[citation][nom]aftcomet[/nom]No surprise there. If they didn't have ATI the blow would be even larger. They need to make some serious changes or they're destined for failure. APUs are probably the future so they might be ready for that but their entire market is pretty slim. What are they a leader in? Mobile? No. Desktop? No. GPUs? No. APUs? Maybe.They should focus on ultimate value and price cut as much as possible. They need to get their products moving and fast. I don't see how anyone considers AMD "value" when a 4100 costs $140 and is absolutely outclassed by a $120 i3.[/citation]
because amds new value cpus are apus, and beat out intel at the same value...
[citation][nom]math1337[/nom]Another issue is that AMD processors are insanely slow, especially in poorly threaded tasks. The octo-core may be able to keep up with an intel quad core when running all cores, but it does not deliver great all-around performance.[/citation]
considering that all cpu tasks have been fast enough sense the eairly dual core chips, much less the current quad with threads we see, i say does it matter if amd is slower?
all the tasks that intel beats amd where you would see a performance difference great enough to warrant an intel over amd, are going to the gpu, and the gpu, even a bad one, out preforms the cpu by so much that you would never want o use it for said tasks again.
if anything, intel is in trouble. as they cant pull together a decent gpu after YEARS of trying, and now that we are moving to gpu co processors, intel has that much more ground to cover.
with that said, if amd came out with a chip 4 times better than the current top end intel, do you really think that they would gain market share? intel would eat the few billions in fines to try and stomp out amd till they get a processor on par.