- Status
[citation][nom]ScrewySqrl[/nom]perhaps AMD has passed its peak and can no longer compete with Intel. we saw this in the 1990s with Cyrix, which made 386 and 486 chips that could compete with Intel's 80x86 line, but fell down after the 150 MHz point, then vanished.AMD bashed Intel aside with the Athlon series in 2005. But ever since every iteration is falling behind. the FX is a terrible chip as a flagship. Trinity is supposed to be better (especially with improvements to integer calculation), but it will, even if fixed, be a generation behind ivy bridge, maybe 2 if it still only compete with i7-920 of so.that far behind is a sign of dying.[/citation]
untill recently, and i even say now, amd still provides great value for their chips.
a 955 black costs 125$ and 965 costs 130
an i5 quad core at the lowest costs 190 with a 2500k costing 210
and an i7 costing 300$
id still go phenom over the i series as most things that the i series excels at can be off loaded to the gpu, and in many places the phenom option is only 10% slower. here lets do it this way
phenom 955 at 125, i5 at 190 and i7 at 300
for it to be wroth the cost, the i5 would need to be better than the 955 in everything by 53% and the i7 would need to be better by 240%
now to qualify this a bit, my only requirements for this were a quad core cpu, i went with the 955 because its an unlocked cpu, and to be fair its also the one i have, the i5 and i7 both needed to be quad core, and 3ghz, the personal minimum, in the i7 case, there wasnt anything lower than 300 and sandybridge, and under 3ghz.
untill recently, and i even say now, amd still provides great value for their chips.
a 955 black costs 125$ and 965 costs 130
an i5 quad core at the lowest costs 190 with a 2500k costing 210
and an i7 costing 300$
id still go phenom over the i series as most things that the i series excels at can be off loaded to the gpu, and in many places the phenom option is only 10% slower. here lets do it this way
phenom 955 at 125, i5 at 190 and i7 at 300
for it to be wroth the cost, the i5 would need to be better than the 955 in everything by 53% and the i7 would need to be better by 240%
now to qualify this a bit, my only requirements for this were a quad core cpu, i went with the 955 because its an unlocked cpu, and to be fair its also the one i have, the i5 and i7 both needed to be quad core, and 3ghz, the personal minimum, in the i7 case, there wasnt anything lower than 300 and sandybridge, and under 3ghz.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
I don't think AMD should be entering the mobile space. This statement comes from the fact that AMD does not have resources it can freely spend on side projects. AMD is much, much smaller than the giant called Intel and even that said giant cannot break into the market.
While some advocate buying out another semiconductor company with ARM license, such as TI, I'd still advise against that. AMD is still bleeding from the ATI acquisition in 2006. That was a huge purchase that in the end made AMD better - but also at the same time, between 2006 and 2011 AMD came close to collapse many times, I think.
While some advocate buying out another semiconductor company with ARM license, such as TI, I'd still advise against that. AMD is still bleeding from the ATI acquisition in 2006. That was a huge purchase that in the end made AMD better - but also at the same time, between 2006 and 2011 AMD came close to collapse many times, I think.
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]I don't think AMD should be entering the mobile space. This statement comes from the fact that AMD does not have resources it can freely spend on side projects. AMD is much, much smaller than the giant called Intel and even that said giant cannot break into the market.While some advocate buying out another semiconductor company with ARM license, such as TI, I'd still advise against that. AMD is still bleeding from the ATI acquisition in 2006. That was a huge purchase that in the end made AMD better - but also at the same time, between 2006 and 2011 AMD came close to collapse many times, I think.[/citation]
could always buy an arm license themselves. but that said, amd going into mobile space can make sense with windows 8, as amd would need to make the apu very low watt, and could probably dial the cpu portion way back and still compete with an arm based one, at least at the start. or they could put a suficiant battery in one, and not go for the thinnest and lightest title and have little need to scale back completely.
i believe that amd could be closer to a viable mobile processor than intel.
could always buy an arm license themselves. but that said, amd going into mobile space can make sense with windows 8, as amd would need to make the apu very low watt, and could probably dial the cpu portion way back and still compete with an arm based one, at least at the start. or they could put a suficiant battery in one, and not go for the thinnest and lightest title and have little need to scale back completely.
i believe that amd could be closer to a viable mobile processor than intel.
theuniquegamer
Distinguished
- Sep 7, 2011
- 279
- 0
- 18,790
1)first of all amd should advertise their product properly in media..thats because in our region (India) intel and microsoft and nvidia advertise their products regularly by making road campaigns and tv ads shop ads and so on. but we can't find a single ad or campaign from Amd so people here are always know cpu means intel and gpu means nvidia. They doesn't know that some company AMD exits because they can't find AMD products on local shops or any ad campaign of AMD.If some one want a good AMD product he has to order it from online or from dealer and also service is not provided in the locality for that product.
2)At the second AMD should make a good product architecture i.e. that they have a lot of cpu in similar price range so people get confused which product to buy(here amd phenom ii x4 925 costs more than the 955be and equal to the 965).They also need a good product nomenclature format because people get confused by the names of similar products(IN CASE OF GPUs).
3)They should make products which are more compatible with the present software i.e the software and os should properly utilize its full power(Unlike the bulldozer which is almost useless in the present software and os because they can't use its 8 core or 6 core architecture).
2)At the second AMD should make a good product architecture i.e. that they have a lot of cpu in similar price range so people get confused which product to buy(here amd phenom ii x4 925 costs more than the 955be and equal to the 965).They also need a good product nomenclature format because people get confused by the names of similar products(IN CASE OF GPUs).
3)They should make products which are more compatible with the present software i.e the software and os should properly utilize its full power(Unlike the bulldozer which is almost useless in the present software and os because they can't use its 8 core or 6 core architecture).
[citation][nom]theuniquegamer[/nom]1)first of all amd should advertise their product properly in media..thats because in our region (India) intel and microsoft and nvidia advertise their products regularly by making road campaigns and tv ads shop ads and so on. but we can't find a single ad or campaign from Amd so people here are always know cpu means intel and gpu means nvidia. They doesn't know that some company AMD exits because they can't find AMD products on local shops or any ad campaign of AMD.If some one want a good AMD product he has to order it from online or from dealer and also service is not provided in the locality for that product.2)At the second AMD should make a good product architecture i.e. that they have a lot of cpu in similar price range so people get confused which product to buy(here amd phenom ii x4 925 costs more than the 955be and equal to the 965).They also need a good product nomenclature format because people get confused by the names of similar products(IN CASE OF GPUs). 3)They should make products which are more compatible with the present software i.e the software and os should properly utilize its full power(Unlike the bulldozer which is almost useless in the present software and os because they can't use its 8 core or 6 core architecture).[/citation]
no, they can, its a problem on the way that windows handles the bulldozer that causes a few of the f ups, its why i say wait till thats hammered out in win 8 that will have the advantage of being built for it, like 7 was for the i seriese.
i do believe that the amd being cheaper and more expensive has less to do about them, but more to do with the suppliers not changeing the prices to move product, like how extreme editions of the core2quad still can cost in the 1000$ range, even though they are out done by cheaper processors.
no, they can, its a problem on the way that windows handles the bulldozer that causes a few of the f ups, its why i say wait till thats hammered out in win 8 that will have the advantage of being built for it, like 7 was for the i seriese.
i do believe that the amd being cheaper and more expensive has less to do about them, but more to do with the suppliers not changeing the prices to move product, like how extreme editions of the core2quad still can cost in the 1000$ range, even though they are out done by cheaper processors.
I think AMDs biggest problem is support. Everything is not built for AMD, its built for Intel or Nvidia and AMD complies to that support. With Microsoft changing its development from we support your hardware to you support our software its a bit of a game changer as it has been with the DX10 and DX11 launches. I think Windows 8 will be this game changer for AMD processors as well.
Still AMD faces old problems. Most game companies insist on using antiquated DX9 and .fx shaders. If they got out of 2004 then maybe we would see some more interesting products and see more advantages in AMDs design.
Still AMD faces old problems. Most game companies insist on using antiquated DX9 and .fx shaders. If they got out of 2004 then maybe we would see some more interesting products and see more advantages in AMDs design.
pedro_mann
Distinguished
- Feb 23, 2010
- 143
- 0
- 18,680
Ummmmm. I feel bad for the individuals themselves but was their marketing department actually producing anything? How would this effect customer service? If a company has limited resources, how about axing the guys that make web banners for newegg and hire more engineers? Just thinking what you are mentioning is what they are doing. Just a question: Have you ever dealt with amd customer support? Not really, they are not ram, hd or motherboard manufacturers who's parts go bad and need an RMA. Never had a chip burn out. Never seen an earth shaking amd commercial on tv for that matter either. Read simply cut out the fat so the company can focus on engineering.
enforcer22
Distinguished
- Sep 10, 2006
- 1,692
- 0
- 19,790
[citation][nom]toalan[/nom]nobody buys apple expecting cutting edge hardware, they expect a cutting edge OS and simplicity.[/citation]
I guess they are screwed in all directions then.
I guess they are screwed in all directions then.
The talent base at AMD has been steadily bleeing off since Meyer was pushed out the door. The Chief Architect of Bobcat is gone, their leading systems and infrastructure architect is gone, and many, many of their most talented technologists are gone. Even if AMD's new WIN strategy was implementable, who is left to drive it?
AMD can't hire at the skill level theyw ill need to pull thid off sicne they are viewed as too risky. Resumes are continuing to flow out vs in. And, I don't see they are doing anything to attract the key talent they need to develop ARM processors. In my opinion, too little, too late. There was a time when being an "AMDer" was to be proud. Ruiz pretty much killed that culture. Read seems to at least want to fake it.
AMD can't hire at the skill level theyw ill need to pull thid off sicne they are viewed as too risky. Resumes are continuing to flow out vs in. And, I don't see they are doing anything to attract the key talent they need to develop ARM processors. In my opinion, too little, too late. There was a time when being an "AMDer" was to be proud. Ruiz pretty much killed that culture. Read seems to at least want to fake it.
lilcinw
Distinguished
- Jan 25, 2011
- 833
- 0
- 19,010
I think AMD trying to bull their way into the ARM market would be terrible. Best case: ARM development is assigned to the GPU teams and AMD loses ground to NVidia. Worst case: ARM dev goes to the CPU teams and we don't see a new arch from AMD for 12 years and 2 bankruptcies.
billcat479
Distinguished
- Mar 19, 2006
- 74
- 0
- 18,630
For poor AMD it's always been a uphill battle. And most people are too young or didn't see how AMD has had more problems to deal with from all sides.
Intel on the other hand has had it easy, or at least controlled events because they were in the right place at the right time. So even when AMD came out with a better cpu they were also keeping AMD products as far away from the market like Dell and sure as Sh!t from sites like this one and Anands who gave a nice job looking at the MHZ war that was going on and were hooked on it like everyone else except the designers at AMD. It was all wow, look at the MHZ of the new Pent 4's and so on. Never mind the heat.
It used to drive me nuts seeing such bias. Everyone was bashing AMD over the low clock speed, the 64bit cpu where 32bit was the norm and there was still some 16bit software floating around.
And even after AMD won the lawsuits against intel the damage was done. Intel retained their market share and the court costs were a little itch only. Most of these hardware sites had Intel inside all over the place except for amdzone.com who was giving AMD credit for their new cpu. Hmmm, wonder why, their name maybe?
