AMD Reports Quarterly Earnings for Q2 2011

Page 2 - 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.
[citation][nom]_Pez_[/nom]Well AMD should know that sears mexico is asking 680.765 USD for an HP Netbook with APU E-350 1.6Ghz and that's not cheap at all, and that's not even close to 400usd that amd had claimed. I had the intention to buy one but after seeing the price well I just won't buy that.[/citation]
You are being jacked.At newegg in the USA the HP Pavilion dm1-3210us Notebook AMD Dual-Core Processor E-350(1.6GHz) 11.6" 3GB Memory 320GB HDD 7200rpm AMD Radeon HD 6310 is $454.99 and $404.99 after mail in rebate.
 
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]Troll much? Onboard GPUs are USELESS. For office tasks, HD video and YouTube the Intel 945G onboard graphics were more than enough (those who can't watch HD with that just don't know how to setup the codecs, I guarantee that). Adding GPUs into CPUs is just a marketing trick. 90% of the people who use Sandy Bridge (except i3) don't use its internal GPU and get dedicated graphics. I don't care whether Llano's GPU is better than SB's, I've got a GTX 560 Ti. If I ever buy I computer that is NOT meant for gaming, I won't care what kind of IGP it has, because I know ALL modern IGPs can do office, HD and so on.And don't tell me that 90% of the users won't notice a slow CPU... part of my job is to help keep many networks in our town running, and many of them are based on Linux... Atoms and other "low-power" stuff really suffers there, especially on thin clients. Not saying that they should use i7-990X or i5-2500K there to improve their performance, but I usually talk people out of getting low-power boards and convince them to get something like Core 2 Duo or Core i3, even for office purposes (not just Linux-based).And don't get me wrong, I like AMD... their graphics kick some serious ass and they were my favorite back in the days when they kicked Intel's Pentium 4, but I feel like they ARE taking a wrong route here. If at all, they should go for SERIOUS low-power, meaning phones/tablets/netbooks. However, low-power in desktop? I laugh at this.Actually, might be useful if you're running a lot of computers and you're very limited on electricity - like power cuts all the time, and a battery backup room that can only supply electricity for a few hours; then low-power stuff will last longer. But where do you find that, except Asia?[/citation]
There's a reason Intel owns the low-end graphics market. It's because people do in fact use the IGPs. The "average user" buys a computer and uses whatever graphics features it comes with, whether it be a dedicated graphics card or an IGP. The processor rarely effects what graphics the "average consumer" uses. The "average user" doesn't go out and buy a computer with say, a Core i5 650...then buy a dedicated graphics card simply because his/her computer has a Core i5 installed. Instead, they use the IGP that comes with the processor.

I rather doubt what you claim your job to be. Nobody that deals with clients and servers claims "low power processors" to be useless. Most large companies want low-power servers as a means of reducing operating costs....and anyone that deals with business servers, knows this. Most companies would take a 5-10% performance penalty if it means a notable reduction in power consumption. Outside of benchmarks, that 5-10% performance penalty wouldn't even be noticeable except when running at 100% load.
 
I don't think AMD really cares that they aren't doing as well as they were last year, as everyone has said they're just waiting until they release Bulldozer and start raking in the cash from AMD fanboys who want to upgrade (admittedly I am one of them).
 
This should be a good year for AMD; the Llano will probably sell like hotcakes for people who want an HTPC and in general for people who want an all-round solution for their mainstream needs.

This may be a stereotype, but this is the perfect thing for our moms and dads at home.

On the ultra mobile side they still have to improve; the C-30, C-50 and E-240 and E-350 are good starts, but I bet they are just making money on their 40nm process, while Intel doesn't bring out the new Atoms in a few months, before AMD transitions them to 32nm or even 28nm.

The C-50 needs to be upgraded to 32nm or 28nm; at 9w it is too hot for a Netbook, just like the Atom N550 and N570 at 8.5w are (I know, I own one), and a speed increase to 1.2 or 1.33 Ghz would be welcomed.

The E-350 needs 2Mb of cache instead of just 1Mb. The 1.6Ghz is probably fine (they will probably up it a little to make the distinction), but a die shrink to 32nm or 28nm would bring a much needed drop in power consumption too, down from 18w, which is also too much for an 11.6 or 12.1 netbook.

I bet they will have these on sale by the end of the year.
 
My Core i7 rig disagrees. It doesn't think that Llano and lower power CPUs/GPUs can be better than it. When these low power chips will be enough to play the latest games while converting videos and installing programs on the background, I'll buy them. Until then, I'll only build low-power boards based PCs as part of my job and for fun. Thinking of getting a solid mini-ITX or micro-ATX build just to play around with it... no real use whatsoever in the low-power stuff
Click to expand...
You don't get it at all...

Also anyone who has played strategy games like Age of Empires or Starcraft will know that sometimes when you're getting attacked by an enemy and you know you can't win- instead of letting yourself get destroyed by your enemy, you abandon your main base and simply take your remaining villagers and start fresh somewhere else. I feel that this is exactly what AMD is doing. They know they can't win against an onslaught of new ARM devices so they are changing their ways and trying to adapt to that growing part of the market.
 


If you've noticed, I DID say before that Intel's previous solution (onboard graphics) was good enough, and that the new IGP in SB is just a marketing trick.

And I don't deal with large businesses and companies, I mostly deal with schools and small town network that connect shops and other small business units into an internal account system. They get an Atom board - sure, for $100 you get a 1.8 GHz Atom with HT plus 2GB DDR3 RAM (when I saw that this board actually takes RAM in a laptop form-factor, I chuckled - about time they figured it out!). But once the school kids get into Adobe Reader in Ubuntu or open 10 tabs in Firefox at once, Atoms crap out while Core 2 Duos keep working smoothly. That's exactly why I'm against the low-power stuff. 5-10% performance difference? More like, the difference between a freeze and smooth work.
 
From a consumer perspective, fusion is the way to go. We were looking for a netbook that 1)Had decent battery 2) could fit into a backpack to use at work/class and 3) had enough useability to warrant the cost.

Tablets were cool but didnt make any more sense than a new phone. Atom netbooks that we played with on display were freezing and stuttering like a 800mhz running a corrupted version of windows 98. Zacate worked perfectly for what we're going to use it for. Ordered a hp dm1z w/ e350, 4gb of ram shipped with tax for $460. Even with all hp's bloatward still intact it never gives us any issues. Runs firefox, office, netflix, pandora and even some light killing time gaming without a hitch. Dont waste money on cable, so we hook it up to hdmi and guess what? It streams as smoothly as a 2600k pushing 4.5 ghz. Can it play crysis? Who knows, we didnt buy the thing to play crysis.

My story may seem simpleton to some but guess what? Thats what 99% of consumers are looking for. Thats where zacate and llano are going to sweep the market. They do what most people want, without fuss and smoothly. They do it either better or cheaper than intel can right now. If amd has as much success on the server side with bulldozer Q4 is gonna look pretty damn good for amd, if I had the cash right now I would be ready and waiting to buy up some amd stock once I saw how bd turns out for servers.
 
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]My Core i7 rig disagrees. It doesn't think that Llano and lower power CPUs/GPUs can be better than it. When these low power chips will be enough to play the latest games while converting videos and installing programs on the background,

Why would anybody be playing a game while installing software (which is NOT recommended when other applications are open) and converting video?

A net book or notebook is NOT a laptop or PC. Well your Core i& sucks when you compare it to a Cray! Why do you have a Core i7 when you can get a 150 Terraflop super computer? I think that you wasted your money with your Core i7!
 

I do it.
 
all these comments are making me think intel fanboys arent even trying to see the point of Llano. They just see, its weaker than SB, so it sucks...
 



That's why you have a Core i7. Do all that on just battery power and you have about 1 hour of use.

AMD E-Series are not intended to compete with i7 but they do last 8-10 hours doing what they are designed to do on just battery power. And like I said i7 sucks when compared to a Zeon.

The whole point of E-Series is low energy demand while giving HD, DX-11 and high frame rate graphics. So you can use your net book or notebook for almost 10 hours between charges. ATOM burns out at 4-5 hours and the slowest Celeron burns out a battery at about 3 hours.

Besides, NO Intel low power cpu even comes close to game play frame rates, image quality and power efficiency that E-Series
provides. Becasue there is NO Intel cpu with on-die graphics that is DX-11 capable and sips power like AMD E-Series CPU's.

In fact Intel can't even compete in the Graphics arena at all. Larrabee is deader than dinosaur poo.
 
[citation][nom]rav_[/nom]Becasue there is NO Intel cpu with on-die graphics that is DX-11 capable and sips power like AMD E-Series CPU's.In fact Intel can't even compete in the Graphics arena at all. [/citation]

So what? People were gaming on laptops long before Fusion. It's known as Intel cpu + Nvidia gpu with shared ram. Fusion does nothing more but move the gpu die into the cpu:

"Instead of linking Llano's CPU and GPU with high-bandwidth ring bus and letting them share an L3 cache (the Sandy Bridge approach), AMD left the two parts relatively unconnected internally. Instead, the CPU and GPU use main memory to communicate without copying data from one location to the other. "

So AMD is again playing second fiddle with second rate engineers and second rate designs. Why do you think Intel's earnings RAPED amd's?
 
[citation][nom]iamtheking123[/nom]So what? People were gaming on laptops long before Fusion. It's known as Intel cpu + Nvidia gpu with shared ram. Fusion does nothing more but move the gpu die into the cpu:Instead of linking Llano's CPU and GPU with high-bandwidth ring bus and letting them share an L3 cache (the Sandy Bridge approach), AMD left the two parts relatively unconnected internally. Instead, the CPU and GPU use main memory to communicate without copying data from one location to the other. So AMD is again playing second fiddle with second rate engineers and second rate designs. Why do you think Intel's earnings RAPED amd's?[/citation]
dude, an intel cpu and a nvidia gpu would cost double or more than a fusion cpu. You not even trying to understand AMDs approach here!
 


An nvidia gpu doesn't mean discrete. My 2007 laptop cost me $700 and has an nvidia gpu. AMD's approach here is to basically say "we reinvented the wheel...act impressed". In the end the "low end" market Fusion is catering to isn't going to *care* that the gpu and cpu are on the same die. The low end market only cares about cost and performance is not important as long as it loads facetube. Intel will just discount their products and the world will keep shitting on AMD.
 


It is not recommended to the mainstream and low-power computers. Why do it? Speeds things up, you know. Time is money =)

And, HELLO, do you read my posts at all? I'm NOT against low-power laptops, aka netbooks, I own a couple myself and they're great! I always haul one of them around: I check my mail here, listen to music there, watch a movie, use Skype... But low-power on a desktop - no, sorry. So far I've seen only one Atom machine that run everything smoothly and that was because the owner knew how to manage his PC (i.e. no bloatware, tweaked OS, tweaked startup, etc.) In the hands of a "common user", who installs a ton of stupid programs and keeps his data, startup programs and services a mess - and that's what "common users" do, don't deny it! - a low-power machine becomes a slowpoke gargbage. Hell, I've seen one guy slow down his Pentium Dual-Core to the point where it takes about a minute to open Office, and he's a "common user"! (And don't blame it on the viruses... checked, it's clean) So, keep the low-power to the netbooks. Desktop needs to be fast.

And I'm not offering these users to get a supercomputer or an i7 with a dedicated graphics card, for that matter. I'm offering Core 2 Duo or Core i3, or something similar from AMD. Exactly what they need. And i7 is what I need. Once I'll need a workstation, I'll build a workstation. Once I'll need a supercomputer, I'll build a supercomputer (I assume that if I'll ever need it, I'll have the funds as well... lol).

all these comments are making me think intel fanboys arent even trying to see the point of Llano. They just see, its weaker than SB, so it sucks...
Click to expand...

And I'm not an Intel fanboy... Atom sucks just as much as Llano, unless it's on a netbook =) Though, I think my next netbook will have something more powerful... Ubuntu + slow CPU = fail.
 
rich fan boy cannt understand what average user with low income need, they think the expensive sb is everything
 


Not only AMD... Intel did the same with Sandy Bridge, and what the hell is the point? Who'd buy SB and use onboard graphics? And what's the advantage of a GPU on the CPU die over a normal Intel integrated graphics chip? Both are useless! =)

rich fan boy cannt understand what average user with low income need, they think the expensive sb is everything
Click to expand...

Sandy Bridge isn't expensive. i3 costs $60-80 and it's not bad at all. Take an AMD solution, if you want... just anything which is not "low-power"! How many times do I need to repeat it, keep it to the netbooks!

By the way, most of the "average users with low income" I've met simply spend too much money on wrong things and then complain that their income doesn't let them get a decent PC.
 
rich fan boy cannt understand what average user with low income need, they think the expensive sb is everything
Click to expand...

Does anyone give a *** when Toyota releases a new Corolla? No. But everyone does care when Ferrari releases a new supercar. That's why AMD's stock is getting murdered...because they can't make Ferrari's and no one cares about their new Corolla (Fusion). Just look at this comment board. We're all enthusiasts....would the low end user that Fusion is designed for please stand up.
 


Well...both are nearly useless. I can imagine a user needing a ton of cpu but no gpu but that would be rare. What is available right now pre-Fusion has long worked for light gaming and HD video and the like.

What really pisses me off is that the hopelessly-in-love AMD supporters are really the ones who don't see how insignificant Fusion really is. They're probably the same ones who are thinking Bulldozer is going to save AMD. Yep....just like before BD it was K10. And before K10 it was K8. All were going to save AMD and all never did.
 
[citation][nom]iamtheking123[/nom]Does anyone give a *** when Toyota releases a new Corolla? No. But everyone does care when Ferrari releases a new supercar. That's why AMD's stock is getting murdered...because they can't make Ferrari's and no one cares about their new Corolla (Fusion). Just look at this comment board. We're all enthusiasts....would the low end user that Fusion is designed for please stand up.[/citation]
probably me and mostly every struggling college student would like the idea behind fusion. remember, the a and e series are for people on a budget. Frankly I dont give a crap when the next ferrari comes out, I only give a damn about when my own corolla will break down and buying a cheap car after that to last me a while. not everyone here is an enthusiast.
 
[citation][nom]iamtheking123[/nom]Does anyone give a *** when Toyota releases a new Corolla? No. But everyone does care when Ferrari releases a new supercar. That's why AMD's stock is getting murdered...because they can't make Ferrari's and no one cares about their new Corolla (Fusion). Just look at this comment board. We're all enthusiasts....would the low end user that Fusion is designed for please stand up.[/citation]
no sorry in my country we do give a **** when toyota releasse new corolla , and the matter of fact not all of us care with new ferarri supercar , why? like i said before average people with low income and poor why we want to care with something we cannt afford??

#amk-aka-phenom
My friend using i3 laptop 400-500$ range and its cannot play some hd movie well , and play game is worst. In my place average income is 100$/month and after pay for food/transportation expense + water/electric/gass bill only left us around 20-25$/month so if i can buy netbook/laptop 400-500$ like amd apu llano which can play hd+game well count me in even its take around 20 month for saving the money ( already saving around 1 1/2 year only need to wait it coming out in my country)
 


Llano can game well? Lol. What you should do instead is prey on suckers who dump their old desktops and ask them for old hardware, then assemble yourself something decent. Also, you know that for $500 you can build a desktop that'll kill any Llano in gaming, right? You don't go for a laptop on low budget...

If your friend's i3 can't play HD movies well, fix his codecs. Even Celeron can play HD well (sometimes slow while seeking, smooth otherwise).

And of course it's not gonna game well, i3 is an entry level CPU and I doubt that laptop has a GPU... you think Llano will be better? =)

By the way, you misspelled my username. Phenom? Roflmao =) How ironic, I always despised Phenoms, though the recent ones kind of changed my opinion...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom