How did AMD let itself fall so far behind?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
W

wooodman

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2006
17
0
18,510
Since the time AMD's first Athlon hit the shelves, they were able to win - and keep - the performance crown over arch-enemy Intel. AMD's products were (for the most part) faster, more efficient, less power-hungry, and yet cheaper than Intel's. They won market share accordingly.

But wait: didn't they know Intel would strike back? Didn't they know Intel would pour its massive R&D resources into a new product? Weren't we all sitting here for months and months reading about Intel's fabulous new C2D architecture?

And what did AMD have to counter Intel? Nothing. What wonderful new CPU has AMD been working on over these past 4 years? Zippo. What world-beating product does AMD have up its sleeve? Bupkiss. Suddenly AMD is 1-2 years behind Intel, and it's only going to get worse.

How could this be? They had the superior CPU. They had the advantage. How could they sit there and do nothing knowing that Intel was feverishly working to bury them?

It must be like a nightmare happening in slow motion for AMD, but it's one they brought upon themselves. I'm not an AMD fanboy, but I am a fan of competition. Looks like that will be lacking for the foreseeable future. Kudos to Intel for innovating so aggresively. It's completely beyond me how AMD could not have seen this coming. This topic may (or may not) have played itself to death already in this forum, but I'll post it anyway.
 
Since the time AMD's first Athlon hit the shelves, they were able to win - and keep - the performance crown over arch-enemy Intel. AMD's products were (for the most part) faster, more efficient, less power-hungry, and yet cheaper than Intel's. They won market share accordingly.

But wait: didn't they know Intel would strike back? Didn't they know Intel would pour its massive R&D resources into a new product? Weren't we all sitting here for months and months reading about Intel's fabulous new C2D architecture?

And what did AMD have to counter Intel? Nothing. What wonderful new CPU has AMD been working on over these past 4 years? Zippo. What world-beating product does AMD have up its sleeve? Bupkiss. Suddenly AMD is 1-2 years behind Intel, and it's only going to get worse.

How could this be? They had the superior CPU. They had the advantage. How could they sit there and do nothing knowing that Intel was feverishly working to bury them?

It must be like a nightmare happening in slow motion for AMD, but it's one they brought upon themselves. I'm not an AMD fanboy, but I am a fan of competition. Looks like that will be lacking for the foreseeable future. Kudos to Intel for innovating so aggresively. It's completely beyond me how AMD could not have seen this coming. This topic may (or may not) have played itself to death already in this forum, but I'll post it anyway.
Click to expand...
Hehe...bupkiss. :tongue:

On a serious note, AMD does have a competitor to Core 2 in the works, and it's called K8L. No one's seen it or anything, but hey, apparently it's going to be good. The keyword here is apparently... but let's keep our fingers crossed. An Intel-only market would be a nightmare.
 
Since the time AMD's first Athlon hit the shelves, they were able to win - and keep - the performance crown over arch-enemy Intel. AMD's products were (for the most part) faster, more efficient, less power-hungry, and yet cheaper than Intel's. They won market share accordingly.

But wait: didn't they know Intel would strike back? Didn't they know Intel would pour its massive R&D resources into a new product? Weren't we all sitting here for months and months reading about Intel's fabulous new C2D architecture?

And what did AMD have to counter Intel? Nothing. What wonderful new CPU has AMD been working on over these past 4 years? Zippo. What world-beating product does AMD have up its sleeve? Bupkiss. Suddenly AMD is 1-2 years behind Intel, and it's only going to get worse.

How could this be? They had the superior CPU. They had the advantage. How could they sit there and do nothing knowing that Intel was feverishly working to bury them?

It must be like a nightmare happening in slow motion for AMD, but it's one they brought upon themselves. I'm not an AMD fanboy, but I am a fan of competition. Looks like that will be lacking for the foreseeable future. Kudos to Intel for innovating so aggresively. It's completely beyond me how AMD could not have seen this coming. This topic may (or may not) have played itself to death already in this forum, but I'll post it anyway.
Click to expand...


Arch-enemy? These are companies not governments or superhoeroes and villains.

Just like nVidia leap frog each other every 6 months CPUs will follow the same rule. Do you think it's easy or cheap to create a new architecture?
 
Do you think it's easy or cheap to create a new architecture?
Click to expand...

No of course not, but AMD had several years to accomplish this and (more importantly) they had the advantage over Intel, so why didn't they do it? They could have raked in their $$$ selling ever-tweaked Athlons while working on something new from the ground up. Perhaps their engineers are unionized (<= lame attempt at joke)
 
Arch-enemy? These are companies not governments or superhoeroes and villains.
Click to expand...

Jerry Sanders begs to differ. No one hates intel more than him. And despite Hector now being in charge, Sanders still plays a big role over there.

Just like nVidia leap frog each other every 6 months CPUs will follow the same rule. Do you think it's easy or cheap to create a new architecture?
Click to expand...

The only problem with that statement is AMD has been (essentially) using the same core since June 2005... over 18 months now. The only updates have been a new socket, ddr-2 support, and 65nm. None of which have significantly improved performance. I'm worried the Athlon line is going to turn into another "Pentium 4" line.

Still... to be fair, it took intel just as long to make core 2 as it's taking AMD to make K8L. When K8L arrives, I believe it'll be awesome. However, AMD's going to be in a little trouble fiscally until then. We've already seen what Core 2 did to Q4 for AMD...
 
I think, they just happen to get complacent with the K8 architecture. Just like Intel did with the Netburts, and it came back to bite them in the butt. It is the same situation almost.
 
Intel has had the lead for a few months, oppose to AMD who had the lead for a few years. It seems like everyone is ready to put the nail in the coffin of AMD
 
Back in the day intel used the megahurtz strategy to put the kybosh on a surging amd more than once.

Now, its large L2's to increase performance and Intel flexing manufacturing capacity muscle. Sure the new core of the new cpu from intel is better than the previous pentium but its the increased L2 that gives it the gas to pass amd.

Its a smart strategy move by Intel. Fabs take longer to build than processors do to tweak (generally but not always mind you).

AMD can't just pop up the L2 or add a bunch of L3 to compensate or they'd lose to much manufacturing capacity and lose to much market share(what they are really after in the long run).

In fact amd last year made a strategic desicion to NOT follow intel by transitioning from 2mg to 1mg L2(512k per core) on their main desktop line. This allowed them a smaller die otherwise and thus more manufacturing capacity. Side note: the extra space, % wise, on the die the 2mg L2 versions costs amd seems very excessive compared to intel. Hope they're addressing that one.

Extra tweaking time and adding L3 to the next gen are signs, to me at least, that they are having to redouble their efforts due to the fact that even the 2mg L2 version of the core2 is a beating them...not across the board but enough to put a halt (& possible reversal) to their market share gains going forward.

It a tough outlook but not as tough as some think. In a bit of irony, one of the old Intel fan boy arguements against amd, when amd chips ruled, is now a reality keeping AMD orders flowing when most suspected they'd be half dead: There is no killer app on intels side right now. There is no game or process or whatever, for mainstreet desktops mind you, that amd chips can't do well ... ie would really push the avg joe non-techie to 'must have' Intel chips.
 
Back in the day intel used the megahurtz strategy to put the kybosh on a surging amd more than once.

Now, its large L2's to increase performance and Intel flexing manufacturing capacity muscle. Sure the new core of the new cpu from intel is better than the previous pentium but its the increased L2 that gives it the gas to pass amd.

Its a smart strategy move by Intel. Fabs take longer to build than processors do to tweak (generally but not always mind you).

AMD can't just pop up the L2 or add a bunch of L3 to compensate or they'd lose to much manufacturing capacity and lose to much market share(what they are really after in the long run).

In fact amd last year made a strategic desicion to NOT follow intel by transitioning from 2mg to 1mg L2(512k per core) on their main desktop line. This allowed them a smaller die otherwise and thus more manufacturing capacity. Side note: the extra space, % wise, on the die the 2mg L2 versions costs amd seems very excessive compared to intel. Hope they're addressing that one.

Extra tweaking time and adding L3 to the next gen are signs, to me at least, that they are having to redouble their efforts due to the fact that even the 2mg L2 version of the core2 is a beating them...not across the board but enough to put a halt (& possible reversal) to their market share gains going forward.