It also didn't help AMD that when Intel followed suit with AMD and came out with a faster and lower clock cpu it was like a sinking ship that AMD was on. They never got the confidence of the users in time.
Intel got all the praises and the hardware sites gave them the thumbs up saying Intel finally put out a faster cpu than AMD and everyone rushed out to get these new cpus.
AMD never stood a chance. Even though the performance difference at that time was too close to matter unless you bought the horrible expensive rambus memory setup that gave Intel a lead with memory intensive tasks. It never mattered the price difference of the two, AMD never won the user confidence and it was a breaking flood of people going back to Intel (the ones that did give AMD a try that is) and for nothing more than bragging rights. AMD lost the gains they did get, lost the money needed for the super expensive R&D department and could only do minor upgrades from there. And everyone can't figure out why AMD is having a harder time with new cpu's?
When I worked at Intel there was 2 huge buildings. Fab4 and Fab5. One of them was just for R&D. It was Huge. AMD had to split with their fabs which hurt them that much more. It's hard to even picture how many steps it takes to make these chips work. To get all the hundreds of steps right. And this cost is going up like crazy as the size goes down. So, people never really gave AMD the credit until long after when it didn't help AMD. Every performance nut was still glued to the MHZ war that Intel threw out and people bought up into until they did what AMD did and shorten down their pipelines and put more cores into one package. Which was still bashed by Intel until they did it.
It seemed to be about that time people did realize that efficient cpus at lower clock speeds WAS the way to go.
And it still is a joke that people can't figure out why AMD is in it's current state of being. It's at least one good thing that most of the fastest super computers are using AMD chips to this date and is probably what is keeping AMD alive today.
That is their major money income. They can't rely on the general user because they are so easy to be controlled by cute ads and catch phrases. Intel inside.. yuk..
The hardware community on the web took so long to figure out how good AMD was, that their window of opportunity was already gone by the time they accepted it.
And NOW they say, hey AMD, get with it, get a better cpu than intel out there as your flagship. Sorry but that time has come and gone. People won't give Bulldozer a chance because they can only think of what's in front of them now, not what may be in the near future. There just isn't enough information about what AMD is really trying to do so they look at software that is compiled to take advantage of Intel's design and say AMD has a crappy cpu. That at least this site did run some software compiled for it and it's numbers shot up a bit and with a OS that will allow it to work it should go up that much more.
It's so darn stupid to compare this cpu running software that is designed for another type. The hardware sites should be censored for throwing old programs at it because it's obvious it's designed for future software trends.
And the sun revolves around the flat earth too, yeah, it also was thought to be true too.
The race just started and AMD has already lost it because it's easier to not think what will happen if or when software is out that works with AMD's cpu because it's unknown except for the sample programs that were run and it did pretty good, not great but pretty good and in it's price range it will be a good deal when things catch up to it.
But unlike the first of AMDs cpus that were the better choice at the time their new one had to take one path only. AMD just doesn't have the R&D budget to give it everything it could have been. They are stuck doing this in stages.
Because Windows 8 isn't out now no one will know just what this Bulldozer cpu can actually do and the easy path is to just ignore this aspect and buy what tastes good today and let tomorrow worry about it's self.
So with very little forward capable thinkers in the world lets just concern our selves with the past and a little of the present and screw the future.
And if AMD is ignored enough to go out of the picture please oh please don't come around complaining at the crazy high cost of a Intel only universe will be. They were like that when they got established before AMD and Cyrix came along. Even then it took a long time for prices to start dropping with their cpus. Their first step on lower costs were the 486sx market that had it's math coprocessor disabled.
Your average low cost Intel cpu based computer cost around 2,000 to 2,500 and at the time was expensive. Add all the inflation to it and go change your shorts because today it would be huge.
You could buy comparable AMD ones for 1,500.
No one really makes use of much of todays computers total outputs. Any cpu will pretty much do the job. I think I'll take the chance on AMD for a while longer. I have a good idea of what things will be like if AMD goes out of the picture.
They are more than fast enough to do with I want to do, I don't spend all my time doing benchmarks because they are not the real world.
And if AMD can't swing it and bows out of the picture please oh please do NOT come back here complaining about how expensive your next computer will cost you. Just put your foot in your mouth and think you might have prevented the high cost if you had enough foresight to see that future before it happened and gave what ever support to AMD you felt like.
I doubt the government will give AMD a bailout check so if they are gone they will be gone for good.
Give it a little try to see the future direction of software which is going more multi-threaded which may be the reason AMD went so far this way with their design. They sure had no concern for what came out yesterday or today. They only have enough money to take one direction, the future as they see it. It's just that their timing really sucks and no one buys for the future or cares about it much. I guess if they did they would be incapable of dealing with the present.
Think about how boring a world it will be with no AMD or ATI if they can't save their selves. Hardware sites like this one and all the others will go out of business because really there isn't much else that is interesting and who wants to read about I phones and consoles. It will turn back into apple vrs microsoft and nothing interesting will happen worth reading about. Kind of a poetic justice in it's own way. Intel will not be putting out many new cpu's because there is no incentive. They won't have to because they will make the money on higher cpu costs up front. A very boring future.
Maybe a good thing because if people want faster computers they will have to make the software folks stop throwing out way too much bloated programs that is the real problem with speed today anyway.
Intel on the other hand has had it easy, or at least controlled events because they were in the right place at the right time. So even when AMD came out with a better cpu they were also keeping AMD products as far away from the market like Dell and sure as Sh!t from sites like this one and Anands who gave a nice job looking at the MHZ war that was going on and were hooked on it like everyone else except the designers at AMD. It was all wow, look at the MHZ of the new Pent 4's and so on. Never mind the heat.
It used to drive me nuts seeing such bias. Everyone was bashing AMD over the low clock speed, the 64bit cpu where 32bit was the norm and there was still some 16bit software floating around.
And even after AMD won the lawsuits against intel the damage was done. Intel retained their market share and the court costs were a little itch only. Most of these hardware sites had Intel inside all over the place except for amdzone.com who was giving AMD credit for their new cpu. Hmmm, wonder why, their name maybe?
It also didn't help AMD that when Intel followed suit with AMD and came out with a faster and lower clock cpu it was like a sinking ship that AMD was on. They never got the confidence of the users in time.
Intel got all the praises and the hardware sites gave them the thumbs up saying Intel finally put out a faster cpu than AMD and everyone rushed out to get these new cpus.
AMD never stood a chance. Even though the performance difference at that time was too close to matter unless you bought the horrible expensive rambus memory setup that gave Intel a lead with memory intensive tasks. It never mattered the price difference of the two, AMD never won the user confidence and it was a breaking flood of people going back to Intel (the ones that did give AMD a try that is) and for nothing more than bragging rights. AMD lost the gains they did get, lost the money needed for the super expensive R&D department and could only do minor upgrades from there. And everyone can't figure out why AMD is having a harder time with new cpu's?
When I worked at Intel there was 2 huge buildings. Fab4 and Fab5. One of them was just for R&D. It was Huge. AMD had to split with their fabs which hurt them that much more. It's hard to even picture how many steps it takes to make these chips work. To get all the hundreds of steps right. And this cost is going up like crazy as the size goes down. So, people never really gave AMD the credit until long after when it didn't help AMD. Every performance nut was still glued to the MHZ war that Intel threw out and people bought up into until they did what AMD did and shorten down their pipelines and put more cores into one package. Which was still bashed by Intel until they did it.
It seemed to be about that time people did realize that efficient cpus at lower clock speeds WAS the way to go.
And it still is a joke that people can't figure out why AMD is in it's current state of being. It's at least one good thing that most of the fastest super computers are using AMD chips to this date and is probably what is keeping AMD alive today.
That is their major money income. They can't rely on the general user because they are so easy to be controlled by cute ads and catch phrases. Intel inside.. yuk..
The hardware community on the web took so long to figure out how good AMD was, that their window of opportunity was already gone by the time they accepted it.
And NOW they say, hey AMD, get with it, get a better cpu than intel out there as your flagship. Sorry but that time has come and gone. People won't give Bulldozer a chance because they can only think of what's in front of them now, not what may be in the near future. There just isn't enough information about what AMD is really trying to do so they look at software that is compiled to take advantage of Intel's design and say AMD has a crappy cpu. That at least this site did run some software compiled for it and it's numbers shot up a bit and with a OS that will allow it to work it should go up that much more.
It's so darn stupid to compare this cpu running software that is designed for another type. The hardware sites should be censored for throwing old programs at it because it's obvious it's designed for future software trends.
And the sun revolves around the flat earth too, yeah, it also was thought to be true too.
The race just started and AMD has already lost it because it's easier to not think what will happen if or when software is out that works with AMD's cpu because it's unknown except for the sample programs that were run and it did pretty good, not great but pretty good and in it's price range it will be a good deal when things catch up to it.
But unlike the first of AMDs cpus that were the better choice at the time their new one had to take one path only. AMD just doesn't have the R&D budget to give it everything it could have been. They are stuck doing this in stages.
Because Windows 8 isn't out now no one will know just what this Bulldozer cpu can actually do and the easy path is to just ignore this aspect and buy what tastes good today and let tomorrow worry about it's self.
So with very little forward capable thinkers in the world lets just concern our selves with the past and a little of the present and screw the future.
And if AMD is ignored enough to go out of the picture please oh please don't come around complaining at the crazy high cost of a Intel only universe will be. They were like that when they got established before AMD and Cyrix came along. Even then it took a long time for prices to start dropping with their cpus. Their first step on lower costs were the 486sx market that had it's math coprocessor disabled.
Your average low cost Intel cpu based computer cost around 2,000 to 2,500 and at the time was expensive. Add all the inflation to it and go change your shorts because today it would be huge.
You could buy comparable AMD ones for 1,500.
No one really makes use of much of todays computers total outputs. Any cpu will pretty much do the job. I think I'll take the chance on AMD for a while longer. I have a good idea of what things will be like if AMD goes out of the picture.
They are more than fast enough to do with I want to do, I don't spend all my time doing benchmarks because they are not the real world.
And if AMD can't swing it and bows out of the picture please oh please do NOT come back here complaining about how expensive your next computer will cost you. Just put your foot in your mouth and think you might have prevented the high cost if you had enough foresight to see that future before it happened and gave what ever support to AMD you felt like.
I doubt the government will give AMD a bailout check so if they are gone they will be gone for good.
Give it a little try to see the future direction of software which is going more multi-threaded which may be the reason AMD went so far this way with their design. They sure had no concern for what came out yesterday or today. They only have enough money to take one direction, the future as they see it. It's just that their timing really sucks and no one buys for the future or cares about it much. I guess if they did they would be incapable of dealing with the present.
Think about how boring a world it will be with no AMD or ATI if they can't save their selves. Hardware sites like this one and all the others will go out of business because really there isn't much else that is interesting and who wants to read about I phones and consoles. It will turn back into apple vrs microsoft and nothing interesting will happen worth reading about. Kind of a poetic justice in it's own way. Intel will not be putting out many new cpu's because there is no incentive. They won't have to because they will make the money on higher cpu costs up front. A very boring future.
Maybe a good thing because if people want faster computers they will have to make the software folks stop throwing out way too much bloated programs that is the real problem with speed today anyway.
iam2thecrowe
Glorious
- Jul 4, 2010
- 10,590
- 21
- 44,965
amd should scrap its bulldozer project right now. it is obviously seriously flawed. Instead, jump back on your phenom II core and modify and die shrink it.
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]amd should scrap its bulldozer project right now. it is obviously seriously flawed. Instead, jump back on your phenom II core and modify and die shrink it.[/citation]
you arent looking at the benchmarks where the bulldozers revision 1 beats out the higher cost i7, and the many where it sits in between the i7 and i5
and if windows knows the correct way to address the bulldozer cores, there is a chance to even out some of the more craptastic benchmarks, this is the reason i say wait for windows 8. it would be better to retool bulldozer than work on phenom, unless they scrap bulldozer completely and go threads like intel did.
intel has been tooling threads sense before dual core cpus came out, real world and lab. amd has been in labs for the last 5 years will their thread option, and just went into the real world with it. this is the main reason i say wait on revision 1
you arent looking at the benchmarks where the bulldozers revision 1 beats out the higher cost i7, and the many where it sits in between the i7 and i5
and if windows knows the correct way to address the bulldozer cores, there is a chance to even out some of the more craptastic benchmarks, this is the reason i say wait for windows 8. it would be better to retool bulldozer than work on phenom, unless they scrap bulldozer completely and go threads like intel did.
intel has been tooling threads sense before dual core cpus came out, real world and lab. amd has been in labs for the last 5 years will their thread option, and just went into the real world with it. this is the main reason i say wait on revision 1
verbalizer
Distinguished
- May 28, 2010
- 2,930
- 0
- 20,960
when AMD goes out of business, 20 to 30 years later all these AMD chips will be worth thousands of dollars...
Intel will still be around and will probably buy them all up and keep them on display up on the mantel of corporate headquarters with a sign.
remember when..
Intel will still be around and will probably buy them all up and keep them on display up on the mantel of corporate headquarters with a sign.
remember when..
how do you spell Project WIN? l,o,s.... just kidding.
very nice and informative article.
i feel bad that amd aimed llano only at the entry level, if they'd released a few 3+ ghz desktop llanos they could have stood a chance to become amd's flagship cpu. instead amd tried to encompass everything in their 'vision' banner (which is a not a bad idea). afaik fx is also part of amd's 'vision', so i guess that took a bit of a hit.
i assume a lot of people do not realize/deny that if amd markets a successful arm cpu it will eat into amd's own x86 market share first then will attempt to compete with intel's x86 because amd is the number 2, so a closer target. but if the amd-arm cpu/apu is good enough then it'll not be a bad thing (since win 8 will run on arm). and if intel's the one that markets an arm cpu (quite unlikely imo) that will hit amd first, again. not only that, amd's arm cpu/apu might have to compete with nvidia's who has a head start with arm and is amd's gpu rival.
anyway, amd really really needs to be competitve right now. i dread the day when i might have to buy ultra expensive stuff from the only cpu vendor.
very nice and informative article.
i feel bad that amd aimed llano only at the entry level, if they'd released a few 3+ ghz desktop llanos they could have stood a chance to become amd's flagship cpu. instead amd tried to encompass everything in their 'vision' banner (which is a not a bad idea). afaik fx is also part of amd's 'vision', so i guess that took a bit of a hit.
i assume a lot of people do not realize/deny that if amd markets a successful arm cpu it will eat into amd's own x86 market share first then will attempt to compete with intel's x86 because amd is the number 2, so a closer target. but if the amd-arm cpu/apu is good enough then it'll not be a bad thing (since win 8 will run on arm). and if intel's the one that markets an arm cpu (quite unlikely imo) that will hit amd first, again. not only that, amd's arm cpu/apu might have to compete with nvidia's who has a head start with arm and is amd's gpu rival.
anyway, amd really really needs to be competitve right now. i dread the day when i might have to buy ultra expensive stuff from the only cpu vendor.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Help games are crashing and my hair is being pulled out- Started by Joe Gallo
- Replies: 18
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram