Do or Die: AMD Moves Away From PCs Amid Steep Losses

Page 3 - 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.
I may be young considering im 18, but I will still support AMD products by buying more amd motherboards and cpu's for computers I fix and sell. It would be a shame if we just have one option when it comes to building and making computers. Intel would get greedy and put there prices even higher (as if there not high already)... I just bought an am3+ mo bo with the amd fx 8120 8core, and will be buying a Radeon 7850. Hope fully that will help them out more.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]A lot of HTPCs benefit from AMD APUs, great little machines that don't need i7 power, if they hit that market hard and kept up the pressure in the games console market they are onto a winner - but really they need a big entry in the tablet market, if x86 Windows 8 Pro defies all negative press and sells like hotcakes then AMD need to have a tablet CPU (or APU) alternate to the i5 very quickly or Intel may well tie up another virtual monopoly[/citation]

The problem is that the majority, not us enthusiasts, who do HTPCs do not even need a APU for it. ALl they need is something that will do 1080P HD and HDCP, which Atom can do or Brazos. Or even a low end i3 can do all while using less power and creating less heat/noise than the Trinity APUs do.

Hell my HTPC is a Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and a HD5450 and it does BR and HD video with no issues at all. and the system is very quiet since the HD5450 is fanless and the 6000+s fan is a higher end one that runs very quiet compared to stock.

[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]They could be in the tablet market now with Android but they have the same problem as Intel - x86 is too inefficient for mobile. While AMD has GPUs to fall back on, Intel has much better diversity throughout their product lines.[/citation]

Intels not having that much of an issue with efficiency. In fact, current Medfield based phones get the same battery life as other equivalent battery phones while providing similar performance.

Add to that what Haswell looks to do, or the next Atom (22nm) that will use less power and add IB graphics I dont't think intel will have any issue. Nor should AMD have any issues getting there. Its all about taking their long experience and applying it. AMD has a good history of low power products, Athlon 64 was hailed for that. They can do it again.

But the one thing I don't get is the "focusing on server" part. While this will be more than just CPU, the last CPU focused on servers was Barcelona and we all know that didn't turn out very well.

What AMD needs to do is push towards an efficient design per clock and watt, not per dollar. Its nioce to have a cheaper alternative but in the big markets like servers and HPCs, they look at two things the most, performance per clock and per watt as they use so many that the less power used, the better.

AMD is currently throwing clock speed at their CPUs and it shows how inefficient their current arch is. I hope their next arch is not delayed like crazy and that it is a better competitor.

I still am not a fan of Rory as he seems to think Intel is nothing to compete against but enthusiasts and the original AMD pushed hard to become a truly viable alternative to Intel and to lose that would be horrible in my opinion. Intel needs AMD as much as Ford needs Honda/GM etc. They need to have someone to try to "one up" so the consumers come out on top.
 
Everybody I know preferres AMD GPU over nVidia as of late. As long as they keep pumping out kick arse GPU's, they will always have my business...
 
AMD just needs Apple, that should be the goal for 2013. If Apple goes AMD, all the less attractive brands; HP,Toshiba,Dell,etc... Will make me too products and use AMD APUs. Overnight, AMD will have conquered Apple and re-energized their position in the Windows market as well, easily they can command a 50% market share of x86 processors in terms of sales if they manage to get Apple.

Without Apple it is just a series of grinding fights with no end in sight, like an Iraq but the graphics are worse.
 
The problem is, their CPUs uses more power than the Intel counterpart, so OEMs including Apple went with Intel. As many have said before, for the general consumer an APU has more than enough compute power for web browsing and word processing. With also significantly better graphics, they just need to focus on bringing down power draw
 
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]Intel has no answer for APUs, and you can't stick an i7 in a tablet. It won't work.[/citation]
you need to read anandtech
 
Hope they don't mean to move away from consumer GPUs!! Simply because they are really awesome and probably their most profitable product. I mean it would be a shame for AMD if they quit at the top of their game. AMD GPUs have never been better, they are now competing dircetly with top of the line nv GPUs. I think AMD should forget x86 consumer cpus entirely and focus solely on their APUs and GPUs. As an openCL coder I can tell you AMD GPUs pack some serios punch as compared to nvidia but sometimes getting the code work on AMD GPUs could be really frustrating simply because of their driver issues. And why the hell on earth AMD is planning to lay off their engineers? Do they expect somebody else to code for their drivers?
 
Poor AMD if it weren't for there graphics thy be dead. I don't know if they will ever recover from the mess that was bulldozer. Here's hopeing that there APU's make them some cash and they can get back to making good high end CPU's.
 
I'm almost sure Intel's haswell supporting AVX2 would sign off a death warrant to AMD's consumer cpus at least in terms of performance. The thing is that it is not as bad as it looks. If intel charges too much for its x86 performance then most of the developers would shift to alternative architectures like opencl and cloud. For example in gaming both AI and physics could run on GPUs but it would take a lot more developer hours to do so. Currently the developers aren't worried about using GPUs for these task is because x86 performance comes relatively cheaper than the developer hours. But in future as opencl gets more popularity the developer hours are bound to go down as more people start using them.
 
reviewers,gamers and people who care about efficiency didn't like bulldozer then why AMD insisted to develop bulldozer since nobody want to buy bulldozer CPUs,IMO 45nm phenom II CPUs are faster in games and most programs than 32nm bulldozer CPUs.
AMD should have focused on how to compete with Intel in gaming CPU market like what they did back in 2010 and 2009 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i5-athlon-ii,2675-5.html not to fight against intel in server CPU market by bulldozer architecture since they know intel is much more superior in server market.
intel succeeded to target server,laptop and desktop using hyperthreading technology but AMD couldn't target three markets using first gen bulldozer but i hope piledriver can help AMD to do that.
 
for the price of an i7 i would rather have a phenom based apu with the gpu power of at least a 7850. on an itx FM2, throw in liquid cooling and i have a very clean board. why can't they make that? tdp would be very high but it has great graphics so i would not mind. they could name it AMD insta-sale.
 
[citation][nom]gto127[/nom]I don't know about you guys but I don't like the sound of this. "AMD moving away from PCS" I can't imagine a market of intel only CPUS. We can do something about this folks. I'm ordering a AMD APU & motherboard. I would reccomend everyone that reads this do the same & pass the word on & tell your friends to do the same. Money talks & if we order enough then mabye they will continue to sell CPUS for PCS. If the only choice is Intel then the price will go UP UP UP & will become a very niche market. Let's keep the PC market alive. Who's with me?[/citation]
that's a nice thought, but intel makes better chips.....i have to go with quality for futureproof sake. amd had their chance with bulldozer and dropped the ball.
 
There is a rumor about amd new desktop processor line up will be under 200$...

which I thinks it a killer deal to people with AM3+ board if it performs better than pII....... (I hoped AMD gains sales from it, I never liked duopoly, monopoly is worst)

I thinks lots of people forgetting that economy are in bad shape in general......


 
AMD has the hardware and should have the know how to make their very own media device to be better than and rival Google TV/Apple TV. With all these smart TV's and such coming out, why doesn't AMD make their version of a HTPC aimed at the mass market. Call it TVPC. Blu-Ray, HDD, internet, movie player, gaming, focused PC for the TV. It'll be basically a HTPC built by AMD for the masses so not only PC enthusiast can have one. Aim it at a $200-$250 price point and you might have something special. But what do I know?
 
Maybe Google will buy up AMD, then we will have Google Inside, outside, everywhere!
 
This is worry some. I'll expect a 15% (minimum) price increase on all Intel CPUs and Nvidia GPUs. With nearly no competition these two companys will do what they please with the prices and the only losers here will be the consumer
 
[citation][nom]spartanmk2[/nom]I just powered up my trusty AMD Athlon 64 3700+ for old times' sake.[/citation]
Hey I am still using one of those machines today. Runs perfect on W7 and with a Radeon X1600 still played COD MW2 (800x600, max textures). I have another machine, but the original Athlon64 (mine is 5200+) are still quite respectable. Most non tech-oriented households still function with this kind of hardware, most of the repairs/cleanings i do are for athlon 64 and similar machines, athlons II x2 and things like that.
Knowing that, I can tell for damn sure that AMD wont die anytime soon. Sure they dont produce the state of the art CPUs but in the low end bracket their products are killer sales. At that bracket people are not biased and just pick what they can afford and you know what? AMD delivers functional solutions for very very low prices, while with Intel you have to pay a little extra most of the time.

Good to know there is someone that values the oldies in this site.


By the way: Wolfgang Gruener, ladies and gentleman. Infamous for bashing amd, with misleading titles such as the one on this article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom