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

[ChromeTusk]

Seems like a good business move for AMD, but PLEASE do not stop supporting the desktop market. Less competition is not good for customers or innovation, but a company still needs to survive in order to compete.
Fix the problems. Create a great product or three. DO NOT over-hype when launched. Exceed all expectations.

 

[kkcombs]

So they can't compete with Intel so they are going to move into mobile where there are half a dozen other companies already competing for market share (including Intel)? How is that a formula for success? I wish AMDs stock was higher right now so it would be worthwhile shorting it.

 

[Guest]

Aladin absolutely nailed it.

I see a lot of this going on:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15869683

I don't believe for a minute that all of you are that stupid or gullible.

 

[stinkyfax]

can't wait to laugh at AMD fanboys

Anyway, this seems to be a smart decision as battle was lost years ago.

 

[opmopadop]

First AMD chip was a 386 DX 40, second a 486 DX2 80... Thanks for the good memories AMD.

 

[cybersans]

in other words: "we are surrender!" \O/

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]~~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]
There is nothing to show that a BD mk2 - which is called "Piledriver" is going to change anything. Their release charts state that they are planning a 10~15% speed improvement every year.
As of today, BD is about 30% slower than the Intel i5-2500K for which its SUPPOSED to be targeting. Yet, the 8150 is $50 more in price and 30% SLooooower and 100watts more power. Its a bigger chip with little going for it. If the FX8150 was $175 and labeled as a quad core, it would be more justified. Seriously - it LOOKS BAD when an "8 core" CPU is slower than a competitors quad core.

So, in two years time - AMD's FX CPUs could be 20~30% faster than the 3150 at stock speed. Wow, it'll finally compete with the 2500, 2 years after its been discontinued! Intel will have a CPU that is 50% faster than what they have today... so AMD will still be 30~50% slower.

 

[achoo2]

If AMD can't compete on the desktop, where they had basically unlimited freedom in terms of die-size and power budget, how in the world can they hope to compete in the ultraportable/tablet markets?

 

[Cumulonimbus incus]

Craven consumption led capitalist trumpeters get what they deserve....monopolies.

Still, what does it matter? CPU's are grossly over specced for the average consumer requiring interactive computational devices.

 

[vivek_kothari92]

Even if they are always behind in performance, it doesn't matter as long as they give the best price to performance ratio. In that case, Intel can overcharge a little bit, but not as much if AMD completely backs out. And besides, isn't bulldozer being somewhat held back by the coding of windows 7? These are tough times and they just need to hang on.

 

[Guest]

I've always loved AMD because you got more for your money. sure the processing power may have been a little less, it was always enough to play any games and anything else I needed it for... Intel has always been lots more expensive to deliver the same thing.
Also, with no competition, Intel can charge whatever they want for processors, because the consumers will no longer have an alternative...
The days of cheap PC's will end with AMD's exit from the market... I hope they mean that they can't keep up with Intel's market share, but will still put out good processor alternatives... I'll stay AMD if they do...

 

[kastraelie]

[citation][nom]overlof[/nom]Epic I think. I had only AMD processors and I liked it for their prices tolerance all my life.I think Intel may increase their prices without AMD rivalry. These news is very bad for usual customers I think...[/citation]

I don't think AMD had an effect on Intel's prices over the past 8 years. At this point I bet Intel welcomes AMD as direct "competition" just to keep monopoly lawsuits off their back. =P

 

[buzznut]

[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]someone needs to buy AMD and remove anyone that had any input in to decisions regarding this and bulldozer.[/citation]

I disagree with this. Bulldozer was not a stupid idea, and it will probably make a lot more sense in WIN 8 or 9 or whatever. AMD has always been innovative, whereas Intel has always been good at refining these ideas and putting out a product with a strong marketing campaign.

I hope that AMD will find a way to improve the architecture to lower power and raise performance a bit for servers. But we know what happened with BD, it was a great idea but implemented terribly. It consumes too much power and doesn't put out where it (still) really counts, strong per core performance.
You can overclock the heck outta them but that just means an incredible amount of power is being used just to catch up to core i5 at stock. Add to that the weak IPC and the software industry's sluggishness at utilizing multi cores and you end up with this disappointing launch.

I think Zambezi is fine for what it is, but for most of us it doesn't make sense for what we need. Because of current software more cores is just overkill (much like the i7 3960X), what we really need right now is something that can run 3 or 4 cores very efficiently and does so without using 300W. Preferably under 100W, which brings us to Sandy Bridge- and the reason why Intel is winning.

I also agree that these comparisons won't stop just because AMD says so. They will still be compared to Intel for some time to come. Perhaps this is not really fair, but who else you gonna compare Intel to?

 

[shinkueagle]

This is what they meant is short:

"HERE AT AMD, HE BEND OVER AND WE ARE OFFICIALLY INTEL'S BITCH NOW"

---> Funny since a few years back.. They CHALLENGED INTEL TO A "FIGHT IN THE RING"

----> http://www.techtalkz.com/technical-discussions/31-amd-challenges-intel-dual-core-duel-will-intel-accept-challenge.html

*** UNFORTUNATELY, AMD(INTEL'S LITTLE BITCH) HAS TAKEN IT OF THEIR WEBSITE...

--> http://www.amd.com/duel

 

[livebriand]

Look, nowadays AMD CPUs just plain suck. Granted, my netbook has an AMD Fusion E350 CPU, but that's only because it's cheaper and more efficient than a dual-core Atom cpu and Nvidia Ion gpu. It it were worse, I would've gone intel. That's why, for instance, my desktop has an i5 CPU - faster than AMD and better for most things.

 

[livebriand]

Wait, does this mean they'll be releasing APUs instead of CPUs? Personally I think it would be good if the graphics in the APU could use crossfire with a PCIe ati gpu. However, it would be good if you could get an amd cpu withOUT integrated graphics, if you're a gamer and want to keep upgrading to the latest PCIe graphics card.

 

[de5_Roy]

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

i'd say that amd offers (not counting zambezi) more for the price and sufficient performance for what you pay. they do offer quality (strong igp, decent cpu) over quantity (ghz) with their llano and bobcat apus.
it mostly depends on how you interpret things.

 

[userngalan]

AMD didn't lost to intel..

 

[tigger888]

whats sad is that intel cheated, and the reprimands wern't that severe... locking out a competiter out of the market, gaining the financial advantage so they could pour more money into R&D, actually i think its astonishing how well AMD kept up with intels chips while bieng behind in nm reduction and having a fraction of intels resources. i wonder what the story would be if they both had equal funding and both were on the same nm manufacturing process.

 

[dontknownotsure]

my first cpu are amd, how sad

 

[samanosuke47]

Poor AMD, I guess whenever I decide to upgrade from what I just upgraded to, will likely be a Intel build. Or maybe not, who knows.

 

[Guest]

I can see why AMD is doing this, they need to get profitable and get back into "the black" to keep their remaining investors happy. Here's to hoping that AMD will come back to the processor market and put Intel on the back foot like in the days of old (Thunderbird and Sledgehammer.)

 

[aracheb]

I remember a move like this before by amd.. and they got plenty of time 2 years of not following intel and came back with the AMD Athlon k7 the slot version.
which was kicking intel ass left and right everywhere and intel had to relay on antitrust tactics to keep their client buying their overpriced piece of shit.

 

[bv90andy]

When I've read the title I was like"then it's intel" but after I've read the article I was like " then it's intel" too bad, I've been using AMD GPU+CPU for 12 years.

 

[Alin05]

Nvidia Tegra program:Tegra 3 - 5x faster than Tegra 2
Tegra 4 - 10x faster than Tegra 2
Tegra Logan series (2013) - 50x faster tha Tegra 2
Tegra Stark series (2014) - 75x faster than Tegra 2
Good luck AMD with your Bulldozer cores against that!