Henri Richard explains why AMD failed to gain more marketshare

[jennyh]

No it says to me 'Intel fanboys believe anything they get spoonfed by intel propaganda, and don't bother to look up the evidence first'.

That is why I continue to beat people like you btw. It's all about the evidence Chad, not the propaganda.

 

[Chad Boga]

No it says to me 'Intel fanboys believe anything they get spoonfed by intel propaganda, and don't bother to look up the evidence first'.

That is why I continue to beat people like you btw. It's all about the evidence Chad, not the propaganda.

All the evidence points to either the i7-860 or i5-750 being the better choice over the PHII965/955, yet clowns like you embarrass yourself desperately trying to find some outlier benchmark to sustain your pissweak case.

 

[jennyh]

All the evidence points to intel bribery and corruption yet clowns like you embarrass yourself desperately trying to justify it by saying stuff like 'all corporations act the same' or 'it's all a conspiracy against poor little intel'.

 

[Reynod]

Well thats simple to explain Fazers.

As it stands, intels 32nm must be worse than their 45nm surely? I mean I never read about any overclocker killing a wolfdale, did you? 😀

Nah just on yields it must be worse. Why no Quads too? And wasn't Gulftown supposed to be released by now?

I was being kind to archi when I said it was a bit mediocre. It's garbage. Will it get better? Sure.

Quite a few melted Wolfdales early in the piece when it was found they don't like as much voltage as the Conroes ... that was substantiated across many sites.

The last intentional melt was the Duron ...

Don deserves high praise for declaring he melted the low end Clarkdale and under what conditions ... it further's overclockers knowledge so we all benefit.

+1 to Don.

jenny I wondered a bit about the wuads too ... maybe you have something there?

They certainly don't lack the fabs to do it.

An alternative view is they still have plenty of old inventory and don't want to undercut their own product perhaps?

 

[jennyh]

jenny I wondered a bit about the quads too ... maybe you have something there?

They certainly don't lack the fabs to do it.

An alternative view is they still have plenty of old inventory and don't want to undercut their own product perhaps?

Intel are sitting on a bunch of i7's still, and i5's too so yes they would rather sell those at 2009 prices.

The Clarkdales are all going to China and India. That is how intel get most margin out of 32nm right now, by selling cheap arsed cpu's to mass markets. They don't want you buying a 32nm quad now, they want you buying Sandy Bridge next year. However, you do get the Halo product, the 6-core 32nm chip costing $1000 and dominating all the benchmarks until next year.

Ever wondered why it's getting labelled i7 too? It's because intel know there is a chance Thuban will beat the current i7's in a lot of benchmarks. This way, by having a halo product that Thuban cannot hope to match, also called i7, makes less intelligent people assume all i7's are much better than Thuban.

It's exactly the same with i5. The i5-750 is a good chip, certainly compared to the dual core i5's. See what we have now? We have a 32nm 6-core Gulftown topping the 'i7' list comprised of hugely inferior quad cores, and a quad core 'i5' topping the list of hugely inferior dual cores. We thought it was confusing at first right? That's because we didn't know how it was going to plan out.

Intel are a pure cash making machine, every single thing they do revolves around the utter maximising of cash while utilising a variety of methods to catch out the unwary. Americans and Europeans don't deserve 32nm quads yet - we don't give intel the maximum cash that way. If intel released a 32nm Quad at 2009 prices, it would simply harm Sandy Bridge sales next year.

Next year it starts all over again. Intel have almost the perfect money making setup, but it does have flaws too.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

As with everything else, there are limited resources. Intel could certainly decide to shrink Lynnfield/Clarksfield to 32nm, but it would take design teams, validation teams, consume 32nm fab capacity... All of whom could be otherwise engaged in new designs of other sorts.

I'm quite certain Marketing has gone through the cost/benefit analysis and come to the conclusion that the customers are happy with the current 45nm quad cores at the moment and that in the absence of an engineering or market pressure to go to 32nm in that segment the money could better be spent on other projects.

If there was enough demand, we'd service it. As it is we have a roadmap and the vast majority of customers are satisfied with it and not, at this point, clamoring for 32nm quad.

+10. JDJ confuses not choosing to make 32nm quads with "inability" to do so, as yet another green team bash at Intel's process superiority .

Now I personally was hoping the i7 930 would be 32nm, not 45nm, but I can understand Intel wanting to allocate resources where they think they're best used. After all, according to what I've read, crossover won't be reached until sometime this summer, which means that half of the CPUs made will still be on 45nm.

 

[Cryslayer80]

All the evidence points to either the i7-860 or i5-750 being the better choice over the PHII965/955, yet clowns like you embarrass yourself desperately trying to find some outlier benchmark to sustain your pissweak case.

A case??? Time to call in Shark, Horacio and the company...

 

[jennyh]

+10. JDJ confuses not choosing to make 32nm quads with "inability" to do so, as yet another green team bash at Intel's process superiority .

As usual, there is a mid point which is normally closer to the truth. Of course it's easier to make smaller chips on a new process, of course intel *can* make quads.

Quads would be sub optimal, even if we - the public - want it, intel doesn't care because intel knows we are stupid enough to make do with old technology at the same old prices.

Intel thinks you don't deserve it, simply because you aren't optimal for their cash cow. Don't get me wrong here - intel would still make a huge sum of cash selling 32nm quads, even at poor yields. They can just make more selling 250m-transistor garbage to emerging markets.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

JDJ, Let me counter some of your points.

1) Chad has said many times that Intel's process is better than everyone else. I agree with that. Then you indicate Intel can't make Quads at 32nm. Can't is a completely baseless and arbitrary point you are trying to make. I would say they chose not to make them. They had their reasons I'm sure but you are implying their is a conspiracy within Intel to not supply 32nm Quad processors to the general public. That is paranoia talking. As Chad as indicated several times that Intel does plan to introduce 32nm Quads on Sandy Bridge. That is their right an prerogative and no matter how many conspiracy theories you spin saying Intel can't make 32nm Quads you are not going to get them on a Westmere core. But it seems that Intel can do 6 Core 32nm processor so if they can do that if the choose they could bring out a Quad core IF THEY WANTED TO!

2) JDJ, get on your soapbox and get a petition going and demand Intel supply you and the rest of the world with 32nm Quads. Not going to happen. My inside knowledge is that Intel passed on 32nm Quads not that they could not make them as your all of conspiracy talk not withstanding but that they did not have the validation resources to make us all another great CPU. Yes, it has been 2 years between Ticks and Tocks. That cadence seems to be still intact. The did come out with a 32nm core processor. Have they ever indicated they planned to come out with a Westmere based Quad core? No. I know it is not what you want to hear but deal with it. And don't imply that because Intel is a leader in process technology makes a hill of beans as to what architecture they plan to implement with that processor technology. Those are two entirely different things. You need both to be the successful Company that Intel has shown itself to be by the earnings over the last 2 quarters of a very down year.

3) Intel does have great abilities. If you want to disparage them which you will! I'm only going to say there are limits to all large corporations. Remember Intel dropped over 20K people the last 2 to 3 years. If they had kept them on their employment roles you might have got your 32nm Quad but I will bet you anything that Intel would not be making the profit they have been. The 45nm Lynnfield's are still a great processor. Just not at the processor technology node you seem to be craving.

4) Finally your shot at more fud and conspiracy. What is more going on??? You do this time after time in your threads. Why must there be something more going on? I don't have any answers for you on why you seem to question everything Intel does or does not do or to some internal time table you only seem to see. I'm betting that if Intel comes out with their Core i7 980x in March you will still say that it is late and pose the question: Why did Intel wait so long to get it out? Can Intel's 32nm process technology is having yield problems? They should have had this out before 2010 if they are such a leader in CPU's.

Feel free to use these in the next thread you start like: "Is Intel's Sandy Bridge processor showing up too late?"

Not once did I say that they cant make them, other than they planned on NOT making them. Then I went on to explain why, MONEY.
So, wheres this grand conspiracy here? The one youve tried to cook up not me.
"Its their tic tock strategy thats been changed here, and even that some will deny. When were the 45nm quads released? Hasnt it been 2 years? Dont we see the duals? Shouldnt we the customer demand better from the cpu leader here? "
Now, itd take a conspiracy theorist to pull a conspiracy from these words, while also combining my real POV , which is the consumers.
So, at the expense of the consumer, Intel does as it wills. No conspiracy here, and archi said it best, they used their resources where they could best, to suit them, and the marketes THEY choose, just like Atom, just like their push into server.
Wheres all the "Intel always starts with their best chips first" comments now? Wheres the quads? Wheres the Hex cores, if you really want to go there.
I said things have changed, Intels creating a larger gap in their 2 tiered line up than weve seen before, many customers dont like this, just for the confusion alone, then the costs.
Ive havnt mentioned AMD here much simply because AMD doesnt fit into what Intels doing here, and Ive mentioned from a customers POV how this effects those customers.
If you think its a conspiracy by me saying people want 32nm quads from Intel, again, that only comes from someone either trying to discredit me and my comments, or from a conspiracy theorist themself.
Because this isnt rubbing Intels belly here, some dont like it, but it is the truth. Intel isnt putting their highest parts first this time, theyve thrown off the tic tock time table by doing so, and until they do produce a quad or hex for channel, the 32nm process hasnt progressed in the eyes of the enthusiast to the point of making an impact, and until it does, they havnt increased their lead over GF or TSMC depending on when GF and AMD release their chips.
No conspiracy, just a different POV, not one from a AMD POV, but a consumers, and the more Intel plays like this, the more elitest theyll be percieved

 

[jennyh]

You know it's actually quite amusing while sad. I dunno how many times I've read people say 'i wish they would make 32nm quads' recently.

And to think some people argued that intel weren't hurting the consumer? Who's hurting now huh? You want something intel can provide, but on the money you gave them they got so big that they can now treat you how they want. If that means you have to wait until they say so, that's how it is.

This is why monopolies are bad - and every single one of you who support this or any other monopoly is an absolute fool of the highest magnitude. I hope you're content looking at that 'intel inside' sticker when intel post their next $2bn+ profit. After all, you made it for them, you get what you deserve, and you deserve the contempt intel treat you with.

 

[archibael]

Say what you like about our senior management, I have to say that Otellini was right when he insisted people don't care what's under the lid, they just care about the end result.

This was in context of the quad-core "double cheeseburger" garnering press as "not a true quad core" debacle, but it applies here, too: people don't, in general, want chips built to a certain process node. They want chips that either perform better, cost less, or use less power than the last generation in the same market-- or, better, a combination of the three.

I don't see how a business decision to leave 1156 quad cores, for now, on a 45nm node has morphed in some minds into a legion of stalwart engineers manning the barricades and preventing the oppressed masses from getting the smaller transistors they so richly deserve.

 

[jennyh]

Well you wouldn't see it because you get paid by them.

What you call a 'business decision' I call 'hurting the consumer'.

And how much deeper does that 'business decision' cut? How much productivity could be gained in say...oh the USA...with increased performance on 32nm quads? That's a lot of lost productivity over the whole of the USA isn't it? All because intel can make 1/2 billion more selling dual cores to China?

I'm glad we've cleared up just exactly what intel is archi. No allegiance to anyone except those who pay the most. 20,000 jobs gone the last 2 years? While they made $2bn a quarter?

One day Chintel will replace you with cheaper labour, and you will realise that you've been nothing more than a resource to a bunch of people who made a lot of money out of your work, then discarded you after you were sub optimal on the balance books. Console yourself that it was a simple 'business decision', same as you are telling the 'oppressed masses' that they don't deserve 32nm quads right now.

*THAT* is the company you work for, and I suspect you know it too.

 

[archibael]

Thank you, Jenny. You always put things in perspective. A skewed perspective, to say the least, but I won't say it doesn't provide insight.

 

[Chad Boga]

Well you wouldn't see it because you get paid by them.

What you call a 'business decision' I call 'hurting the consumer'.

And how much deeper does that 'business decision' cut? How much productivity could be gained in say...oh the USA...with increased performance on 32nm quads? That's a lot of lost productivity over the whole of the USA isn't it? All because intel can make 1/2 billion more selling dual cores to China?

I'm glad we've cleared up just exactly what intel is archi. No allegiance to anyone except those who pay the most. 20,000 jobs gone the last 2 years? While they made $2bn a quarter?

One day Chintel will replace you with cheaper labour, and you will realise that you've been nothing more than a resource to a bunch of people who made a lot of money out of your work, then discarded you after you were sub optimal on the balance books. Console yourself that it was a simple 'business decision', same as you are telling the 'oppressed masses' that they don't deserve 32nm quads right now.

*THAT* is the company you work for, and I suspect you know it too.

Too much wrongness for me to waste my time refuting your idiotic nonsense bit by bit, in this instance, but I like how a blind supporter of Arab Micro Devices is trying to play the patriotism card. :lol:

 

[jennyh]

Do you believe intel would keep or get rid of you, if you could be replaced by a cheaper engineer of the same quality?

 

[jennyh]

Too much wrongness for me to waste my time refuting your idiotic nonsense bit by bit, in this instance, but I like how a blind supporter of Arab Micro Devices is trying to play the patriotism card. :lol:

Patriotism? I couldn't give a monkey's behind about that. And last I checked AMD were still a US company aye?

 

[Chad Boga]

Patriotism? I couldn't give a monkey's behind about that. And last I checked AMD were still a US company aye?

AMD outsources 100% of their production to a non-USA firm, whereas 99%(I'll generously give TSMC 1%) of Intel's production is done by a USA owned firm(i.e Intel itself).

 

[pausert20]

Do you believe intel would keep or get rid of you, if you could be replaced by a cheaper engineer of the same quality?

Jenny, I certainly believe that Intel would replace the expensive Engineers with cheaper ones. They have been doing that it seems for several years now. My understanding about those 20K people loss that Intel went through came mostly from the US.

That I would say matches what you are indicating.

 

[archibael]

Do you believe intel would keep or get rid of you, if you could be replaced by a cheaper engineer of the same quality?

Of the same quality? Possibly. Although experience counts for a lot toward quality, and an engineer of comparable experience is going to command a similar salary. This is why one strives to be more valuable each year than the last-- growing your career is a way to maintain your value; stagnating means the new college kid looks like a better bargain each year.

But it's a two way street: if a company's not paying you what you're worth, you get rid of them and replace them with a company of superior paycheck and the same quality.

Intel likes me, respects me, and genuinely wants me around because I generate value for the organization and sometimes even make people laugh. In return, Intel pays a decent wage, provides good benefits, and even has the grace to forgive and forget certain stupid mistakes I shall not go into right now.

It's a mutually beneficial business transaction between myself and them. I don't view it as a matter of corporate loyalty or emotional investment. Some do, I understand, but I think that way lies madness and eventual disillusionment.

I've been at several other companies, and it's not all that different. Maybe it's bad luck on my part, but with very few exceptions I don't think any publicly traded company is that different in those respects.

But I do appreciate your concern.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Before this gets stretched out of proportions both ways, lets look at this.
While it is a concern for many here, archi is right that good enough is good enough, which has to be considered for average Joe on both sides here, AMD and Intel.
Also, Intel making its choices are Intels plans, business plans which may or may not profit us, the enthusiast consumer down the road.
Currently we dont have those 32nm quads, and yes, its Intels fault if you will. What this does do are sveral things regarding this community IMHO.
It does bring some confusion, it brings some sceptical POVs from some, and for others, it points them to AMDs solutions somewhat more.
Now, understand, this isnt the big world, this is our community, where we have different needs/wants. Im sure average Joe is fine with what Intel has currently, and for many solutions, AMD as well.
My points were as said above, arent being ignored, and are real concerns, shown by many a comment here and other sites as well. Because its percieved as a negative by some here, well, in a way it is, and not by me, but my echoing of previous questions and needs and wants by others.
This may not feed either sides needs to epeen, but this is what Ive seen, and how it is percieved by quite a few enthusiast here and eslewheres

 

[jimmysmitty]

Yeah sure Chad. Want me to link those 2004 benchmarks again? 😀

Want me to post the prices for AMDs CPUs in 2004? Cuz let me tell you, they were no where near as cheap as AMD is now and the only reason they are is because on a clock per clock level in everything a CPU does, they cannot compete.

Lets put it this way, if Bulldozer creams Intels offering at the time in the high end, do you really think there will be all sub $200 for AMDs high end CPUs? Hell no. You will see just like they had back in thel Athlon 64/X2 days. Range for low at sub $200 and their highest end BE/FX (whichever they choose to name it) at $1K prices.

A company is made to make money, that includes AMD. Don't think for once that they care. You acting like they do care shows ignorance on your part.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Want me to post the prices for AMDs CPUs in 2004? Cuz let me tell you, they were no where near as cheap as AMD is now and the only reason they are is because on a clock per clock level in everything a CPU does, they cannot compete.

Lets put it this way, if Bulldozer creams Intels offering at the time in the high end, do you really think there will be all sub $200 for AMDs high end CPUs? Hell no. You will see just like they had back in thel Athlon 64/X2 days. Range for low at sub $200 and their highest end BE/FX (whichever they choose to name it) at $1K prices.

A company is made to make money, that includes AMD. Don't think for once that they care. You acting like they do care shows ignorance on your part.

While i agree with you mostly, I think its very possible if BD does come in decently, that we may see a change, as we saw in the ATI cards, and as we see now with AMDs BE's, that the pricing may not be as high on those top end chips, and this would ensure competition, even with Intels response, unless they too adopted this pricing.
Time will tell tho

 

[jimmysmitty]

While i agree with you mostly, I think its very possible if BD does come in decently, that we may see a change, as we saw in the ATI cards, and as we see now with AMDs BE's, that the pricing may not be as high on those top end chips, and this would ensure competition, even with Intels response, unless they too adopted this pricing.
Time will tell tho

ATI is only cheaper becaus ethey cannot win in pure performance. Even a HD5970 has trouble fully trouncing a GTX295 setup. Instead like AMD they are going for price/performance.

I am sure ATI would price their GPUs at the normal $600 for high if they had the pure performance crown.

And remember, I love ATI.

 

[Chad Boga]

While i agree with you mostly, I think its very possible if BD does come in decently, that we may see a change, as we saw in the ATI cards, and as we see now with AMDs BE's, that the pricing may not be as high on those top end chips, and this would ensure competition, even with Intels response, unless they too adopted this pricing.
Time will tell tho

ATI's cards at the moment are priced very high.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Compare single chip solutions, youll see the hugely overpriced 285 vs the much better 5850 beating it in price, feature set, temps, and power usage, as well as the 5870