It a tough outlook but not as tough as some think. In a bit of irony, one of the old Intel fan boy arguements against amd, when amd chips ruled, is now a reality keeping AMD orders flowing when most suspected they'd be half dead: There is no killer app on intels side right now. There is no game or process or whatever, for mainstreet desktops mind you, that amd chips can't do well ... ie would really push the avg joe non-techie to 'must have' Intel chips.
Click to expand...

Actually AMD is going to throw a ton of L3 cache on their processors. It's going to kill their manufacturing capacity, but apparently it's what they need to do for Barcelona to work well.
 
"How could this be? They had the superior CPU. They had the advantage. How could they sit there and do nothing knowing that Intel was feverishly working to bury them?"


Its easy, when you are at the top, you focus on making your current product a little better and a little cheaper... not changing a good thing. It is hard to see competition beeting you when you feel you can't be beeten.

I don't know all that much about CPU architecture, but I do know business management strategy.

Let me ask you, did you think that the Core 2 Duo's would dominate the market as they are right now back when they first announced that they were working on it? I bet AMD thought it was going to be another power hungry overheating whore like the rest of the line up. Intel has been working on this a long time, it will take AMD a little time to pull up their granny panties and respond.

I could be way off base as I have no idea what kind of resources and man-power goes into producing a processor... but thats my 2 cents.
 
Arch-enemy? These are companies not governments or superhoeroes and villains.
Click to expand...

I think arch-enemy would be a fair description. Intel, AMD. Coke, Pepsi. Inspector Gadget, Dr. Claw.

I disagree. If more people put a posiive spin on the COMPETITION, maybe there wouldn't be flame wars here.

I have never heard of Coke called Pepsi's "Arch-Enemy." These are just CPU companies not the voice of morality or justice.
 
Even though AMD is gonna release K8L 'soon' *snigger* intel has penryn coming.

Some people even think that penryn will be available before K8L.

How embarassing it would be for AMD if intel were manufacturing and making available 45nm processors before they got K8L ready...
 
Since the time AMD's first Athlon hit the shelves, they were able to win - and keep - the performance crown over arch-enemy Intel. AMD's products were (for the most part) faster, more efficient, less power-hungry, and yet cheaper than Intel's. They won market share accordingly.

But wait: didn't they know Intel would strike back? Didn't they know Intel would pour its massive R&D resources into a new product? Weren't we all sitting here for months and months reading about Intel's fabulous new C2D architecture?

And what did AMD have to counter Intel? Nothing. What wonderful new CPU has AMD been working on over these past 4 years? Zippo. What world-beating product does AMD have up its sleeve? Bupkiss. Suddenly AMD is 1-2 years behind Intel, and it's only going to get worse.

How could this be? They had the superior CPU. They had the advantage. How could they sit there and do nothing knowing that Intel was feverishly working to bury them?

It must be like a nightmare happening in slow motion for AMD, but it's one they brought upon themselves. I'm not an AMD fanboy, but I am a fan of competition. Looks like that will be lacking for the foreseeable future. Kudos to Intel for innovating so aggresively. It's completely beyond me how AMD could not have seen this coming. This topic may (or may not) have played itself to death already in this forum, but I'll post it anyway.
Click to expand...
Dude, this is just BS. Why did Intel take years to beat AMD? They were the kings and AMD came in and kicked their arses for years on end.

Well, the answer is: you can't just pull remarkably fast/cheap CPUs out of your a$$. It's not like AMD could have seen Intel coming up with the Core architecture and said "oops, guess we have to double our performance next month to really smash Intel". These things take time, and it's only natural for Intel to take the performance crown back from time to time... they will probably end up trading blows like nVidia and ATI. Large organizations aren't generally known for their agility.

Anyway, try to be mature about things. 😀
 
Arch-enemy? These are companies not governments or superhoeroes and villains.
Click to expand...

I think arch-enemy would be a fair description. Intel, AMD. Coke, Pepsi. Inspector Gadget, Dr. Claw.

I disagree. If more people put a posiive spin on the COMPETITION, maybe there wouldn't be flame wars here.

I have never heard of Coke called Pepsi's "Arch-Enemy." These are just CPU companies not the voice of morality or justice.
For the first time ever, I do kind of agree with you here Baron. I think people get too emotional over these corporations. But, if you've ever worked for an organization in direct competition with another organization, you'll know that the corporate culture is what breeds this kind of "super hero vs arch enemy" point of view. I used to work in IT for a home improvement store, and when you worked there you pretty much say "home depot is the devil". So, I can see where these people are coming from at least. 😀
 
I think you guys need to think about this logically. If your company only had a market cap of 9.83 billion and you were going up against a company with 119.83 billion in market cap, it is inevitable that you are going to loose somewhere.

AMD obviously knew that they were going to be overtaken. They probably took their profits and reinvested it into those new fabs that are announced so they can make more processors. Even if you had the best product out there, if you are constrained by manufacturing capability, then it's all a moot point.

I'm sure their plan was to increase market share as far as they could and try to hold on. Of course they'll lose some market share, but out of all this, they will have new FABs ready in the future when they release a competitive architect.
 
I think you guys need to think about this logically. If your company only had a market cap of 9.83 billion and you were going up against a company with 119.83 billion in market cap, it is inevitable that you are going to loose somewhere.

AMD obviously knew that they were going to be overtaken. They probably took their profits and reinvested it into those new fabs that are announced so they can make more processors. Even if you had the best product out there, if you are constrained by manufacturing capability, then it's all a moot point.

I'm sure their plan was to increase market share as far as they could and try to hold on. Of course they'll lose some market share, but out of all this, they will have new FABs ready in the future when they release a competitive architect.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. While their CPUs haven't been tops for a few months, AMD has been growing tremendously as a company regardless. I love when people say AMD is on its last leg, like they haven't been in far worse spots before.
 
However they really are falling behind.
Their roadmaps not showing things to be too good atm whereas intel have Penryn this year, Nehalem within the next 2 years then Gesher 2 years after that.
And Gesher is supposed to be an integrated CPU/GPU a la AMD Fusion.

*Woop 100h post*
 
Dude, this is just BS. Why did Intel take years to beat AMD? They were the kings and AMD came in and kicked their arses for years on end.

Well, the answer is: you can't just pull remarkably fast/cheap CPUs out of your a$$. It's not like AMD could have seen Intel coming up with the Core architecture and said "oops, guess we have to double our performance next month to really smash Intel". These things take time, and it's only natural for Intel to take the performance crown back from time to time... they will probably end up trading blows like nVidia and ATI. Large organizations aren't generally known for their agility.

Anyway, try to be mature about things. 😀
Click to expand...
It certainly seemed like that's what Intel did with Conroe at the spring IDF. That's why so many didn't believe it, or thought the benchmarks were fixed, etc.
 
I swear to god I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this crap. AMD has NOT been sitting on their butts just letting the money roll in. They have NOT been rolling around naked in a bed of money laughing their heads off.

And what did AMD have to counter Intel? Nothing. What wonderful new CPU has AMD been working on over these past 4 years?
Click to expand...

THEY'VE BEEN MAKING K7s AND K8s!

For the last four years they have been making the athlons. They've shrunk from 180nm, to 130nm, down to 90nm, and are currently working on 65nm. They went from slot A, to Sockets 462/A, 754, 939/940, to AM2. They have added IMC, changed L2 cache sizes, added instructions (SSE2, SSE3, etc) and have been making many improvements to their cores. Why do you Vern still like to bitch about how little they've done??? (ohhh, "not" vern... sorry.)

I'm sure they saw C2D coming like the rest of us. I'm sure they are working on new CPUs. Give them a chance to create something new. As others have pointed out, Intel ran with NB a lot longer then they should have, lets give AMD awhile to see what they can come up with.

P.S. Lets not forget that AMD is in Dell machines now, have bought ATI, developed Hypertransports, etc. These are hardly the actions of a company sitting around doing nothing. They have existed and competed with Intel since the days of the 286, I doubt they are going away any time soon.
 
However they really are falling behind.
Their roadmaps not showing things to be too good atm whereas intel have Penryn this year, Nehalem within the next 2 years then Gesher 2 years after that.
And Gesher is supposed to be an integrated CPU/GPU a la AMD Fusion.

*Woop 100h post*
Click to expand...


Nice of you to discount their upcoming architecture and platform shifts without seeing a single benchmark. Very narrow sighted, sir. Penryn is just a process shrink with an extra goody or two tossed in. While I expect it to allow for some very good clockspeed scaling and further energy efficiency, I don't expect miracles. Don't expect Core 2 all over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom