Henri Richard explains why AMD failed to gain more marketshare

[jennyh]

LOL - well pardon me if I don't take your wishing & hoping as gospel . Did you read your own article that you linked? According to it, gate last yields additional strain to the tune of 2 GPa. Which is partly why the P-channel devices can be about the same size as the N-channel ones. Why do you think GF is proposing to go to gate-last at 22nm?

IBM seem to think it's just a case of getting used to it. Why wouldn't it be? It is unlikely that there is any huge benefit of either approach, just different benefits from both. If GF decide to go gate last at 22nm it could be because they feel the benefits of that outweigh the benefits of gate first. Maybe they just don't want to spend time and resources perfecting gate first, no matter what benefits will be gained. It's not just about being the best, it's a race more than anything.

 

[Cryslayer80]

As for frying CPUs, you might go back & read some of the threads on AMDZone, where they accuse Anand of purposely killing various & sundry AMD rigs during his testing. Lots more than just one, BTW. And no, Anand wasn't trying to fry anything, just get a review article out timely.

Who mentioned frying? I like frying 😛

:lol:

 

[jimmysmitty]

Let's not forget the exploding Clarkdale

Coincidence? When was the last time any reviewer destroyed a cpu? 10 years ago maybe?

So the reviewer puts more voltage than the spec allows while on air. In Overclocking its fine to go up to the spec max voltage (1.4v in the 32nm case http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLBMS) on air. But beyond that you tend to want to go with something better like TEC cooling, Water Cooling or maybe a fridge since air cannot remove the heat fast enough from the CPU in order to compensate for the higher load.

Take any CPU and go over the CPUs max spec voltage by about .1v and see how long it lasts. In my opinion, the guy is an idiot for not knowing the max sustainable VID of a CPU he is reviewing and OCing.

More like seven and guess which one died.
[flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/6qpqm7v9cn0[/flash]

Oh God. Good times. Back in the days when Tom ruled the land.

I find it funny that for the same amount of time with no heat sink that a Netburst, or by other people "Heatburst" CPU lasted. Kinda makes the claim not work.

yet the AMD Athlons hit 300c+ and smoke. Then again back in the day K7 was a pretty hot running chip......

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.

Gulftown is set for Q1..... its still Q1. As far as why no quads, no one knows. It could be any reason. Possibly that Intel plans to fdo a more developed 32nm quad setup later this year or will just save it for Westmere. Then again if anything maybe they are producing them in bulk so they can flood the market with so many at a cheap price and really hurt AMD........

As for the 32nm, as far as I can see its great. Lower stock clock voltages (all the way to .65v which AFG would love), better overclocking from actual people who know more than just upping the voltage like the reviewer did and pretty damn good performance.

As for SOI, 22nm is not SOI. Intel already has working SRAM and probably has been testing CPU designs at this point. So why would you need to switch if itts working great thus far?

16nm might have something new. But SOI isn't the only answer. Intel found out about HK/MG before anyone else whats to say they are not working on a new process for 16nm and lower before anyone else?

 

[Chad Boga]

Gulftown is set for Q1..... its still Q1. As far as why no quads, no one knows. It could be any reason. Possibly that Intel plans to fdo a more developed 32nm quad setup later this year or will just save it for Westmere. Then again if anything maybe they are producing them in bulk so they can flood the market with so many at a cheap price and really hurt AMD........

Intel are using 32nm for their highest ASP segments, Server and Mobile.

With cooler running i7's in the form of Lynnfield introduced in only September of last year, 32nm Quad seems unneeded at this point(from Intel's perspective), and the first 32nm Quad will supposedly be Sandy Bridge, which also happens at a time that Intel will have more 32nm fabs online.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Intel are using 32nm for their highest ASP segments, Server and Mobile.

With cooler running i7's in the form of Lynnfield introduced in only September of last year, 32nm Quad seems unneeded at this point(from Intel's perspective), and the first 32nm Quad will supposedly be Sandy Bridge, which also happens at a time that Intel will have more 32nm fabs online.

Didnt the innernets just get flooded with gushing replies on Intels excellent sales?
Now, explain to me again why those 32nm quads wouldnt be welcome?

 

[Chad Boga]

Now, explain to me again why those 32nm quads wouldnt be welcome?

Sure, right after you give your fearless prediction in which Qtr AMD's 32nm products will be available to be purchased by the general public.

You claimed AMD had shortened the process gap to Intel, so when I asked you this question TWICE before, you slinked off into the dark like a coward.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Ive said they stand a good chance of this happening, and times still on my side, so whos slinking? And who here is really trying to pound their chest?
If their 32 comes out this year at all, theyve made up some time, so, give it time, theres an excellent chance of it happening
Samples are out, so it just depends on how ell they go, their testing started last year, so we may all be surprised with a nice pull in

 

[Chad Boga]

Ive said they stand a good chance of this happening, and times still on my side, so whos slinking? And who here is really trying to pound their chest?
If their 32 comes out this year at all, theyve made up some time, so, give it time, theres an excellent chance of it happening

There is virtually ZERO chance of AMD having 32nm products available for the general public to buy this year.

At best AMD may announce that they have started shipping 32nm to OEM's, for a Q1 2010 general availability.

However I am predicting that AMD's first 32nm products won't be available till Q2 2010 and that they will not have made up any time on process, but instead gone backwards even further.

When I asked you this question before, you refused to answer, so you were slinking.


Now as to your question about 32nm Quads, Intel doesn't yet have the fab capacity to meet every segment of the market, so they are starting on the ones that are either the most profitable or most strategically important.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Id also say, Intel not allowing its customers product in these times of investigations of controlling markets, slowing competition etc, it doesnt seem wise to do this, as, just with all the gushing comment on sales, they certainly could sell the 32nm quads, no problemo.
Offering up excuses for a company that can make decent sales and parts, as to their unknown delivery, well, it sounds just that, excuses.
Give us those 32nm quads, Im sure people here would welcome them fully, and may be resentful for having to wait, as Intel does....what? Polish their nails?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

There is virtually ZERO chance of AMD having 32nm products available for the general public to buy this year.

At best AMD may announce that they have started shipping 32nm to OEM's, for a Q1 2010 general availability.

However I am predicting that AMD's first 32nm products won't be available till Q2 2010 and that they will not have made up any time on process, but instead gone backwards even further.

When I asked you this question before, you refused to answer, so you were slinking.


Now as to your question about 32nm Quads, Intel doesn't yet have the fab capacity to meet every segment of the market, so they are starting on the ones that are either the most profitable or most strategically important.

Ok, time will tell on AMDs 32nm, lets see.
As for Intels expediency, Im sure theres no one here that really cares,and would much rather just have those quads.
The 32nm duals havnt shown much, they seemed under powered, priced too high and they did experience a vlowout, no matter what excuses are used, and jimmy and whoever who wants to slam Cleeve can just go bite a big one, as hes been ocing just fine for quit some time, and yes, he does know what hes doing.
Now, we have alllll these fabs, but cant supply us with quads?
What would happen now if all the sudden, Dell comes along and orders tons of em?
Hmmmm, maybe theyre capacity constrained, and cant deliver? Or, is it because theyre Intel they TELL their customers what theyll get when Intel wants them to get it?
I could really care less if anyone thinks AMD is going to lose ground on process timing, and it wasnt what my comment was about, and tho Ive been dragged back to it, avoiding a obvious Intel capacity problem, again, Ill say we will see

 

[Chad Boga]

Give us those 32nm quads, Im sure people here would welcome them fully, and may be resentful for having to wait, as Intel does....what? Polish their nails?

Do you think when a company with multiple fabs introduces a new process, every one of those fabs gets converted at the same time?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Do you think I ever said that? Do you think that offering a full compliment of cpus is the right thing to do for customers?
Your comments, and my comments on them, point to you excusing this action, which isnt excusable from the worlds leader in cpus.
People have been waiting for these cpus long enough. You know this, and its only a matter of Intels choices here, or, is Intel that incapable? TSMC not only does differing processes, but different custoemrs as well, and all aspects of the market, or markets besides.
When ATI orders their low end parts, TSMC does it, same for nVidia.
These are excuses, and certain fabs should be able to do multi cpu variants, and thats more an answer to your question than what I think.
Do you think GF or TSMC will only be doing 32nm? Or 28nm? Isnt Intel up to snuff?
You can try to explain it away all you want, but in the end, Intels decided this is how they want it, and the customers just have to wait. Thats the truth here, and not rubbing Intels belly by saying they are doing it because of margins etc, seems they have plenty of margins, not enough 32nm cpus

 

[jimmysmitty]

Id also say, Intel not allowing its customers product in these times of investigations of controlling markets, slowing competition etc, it doesnt seem wise to do this, as, just with all the gushing comment on sales, they certainly could sell the 32nm quads, no problemo.
Offering up excuses for a company that can make decent sales and parts, as to their unknown delivery, well, it sounds just that, excuses.
Give us those 32nm quads, Im sure people here would welcome them fully, and may be resentful for having to wait, as Intel does....what? Polish their nails?

I actually think what intel is doing is a smarter move than pushing out only a high end 32nm chip. Right now they have their 45nm C2Qs out and Core i5/i7 that do great and have no 100% full competative alternate performance wise while their low to mid end has older products that are going to struggle against what AMD has.

So instead of pushing 32nm quads out of their FABs they have dual cores which are mainly for the business, low-mid end and mobile sector. This not only helps compete in the low to mid sector because on a per clock basis, Core i3/i5 creams Athlon/Phenom II X2 and Core 2 Duo but it also opens up the business market in a time when a lot of them will be doing a upgrade cycle. Most upgraded to Core 2 and run with the E6300. I bet a lot will go to the Core i3 for the system performance upgrades as well as lower system costs.

In the mobile market it will only widen the gap that Intel alreayd has over AMD. Right now AMD does have some low power CPUs but they also lack performance. Core i3 itself will use less power and allow for better battery life in the mobile market while giving a performance boost and considering that Windows 7 is rating the onboard IGP pretty high, satisfy the casual gamers a lot.

BTW I looked into building a system for my fiance and TBH, the one I came up with for a Core i3 was not too bad in price really:

Intel Core i3-530 Clarkdale 2.93GHz LGA 1156 73W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Model BX80616I3530 - Retail
ASUS P7H55-M PRO LGA 1156 Intel H55 HDMI Micro ATX Intel Motherboard - Retail
-Combo for $194.98

SAPPHIRE 100245HDMI Radeon HD 4850 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card - Retail
$99.99

Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3320418AS 320GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
2 for $99.98

G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9D-4GBRL - Retail
$84.98

Total is $479.94 And free shipping. Already have the case, PSU, CD drive and such.

That compared to her current P4 system would be killer and it has a nice GPU even though she doesn't play very intensive games. Sad thing is it will be better than mine cuz it can go up to a Core i7 quad while mine is stuck at Core 2 Quad.

 

[Chad Boga]

Do you think I ever said that? Do you think that offering a full compliment of cpus is the right thing to do for customers?
Your comments, and my comments on them, point to you excusing this action, which isnt excusable from the worlds leader in cpus.
People have been waiting for these cpus long enough. You know this, and its only a matter of Intels choices here, or, is Intel that incapable? TSMC not only does differing processes, but different custoemrs as well, and all aspects of the market, or markets besides.
When ATI orders their low end parts, TSMC does it, same for nVidia.
These are excuses, and certain fabs should be able to do multi cpu variants, and thats more an answer to your question than what I think.
Do you think GF or TSMC will only be doing 32nm? Or 28nm? Isnt Intel up to snuff?
You can try to explain it away all you want, but in the end, Intels decided this is how they want it, and the customers just have to wait. Thats the truth here, and not rubbing Intels belly by saying they are doing it because of margins etc, seems they have plenty of margins, not enough 32nm cpus

What an inane collection of "points".

Intel's roadmap for at least the previous 12 months showed no 32nm Quads at this point, so no one should be surprised.

You may as well be complaining that Intel don't give their CPU's away at no cost, such an argument isn't much worse than what you have stated.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

What an inane collection of "points".

Intel's roadmap for at least the previous 12 months showed no 32nm Quads at this point, so no one should be surprised.

You may as well be complaining that Intel don't give their CPU's away at no cost, such an argument isn't much worse than what you have stated.

Let me quantify my points.
You just got thru saying how superior Intel is in their process, and, at thre same time trying to play down their inability to make quads at 32nm.
Now, since many a fan has come here and beat their chests about Intels superiority on process, its time we the customer demand more.
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?
So, before going off inane comments on my comments, think before defending Intels abilities as being soooooo great, all the while excusing them from delivering what the people want.
If this point doesnt make sense, then maybe its something more than this?

 

[archibael]

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.

 

[Chad Boga]

Let me quantify my points.

Good luck.

You just got thru saying how superior Intel is in their process

No I didn't. I said they were ahead in introducing a new process technology.

and, at thre same time trying to play down their inability to make quads at 32nm.

Choosing not to, is not the same as inability to.

After all, they will have 32nm Hex cores out long before they have 32nm Quads.

Now, since many a fan has come here and beat their chests about Intels superiority on process, its time we the customer demand more.
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?
So, before going off inane comments on my comments, think before defending Intels abilities as being soooooo great, all the while excusing them from delivering what the people want.
If this point doesnt make sense, then maybe its something more than this?

It's not often one encounters dribble of this "quality".

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Good luck.

You just got thru saying how superior Intel is in their process

No I didn't. I said they were ahead in introducing a new process technology.

and, at thre same time trying to play down their inability to make quads at 32nm.

Choosing not to, is not the same as inability to.

After all, they will have 32nm Hex cores out long before they have 32nm Quads.

Now, since many a fan has come here and beat their chests about Intels superiority on process, its time we the customer demand more.
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?
So, before going off inane comments on my comments, think before defending Intels abilities as being soooooo great, all the while excusing them from delivering what the people want.
If this point doesnt make sense, then maybe its something more than this?

It's not often one encounters dribble of this "quality".

No, you said their process was not only ahead, but even getting better, thus superior, we all saw it Chad, we know what it meant.

So, it all comes down to greed. I do understand it all, and even why, which are 2 different things.
Its not Intels inability, never was. Its not whether a roadmap here or there or tic tock this or that, it all comes down to money.
We as enthusiasts dont really give a rip, we want our quads, and of course, it could be argued that AMDs hex cores will show a decent amount of competition, and thats why we will see Intels Hex as well before the quads, thus stumping the competitions strategy, but theres alot of enthusiasts that want 32nm quads, period.
Instead of delivering them, Intel has chosen this path, and tho my words are different than your words, they really mean the same thing. Im just including the costomers POV, at least from a enthusiasts POV.
Try convincing people "we can make duals (which only some will want), we can make hex cores (which even fewer will want), but the rest of you, well, you have to wait for your quads" that this is a good strategy for them.

 

[jennyh]

Of course it's about greed. Intel is no longer a company based on progression, but on making money. This will be part of their downfall.

Their entire strategy is based around making them more money, which they then put into bribery and other countermeasures to ensure they stay ahead of AMD.

They treat their customers like idiots, and they should do, because they are right. They know the same people who bought i7 will buy Sandy Bridge at inflated prices. That is why there are no 32nm quads right now.

Business gets the laughable Clarkdales, with vendor lock-in of course.
Budget gets the terrible G6950, having to buy a new 1156 mobo of course.
Mainstream is stuck with the old tech which is no better than the competition.
Enthusiast is so overpriced that even enthusiasts baulk at it. It does however create a nice halo effect, making those who buy Clarkdales and Pentiums think they have 'the best' even though they are awful.

That is a 99% accurate summary of intels current cpu's, and business plan. It is based entirely around having a low volume halo product and selling rubbish to the rest, and it works because most people are clueless about it, simply assuming that because intel are 'the best' at the very top, they must be the best at any price point.

 

[pausert20]

Let me quantify my points.

1) You just got thru saying how superior Intel is in their process, and, at there same time trying to play down their inability to make quads at 32nm.

2) Now, since many a fan has come here and beat their chests about Intel's superiority on process, its time we the customer demand more.
Its their tic tock strategy that's been changed here, and even that some will deny. When were the 45nm quads released? Hasn't it been 2 years? Don't we see the duals? Shouldn't we the customer demand better from the CPU leader here?

3) So, before going off inane comments on my comments, think before defending Intel's abilities as being soooooo great, all the while excusing them from delivering what the people want.

4) If this point doesn't make sense, then maybe its something more than this?

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?"

 

[Chad Boga]

Of course it's about greed. Intel is no longer a company based on progression, but on making money. This will be part of their downfall.

Congratulations on making one of the most idiotic comments ever to appear on any forum.

Intel's desire to make money and/or progress is no different now to any time in its existence, suggesting that things have changed in this regard, just outs one as mentally unstable.

They treat their customers like idiots, and they should do, because they are right.

Perhaps if you hadn't been so vocal about buying a Q6600, Intel would have adopted a different approach.

Business gets the laughable Clarkdales, with vendor lock-in of course.
Budget gets the terrible G6950, having to buy a new 1156 mobo of course.
Mainstream is stuck with the old tech which is no better than the competition.
Enthusiast is so overpriced that even enthusiasts baulk at it. It does however create a nice halo effect, making those who buy Clarkdales and Pentiums think they have 'the best' even though they are awful.

That is a 99% accurate summary of intels current cpu's, and business plan.

That is a 100% load of BULLSH|T

 

[jennyh]

Never seen so many idiots in all my life, oh wait no it's just Chad being an idiot over and over, giving the impression of multiple idiots.

 

[Chad Boga]

Never seen so many idiots in all my life, oh wait no it's just Chad being an idiot over and over, giving the impression of multiple idiots.

Jenny,
Just because your mental illness makes you think that AMD loves you, is no reason to lash out at your intellectual superiors.

 

[jennyh]

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

 

[Chad Boga]

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

When you look at them, does it have AMD saying to you "Jenny, you are such a beautiful sensual woman, defend me at any and all cost to your sanity and reputation and we will be soulmates forever". :lol: