AMD Names a New CEO & President

[Meatymutawings]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]System builders buying APUs? Cool story bro. Bulldozer might be good, but it ain't here yet and meanwhile high-end is controlled by Sandy Bridge. Intel doesn't need APUs... if they want to make extra cash, they'll just license nVidia to make them. APUs are good for low-end, that's all.However, AMD *REAL* graphics kick some real ass. I'd concentrate even more effort there to make sure no one buys nVidia at all[/citation]
and what is your definition of a "system builder"? people who build computers must be hardcore gamers and have 2k+ to burn? What if Sandybridge dominates high end? I built 5 computers so far not a single one of them have a cpu that's $150+, APU works well all-around for the majority, great for htpcs and family computers and there is a huge customer base for it, APUs offer unbeatable graphics and CPU performance for their price. And they will make much more revenue than Sandybridge.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

and what is your definition of a "system builder"? people who build computers must be hardcore gamers and have 2k+ to burn? What if Sandybridge dominates high end? I built 5 computers so far not a single one of them have a cpu that's $150+, APU works well all-around for the majority, great for htpcs and family computers and there is a huge customer base for it, APUs offer unbeatable graphics and CPU performance for their price. And they will make much more revenue than Sandybridge.

For an HTPC or family PC, you'll do fine with a dual-core (make it AMD if you want it cheap) or a cheap quad-core and onboard graphics. What are you doing on your HTPC that needs an APU and onboard graphics can't handle? Again, AND created an artificial market because the "customer base" is too dumb to understand what hardware they need for their purposes. For the same price, I could get a cheaper CPU (not an APU) and a graphics card and it will still be faster than the APU.

And you're all forgetting that Intel so far didn't even bother to respond. I pray that they don't fall for it and ignore AMD's pathetic efforts, but if they will... I mean, why not make nVidia produce APUs for them? Intel can rent them an x86 license or something... Intel's graphics won't be able to compete with APUs (though too many people ignore the fact that they don't need to, and happily flame Intel), but nVidia can pull it off. They might not have an x86 license, but I'd be very surprised if they're not experimenting around with it in order to prepare if they ever DO get a license.

 

[vaughn2k]

GO AMD!

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]beenthere[/nom]AMD is in excellent shape and has a bright future from everything I see. Bulldozer, Trinity and many other products are on the way. AMD is two years ahead of Intel on APUs and the system builders are buying them faster than AMD can crank them out at the moment. With the new Bulldozer architecture AMD will be competitive with Intel in all market segments and leading in APUs by a long shot for quite awhile. Intel will feel the pain as consumers vote with their wallets as OEM's are doing on APUs right now.The new CEO won't need to work too hard for the first few months as AMD has everything under control for the foreseeable future but Read will need to start planning out new products for 2015 and beyond.[/citation]


lets define competitive here.

i dont believe that bulldozer will compete with the you have to be insane to buy this 1000$ per cpu high end.

but for a mid range computer, i believe they will at least be a good choice matched up with a intel, thats coming from not knowing anything, because, i don't think they would release a new cpu without it being better than what they currently have.

and if its not better than the high end cpu, what can it be better than?

i hope its phenomenal, but lets be serious here, the first round of them wont be, now where intel has everything to gain, is a lower-mid end gamer market.

currently, that would be someone like me who dropped in a hd5770 about a year ago, or close to a year ago. if they could supply a cpu, with a gpu, that at least matched a mid range card (good enough to run most games max at 1920x1200 at decent frame rates) or even bundle a X850-X870 one one die, they could effectively stab intel in the throat, because its integrated is a joke, and anything non integrated cpu x gpu costs SO much more that amd could effectively run the prebuild market.

no one buying a pre build is getting it for power to begin with, and than there are people who are cheap on their system builds, so getting a amd apu, mixed with a gpu, you could do a decent crossfire. [citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]The water cooled only is only a rumor, we don't know yet how a good air heatsink will do. And it's for extreme gamers, that's all. Not for servers. Also, ever heard of HT? If your software can work with 6 cores but not threads, too bad for you. Somehow all the server setups I've seen go for Xeon and not Opteron. Strange. Don't have any real XP there, but I don't think it's as simple as you put it.As for AMD dominating netbooks/laptops... there're WAY more SB/Atom laptops/netbooks sold. Though the number of netbooks might have went down (for good - I'd take and AMD solution over Atom any day!), AMD still doesn't have anything for hi-end laptops to compete with i5/i7 mobile series.[/citation]

ill take more cores over threads any day, a thread cant always be utilized in a way that makes a difference, but a core can. and for editing, i have seen between 10% to a rare 50% increase, and in some cases ht slows the computer down... real cores to my knowledge dont do that ever.

my preference is real core >>>>>>>>>> thead any day.

 

[erhardm]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]ill take more cores over threads any day, a thread cant always be utilized in a way that makes a difference, but a core can. and for editing, i have seen between 10% to a rare 50% increase, and in some cases ht slows the computer down... real cores to my knowledge dont do that ever.my preference is real core >>>>>>>>>> thead any day.[/citation]

Real core = thread. When you have a threaded application(at the software level) it will use all your threads in (relatively) same way, CPU with HT or not. However, HT is actually a tiny core which will save the registers on the stack when the big core(real one) is waiting(when the cpu execution waits for memory return, depending on the instruction), and will execute an instruction in that time frame.
If the software is optimized, HT has close NO EFFECT at all.
If the software slows down when HT is enabled, means that the particular software has instruction that makes the tiny core to store/restore the registers so often that the actual storing and restoring takes more computational power than the instruction it actually executes.

Bulldozer is a step in a heterogeneous computin: More integer cores, not so many FPU because your GPU will do much better in FPU computing than your CPU. >> Here comes the future APU: the CPU executes the instruction that are more efficient on the CPU, the GPU executes instruction that are more efficient on the GPU than CPU. Be it games, excel, compiling, browsing, encoding or whatever the workload, in time the software will use both in the same time.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]erhardm[/nom]Real core = thread. When you have a threaded application(at the software level) it will use all your threads in (relatively) same way, CPU with HT or not. However, HT is actually a tiny core which will save the registers on the stack when the big core(real one) is waiting(when the cpu execution waits for memory return, depending on the instruction), and will execute an instruction in that time frame.If the software is optimized, HT has close NO EFFECT at all.If the software slows down when HT is enabled, means that the particular software has instruction that makes the tiny core to store/restore the registers so often that the actual storing and restoring takes more computational power than the instruction it actually executes.Bulldozer is a step in a heterogeneous computin: More integer cores, not so many FPU because your GPU will do much better in FPU computing than your CPU. >> Here comes the future APU: the CPU executes the instruction that are more efficient on the CPU, the GPU executes instruction that are more efficient on the GPU than CPU. Be it games, excel, compiling, browsing, encoding or whatever the workload, in time the software will use both in the same time.[/citation]

my experience with threads comes from the Pentium 4 that was threaded, i believe 520 or 540 or something was its number. and using a basic and slower dual core chip (never owned but used it at the time)

it was that single experience that made me want real core only.
more applications support real cored over threads, and in most peoples computers, that is what they will need more of.

from what i read a few months back, the intels that compete with amd price wise, have less cores than the amd, where amd gives a quad, intel gives a dual with threads.

if im taking that logic, bulldozer will have 8 cores, competing with intels 4 cores with 4 logical. and because i cant believe that amd would develop an architecture that is slower than their current best, i have to imagine that its fast enough to compete with at least sb, but given that its 8 real over 4 real 4 logical, id chose the bulldozer even if intel was marginally faster.

sorry if i got off topic or dont make a lot of sense... a bit tired.

 

[erhardm]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]my experience with threads comes from the Pentium 4 that was threaded, i believe 520 or 540 or something was its number. and using a basic and slower dual core chip (never owned but used it at the time) it was that single experience that made me want real core only.more applications support real cored over threads, and in most peoples computers, that is what they will need more of. from what i read a few months back, the intels that compete with amd price wise, have less cores than the amd, where amd gives a quad, intel gives a dual with threads. if im taking that logic, bulldozer will have 8 cores, competing with intels 4 cores with 4 logical. and because i cant believe that amd would develop an architecture that is slower than their current best, i have to imagine that its fast enough to compete with at least sb, but given that its 8 real over 4 real 4 logical, id chose the bulldozer even if intel was marginally faster.sorry if i got off topic or dont make a lot of sense... a bit tired.[/citation]

Yes, Bulldozer will have more cores, but those cores aren't 100% the same current amd cores. Each module(2 integer cores) will have only one FPU and each pair of cores will have a shared front end, it's more likely 1 BD core is 90% of the current core, given IPC and clocks are the same. BUT IPC will likely improve, branch prediction will improve, cache is a little faster(not entirely sure), more cache, 32nm can clock higher. I really want to see how would the new CEO manage AMD, will focus more on directly competing Intel's products, or would focus on new technologies.Is he going to focus AMD being not necessary faster in raw performance, but more features that are optimized/efficient?

 

[pelov]

I think historically they've always been willing to branch out and take that big leap, whereas intel has followed the next logical step. I do think, at least before fusion, that AMD slipped up in that respect. I do think fusion changes that significantly. And yes, the mix computation b/w the CPU/GPU on the APU is probably what they're thinking. you need only power up a bitcoin mining machine or see one of those GPU-fest servers to see just how much of your computational power is being neglected because developers just don't code for it and because it's always been considered "separate" from the CPU. If that's the next step in computing than Intel is years behind