Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD: ''No Doubt, We Lost Market Share in Q2''

Last response: in News comments
Share
July 20, 2012 3:22:17 AM

Another issue is that AMD processors are insanely slow, especially in poorly threaded tasks. The octo-core may be able to keep up with an intel quad core when running all cores, but it does not deliver great all-around performance.
July 20, 2012 3:28:51 AM

AMD should stop focusing on value and put more processing power behind their CPUs.
Related resources
July 20, 2012 3:29:41 AM

Word^ my 965 be still kicks most of the new AMD's asses. And that my friends is bad news.
Anonymous
July 20, 2012 3:31:31 AM

AMD: ''No Doubt, We Lost Market Share in Q2
but you are still a very important competitor to intel to push technology further more.
July 20, 2012 3:33:42 AM

Rubbish. They are slow, but not "insanely" slow. They still do the job.
July 20, 2012 3:35:10 AM

No surprise there. If they didn't have ATI the blow would be even larger. They need to make some serious changes or they're destined for failure. APUs are probably the future so they might be ready for that but their entire market is pretty slim. What are they a leader in? Mobile? No. Desktop? No. GPUs? No. APUs? Maybe.

They should focus on ultimate value and price cut as much as possible. They need to get their products moving and fast. I don't see how anyone considers AMD "value" when a 4100 costs $140 and is absolutely outclassed by a $120 i3.
July 20, 2012 3:51:55 AM

because u have lost price/performance on ur CPU. Bulldozer are barely manage to keep up with slowest i5 quad core, yet they are selling close to i7 price. FAIL.
July 20, 2012 3:52:05 AM

It's a dark road ahead for AMD.

They keep pushing the old Llano and bulldozer parts into the retail space where almost nobody wants them. Release Trinity and Piledriver, already! Market share is not going to be gained, otherwise.
July 20, 2012 3:56:06 AM

aftcometNo surprise there. If they didn't have ATI the blow would be even larger. They need to make some serious changes or they're destined for failure. APUs are probably the future so they might be ready for that but their entire market is pretty slim. What are they a leader in? Mobile? No. Desktop? No. GPUs? No. APUs? Maybe.They should focus on ultimate value and price cut as much as possible. They need to get their products moving and fast. I don't see how anyone considers AMD "value" when a 4100 costs $140 and is absolutely outclassed by a $120 i3.


because amds new value cpus are apus, and beat out intel at the same value...

math1337Another issue is that AMD processors are insanely slow, especially in poorly threaded tasks. The octo-core may be able to keep up with an intel quad core when running all cores, but it does not deliver great all-around performance.


considering that all cpu tasks have been fast enough sense the eairly dual core chips, much less the current quad with threads we see, i say does it matter if amd is slower?

all the tasks that intel beats amd where you would see a performance difference great enough to warrant an intel over amd, are going to the gpu, and the gpu, even a bad one, out preforms the cpu by so much that you would never want o use it for said tasks again.

if anything, intel is in trouble. as they cant pull together a decent gpu after YEARS of trying, and now that we are moving to gpu co processors, intel has that much more ground to cover.

with that said, if amd came out with a chip 4 times better than the current top end intel, do you really think that they would gain market share? intel would eat the few billions in fines to try and stomp out amd till they get a processor on par.
July 20, 2012 4:02:12 AM

I'm a bit disappointed and surprised that Llano didn't help AMD more. We all know that Trinity's coming and seems to have greatly improved on bulldozer, but Llano really are some neat chips for low budget media PCs/laptops, and for HTPCs. I can see my parents being perfectly happy with a Llano laptop for light productivity and working on the train/plane etc. I mean, the general public doesn't need the i7 extreme, hell, most people don't even need an i5 2500k because they hardly game. I say AMD's marketing department needs to step up, and get it into people's heads that an APU's all they need for their general family computer to surf the web, blu-ray playback, store their photos from their vacations etc.
July 20, 2012 4:04:08 AM

imo in the mobile world, amd just is no longer a value. im tired of defending AMD, hands on theyre slow. i could get a i7 laptop that plays every game in ultra with a discreet gpu. there are no offerings like that from amd. slower than an i3. SHURE in the desktop the Fx series is still a OK. but im tired of the big clunky box. its always some story about amd not being optimized etc. well get on the ball amd. u been sayin that for years. i was 13 when i had my first k6 was a great value and amd has always been for awhile. but after phenom II amd just fell off.. and with no strong mobile parts other than gpus.
July 20, 2012 4:08:53 AM

Just so you guys know, Intel has a lot to do with AMDs downturn. When Intel partnered with Apple, AMD had them in a bind. It was a make or break situation. It was when they partnered with Apple that they started working on the i3, i5, and i7's that you see today. AMD on the other hand has not had help, as a matter of fact AMD has been pushed back down again by Intel. Dell, Gateway, and several other Computer manufactures only get deals on Intel products if they don’t offer, or offer very limited, AMD based machines. And as we all know 80% of the home computer market is around prebuilt systems like these, so that instantly puts AMD in the rears.
Another note, AMD was actually in the running to be with Apple, and allegedly the big people from AMD were on a flight to Apple ready to sign paperwork and Intel swooped down and took it away. Don’t know how true that is, but it’s just where Intel is trying to be a monopoly is all I’m trying to get at.
July 20, 2012 4:14:55 AM

otacon72When you're only putting stuff like garbage APUs what did you think was going to happen? The fastest APU can't hold a candle to even an i3. No one cares that it has an integrated GPU when the CPU side is slow as sh*t. It's really astonishing how far and how fast AMD has fallen.

Your ignorant, the only way ANY of the Ivy Bridges has a chance to beat a APU of any kind is to have a dedicated video card. Hell A6's will put up 30fps on just about any video game, but a i7 by itself cant even put up 15 on super low settings...
July 20, 2012 4:16:56 AM

aftcometNo surprise there. If they didn't have ATI the blow would be even larger. They need to make some serious changes or they're destined for failure. APUs are probably the future so they might be ready for that but their entire market is pretty slim. What are they a leader in? Mobile? No. Desktop? No. GPUs? No. APUs? Maybe.They should focus on ultimate value and price cut as much as possible. They need to get their products moving and fast. I don't see how anyone considers AMD "value" when a 4100 costs $140 and is absolutely outclassed by a $120 i3.

There GPUs are pretty competitive, even more so now that they cut prices on some to make room for the GHZ editions.
July 20, 2012 4:23:55 AM

Tomfreakbecause u have lost price/performance on ur CPU. Bulldozer are barely manage to keep up with slowest i5 quad core, yet they are selling close to i7 price. FAIL.

over $100 of difference when you're talking about a few $100 is hardly what i call selling close to an i7 Price,

Octacores sell for roughly $200, i7's sell for over $300
July 20, 2012 4:29:51 AM

CORY READ is a failure. he is out of touch with the customer bases' needs. dude must not play any games at all (mobile persepctive)
July 20, 2012 4:32:34 AM

This is when *real* innovation happens.
Dooms day say'ers focus on the wrong aspect of large companies trying to battle to the death =P
July 20, 2012 4:52:32 AM

The trinity laptops are extremely good values, I find. Especially if you factor in the long term utilization of GPGPU by intensive applications that would otherwise cap out the quad cores. You can get a budget trinity for $400, whereas the cheapest Ivy Bridge laptops nowadays start at $700.
July 20, 2012 5:02:44 AM

Too bad, there is no third party on the market.

That way Intel has no real reason to speed things up, in the CPU market.
July 20, 2012 5:23:04 AM

You know, releasing Trinity and Piledriver sooner might help...
July 20, 2012 5:42:11 AM

NikorrToo bad, there is no third party on the market.
There's VIA! And if Windows RT takes off, all of the ARM licensees. After all, Intel is impressing nobody in the mobile market right now.
July 20, 2012 6:34:31 AM

No kidding? Did they really think that releasing some ho hum APU's and trying to get rid of old stock was going to bring the cash rolling in?
Look, AMD cut your losses and get trinity to market. Stop trying to sell boring old technology to an apathetic market. And realize that no matter how much you don't want to compete with Intel, you're stuck with the giant so you better warm up your sling.

That means desktop processors that are competitive with core i3/i5. Forget about i7.

I'm kinda sick of Rory Read, he said they were gonna come out swinging like a heavyweight champ and now he just seems like the snot nosed kid nobody wants to pick for their team at the sandlot game. Now it looks as though he may start crying and run home.
July 20, 2012 6:35:50 AM

hastenWhat? Where is a 4100 $140? Please at least type in newegg.com and check prices before you post. 4100s run for around $110 and can be had for less than that in many cases. For example at Microcenter they run $99 and you can do a motherboard bundle discount and get a basically free mATX board with it.


He obviously means the 4200, which is certainly overpriced and outmatched.
July 20, 2012 6:47:36 AM

aftcometWhat are they a leader in? Mobile? No. Desktop? No. GPUs? No. APUs? Maybe.


AMD has historically vied for fastest single and dual GPU cards with NVIDIA for years, and their GPUs have appeared in twice as many current consoles. In addition, NVIDIA aren't the only one to innovate - sure, they brought compute to current platforms in a big way, but think of other advancements - DX9 was ATi, DX10 was NV, DX10.1 was ATi, DX11 was ATi. NVIDIA definitely has the most potent workstation graphics solutions but AMD are closing the gap.

How AMD can't be a "leader" in the graphics industry is beyond me. You don't have to have the fastest card to be able to compete.
July 20, 2012 7:13:54 AM

aftcometNo surprise there. If they didn't have ATI the blow would be even larger. They need to make some serious changes or they're destined for failure. APUs are probably the future so they might be ready for that but their entire market is pretty slim. What are they a leader in? Mobile? No. Desktop? No. GPUs? No. APUs? Maybe.They should focus on ultimate value and price cut as much as possible. They need to get their products moving and fast. I don't see how anyone considers AMD "value" when a 4100 costs $140 and is absolutely outclassed by a $120 i3.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

FX-4100- $109.99 and it has free shipping.

Tomfreakbecause u have lost price/performance on ur CPU. Bulldozer are barely manage to keep up with slowest i5 quad core, yet they are selling close to i7 price. FAIL.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The eight core FXs are right with the i7s in highly threaded performance and the FX-8150, the most expensive Bulldozer-based FX CPU right now, costs a mere $199.99 with free shipping... The cheapest LGA 1155 i7, the i7-2600K, costs $289.99:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Furthermore, if you disable one core per module in the FX-8120 or the FX-8150, their performance per Hz goes up significantly with an approximately 25% increase due to the modules not needing to share resources between both cores within each module and this cuts down power consumption by between 30% and 40%, leaving much more overclocking headroom in addition to the performance per Hz boost. The eight and six core FXs can compete with the non K edition i5s and i7s in gaming performance even if you give those non K edition i5s and i7s a 25% overclock which is about the maximum that a non K edition i5 or i7 can get on the LGA 1155 socket motherboards.

Considering that the FX-8120 has an unlocked multiplier and that both the 8120 and the 8150 have identical binning, there's no need to even buy the 8150 and since the 8120 is $40 cheaper, well, that puts it at almost half of the price of the cheapest i7 without sacrificing anything compared to the FX-8150. Depending on the workload, either the one core per module profile or the full module profile can let them keep up with most of Intel's CPUs that are also more expensive in performance, granted not in power efficiency.

Also, their stock cooler is good enough to handle the heat even at over 4GHz full module and 5GHz one core per module, so an after-market cooler isn't even a necessary expense in this situation, granted I'd probably buy one anyway if I did do this with an FX.
I won't buy them because it would be damn inconvenient to need to switch between profiles or figure out another trick for this, but it can be done and if you don't need the other profile for anything that you do, then switching wouldn't be a problem for you anyway.
July 20, 2012 7:17:27 AM

alidanbecause amds new value cpus are apus, and beat out intel at the same value...considering that all cpu tasks have been fast enough sense the eairly dual core chips, much less the current quad with threads we see, i say does it matter if amd is slower? all the tasks that intel beats amd where you would see a performance difference great enough to warrant an intel over amd, are going to the gpu, and the gpu, even a bad one, out preforms the cpu by so much that you would never want o use it for said tasks again. if anything, intel is in trouble. as they cant pull together a decent gpu after YEARS of trying, and now that we are moving to gpu co processors, intel has that much more ground to cover. with that said, if amd came out with a chip 4 times better than the current top end intel, do you really think that they would gain market share? intel would eat the few billions in fines to try and stomp out amd till they get a processor on par.


Actually, Intel does have their GPGPU accelerator cards and although they're not great, their replacements are supposed to be very good. Intel has expereince in the graphics, they simply don't care to give their CPUs very high end IGPs. Most people haven't had use for one, so it hasn't been a top priority for Intel. Maybe that will change with the movement towards GPGPU, but keep in mind that not every workload can be highly parallel very well, if at all.
July 20, 2012 7:19:10 AM

digiexThe problem for AMD is that Intel also took the crown on lower price segment with its G series processor.http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,3106.html


Dual-core CPUs that don't even have Hyper-Threading Technology. Not the best idea IMO. An overclocked 4100 would beat them kinda badly in very CPU limited games, especially games such as BF3 MP and the most recent versions of WoW that can use many threads.
July 20, 2012 7:24:08 AM

buzznutHe obviously means the 4200, which is certainly overpriced and outmatched.


There is no FX-4200 on newegg (nor can I find one anywhere else), so good luck with that argument. Perhaps he meant the 4170 which is actually faster than you give it credit for, granted it is still a waste of money because it and the 4100 have identical binning. You simply pay for a higher default frequency and voltage. Considering that neither of these are locked on the 4100, that's kinda stupid.
July 20, 2012 7:28:17 AM

uglynerdmanimo in the mobile world, amd just is no longer a value. im tired of defending AMD, hands on theyre slow. i could get a i7 laptop that plays every game in ultra with a discreet gpu. there are no offerings like that from amd. slower than an i3. SHURE in the desktop the Fx series is still a OK. but im tired of the big clunky box. its always some story about amd not being optimized etc. well get on the ball amd. u been sayin that for years. i was 13 when i had my first k6 was a great value and amd has always been for awhile. but after phenom II amd just fell off.. and with no strong mobile parts other than gpus.


Trinity is going to help that considerably, but AMD is not shooting for high end mobile parts. These are not in high demand like low end mobile parts are. Most people looking to buy a mobile computer aren't looking for huge performance, they are looking for mobility. AMD's mobile offerings offer great value for their performance and have excellent power consumption.

As for the not being optimized for, that's just FX and CPU cores based on other modular architectures (such as Piledriver). It is expected to be fixed in Windows 8 and so far, this seems to at least have helped somewhat. However, that's not FX's problem. FX's problem is that AMD cut corners in almost every aspect of the design in an apparent crusade to take an excellent architecture and cut it's performance down as far as they can while increasing power consumption ridiculously.

Regardless, AMD hasn't been saying crap about the optimization except since FX. That hasn't even been a single year yet and it's not up to them for MS to optimize Windows' scheduling. You also ignore the flop that was the first Phenom line when you say that after Phenom II was when AMD showed weakness.
July 20, 2012 7:38:45 AM

Phenom II presented a significant performance boost over Phenom, partly due to the better process but also due to hardware tweaks, extra L3 cache and a CnQ update. I doubt Piledriver will deliver a comparative boost over Bulldozer, however if resonant clock meshing is anything to go by, power consumption shouldn't spiral out of control like it did when people pushed their FX chips.
July 20, 2012 7:45:25 AM

*IF* Windows8 is able to increase the performance of FX-class CPUS... the difference is not enough to make the BD/PD CPUs compete against intels i5-2500/3500class CPUs.

If I recall, the difference with Windows8 is very small... but not really humanly noticeable. And with Windows8 being rather sucky... that doesn't do AMD much good either, eh? Also, intel CPUs will run a bit faster under Win8 too. Hell, my test machine for WIndows8 was an old AMD-64 X2 3800 (2.2Ghz) that is over 6 years old. It boots and runs quite well.

The FX series is badly marketed and over-priced. I've been buying i5-3570K CPUs for $190 a pop... and the AMD FX simply don't compare. They are NOT HORRIBLY slow as the first poster said here... they are NOT fast enough for the price they are commanding.

WHAT I would have done with FX.
1 - I would refer to their actual cores. The "8 core" CPU is a 4 core CPU. This LOOKS a lot better in benchmarks... as the "8core" AMD mostly loses out to intel 4cores and some of AMD's older X4/X6 CPUs.

2 - Lower prices... move them out. The FX4100, sell it like the dual-core $80~90 CPU that it is. Sell the 8120 for $125. The 8150 for $150. Geez, it still sells for $200 on newegg.

3 - higher quality coolers... spend the extra $.30 for better fans.

Still, the AMD CPUs are (A) run hotter (B) higher clock rates (C) lower performance... so having a lower price would make it a good CPU... not an over-priced one.
July 20, 2012 7:46:16 AM

silverbluePhenom II presented a significant performance boost over Phenom, partly due to the better process but also due to hardware tweaks, extra L3 cache and a CnQ update. I doubt Piledriver will deliver a comparative boost over Bulldozer, however if resonant clock meshing is anything to go by, power consumption shouldn't spiral out of control like it did when people pushed their FX chips.


Considering that Trinity, without L3 and such, is already a considerable improvement over Bulldozer in performance per Hz and especially in power efficiency, it would seem that your estimation about Piledriver CPU performance would be wrong. Piledriver has a bunch of hardware tweaks over Bulldozer. There were so many major corners cut in the design of the Bulldozer die masks that huge improvements would be possible without even needing to change the architecture, but Piledriver only fixes some of the issues and mostly just more minor or moderate issues at that, so it's not a huge leap over Bulldozer, but the potential is there.
July 20, 2012 7:58:47 AM

belardo*IF* Windows8 is able to increase the performance of FX-class CPUS... the difference is not enough to make the BD/PD CPUs compete against intels i5-2500/3500class CPUs.If I recall, the difference with Windows8 is very small... but not really humanly noticeable. And with Windows8 being rather sucky... that doesn't do AMD much good either, eh? Also, intel CPUs will run a bit faster under Win8 too. Hell, my test machine for WIndows8 was an old AMD-64 X2 3800 (2.2Ghz) that is over 6 years old. It boots and runs quite well.The FX series is badly marketed and over-priced. I've been buying i5-3570K CPUs for $190 a pop... and the AMD FX simply don't compare. They are NOT HORRIBLY slow as the first poster said here... they are NOT fast enough for the price they are commanding.WHAT I would have done with FX.1 - I would refer to their actual cores. The "8 core" CPU is a 4 core CPU. This LOOKS a lot better in benchmarks... as the "8core" AMD mostly loses out to intel 4cores and some of AMD's older X4/X6 CPUs.2 - Lower prices... move them out. The FX4100, sell it like the dual-core $80~90 CPU that it is. Sell the 8120 for $125. The 8150 for $150. Geez, it still sells for $200 on newegg.3 - higher quality coolers... spend the extra $.30 for better fans.Still, the AMD CPUs are (A) run hotter (B) higher clock rates (C) lower performance... so having a lower price would make it a good CPU... not an over-priced one.


Actually, Windows 8 helps FX and presumably also Trinity more than the other CPUs and it does so quite significantly because it optimizes for Bulldozer's more unique scheduling characteristics. The difference should be quite noticeable. Beyond that, FX isn't overpriced at all right now. It was when it first launched, but not anymore. AMD refers to FX by their actual core count. A core is a math unit that processes integer math. Each module has two such cores. If you don't like it, well, oh well. Why would AMD sell the eight core FX-8120 for $125 when it beats the top i5s in highly threaded performance, the whole point of an eight core CPU? That makes no sense at all. The same goes for the FX-8150. The FX-6100 and the FX-6200 are more on-par with the i5s in highly threaded performance, but they should also not need to drop further at this time.

Also, AMD's stock coolers with the FX CPUs are the best stock coolers of any current CPU in or even near their price range. They kick the crap out of Intel's junk coolers.

Also, I'll yet again mention the fact that disabling one core per module grants a significant performance per Hz boost due to each module not needing to share resources between two cores, an increase of about 25%, while decreasing power consumption by 30%-40%. That's a huge increase in lightly threaded performance per watt that leaves a ton of overclocking headroom, not that they didn't already not have a lot. I wouldn't do that on a quad core FX, but the six and the eight core FX CPUs are excellent for this.
July 20, 2012 8:30:47 AM

All that sounds very much like Rory Read saying: "I failed at my job."
July 20, 2012 9:42:22 AM

blazorthonActually, Intel does have their GPGPU accelerator cards and although they're not great, their replacements are supposed to be very good. Intel has expereince in the graphics, they simply don't care to give their CPUs very high end IGPs. Most people haven't had use for one, so it hasn't been a top priority for Intel. Maybe that will change with the movement towards GPGPU, but keep in mind that not every workload can be highly parallel very well, if at all.


are the gpgpu cards actual gpus or are they a gpu like architecture but meant to be independently programmed?

and yes, not everything can benefit from a gpu acceleration, that is true... but every single thing that is a cpu heavy application, more or less can.

intel had a gpu build a a while ago, and was said to be as good as a gforce 275 (i believe) but they scrapped it instead of going to market, and it took them what, 5 years to get to that point at all?

opencl will most likely be the standard soon enough, and one that's integrated into programs, at least most programs, the cpu will almost become irrelevant.

if intel cant even compete with a low end apu, they will have trouble in the coming years.
July 20, 2012 9:48:10 AM

otacon72When you're only putting stuff like garbage APUs what did you think was going to happen? The fastest APU can't hold a candle to even an i3. No one cares that it has an integrated GPU when the CPU side is slow as sh*t. It's really astonishing how far and how fast AMD has fallen.

negative. u guys just don't realize a faster gpu are way more important than a faster cpu, the apu gave the average joe the most balance computing and save cash from adding discrete card, today best small form factor pc and htpc will be fusion apu inside, not the crappy atom or even i3.. switching from AMD E450 to Intel i5 won't makes you feel much faster on day to day computing, and the E450 can handle your day to day graphic program, movie and gaming much better than an i3, if u intended to make your pc faster, best way was saving your cash from the expensive intel cpu and invest it on the ssd or hdds with raid 0
July 20, 2012 10:16:39 AM

math1337Another issue is that AMD processors are insanely slow, especially in poorly threaded tasks. The octo-core may be able to keep up with an intel quad core when running all cores, but it does not deliver great all-around performance.

if the amd apu r insanely slow, then the intel atom r completely crap
July 20, 2012 10:17:48 AM

blazorthonConsidering that Trinity, without L3 and such, is already a considerable improvement over Bulldozer in performance per Hz and especially in power efficiency, it would seem that your estimation about Piledriver CPU performance would be wrong. Piledriver has a bunch of hardware tweaks over Bulldozer. There were so many major corners cut in the design of the Bulldozer die masks that huge improvements would be possible without even needing to change the architecture, but Piledriver only fixes some of the issues and mostly just more minor or moderate issues at that, so it's not a huge leap over Bulldozer, but the potential is there.


Yes but we don't know until we see it, so calling me out for being wrong is a bit premature. If the L3 cache is horribly slow (and the L1/L2 latencies are the same as with Bulldozer, by the way - 4 and 20 cycles for L1 and L2 respectively), is it really going to help that much? 15% performance gains from a couple of THG benchmarks don't necessarily translate into a 15% gain overall, but it *could* be what we get in the end (could being the operative term here). A 74-cycle L3 isn't good by anybody's book.

If Piledriver results in a 15% performance boost across the board at 10-15% lower power, that's a good starting point. If they fix the L3 latency, that's even better. Still, in games like CivV where the 2500K is ahead by about 30%, it's not going to change the gaming recommendations.
July 20, 2012 10:24:48 AM

JefferyD90Just so you guys know, Intel has a lot to do with AMDs downturn. When Intel partnered with Apple, AMD had them in a bind. It was a make or break situation. It was when they partnered with Apple that they started working on the i3, i5, and i7's that you see today. AMD on the other hand has not had help, as a matter of fact AMD has been pushed back down again by Intel. Dell, Gateway, and several other Computer manufactures only get deals on Intel products if they don’t offer, or offer very limited, AMD based machines. And as we all know 80% of the home computer market is around prebuilt systems like these, so that instantly puts AMD in the rears. Another note, AMD was actually in the running to be with Apple, and allegedly the big people from AMD were on a flight to Apple ready to sign paperwork and Intel swooped down and took it away. Don’t know how true that is, but it’s just where Intel is trying to be a monopoly is all I’m trying to get at.



Yeah its true, Apple invented the i7. That's why its an i7. Apple invented my dog too, FSYK.
July 20, 2012 11:52:41 AM

Marco925over $100 of difference when you're talking about a few $100 is hardly what i call selling close to an i7 Price,Octacores sell for roughly $200, i7's sell for over $300
they are still more expensive than i5 at least on my area. And the 8150 is selling within $40 from 2600K, other 8 core series are still within i5 price. On top of all that they barely win i5 on most consumer applications. At least at my area I fail to see any reason to get AMD CPU other than Llano system if only I plan to build a setup without discrete CPU. Power consumption of the bulldozer cpu is also minus the appeal of it.
July 20, 2012 12:12:19 PM

silverblue said:
Phenom II presented a significant performance boost over Phenom, partly due to the better process but also due to hardware tweaks, extra L3 cache and a CnQ update. I doubt Piledriver will deliver a comparative boost over Bulldozer, however if resonant clock meshing is anything to go by, power consumption shouldn't spiral out of control like it did when people pushed their FX chips.


Yeah, but RCM doesn't work well above the stock frequency, and can even stop the CPU from working at all if you try to oc very far. That's why it's called resonant clock meshing.
July 20, 2012 12:15:14 PM

Quote:
it appears that Intel's Sandy Bridge Xeons may have hit AMD unexpectedly hard.

Color me totally unsurprised. What did AMD expect when they launched new server chips that were on par with the Xeons Intel launched in 2009? What did they expect when Intel launched the new LGA 2011 Xeons that offer far greater performance per TDP?

In servers, performance is king and heat kills. Bulldozer Opteron didn't even come close to delivering. It was an embarrassing failure, and they know it. It wasn't a "pause" it was the entire industry saying "no thanks, we'll use the chips that don't suck, thanks."
July 20, 2012 12:17:23 PM

Bloob said:
All that sounds very much like Rory Read saying: "I failed at my job."


I wonder how he let AMD sell more Llanos than mainboards? That's like making 10,000 cars and 10,000 wheels, when all those cars need 4 wheels each. It's those little details that'll kill ya :o 
July 20, 2012 12:25:20 PM

livebriandYou know, releasing Trinity and Piledriver sooner might help...


Might help if they don't suck too...

:) 
July 20, 2012 12:58:23 PM

Stardude82There's VIA! And if Windows RT takes off, all of the ARM licensees. After all, Intel is impressing nobody in the mobile market right now.


Windows RT is DOA. It offers no competitive advantage over the much better supported platforms of Android and Apple. Windows 8 x86 on the other hand, that could be big if the tech can put that sucker in a phone. With a nice docking station, your Win8 x86 phone could be your work phone and office-based computer.
July 20, 2012 1:38:21 PM

AMD's continued loss of market share will only show that amd has gone in the wrong direction on all front except gpus. I personally blame cory read.

blazorthonTrinity is going to help that considerably, but AMD is not shooting for high end mobile parts. These are not in high demand like low end mobile parts are. Most people looking to buy a mobile computer aren't looking for huge performance, they are looking for mobility. AMD's mobile offerings offer great value for their performance and have excellent power consumption.As for the not being optimized for, that's just FX and CPU cores based on other modular architectures (such as Piledriver). It is expected to be fixed in Windows 8 and so far, this seems to at least have helped somewhat. However, that's not FX's problem. FX's problem is that AMD cut corners in almost every aspect of the design in an apparent crusade to take an excellent architecture and cut it's performance down as far as they can while increasing power consumption ridiculously.Regardless, AMD hasn't been saying crap about the optimization except since FX. That hasn't even been a single year yet and it's not up to them for MS to optimize Windows' scheduling. You also ignore the flop that was the first Phenom line when you say that after Phenom II was when AMD showed weakness.


you can get an ultra book/ compact ultra thin with a 650- 630 for 800 sometimes less and it could be considered a desktop replacement. if someone does their homework there really is no reason to get trinity. most people who buy computers educate themselves at least or refer to a sales person. i dont think I myself would reccomend amd when intels lowest offerings are in the same price range. unless amd is realllyy looking to go for the 200- 400 dollar market only. (Mobile only talking about) I dont even care about super high end ENTRY i7 mobile they should at least have something to compete with it. amd in the mobile world struggles to compete with an i3.
July 20, 2012 1:39:40 PM

Bucky_BeaverYeah, but RCM doesn't work well above the stock frequency, and can even stop the CPU from working at all if you try to oc very far. That's why it's called resonant clock meshing.

I thought it was the other way around - better at higher clocks. You're probably right, though.
July 20, 2012 2:02:06 PM

I've had a lot of AMD chips in the Athlon XP to 64 era but I've gave up on AMD, their price is no longer competitive nor is the best bang for the bulk. Their new APUs are great! But really, the majority of our clients are more than happy with Intel's graphics performance on the low end front, they want processing power, low power consumption and cool systems while still being affordable. Try to explain why the AMD product is better than Intel's to the average costumer but make sure to be honest.

Actual gamers would go with a dedicated vga anyways and that's where AMD's offers dies being limited to small HTPC systems and slowly being introduced to laptops attracting casual gamers or whoever needing more graphics power, but this market is kinda narrow.

I think these processors will have a bright future ahead but they haven't been developed well enough for now.

And please, where's AMD marketing department? I've yet to see an AMD ad or commercial in my country, people don't even know what's AMD while there are Intel ads everywhere you go.
!