AMD's China Division Executive Departs Company

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

livebriand

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2011
1,004
0
19,290
1
[citation][nom]unionoob[/nom]Actually, AMD market share is low because of corporate customers. like majority software developers can't afford switch to AMD because most of clients are using intel, and those clients won't be going to AMD becaue it is too expensive to swich all software to AMD. for AMD only hope in this market is with new players who would go with AMD instead of intel because of price, then if we would get more of them we would see more developers using AMD and there market would grow. And casual ( home PC users) are still minority in the market.Sorry about bad english.[/citation]
AMD uses the same architecture (x86) as Intel, so that's not an issue. (switching to ARM, however, DOES pose that problem)
 
[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]AMD uses the same architecture (x86) as Intel, so that's not an issue. (switching to ARM, however, DOES pose that problem)[/citation]

x86 isn't the micro-architecture, it's the instruction set architecture. Software that is optimized for Intel's micro-architectures generally doesn't run quite as effectively on AMD's micro-architectures, especially software that wants to use features that AMD's architectures aren't as up to date in (such as Phenom II with SSE compared to Nehalem and newer) or simply don't do as well in (Bulldozer fixed the feature support problem quite well, but it still has sub-par performance in some areas).

Beyond mere feature support and quality of that support, there is much more to consider for optimizing for a specific micro-architecture. For example, AMD and Intel are currently using two very different cache hierarchical balances of capacity and performance at each level. AMD's cache and memory is one of their biggest problems for their CPU performance these days. I find that ironic because Bulldozer versus Core is more of a reversal of Netburst versus Athlon 64 than most people realize. Not only are there the pipeline/heat comparisons, but there's also a common memory/cache performance bottleneck between Netburst and the Bulldozer family.

I could go on and on, but I think that this paints enough of a picture. Simply saying that one can't be optimized over the other because of x86 is incorrect to an extreme (heck, how the x86 instructions are handled and executed isn't even the same across many different x86 implementations despite all being able to run x86 code. For example, most modern x86 CPUs don't run the x86 code natively. They convert x86 instructions into multiple RISC micro-operations and run as many of them as reasonably possible in parallel for better parallelism than native x86 CPUs ever achieved. There's even a family of x86 CPUs (designed by Transmeta IIRC) that was natively a VLIW implementation. CPU performance is not even remotely as simple as black and white.
 

slabbo

Distinguished
Feb 11, 2009
457
0
18,780
0
AMD failed because I always suspected it was being sabotaged from within by Global Foundries. They could never get their crap together and do anything on time. It would have been really easy for Intel to just pay off an exec inside there to mess up all their upgrades and launches, because really, how can Glo Fo mess up that badly time and time again and no one getting fired?
 

SteelCity1981

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
1,129
0
19,310
12
During the chip boom it allowed small companies like AMD to compete against Intel and with the help of intel also slacking off for a time being trying to put all of their resoeuces into the failing netburst arch it allowed AMD for a short time become the fasted cpu chip maker in the world. A slowing chip market and a revived Intel in 2006 hurt AMD to which AMD has never recoverd since. AMD just simply doesn't have the resoeuces to substain itself long term like Intel can Intel has been in the chip making game for over 40 years so they can weather storms much longer then AMD can. Intel has a big budget to work with because of how long they have been in business, AMD has never had a big budget to work with, so they have a much harder time competeting with intel over long peroids of time because of that.
 

umadrabbit

Honorable
Oct 15, 2012
3
0
10,510
0
[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]During the chip boom it allowed small companies like AMD to compete against Intel and with the help of intel also slacking off for a time being trying to put all of their resoeuces into the failing netburst arch it allowed AMD for a short time become the fasted cpu chip maker in the world. A slowing chip market and a revived Intel in 2006 hurt AMD to which AMD has never recoverd since. AMD just simply doesn't have the resoeuces to substain itself long term like Intel can Intel has been in the chip making game for over 40 years so they can weather storms much longer then AMD can. Intel has a big budget to work with because of how long they have been in business, AMD has never had a big budget to work with, so they have a much harder time competeting with intel over long peroids of time because of that.[/citation]


Finally a person who can see things for what they are and not just talk out of their arse. My hats off to you, Sir!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY