You know, this thread, in various guises, has been popping up over and over again for months and months. And still, every time it pops up, people forget a few basic things.
First: AMD did not do poorly during those times when Intel was supposedly back dooring them. In fact, AMD did spectacularly well…..by any markets standards. At their high point AMD had taken almost 30% of the market away from Intel. That market shift is absolutely astounding considering that AMD did no advertising to speak of…they did all through the performance, quality and value of their products.
Second: Who was buying AMD? The server market knew who AMD was and was buying them. The 'enthusiasts' all knew who AMD was and that their products were smoking Intel’s. But the general populace did not know who AMD was. Intel had their mind numbing Alien and Blueman group ads pumping the "Intel Inside" logo so much that there wasn’t a human on the planet (who had access to a TV) who didn’t know that logo. AMD’s advertising, on the other hand, consisted of:
-the reviewers at THG, Anand’s, Xbit, etc raving about the performance and prices of the AMD’s
-word of mouth from the forums
-word of mouth from enthusiasts telling their friends "buy AMD, its better and cheaper"
In other words, AMD’s 'advertising' reached only a very tiny fraction of the non-server computer consuming populace, which makes the fact that AMD took such a big chunk of the market away from Intel that much more impressive.
But that was then, while AMD was supposedly being “held back” by the evil Intel’s secret machinations. Of course, as many people keep trying to insist, AMD’s current situation is the result of those ‘evil’ machinations. AMD is the virginally pure, wholesome underdog that does no wrong….the democrats of the CPU industry….never to blame for their own situation, yada yada yada.
WRONG.
What is happening right now with AMD has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with any of the allegations against Intel. It has to do with the following (only to name a few):
-AMD held prices high on the 939 X2 series when Intel had no reasonable competitive products. As a result, AMD kept 6ASP margins high, but stunted their potential for greater market expansion…..a net sum zero trade off IRT to net profit, but in the long term they could have maintained margin while taking a bunch more market from Intel. AMD really screwed themselves there, especially considering how bad Intel’s netburst crap really was.
-AMD P.O.ed a good sized chunk of its consumer base, driving them away in the process, by killing 939 prematurely. They had said they were going to support for at least 1 1/2 more years past AM2, but then, in an effort to cut production overhead, they killed 939 early. Granted, Intel’s C2D didn’t give leave them a lot of options, but the move still pissed off a lot many of those who bought 939 systems thinking they would be upgradeable for at least a few years. When those people were faced with buying new systems or upgrading, they had few options. Those peoples choices? Try to find a faster 939 in stock, somewhere, yet another “new” AMD socket that was “supposedly” going to be supported for awhile (amid wildly varied rumors of AM2+ and AM3) or a socket 775, which already had proven longevity.
-AMD, for whatever reason (complacency, stupidity, lack of R&D etc) let Intel’s products surpass theirs in performance--and by no small margin.
-AMD again held prices high (relative to comparable Intel C2Ds) for 6 MONTHS after C2Ds release. As C2D proved it was indeed not another netburst, AMD literally drove enthusiasts away by keeping slower X2 5200s thru X2 3800s more expensive than the faster E6300s~ E6600s. While the Intel mobos were more expensive than their X2 counterparts, offsetting to some extent the savings of the (then) cheaper C2Ds , it wasn’t long before the truth on X2 ram latencies issues was known> As everyone found out, the need for the more expensive DDR2 800 ram on the X2s offset any price advantages over the Intel mobos which could be used with the cheaper DD2 533 and 667 with no significant relative performance loss.
-AMD stumbled and started pulling Intel netburst advertising. Honestly, how many press releases from AMD does anyone remember before C2D...a few, but not many, and those tended to by accurate. Since C2D, AMD has been running their mouths at every opportunity and most of what has come out has been unabashed BS, and proven as such. This has been slowly eroding both AMD’s reputation as an honest, solid producer, and public sympathy for AMD as an underdog. No one likes a BSer.
-AMD bit off more than they could chew with the purchase of ATI.. The purchase of ATI was a brilliant strategy for AMD in terms of marketing platform machines and possible mobile solutions (combined CPU/GPUs)....truly forward looking and setting the stage for AMD's emergence as an equal to Intel on a corporate level. The timing, however, sucked so badly that it could not have possibly been worse. AMD certainly couldn’t have known that how bad the timing might have turned out to be when they started thinking about the purchase, and had C2D turned out to be just so much more Intel Netburst BS, the timing of the purchase would have been good. But C2D wasn’t BS, and it is blindingly obvious even to the most devote fanboy, Intel or AMD, that the purchase took a hunk out of AMD's coffers at the worst possible time.
-AMD's horde of insanely loyal fanboys hyped every single new AMD product soooooo much, inflating performance expectations so far beyond reality, that when the actual products were released (4x4, 65 nm, AM2) people were seriously disappointed: “OMG the new AMD’s aren’t faster than the C2Ds….AMD sucks and they lied” This has hurt AMD’s reputation---and wrongly so since, AMD’s actual claims for 65nm and AM2 weren’t over-inflated, but were lost under the fanboy hype. The 4x4 (QFX) on the other hand, was a different story
-AMD shot itself in the face with the "quad core for dummies" publicity stunt. When Intel’s C2Q did not stumble and fail as AMD alluded to, but actually turned out to be a screamer, AMD’s little “joke” wound up sullying their own reputation, not Intel’s.
-AMD shot itself in the face with 4x4. Desperate to get 4 cores to the 'enthusiast' crowd to combat C2Q, AMD released a product that not only failed to live up to projections and hype, but actually was several steps backward. The underperforming, overpriced, hugely power hungry QFX system was in direct opposition to AMD’s own energy-efficiency and value PR shtick. This might have not been so bad, had the QFX actually managed to perform at least on par with C2Q, but it didn’t...it fell on its face. Hard. And no amount of horde hype has been able to distort or hide that. Worst of all, the QFX system actually had/has some real potential as a ‘ultimate’ system - had it been released at the right time with the right CPU, namely the K10. But it wasn’t. AMD released it far, far, to soon, (actually validating Intel’s MCM by the response itself) and in the process damaged both their own rep and the rep of the QFX. So much so that once QFX is actually up to speed, its going to take not days, not weeks, not even months, but quarters to undo the PR damage.
-AMD shot itself in the face when they pissed off a big portion of their free advertising --namely us, the DIYers, and enthusiasts. When AMD shorted the channel of their most desirable chips, sending them to the OEMs, then concentrated on mobile (as they claimed) during H206, they made their products unavailable to the very people who had been "selling" them by word of mouth, or forum post. What options did these people have? Only one....Intel. Had C2D been crap like netburst, AMD might have pulled it off, but C2D wasn’t crap and what happened as a result? AMD’s "advertisers" had to buy the C2Ds, and when they saw how fast and cheap those chips were, those people started "advertising" for Intel.
Too sum up.. AMD’s current situation is of their own making, not Intel’s.
The majority of people want one or both of 2 things....performance or value.
Performance....BS talks, Performance walks...proven by AMD itself when it started tearing market share away from Intel with K7/K8 in spite of all the anti-Intel allegations and lack of AMD advertising. Proven again when Intel started taking market share back after the release of the better performing C2D.
Value...Proven by AMD itself when their performance comparative but cheaper chips were sucking market share from Intel’s overpriced garbage. Proven when Intel’s cheaper C2Ds were spanking their AMD counterparts. Proven again by AMD when they finally clued up and undercut Intel’s low end CPU prices, regaining some market share but at a significantly lower gain of market revenue
AMD’s situation is because of its own products and marketing vs Intel’s, not any alleged backdoor dealing. For every day of every week of the past 19 months, through their own arrogance, complacency, stupidity and knee-jerk fear, AMD has pissed away everything they won. People are bitching because Intel offered bonuses and incentives to OEMs. The funny thing is that Bonuses and Incentives cost money. AMD dug their own ditch and the results would have been the same regardless of any money Intel might have spent, so that any money Intel did spend on Bonuses and Incentives was completely and totally wasted. Profit pissed away for nothing since AMD was busy drowning themselves in their own piss.
I Know mate, I was just having a playful pop at the way the English language has been mauled over the years 'cos back when I were a lad having a 'gay time' would be construed as being happy and laughing however I would not use that turn of phrase these days for fear of having my sexual orientation being brought into question.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram