of my trolling would look like: You think that Cyrax is ELiTE and j00 can run WaReZ on it faster than my Pentiums but I will neverrrr buy a Cyrax chip for my machine!

Or whatever. HEY! I was only probably 15, 16 years old at the time so u can't blame me. I use that as my excuse 😀 Ah man bbses were fun.. do I miss them, no but it was a sign of the times.
 
I'm scare of Intel price hikes. Here in South Africa the Core i5 2500K retails for $300 in comparison to USA markets that sells it for between $200 and $230. So if Intel decides to blow up their prices, who knows what I'd pay for a CPU locally
 
What does this article mean? It kinda sounds like their going to act like Intel does not matter and that's how they see their self. Or it means they will go into newer markets but if they think the whole Intel vs Amd thing is going to die out they need to stop producing products because this well NEVER happen. Amd needs to grow a par and start entering newer markets we all know this and at the same time they need to team up with Arm. Just think a Arm+Amd graphics into a smart phone. A APU into every tablet-Laptops. Face it folks desktops are a dying market(sad but true) The future is Smaller devices and cloud computing. In the next 10 years we will see this happen. Does this mean their will not be any desktops of course NOT. But it does mean the desktop market will continue to shrink.


Saying that Amd needs to go into newer markets but at the same time try their best at their current products to stay afloat. And i'll also say this one more time, if Amd thinks people wont compare them to Intel they are kidding their self's, as long as their both in the same market it will happen.

I wonder how pissed the original founder of Amd will be to here this?
 
[citation][nom]jdwii[/nom] I wonder how pissed the original founder of Amd will be to here this?[/citation]

Exactly, remember how (oh, I hate to say it but....) Apple after almost tanking brought back Lord Jobs and came roaring back to success. Maybe AMD needs to go back to its roots and re examine itself, maybe the original founders need to be asked what they think as well.

Mission statements are very important and are the soul of any company, AMD needs to do some soul searching.
 
[citation][nom]computadoro[/nom]This is certainly the dumbest thing I'v read all day, although I just woke up... it's still pretty dumb. You have no logic skills, economic skills, nor common sense. Everything you wrote in that paragraph was wrong. People who comment "intel suddenly will raise prices" may be exaggerating, but you took it literally because you are a retard. The price raise will be gradual, and intel's R&D will slow gradually. Without competition from AMD, intel is in a monopoly position for desktop processors. You either are the dumbest person registered to tom's, or you work for intel.[/citation]

Basically what to the poster was "You're stupid, I'm right". I really wish people would actually focus on discussing the issue instead of stating "Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and an idiot".
 


From what I have read in news ever since I was in high school, I'd be scared to live in South Africa in general. It seems more issue there than how much a computer costs.



Well it looks like it didn't quote the whole thing but I was going to just say that they don't need to increase prices gradually or at all. If they put out an ivy bridge chip and charge an arm and a leg for it, that is where the cpu stands until prices come down. If the new cpu costs about as much as the 2600k, I'll buy it right away. If not, then I'll have to see how much it is at the time and figure out what I want to do.

Also I can't forget too that nvidia 600 series is coming out as well and it will also be low power and faster than 500 series. And they probably will cost a lot of money. I gotta balance out all the cost. Sure I have enough money to fork out more for a computer but if I don't need a computer which I will not at that time... then I look at how to get a good bargain for the parts.

Currently I run core2duo desktop and there's nothing at all wrong with it. It does everything I need and the main board and graphics card has lifetime warranty. So buying a new computer is just a hobbyist thing not a need.
 
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]yea bring back a CPU that was even slower than AMDs CPU's[/citation]
Might have been slower, but their low price forced Intel to compete on the low end and to lower prices to keep up, the Celeron line was created to compete with Cyrix CPUs. Cyrix was never a top end performer but they did A LOT to lower prices and push the bigger companies to compete and lower prices.
 
AMD's giant mistake was trying to compete in making the best product possible due to that, there was an unfavorable price to performance ratio.

AMD did not need to make the fastest and greatest processor in order to sustain a healthy market share. AMD succeeded at two things in my mind

a) Making cost-effective processors for the share of the market that does not need "the latest and greatest" (more or less competing with Intel's Celeron or Pentium brands) They have done well at producing the better 'budget' processor.

b) Making processors and were compatible with motherboards that made more sense price-wise. To this day, quality AMD boards cost less than their intel counterparts.

These guys were the king of 'bang for your buck'! I can only hope the intel gets regulated, or we have another company rise up to take AMD's place
 


highly doubt that
 
i think this is a good move for amd , and i don't think this means the end of thier desktop buisness , with amd's pricing thier desktop CPU's stil make a compelling alternative even for the game system builder. not every one ahs 1000 bucks to shell otu for intells latest and a cpu performance cut will not affect most games so amd , still has a leg in the desk top market form general consumers up to even us gamers
 
OH GEEZE .. Ya know i followed AMD for years. Even when they were not the best product for my needs. But this is a cowardly move. They absolutely SUCK ate creating processors so what do they do? run and put their tail between there legs and stop competing. omg I am pissed. Quitters. it's like saying, I can't win at poker so I just wont play. Damn babies
 
[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]Actually, you know, Intel can't become expensive and complacent. ARM and Nvidia will be knocking on Intel's door about 2 years from now in a big way.[/citation]

I find it hard to believe that ARM and Nivida can compete against Intel in the mid-high range of desktop CPUs. Intel would drop the prices of their low-range and server CPUs in the future, but they have no incentive to not hike the prices for the higher range desktop CPUs to make up for the lost profits.

[citation][nom]DjEaZy[/nom]... AMD and nVidia have still a big advantage over intel in GPU space... why nobody points out that?[/citation]
Intel has no plans of competing head-on with those two companies. It would be hilarious to watch Radeons and GTXs run past a rebranded Intel 3000 HD with GDDR/DDR3.
 
This doesn't really signify the complete end of Intel vs. AMD, but rather AMD is shifting its attention away because as the article states, it really has gotten them nowhere. AMD doesn't have a solution and haven't had one for the last 5 years.
 
Even when AMD had the best CPU for years (over the P4) - it took them a long time to get to 23% market share (thanks to the deal Intel made with Dell, etc). But since Core2, AMD has been 1-2 steps behind intel. Yes, they finally had CPUs that are FASTER than any Core2 CPU... but intel has already moved on to Core i5-1xxx whatever.

AMD can still do well in the desktop x86 market with Llano / A-Chips and even their E-Chips... they just won't ever have top dog status. For most people, an A-series CPU is all that is needed and its graphics blow built-in intel graphics any day.

Think about this: AMD has retained about 20% of the market with pretty much ZERO/nada/NO advertising what-so-ever. Meanwhile, I don't go a day without seeing an intel AD on TV and some website.

So... AMD needs to keep pushing FUSION and take care of the lower-mid-range and bottom end. Less profit / more sales. Theres no reason to stop production of their FX Chips (wrong time to bring-that back) - but the prices needs to be lowered.

Core i5-2500k = $225 ($210 for non-K version)
Core i5-2400 = $190
AMD FX-8150 = $270

For a CPU that is mostly slower than intel's $190 i5-2400 (unless overclock - but hey, OC the intel then) and even sometimes slower than the OLD 6 core... this "8core" CPU is losing out to 4 core CPUs. Why spend $80 extra on a slower, easily hotter and using about 100watts more power than the competition?! So what if it can hit 8.5Ghz?! Most people want a nice fast computer, not a science lab on their desk. Their FX-4100 is also... not impressive since its a 2/4 core CPU for $120 - best to stick with the older AMD chips at that price.

If AMD wants to make the FX line attractive, the FX-8150 needs to sell at $175 at the most... then its a "good chip". At $275... I'm jumping to intel... I cannot honestly SELL an AMD FX chip to my clients without feeling like I just ripped them off. And their new mobo... that don't have USB3.0 when the Llano boards have native USB3.0? That is stupid.

I have no issues buying AMD/ATI cards.... but I won't spend more than $120 for an AMD CPU.
 
Oh... BTW. AMD CPUs for the mobile market?! I'd love to see AMD sell a lot of A and E chips in notebooks and tablets. Not seeing AMD having the ability of doing anything with an FX-Mobile anytime soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom