Does AMD has some future?

[jdwii]

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/

Its like i know the author myself. I don't however but i did these same tests with these same CPU's and saw the same results. Its so unbelievable its much easier to call it fake then except it as reality as some do in those comments.

And your point ? we already knew i3 haswell was a great gaming cpu compared to amd's 4 yr old design. Ask yourself why they did not use games like BF4, Fc4 or Dragon Age Inquisition. Games that a majority of people play, that would be relevant. Or better yet compare integrated graphics but we already know amd trashes intel in that department so it would be a unfair comparison. .

Well they actually do benchmark those games i have no reason to give you why they didn't this time but in all those games the I3 performed similar to the 8 core if not better and one game was way better and that's far cry 4 and that is under their tests and mine. Something that's hard for people to forget it doesn't matter if a game can use 500 cores if one core is being stressed out the whole game will stutter and yes a 2 core with HT will come even or win.

Also keep in mind it doesn't matter how long a design has been out that doesn't give Amd or Intel or Nvidia anymore credit if they refuse or don't make a new design and keep their old design priced at the competitions price.

 

[jdwii]

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/

Its like i know the author myself. I don't however but i did these same tests with these same CPU's and saw the same results. Its so unbelievable its much easier to call it fake then except it as reality as some do in those comments.

And your point ? we already knew i3 haswell was a great gaming cpu compared to amd's 4 yr old design. Ask yourself why they did not use games like BF4, Fc4 or Dragon Age Inquisition. Games that a majority of people play, that would be relevant. Or better yet compare integrated graphics but we already know amd trashes intel in that department so it would be a unfair comparison. .

The title of the article given by jdwii is pretty simple "The Best CPU for the Money". It is not the authors fault if AMD FX-8320E is based in ancient tech. The authors compare what is available on the stores.

It is funny that you mention integrated graphics because the FX-8320E has none and thus the Haswell i3/i5 also win in this aspect. Of course everyone agrees that AMD has APUs with better integrated graphics (*), but that was not the point of the CPU roundup.

If, moreover, you want move the discussion to what most people play, just check what hardware people uses to play

75--79% :: Intel
21--25% :: AMD

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

(*) A question relevant for this thread is if Intel will caught AMD. I think Intel Skylake will outperform Kaveri on integrated graphics.

Yes, The Intel 4600 graphics seem to be un pair with Llano in my tests. I find that to be surprising and something i never expected. I was actually able to play a lot of stuff at 720P medium-low graphics which is good enough for most people not wanting a dgpu anyways(casual's majority).

Amd needs their HBM APU out soon. Skylake and even broadwell has more die space for the igpu then before and skylake will offer DDR4 to improve gpu bandwidth.

 

[gamerk316]

How many revenue will Xbone/PS4 generate in 2016--2018?

Both the PS3 and 360 hit 80+M units each. Also the China market is open leading to sales higher than the prior generation consoles. Console sales typically peak in the 3rd or 4th year so the 2016-2018 should be quite good.

2014 PS4 ~9.3M
2014 XBO ~7.7M

17M total units and a BOM price of $105 that is 1.785 B a year. Say 5B conservatively over 2016-2018.

Except your ignoring cost of production. The actual margins are probably on the order of $20 per console. So you're estimates crash down to about $1 Billion over a three year period, which isn't that much for a company the size of AMD.

 

[juanrga]

How many revenue will Xbone/PS4 generate in 2016--2018?

Both the PS3 and 360 hit 80+M units each. Also the China market is open leading to sales higher than the prior generation consoles. Console sales typically peak in the 3rd or 4th year so the 2016-2018 should be quite good.

2014 PS4 ~9.3M
2014 XBO ~7.7M

17M total units and a BOM price of $105 that is 1.785 B a year. Say 5B conservatively over 2016-2018.

Except your ignoring cost of production. The actual margins are probably on the order of $20 per console. So you're estimates crash down to about $1 Billion over a three year period, which isn't that much for a company the size of AMD.

Precisely I used $20 per console to compute my former "That is about 1B profit over 2016--2018". Considering that Cazalan's total units will be an unreachable limit number. This means that AMD will get less than $300M per year. I agree with you that are peanuts.

 

[jdwii]

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/

Its like i know the author myself. I don't however but i did these same tests with these same CPU's and saw the same results. Its so unbelievable its much easier to call it fake then except it as reality as some do in those comments.

And your point ? we already knew i3 haswell was a great gaming cpu compared to amd's 4 yr old design. Ask yourself why they did not use games like BF4, Fc4 or Dragon Age Inquisition. Games that a majority of people play, that would be relevant. Or better yet compare integrated graphics but we already know amd trashes intel in that department so it would be a unfair comparison. .

The title of the article given by jdwii is pretty simple "The Best CPU for the Money". It is not the authors fault if AMD FX-8320E is based in ancient tech. The authors compare what is available on the stores.

It is funny that you mention integrated graphics because the FX-8320E has none and thus the Haswell i3/i5 also win in this aspect. Of course everyone agrees that AMD has APUs with better integrated graphics (*), but that was not the point of the CPU roundup.

If, moreover, you want move the discussion to what most people play, just check what hardware people uses to play

75--79% :: Intel
21--25% :: AMD

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

(*) A question relevant for this thread is if Intel will caught AMD. I think Intel Skylake will outperform Kaveri on integrated graphics.

Yes, The Intel 4600 graphics seem to be un pair with Llano in my tests. I find that to be surprising and something i never expected. I was actually able to play a lot of stuff at 720P medium-low graphics which is good enough for most people not wanting a dgpu anyways(casual's majority).

Amd needs their HBM APU out soon. Skylake and even broadwell has more die space for the igpu then before and skylake will offer DDR4 to improve gpu bandwidth.

why are you comparing 4600 to llano you just said "Also keep in mind it doesn't matter how long a design has been out that doesn't give Amd or Intel or Nvidia anymore credit if they refuse or don't make a new design and keep their old design priced at the competitions price. pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot

That's not what i'm doing at all i'm claiming Intel is gaining a lot of performance in the last few gens. Actually in every gen they doubled their igpu performance while Amd went up 20% every gen. Man i really need to get a lot more money and start my own site and offer benchmarks of the two but then again they would just say try this cherry picked game or your lying or the tests are invalid.

MAN so disappointed in some people.

Tomshardware themselves even recommend I3 over a fx series CPU in that price range. But i guess their tests are invalid as well?

 

[jdwii]

i think your both under estimating the future console sales numbers, when 10 gets on consoles they will be cannibalizing the pc sales, and if classification remains the same, consoles could see a 10x sales increase by 2016-2018. AMD will gain the most because it will not compete with intel anything.

What? 10 won't make one more console sell then what is selling today who the heck goes out and buys a new console over a new OS coming out? I never heard of that before. 10X more sales for consoles in 2 years? Sony sold 18.5 Million already and the xbox one sold 12 million maybe not to sure on the exact amount the Wii U is 9.5 million. Total of 40 million "next gen" consoles. Amd see's money from every single one of the units(15-20$ not sure how much on the wii U). 10X more sales is just uncommen for a short peird of time usally the trend continues to gradually grow
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/consolewar1.png
edit try and find a few more
http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/feature/4273/ps2-ltd-sales-vs-time.png
Old school
http://www.scielo.cl/fbpe/img/jotmi/v4n4/art06_gra2.jpg
Just one picture granted. Anyways consoles really are junk change i don't think its not worth it but compared to even laptop/desktop sales i'm guessing its much worse were Intel could be making 100+$ per unit sold. Then servers bring in the most cash.

 

[juanrga]

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/

Its like i know the author myself. I don't however but i did these same tests with these same CPU's and saw the same results. Its so unbelievable its much easier to call it fake then except it as reality as some do in those comments.

And your point ? we already knew i3 haswell was a great gaming cpu compared to amd's 4 yr old design. Ask yourself why they did not use games like BF4, Fc4 or Dragon Age Inquisition. Games that a majority of people play, that would be relevant. Or better yet compare integrated graphics but we already know amd trashes intel in that department so it would be a unfair comparison. .

The title of the article given by jdwii is pretty simple "The Best CPU for the Money". It is not the authors fault if AMD FX-8320E is based in ancient tech. The authors compare what is available on the stores.

It is funny that you mention integrated graphics because the FX-8320E has none and thus the Haswell i3/i5 also win in this aspect. Of course everyone agrees that AMD has APUs with better integrated graphics (*), but that was not the point of the CPU roundup.

If, moreover, you want move the discussion to what most people play, just check what hardware people uses to play

75--79% :: Intel
21--25% :: AMD

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

(*) A question relevant for this thread is if Intel will caught AMD. I think Intel Skylake will outperform Kaveri on integrated graphics.

best cpu for the money is cpu or apu . 6300 is every bit as fast in gaming as the 8320, but costs less than 100dollars. this article picked a favorable intel price point to write there narrative. they cherry picked the games to justify there conclusion.

Best cpu for the money is cpu or apu but is not comparing integrated graphics which was your first excuse.

Your argument about games and cores was used by an anonymous poster in the comment section of the article. The author of the article replied to him with some data, but since you like to ignore data and facts, I will simply quote the resume: "The Metro Redux benchmark uses more than 4-cores [...] So saying all games tested only use 2-3 cores is rubbish."

Now you are changing now to restrict price. Yes, if you corner enough and enough, you can find a tight scenario where some AMD CPU is better than some Intel CPU, but when you move outside the corner Intel is better. This is why AMD has weak CPU sales.

 

[juanrga]

i think your both under estimating the future console sales numbers, when 10 gets on consoles they will be cannibalizing the pc sales, and if classification remains the same, consoles could see a 10x sales increase by 2016-2018. AMD will gain the most because it will not compete with intel anything.

Apart from your 10x claim being pure nonsense, AMD expects that consoles sales will peak on 2015.

 

[palladin9479]

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/

Its like i know the author myself. I don't however but i did these same tests with these same CPU's and saw the same results. Its so unbelievable its much easier to call it fake then except it as reality as some do in those comments.

And your point ? we already knew i3 haswell was a great gaming cpu compared to amd's 4 yr old design. Ask yourself why they did not use games like BF4, Fc4 or Dragon Age Inquisition. Games that a majority of people play, that would be relevant. Or better yet compare integrated graphics but we already know amd trashes intel in that department so it would be a unfair comparison. .

The title of the article given by jdwii is pretty simple "The Best CPU for the Money". It is not the authors fault if AMD FX-8320E is based in ancient tech. The authors compare what is available on the stores.

It is funny that you mention integrated graphics because the FX-8320E has none and thus the Haswell i3/i5 also win in this aspect. Of course everyone agrees that AMD has APUs with better integrated graphics (*), but that was not the point of the CPU roundup.

If, moreover, you want move the discussion to what most people play, just check what hardware people uses to play

75--79% :: Intel
21--25% :: AMD

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

(*) A question relevant for this thread is if Intel will caught AMD. I think Intel Skylake will outperform Kaveri on integrated graphics.

best cpu for the money is cpu or apu . 6300 is every bit as fast in gaming as the 8320, but costs less than 100dollars. this article picked a favorable intel price point to write there narrative. they cherry picked the games to justify there conclusion.

This is what I was thinking, they chose an awfully weird AMD model to test for "value". The AMD eight core CPU's are very niche, they are only useful for select cases where you actually need that many independent processing cores. The real competition for "value" would of been from an fx6300/6350 vs the i3 and it becomes interesting because while the i3 will typically do better, the fx6300 is so cheap that it's hard to compete with. Of course the article was biased as all hell, you can notice that at the end when they refer to AMD's design as a "four core".

 

[jdwii]

i think your both under estimating the future console sales numbers, when 10 gets on consoles they will be cannibalizing the pc sales, and if classification remains the same, consoles could see a 10x sales increase by 2016-2018. AMD will gain the most because it will not compete with intel anything.

Apart from your 10x claim being pure nonsense, AMD expects that consoles sales will peak on 2015.

It is not a claim only a guess based on consoles cannibalizing 30% of the 300 mil yr pc sales

Except when all added up they sold 40 million and its been over a year(more since i included the Wii U).

As proof as the pictures i showed Consoles generally go up gradually. This is going off of every last generation so far. Really imo the only console that sold really well so far is the PS4.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

OMG then what is evidence to you, this is such a joke. People claim juan is some joke at least he can look at evidence in a non bias way. Honstoly not even worth the time and day to convince you all you will do is cherry pick a few games and claim all the other ones don't matter.

Truth is the fx offers inconsistent performance across a wide range of games some games its fine others its bottlenecking my 770 by 30+% according to GPU-z.

Real live video isn't enough to convince you, toms hardware own results or techspots isn't enough. I'm convinced its only your nonscientific way that will convince you or in other words you are subjective to pseudoscience.

In addition, from my non-biased standpoint, I have seen a few people say they had huge FPS increase going from FX 8350 to an i5.

 

[jdwii]

OMG then what is evidence to you, this is such a joke. People claim juan is some joke at least he can look at evidence in a non bias way. Honstoly not even worth the time and day to convince you all you will do is cherry pick a few games and claim all the other ones don't matter.

Truth is the fx offers inconsistent performance across a wide range of games some games its fine others its bottlenecking my 770 by 30+% according to GPU-z.

Real live video isn't enough to convince you, toms hardware own results or techspots isn't enough. I'm convinced its only your nonscientific way that will convince you or in other words you are subjective to pseudoscience.

In addition, from my non-biased standpoint, I have seen a few people say they had huge FPS increase going from FX 8350 to an i5.

A lot of the time it depends on what games you play the FX can handle its own in a lot of games but some games its just a mess a lot of these people probably can't even notice but if they have fraps running they will see the numbers change quite often. Evil within was honesty the game i found to be quite bad on the fx series and far cry 4 gave me lots of stuttering.

I was noticing in a lot of game with fraps running and GPU-Z my GPU was at 75% usage meaning a bottleneck was happening and my GPU wasn't even being pushed with V-sync off.

 

[juanrga]

Of course the article was biased as all hell, you can notice that at the end when they refer to AMD's design as a "four core".

I believe that was a typo, and he did mean "four module" because in the introduction of the article he mentions that the CPU is a "four floating point cores and eight integer cores" processor.

It is worth mentioning that AMD engineers considered the 8000 series a four-core processor, with each core composed of two integer clusters plus a FP unit. Latter, the marketing dep. changed the names, replaced "core" by "module" and "cluster" by "core" and marketed the 8000 series as eight-core.

AMD engineers (internal docs)
FX-8000 are four-core processors with eight integer clusters

AMD marketing (sales)
FX-8000 are four-module processors with eight integer cores

 

[8350rocks]

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/

Its like i know the author myself. I don't however but i did these same tests with these same CPU's and saw the same results. Its so unbelievable its much easier to call it fake then except it as reality as some do in those comments.

Power has what bearing on anything in a country where electricity is between $0.10-$0.14 kw/hr?

Seriously...who cares about power consumption in a desktop?

Maybe if you are off the grid, way out in the middle of nowhere running only a bank of solar panels. However, if you live where you are connected to the grid, power consumption is not a problem, and not a cost issue either.

If people struggling with the power bill on their homes is going to be the argument, buy a smaller home and live within your means instead of being house poor.

Not an issue.

EDIT: As Palladin and others pointed out, I was not going to say it, but they did cherry pick and picked a really weird spot to say "this is the price comparison".

I would also like to note, if you compare the FX6300 to anything Intel offers for the same money, there is no Intel CPU for the same money that can touch that processor. Period.

 

[gamerk316]

^^ But the argument is always going to be "But the i5 4330 is only $20 more". That's AMDs problem: They can't beat the i3 at the low end, and i5s are attractive for not much more. The FX-6300 is situated right between them, but honestly, i don't see a huge market there.

 

[-Fran-]

Well, in favor to Intel's pricing scheme, they're real scumbags for placing the most expensive i3 *behind* the cheapest i5, hahaha. You're left with the choice of 2+ real cores, less final boost speed vs 2 real cores + 2 fake ones and higher boost speeds. It's a very scumbaggish pricing scheme, because it works.

Now, I have to agree with the 6300 comment. It is a very good CPU in its price point. But I'll make an extra effort in saying the FX4300 is also another fine choice, since it will go up until 4.4Ghz with *any* aftermarket cooler and place very decent numbers being a dual module piece of scrapped CPU. I usually go that route when budget is tight, since it allows for a cheap 212 with the price difference (in most cases). And $20USD is a big difference IMO when you're under $100.

In any case, anecdotal evidence for you guys (interesting none the less). I gave away a PC to a cousin around X'Mas of 2013. It was a G850 (Pentium dual, Sandy based IIRC). The ah heck was fine at the time, but after a while, new games were coughing hard on it BAD; I didn't believe it at first, but I saw some online matches (Left For Dead 2, World of Tanks, Garriy's Mod, etc) crawling under 10FPS most of the time. So he asked for a new CPU. We had to swap it for an i5 + MoBo and everything went back to "speed". So, long story short, anything under an i3 is not suitable for gaming anymore. Even if it is advertised by "benchmarks" everywhere. Interesting none the less, like I said 😛

Another interesting thing to tell. I gave in 2013-ish an FX4300 with a 970 MoBo and I recently gave a 270X to swap the old HD4890 in it. Long story short. The little ah heck it's still sitting at 4.3Ghz and pushing everything being thrown at him. The change of GPU was huge (from what the little guy told me) and it's like a new PC all by itself. My point here is that the FX4300 deserves a little more love, specially at its price point. It might not be a great CPU all around, but for online play, single player stuff and regular day-to-day work is perfect.

Ok, no more anecdotes, haha. This is another piece of opinion in regards to Consoles: I think I already said this a while ago, but Consoles *do not replace* PC sales. I think we all agree PC-gaming sales are a single digit of the whole % being sold. Companies are the biggest number pushers in PC sales (combined) and they usually ask for Pentiums, Celerons and (for the programmers and designers) i5's and i7's. I *really* doubt companies are getting AMD CPUs inside the secretary PC or Lappy. Hell, my current "programmer's" lappy is an i5 VPro-something-something (2.6Ghz Ivy, me thinks). That's a big enough difference to not even try to make a comparison there. What I'm trying to say is, AMD having secured the Consoles deal, won't replace *at all* any lost PC sales. It's not like HP will look at AMD and say "Oh, I see you got the consoles deal... Sweet man, I want those APU's inside my office pieces of junk computers". Nope, not gonna happen. It's a totally different revenue stream and cannot be compared to the lost PC sales. In short, Gamerk is totally on point there. Volumes and figures are not inside the same league, so it's not even worth considering when comparing the potential income AMD would get from PC sales.

Cheers!

 

[Salvinha]

I think AMD still have a great future, mainly because it fabricates the new gen console components.
I don't think AMD has a great future in PC CPU fight, I think they do not want to compete with Intel anymore.
Regarding PC GPUs, AMD and NVidia are fighting hard, one month from now rumors say AMD will launch the 3xx series, with a total different VRAM interface called HBM, which is significantly superior to DDR5. I have until today a HD 7950 3GB DDR5, I play 1080p ultra settings in Dragon Age Inquisition and Dying Light, the frame never goes below 30FPS, it is a hell of a card.
So, an overview of what I said:
For sure AMD has a future but not in computers CPU market in my opinion.

 

[juanrga]

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/

Its like i know the author myself. I don't however but i did these same tests with these same CPU's and saw the same results. Its so unbelievable its much easier to call it fake then except it as reality as some do in those comments.

Power has what bearing on anything in a country where electricity is between $0.10-$0.14 kw/hr?

Seriously...who cares about power consumption in a desktop?

Lots of people care about that. And there is even companies specialized on green desktop computers. But that was not the point. The point is why someone would want something that consumes 2X and performs as Y instead of something that consumes X and performs as 2Y.

 

[-Fran-]

In the last quarter, ARM made $182 million in profit and $348 million in revenue, so the company is highly profitable as more than half of its revenue is profit. The revenue is split evenly between licenses and royalties. ARM said that it's expecting to get a 10 percent increase in revenue year over year in the next quarter.

If AMD has no debt someday and they just start producing chips (custom APUs and GPUs), they'll be in the same position as ARM, isn't it? I mean, if ARM can *live* with 350 in revenue, GET A PROFIT and get great designs out there, why can't AMD do that as well? I mean, those "lowly" 300 million AMD will get is not enough to be a successful company, right? I'm sure as hell their R&D is not in the same league, but the reason is the same I said before: their core competences and goals are different; just like AMD's, nVidia's and Intel's.

Cheers!

PS: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/arm-strong-growth-armv8-adoption,28551.html

 

[bmacsys]

I don't know why you guys argue with juanrga. He titles his thread "Does AMD has some future?" Yet it is obvious his mind is already completely made up. He titles the thread as a question yet just puts down people who have different views and say AMD does have a future. The answer is that he only wants to hear negative things about AMD. He is extremely transparant. Don't respond to his trolling for attention and let this thread die. You could make this same argument about thousands of companies who have to compete against huge, dominant corporations such as Intel. Should every lesser company that sell items online just pack it in because Amazon is so dominant? Does that mean "they have no future"? Should Honda and Nissan pack it in because Toyota is so much bigger and much more profitable? The only difference is nobody wastes time making threads about these companies like juanrga does with AMD.

 

[con635]

Well, in favor to Intel's pricing scheme, they're real scumbags for placing the most expensive i3 *behind* the cheapest i5, hahaha. You're left with the choice of 2+ real cores, less final boost speed vs 2 real cores + 2 fake ones and higher boost speeds. It's a very scumbaggish pricing scheme, because it works.

Now, I have to agree with the 6300 comment. It is a very good CPU in its price point. But I'll make an extra effort in saying the FX4300 is also another fine choice, since it will go up until 4.4Ghz with *any* aftermarket cooler and place very decent numbers being a dual module piece of scrapped CPU. I usually go that route when budget is tight, since it allows for a cheap 212 with the price difference (in most cases). And $20USD is a big difference IMO when you're under $100.

In any case, anecdotal evidence for you guys (interesting none the less). I gave away a PC to a cousin around X'Mas of 2013. It was a G850 (Pentium dual, Sandy based IIRC). The ah heck was fine at the time, but after a while, new games were coughing hard on it BAD; I didn't believe it at first, but I saw some online matches (Left For Dead 2, World of Tanks, Garriy's Mod, etc) crawling under 10FPS most of the time. So he asked for a new CPU. We had to swap it for an i5 + MoBo and everything went back to "speed". So, long story short, anything under an i3 is not suitable for gaming anymore. Even if it is advertised by "benchmarks" everywhere. Interesting none the less, like I said 😛

Another interesting thing to tell. I gave in 2013-ish an FX4300 with a 970 MoBo and I recently gave a 270X to swap the old HD4890 in it. Long story short. The little ah heck it's still sitting at 4.3Ghz and pushing everything being thrown at him. The change of GPU was huge (from what the little guy told me) and it's like a new PC all by itself. My point here is that the FX4300 deserves a little more love, specially at its price point. It might not be a great CPU all around, but for online play, single player stuff and regular day-to-day work is perfect.

Ok, no more anecdotes, haha. This is another piece of opinion in regards to Consoles: I think I already said this a while ago, but Consoles *do not replace* PC sales. I think we all agree PC-gaming sales are a single digit of the whole % being sold. Companies are the biggest number pushers in PC sales (combined) and they usually ask for Pentiums, Celerons and (for the programmers and designers) i5's and i7's. I *really* doubt companies are getting AMD CPUs inside the secretary PC or Lappy. Hell, my current "programmer's" lappy is an i5 VPro-something-something (2.6Ghz Ivy, me thinks). That's a big enough difference to not even try to make a comparison there. What I'm trying to say is, AMD having secured the Consoles deal, won't replace *at all* any lost PC sales. It's not like HP will look at AMD and say "Oh, I see you got the consoles deal... Sweet man, I want those APU's inside my office pieces of junk computers". Nope, not gonna happen. It's a totally different revenue stream and cannot be compared to the lost PC sales. In short, Gamerk is totally on point there. Volumes and figures are not inside the same league, so it's not even worth considering when comparing the potential income AMD would get from PC sales.

Cheers!

There's been a few 2 module athlons in my family, with a88 chipset and small clock bump they are a great little chip so i agree with fx4*** love!

 

[juanrga]

AMD finally admits has inventory/channel problems

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/amd_stops_chip_shipments/

 

[turkey3_scratch]

AMD finally admits has inventory/channel problems

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/amd_stops_chip_shipments/

Sorry for being noobish in economics but I read the article and what does it exactly mean?

 

[palladin9479]

^^ But the argument is always going to be "But the i5 4330 is only $20 more". That's AMDs problem: They can't beat the i3 at the low end, and i5s are attractive for not much more. The FX-6300 is situated right between them, but honestly, i don't see a huge market there.

The fx6300 is sloted right under the i3-4130 with the fx6350 being the same price as a i3-4160. So it's really fx6 < i3 <i5 with the fx8 being extremely niche. AMD really doesn't have an upper end "mainstream" CPU right now, it's all value / budget segment stuff. You can get a lot of micro builds using fx43 and fx63 chips that end up really cheap though by then it might be better to go with an A8-7600 and some DDR3-2133 memory. This is the reason I upgraded from my Asus Sabertooth 990FX + 8350 to an ASUS Maximus VII Formula + i7-4790k. It was time for a platform update and AMD simply didn't have anything in my market segment.

 

[-Fran-]

AMD finally admits has inventory/channel problems

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/amd_stops_chip_shipments/

Sorry for being noobish in economics but I read the article and what does it exactly mean?

"Channel partners confirmed that AMD is not selling new to kit to them as it works through the glut of stock, which should taken until the end of next month, a point echoed by Kumar."

That paragraph sums it up nicely. I'll add: end customers (you and me, for example) are not buying the things AMD "predicted" we would be at this time, so they overestimated how much product to distribute (sell) to their partners and retailers; now they have this big traffic jam of products not being sold they need to take action helping the middle men.

The amount of "stuff" is around USD$100M. I'm hoping to see MASSIVE offers on AMD hardware then. I wonder if they declare that stock as a "loss", they'll be able sell it for peanuts, haha.

Cheers!

EDIT: Typo.