Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD's Rebound, from the horse's mouth

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 2, 2007 4:20:55 PM

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=30&id=2229

A lot of interesting info. Also speaks to reasons behind delays.

try this link for the article in a "printer view "(so you don't have to click through all the pages):

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/print.php?cid=30&id=2229
April 2, 2007 4:29:03 PM

This is the same old bs that has/is been/being beaten to death here...

It is fine if you feel that the wait for product release is because of a redesign to make chips better, but imo it still spells out the lack of planning from AMD to compete with C2D tech overwhelming them in performance...

If they had a better product ready, I can not foresee delaying it or redesigning it this late in the game...

We will see soon enough for most of us, but the long we wait, the lower stock drops, and the more influence and damage Intel commands...
April 2, 2007 4:30:06 PM

I could pull out a lot of quotes... this one some might like:

Quote:
The PC OEM market today is one where it is very difficult to make any money. There's a reason for that and that is the monopoly and tax imposed by Intel. So because it is very difficult to make any money for the PC manufacturer, it is difficult for them to invest in true innovation and difficult for them to accept the cost that comes with progress.
Related resources
April 2, 2007 4:32:38 PM

Yeah, seems to be like it's the same old tiring "Even though we suck now, we're going to stop sucking soon, we promise! It'll be SO AMAZING! Oh and by the way, Intel is the devil and we're better than them."
April 2, 2007 4:37:54 PM

Quote:
"Even though we suck now, we're going to stop sucking soon, we promise! It'll be SO AMAZING! Oh and by the way, Intel is the devil and we're better than them."


LOL!
April 2, 2007 4:49:33 PM

Quote:
Yeah, seems to be like it's the same old tiring "Even though we suck now, we're going to stop sucking soon, we promise! It'll be SO AMAZING! Oh and by the way, Intel is the devil and we're better than them."


Couldn't possibly have summed it up better!!!
April 2, 2007 4:51:45 PM

Quote:
Yeah, seems to be like it's the same old tiring "Even though we suck now, we're going to stop sucking soon, we promise! It'll be SO AMAZING! Oh and by the way, Intel is the devil and we're better than them."


Couldn't possibly have summed it up better!!!

AMD starting the day at another 52 week low... sub-$13!!!
April 2, 2007 4:54:45 PM

Quote:


AMD starting the day at another 52 week low... sub-$13!!!


Yup, that $12.85 is Wall Street voting on Mr. Richard's optimism. :lol: 
April 2, 2007 4:58:04 PM

Quote:


AMD starting the day at another 52 week low... sub-$13!!!


Yup, that $12.85 is Wall Street voting on Mr. Richard's optimism. :lol: 

Yet another bash AMD post. Typical.
April 2, 2007 5:04:02 PM

Quote:
Yet another bash AMD post. Typical.


OK, allow me to modify that statement:

Reacting to AMD's newfound sense of optimism and their firm roadmap to dramatically gain market share in the next quarter, Wall Street reacted by driving the price of the stock to heady levels, a full $12.85 above Zero. :lol: 

Just pullin your string, Baron... But then again, you seemed to like that in our night of lust! 8O

JUST KIDDING I AM NOT GAY AND I DIDN'T SLEEP WITH BARON NOR HAVE EVER SEEN HIM WITH OR WITHOUT WONDERBRA!!!!
April 2, 2007 5:09:03 PM

why didn`t you guys give Intel hell when they produced bad performing parts?

Athlon, Athlon Xp and Athlon64 were great products and it gave Intel every reason to come up with something great, it only took them VERY long to make something better than Athlon64.
Now Intel is on top (and i love their product) and is pushing really hard to give Amd a very bad time. You guys think that`s great but IF Amd goes under, we all have to pay!

So give them a little break and hope for computing (and your wallet) that their next product will be great again.......

I think Barcelona will be great. But the fact that it comes at max. 2.3Ghz and Intel going to 45nm and reaching 4Ghz is not a good sign for Amd. :?
That`s NOT a good thing, it`s a BAD thing for all of us!
April 2, 2007 5:09:46 PM

FYI - It is being reported by the AP that computer chip sales are up 8%, yet average price per chip is down 15%.

Hmmmm.... AMD revenue warns, yet Intel does not....
April 2, 2007 5:15:59 PM

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=30&id...

Quote:
In the desktop, I'm a lot more skeptical. Of course there is always the marketing angle and you can convince people that four is better than two, but the fact of the matter is that there is no application that will take advantage of four processors, except for a very, very small sliver of the market space. And so, we have to be careful as an industry and not get trapped into the state of shipping a lot of technology that gets completely unused.

So if you ask me, today, in the desktop and notebook environment. Instead of spending more money on two cores that don't get used at all. I would advise customers to spend money on two cores that will get used and a good graphics processor to get the full benefit of the system.

Again, I think this is an area where our strategy differs from Intel, because we don't want users to spend money on technology that doesn't get used at all. Yes, there is a small percentage of desktop users that will see benefit from quad-core. That's why we made the Quad FX platform. That is a very niche and elitist enthusiast group of people that represent less than 1% of the market space. For the rest of the market, driving the message of quad-core knowing that people will never get benefit from it is really irresponsible.


And yet they're going for 8 cores :lol: 
April 2, 2007 5:16:05 PM

Quote:
Yet another bash AMD post. Typical.


OK, allow me to modify that statement:

Reacting to AMD's newfound sense of optimism and their firm roadmap to dramatically gain market share in the next quarter, Wall Street reacted by driving the price of the stock to heady levels, a full $12.85 above Zero. :lol: 

Just pullin your string, Baron... But then again, you seemed to like that in our night of lust! 8O

JUST KIDDING I AM NOT GAY AND I DIDN'T SLEEP WITH BARON NOR HAVE EVER SEEN HIM WITH OR WITHOUT WONDERBRA!!!!

I'm waiting for AMD to reach new heights in the $11 dollar range before re-investing, or maybe even the fabulous $10's. Not that I'm optimistic or anything
April 2, 2007 5:16:52 PM

Quote:
why didn`t you guys give Intel hell when they produced bad performing parts?


Do you want me to go through the archives to pull out the thousands of posts I made (in my previous THG incarnation) blasting Prescotts or even Coppermines? FYI, I have been an AMD fan since K6 and am currently typing this on a San Diego 3700+. I reserve my vitirol for whichever side is currently dropping the ball and right now it's AMD.

P.S. If Barcy/Agena performs up to expectation and the QFX platform gets cleaned up that's gonna be my next system!
April 2, 2007 5:23:04 PM

Quote:

I'm waiting for AMD to reach new heights in the $11 dollar range before re-investing, or maybe even the fabulous $10's. Not that I'm optimistic or anything


I've relayed this story before on this forum, but I'll summarize it. A guy I knew mortgaged his house and sold everything he had to go into Nortel before the bust. The last news I have of him is that he was seen lining up outside a Vancouver Soup Kitchen.

I think I'll keep my investments restricted to the Doc Johnson Catalogue. :lol: 
April 2, 2007 5:25:01 PM

Quote:
why didn`t you guys give Intel hell when they produced bad performing parts?


I did. I even bought AMD cpu powered machines. I even went so far as to buy some AMD stock. It was fun talking about AMD highs while Intel sunk in the wasteland.

Now the situation has reversed. I haven't bought an Intel cpu, yet, but I sold my AMD stock (for a loss), I haven't bought any new cpu at all. I'm very disappointed with AMD and tired of their promises about what they'e going to produce someday, a day they won't confirm and even when they do confirm something, they then retract their confirmation with further delays while their stock sinks ever toward the bottom. So, I critisize AMD.
April 2, 2007 5:30:44 PM

Quote:
None of the benchmarks today that have been published have been on Vista.


http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/quad-core/inde...
http://www.hwupgrade.com/articles/cpu/10/quad-fx-the-fi...

Quote:
Henri Richard: Intel went out and took SPECint2000, knowing there is already SPECint2006 and they did that only because it advantaged their platform vs. ours.


http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=412

lol

Hmm... I wonder where Mr. Richard's next job will be. Maybe on the floor of my local Fry's? :lol: 
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 2, 2007 5:39:52 PM

Nice article.

The only thing that concerns me is the part where he says something about integrating the cpu/gpu. If you want to upgrade your video, you'll have t buy a whole new combo. And somewhere down the line the manufacturers are going to change the socket type which means more hardware upgrades.

Kinda sounds like the auto makers going from rear wheel drive to front wheel drive. They suck, but it's easier and cheaper for the company to do it that way.

Intel also talked about this. Not good for us IMO.
April 2, 2007 5:42:26 PM

Quote:
I could pull out a lot of quotes... this one some might like:

The PC OEM market today is one where it is very difficult to make any money. There's a reason for that and that is the monopoly and tax imposed by Intel. So because it is very difficult to make any money for the PC manufacturer, it is difficult for them to invest in true innovation and difficult for them to accept the cost that comes with progress.



This is an even better quote:

Quote:

But let me get to the bottom on why this is so important. It is not so much between the battle between AMD and Intel. It is the fact that we both, both companies have the responsibility first and foremost to expand the market space and I believe that comes through the good education and information to the end user, not FUD. I really think that is the main issue.

If Intel focused on expanding a 35 billion dollar company to 70 billion and in the process of doing that AMD were to go from 10 to 20 billion, who cares. They are still No.1, they are still doing well. But instead being focused on expanding the market, they think their path to greatness is to take us and beat us 2-300 million bucks a quarter, which is ridiculous.
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2007 5:47:53 PM

Good read but it was as much info as it was a hurrah. Thanks for the link.

I liked the comments about power and consumption measures failing to include the northbridge. May seem like splitting hairs, but I think AMD has a legit beef with that one. I know the northbridge on an 875P chipset was just as hot as the P4 itself. And while core2 may consume less power and produce less heat, the chipsets can't be all that much different.

I also like the comments about how it took Intel 4 years to create a product that could finally beat the Athlon64. And yet, core2 has been out a year+/- and everyone is claiming that AMD can't beat it because they suffer from a lack of planning and can't pull their $hit together. Whatever...

Say what you will but QuadFX as a platform is pretty impressive. I look forward ot seeing how it matures and what processor and gpu solutions become available for it. Perhaps we'll see a ATi made QuadFX chipsets, 4-R600's in crossfire, as well as quad core procs. What a friggin beast!

Let's get with the R600 already!
April 2, 2007 5:49:19 PM

Quote:
FYI - It is being reported by the AP that computer chip sales are up 8%, yet average price per chip is down 15%.

Hmmmm.... AMD revenue warns, yet Intel does not....



They may not have warned yet but those numbers say that they are at least down by 7%. I would say it will be double digit YoY losses. They are now making the same money as in 2004, depending on what happens for Q1.
April 2, 2007 5:51:01 PM

Quote:
FYI - It is being reported by the AP that computer chip sales are up 8%, yet average price per chip is down 15%.

Hmmmm.... AMD revenue warns, yet Intel does not....



They may not have warned yet but those numbers say that they are at least down by 7%. I would say it will be double digit YoY losses. They are now making the same money as in 2004, depending on what happens for Q1.

Yes, but if the AMD is down 25-30% in chip sales... think about it.
April 2, 2007 6:04:16 PM

Quote:
FYI - It is being reported by the AP that computer chip sales are up 8%, yet average price per chip is down 15%.

Hmmmm.... AMD revenue warns, yet Intel does not....



They may not have warned yet but those numbers say that they are at least down by 7%. I would say it will be double digit YoY losses. They are now making the same money as in 2004, depending on what happens for Q1.

Yes, but if the AMD is down 25-30% in chip sales... think about it.


AMD is down 25-30% in chip sales? I don't think Mercury reported Q1 yet.
April 2, 2007 6:15:25 PM

Quote:

Say what you will but QuadFX as a platform is pretty impressive. I look forward ot seeing how it matures and what processor and gpu solutions become available for it. Perhaps we'll see a ATi made QuadFX chipsets, 4-R600's in crossfire, as well as quad core procs. What a friggin beast!

Let's get with the R600 already!


Quad-FX has no future unless they've changed their minds and released an unOCable FX-76 room heater. Even with NUMA in Vista it still sucked. It's almost like an AMD's version of Itanium
April 2, 2007 6:31:39 PM

Quote:

Say what you will but QuadFX as a platform is pretty impressive. I look forward ot seeing how it matures and what processor and gpu solutions become available for it. Perhaps we'll see a ATi made QuadFX chipsets, 4-R600's in crossfire, as well as quad core procs. What a friggin beast!

Let's get with the R600 already!


Quad-FX has no future unless they've changed their minds and released an unOCable FX-76 room heater. Even with NUMA in Vista it still sucked. It's almost like an AMD's version of Itanium

No, you're forgetting K10. It's been said several times there will be a revamped version with K10, and probably dual or more R600 variants. Eight cores of video encoding heaven.
April 2, 2007 7:09:55 PM

Quote:
Good read but it was as much info as it was a hurrah. Thanks for the link.

I liked the comments about power and consumption measures failing to include the northbridge. May seem like splitting hairs, but I think AMD has a legit beef with that one. I know the northbridge on an 875P chipset was just as hot as the P4 itself. And while core2 may consume less power and produce less heat, the chipsets can't be all that much different.

I also like the comments about how it took Intel 4 years to create a product that could finally beat the Athlon64. And yet, core2 has been out a year+/- and everyone is claiming that AMD can't beat it because they suffer from a lack of planning and can't pull their $hit together. Whatever...

Say what you will but QuadFX as a platform is pretty impressive. I look forward ot seeing how it matures and what processor and gpu solutions become available for it. Perhaps we'll see a ATi made QuadFX chipsets, 4-R600's in crossfire, as well as quad core procs. What a friggin beast!

Let's get with the R600 already!


4 years?????

The Athlon64 hasn't even existed for four years yet, and the AthlonXP was inferior to P4. The xp3200+ was not as impressive as a 3GHz P4, only competitive.

The Athlon64 was released in September of 2003. Their ramp up was not particularly quick, far slower than the Core 2 ramp starting in July of 2006.

It wasn't until June of 2004 that socket 939 came out, establishing Athlon64 as a clear leader at a price point less than the ridiculous level of an Opteron or AthlonFX with buffered ram. In reality, your four years of dominance is something more like two years and a couple months. It also didn't produce the performance differentials that we are seeing between Core2 and Athlon64, especially since Athlon64 has generally not been very good for overclocking.
April 2, 2007 7:14:38 PM

Quote:
Good read but it was as much info as it was a hurrah. Thanks for the link.

I liked the comments about power and consumption measures failing to include the northbridge. May seem like splitting hairs, but I think AMD has a legit beef with that one. I know the northbridge on an 875P chipset was just as hot as the P4 itself. And while core2 may consume less power and produce less heat, the chipsets can't be all that much different.

I also like the comments about how it took Intel 4 years to create a product that could finally beat the Athlon64. And yet, core2 has been out a year+/- and everyone is claiming that AMD can't beat it because they suffer from a lack of planning and can't pull their $hit together. Whatever...

Say what you will but QuadFX as a platform is pretty impressive. I look forward ot seeing how it matures and what processor and gpu solutions become available for it. Perhaps we'll see a ATi made QuadFX chipsets, 4-R600's in crossfire, as well as quad core procs. What a friggin beast!

Let's get with the R600 already!


4 years?????

The Athlon64 hasn't even existed for four years yet, and the AthlonXP was inferior to P4. The xp3200+ was not as impressive as a 3GHz P4, only competitive.

The Athlon64 was released in September of 2003. Their ramp up was not particularly quick, far slower than the Core 2 ramp starting in July of 2006.

It wasn't until June of 2004 that socket 939 came out, establishing Athlon64 as a clear leader at a price point less than the ridiculous level of an Opteron or AthlonFX with buffered ram. In reality, your four years of dominance is something more like two years and a couple months. It also didn't produce the performance differentials that we are seeing between Core2 and Athlon64, especially since Athlon64 has generally not been very good for overclocking.

Lies. Socket 939 Athlon64s dominated P4s and X2s absolutely murdered Pentium Ds in terms of performance, performance per watt, general TDP, performance/$, etc.

If anything, due to AMD's price cuts, at a given price point AMD is far more competitive against Intel now than Intel was against AMD then.
April 2, 2007 7:16:56 PM

Quote:
why didn`t you guys give Intel hell when they produced bad performing parts?


I did. I even bought AMD cpu powered machines. I even went so far as to buy some AMD stock. It was fun talking about AMD highs while Intel sunk in the wasteland.

Now the situation has reversed. I haven't bought an Intel cpu, yet, but I sold my AMD stock (for a loss), I haven't bought any new cpu at all. I'm very disappointed with AMD and tired of their promises about what they'e going to produce someday, a day they won't confirm and even when they do confirm something, they then retract their confirmation with further delays while their stock sinks ever toward the bottom. So, I critisize AMD.

Bleh, you know...

There was a time, maybe 10 years ago or more, when people didn't give a rat's ass about stocks.

People investing in stock, then becoming armchair engineers, has really ruined dialogue on the merits and vices of almost anything computer related.


The stock market has little to do with the drivel on these boards - if you think so, then maybe you can explain Betamax vs VHS, or PowerPC vs x86.
April 2, 2007 7:17:56 PM

Quote:
This is the same old bs that has/is been/being beaten to death here...

It is fine if you feel that the wait for product release is because of a redesign to make chips better, but imo it still spells out the lack of planning from AMD to compete with C2D tech overwhelming them in performance...

If they had a better product ready, I can not foresee delaying it or redesigning it this late in the game...

We will see soon enough for most of us, but the long we wait, the lower stock drops, and the more influence and damage Intel commands...

Yes, AMDs stock is in the toilet... but my Intel stock hasn't exactly done good for itself... in fact, that's the only thing that I own that has lost money. Damn you price war!
April 2, 2007 7:27:15 PM

Quote:
This is the same old bs that has/is been/being beaten to death here...

It is fine if you feel that the wait for product release is because of a redesign to make chips better, but imo it still spells out the lack of planning from AMD to compete with C2D tech overwhelming them in performance...

If they had a better product ready, I can not foresee delaying it or redesigning it this late in the game...

We will see soon enough for most of us, but the long we wait, the lower stock drops, and the more influence and damage Intel commands...

Yes, AMDs stock is in the toilet... but my Intel stock hasn't exactly done good for itself... in fact, that's the only thing that I own that has lost money. Damn you price war!

Personally, I'd hold that INTC stock stock till Q4... in the meantime, collect your dividends and be happy. :wink:

But that's just me (don't sue me or anything, I'm not a broker).
April 2, 2007 7:34:18 PM

Quote:
This is the same old bs that has/is been/being beaten to death here...

It is fine if you feel that the wait for product release is because of a redesign to make chips better, but imo it still spells out the lack of planning from AMD to compete with C2D tech overwhelming them in performance...

If they had a better product ready, I can not foresee delaying it or redesigning it this late in the game...

We will see soon enough for most of us, but the long we wait, the lower stock drops, and the more influence and damage Intel commands...

Yes, AMDs stock is in the toilet... but my Intel stock hasn't exactly done good for itself... in fact, that's the only thing that I own that has lost money. Damn you price war!

Personally, I'd hold that INTC stock stock till Q4... in the meantime, collect your dividends and be happy. :wink:

But that's just me (don't sue me or anything, I'm not a broker).
It hasn't tanked or anything... just hasn't gone up like I had hoped. AMD stock... well, that's another story.
April 2, 2007 7:34:30 PM

Quote:

Say what you will but QuadFX as a platform is pretty impressive. I look forward ot seeing how it matures and what processor and gpu solutions become available for it. Perhaps we'll see a ATi made QuadFX chipsets, 4-R600's in crossfire, as well as quad core procs. What a friggin beast!

Let's get with the R600 already!


Quad-FX has no future unless they've changed their minds and released an unOCable FX-76 room heater. Even with NUMA in Vista it still sucked. It's almost like an AMD's version of Itanium

I have to say it has some to do with the ASUS mobo. It was the first attempt at something like this and it could use some polishing. As far as Itanium, it truthfully owns the high, high end of databases so such a comparison isn't so bad.
April 2, 2007 7:39:24 PM

I think the most interesting thing here is the view that we're witnessing a sea-change in computing at the moment. He is very dismissive of quad-core in the client market, but then this makes you wonder why they're bothering with Agena. Why not just concentrate on Kuma for enthusiasts and Barcelona for server systems? Can it really just be because they have to offer an alternative to Intel's quad-options in the client market, whether or not anyone actually uses them?
April 2, 2007 7:39:55 PM

Quote:
I've relayed this story before on this forum, but I'll summarize it. A guy I knew mortgaged his house and sold everything he had to go into Nortel before the bust. The last news I have of him is that he was seen lining up outside a Vancouver Soup Kitchen.


I thank Nortel for accelerating my career. In 2000 I took a junior network support job before I had even managed to finish my MCSE. A few months later, the network administrator left for a plumb job with Nortel and I was asked if I could handle his old job. I said "yes" and the rest is as they say, history. The poor guy lost his job the next year and had a really hard time getting back into high-tech during the slump.

I'm happy to say that he found something last year just a flew blocks away from my office. I wonder if he was able to hang onto that big fancy house he bought when he moved to Nortel?
April 2, 2007 7:45:52 PM

Quote:
I think the most interesting thing here is the view that we're witnessing a sea-change in computing at the moment. He is very dismissive of quad-core in the client market, but then this makes you wonder why they're bothering with Agena. Why not just concentrate on Kuma for enthusiasts and Barcelona for server systems? Can it really just be because they have to offer an alternative to Intel's quad-options in the client market, whether or not anyone actually uses them?


Because enthusiasts and a lot of people DO want quad-cores. People who handle a lot of media see quite the advantage with quad-core systems over dual-core.
April 2, 2007 7:46:14 PM

Quote:
Quote:

Bleh, you know...

There was a time, maybe 10 years ago or more, when people didn't give a rat's ass about stocks.

People investing in stock, then becoming armchair engineers, has really ruined dialogue on the merits and vices of almost anything computer related.


The stock market has little to do with the drivel on these boards - if you think so, then maybe you can explain Betamax vs VHS, or PowerPC vs x86.


I don't claim to be an engineer. Never have, probably never will. I have written programing in the past and I build and repair computers now. I think stock markets reflect the thinking of most people. If they like a product and see it doing good in sales, they buy its stock. If they see its sales going down and they don't see any significant sign of reversal, and/or they see signs of continued losses, they sell.

I think that companies and their CEO's need to be aware of the market, because when people are selling off their stock, they don't have the money to pay the engineers that make new products. As for Betamax vs VHS and PowerPC vs x86, those things had to do with other factors, such as advertising, cost of product, public perception, and Apple's own internal problems.
April 2, 2007 7:47:12 PM

The Quad core comments got me as well. I think he vastly underestimates (or rather downplays) the push for quad core in the consumer space. Games will be mutli threaded to take advantage of the cores in 1-2 years.

Already today, people who do video editing will greatly benefit. I'm guessing he never heard of a *slightly* popular thing called Youtube. :roll:
April 2, 2007 7:53:14 PM

Quote:
Again, I think this is an area where our strategy differs from Intel, because we don't want users to spend money on technology that doesn't get used at all. Yes, there is a small percentage of desktop users that will see benefit from quad-core. That's why we made the Quad FX platform. That is a very niche and elitist enthusiast group of people that represent less than 1% of the market space. For the rest of the market, driving the message of quad-core knowing that people will never get benefit from it is really irresponsible.


8O 8O who knew hed stop whining? who knew id ever agree with a word he said? 8O 8O So far as I have read it appears as though henry has overcome his anti Intel obsession.

WOW 8O

Oh my, I always wanted to belong to a elistist group. Except is this a good one or a bad one? I am picky about the elistist groups I join.
April 2, 2007 7:54:24 PM

I understand this, but I guess I'm questioning Richards' own reasoning. Why bother with Agena? Why not simply push the "All you'll ever need" angle, with power-saving features galore, stability etc. as he seems to imply. He seems to be somewhat contradicting himself.

Then there is the issue of whether you'd ever need quad cores, and I think the jury is distinctly out on this issue, your use of capital letters notwithstanding!
April 2, 2007 7:54:46 PM

Quote:
I liked the comments about power and consumption measures failing to include the northbridge. May seem like splitting hairs, but I think AMD has a legit beef with that one. I know the northbridge on an 875P chipset was just as hot as the P4 itself. And while core2 may consume less power and produce less heat, the chipsets can't be all that much different.


That's why reviewers measure total system draw usually :roll:

Quote:
Say what you will but QuadFX as a platform is pretty impressive


lol
April 2, 2007 8:09:43 PM

Very amusing. He claims he's all for open competition, then whines repeatedly because Intel is competing with his company. And somehow Intel keeps the rest of the PC industry (OEMs, etc) from making any money? What (il)logic does he use to come to that conclusion? I'd have loved to hear that one. At least he did spend most of his time talking about his company - for a change.

Th whole Fusion thing does bring up a very interesting question. How long can AMD and Intel chips continue to be compatible when all sorts of new instructions are thrown in? If (when?) they diverge - then what? Will the vast majority of the market go one way or the other? Or are we headed for some sort of market split, with AMD and Intel chips no longer able to run the same software (even though they're both derivitives of x86)?

* Not speaking for Intel Corp *
April 2, 2007 8:24:12 PM

Quote:
Yes, AMDs stock is in the toilet... but my Intel stock hasn't exactly done good for itself... in fact, that's the only thing that I own that has lost money. Damn you price war!


Word!
April 2, 2007 8:37:43 PM

Quote:
I think the most interesting thing here is the view that we're witnessing a sea-change in computing at the moment. He is very dismissive of quad-core in the client market, but then this makes you wonder why they're bothering with Agena. Why not just concentrate on Kuma for enthusiasts and Barcelona for server systems? Can it really just be because they have to offer an alternative to Intel's quad-options in the client market, whether or not anyone actually uses them?


There will be games that support four cores before you know it. But Word will probably always be basically single-threaded (not including background threads like spell-check).
Agena is really just a different name for Budapest single wksta/server chip. That gives them a very attractive lineup when including Sparta, Lima, Brisbane( no latency jokes) at the lower end and moving up through Rana, Kuma, Agena/FX and Barcelona.
April 2, 2007 8:39:35 PM

Quote:
Yes, AMDs stock is in the toilet... but my Intel stock hasn't exactly done good for itself... in fact, that's the only thing that I own that has lost money. Damn you price war!


Word!

Well, according to enthusiasts here the price war is good.

Blasphemers!
:twisted:
April 2, 2007 8:54:09 PM



Hmm... Very confidence inspiring graph. Maybe we should turn it upside down like that Career commercial with the chimps and start dancing.

Now that's said...

How many millions of serious Photoshop users are there? Probably with the illegal pirated copies, the answer could be in the tens of millions. Now although your sw could be pirated, you can't quite pirate a CPU. So whether or not you paid Adobe their current usurious going price, you can use four or eight cores today. And with CS3, you're gonna need every single core you can throw at this beast.

Have you ever been in a corporate publishing boardroom considering hw purchases for the Art Dept.? I have. Do you know how many expensive "toys" the Art Dept. asks for? Do you know that it can take over a million dollars to outfit the IT of even a middling Art Dept.? When you have the Art Directors jumping up and down that their single or dual cores are slowing down their Photoshop use to a crawl, do you really think that the suits are gonna tell them to stuff their Dept. for the sake of a couple of hundred dollars a CPU?

The market for quad and octo core is huge. Possibly bigger than any other market segment.

Therefore: Mr. Richard is a total moron.
April 2, 2007 9:38:56 PM

Quote:

The market for quad and octo core is huge. Possibly bigger than any other market segment.

Therefore: Mr. Richard is a total moron.


Yep, how many people here are looking to quad when intel drops prices in Q4? Intel's moving the game to quad right when the performance of old single CPUs have hit the wall, I think AMD will be hard pressed to keep up.

I'm only going dual core for about 6 months - otherwise I would have skipped over dual cores altogether.
April 2, 2007 9:41:32 PM

Quote:
Yep, how many people here are looking to quad when intel drops prices in Q4?


I've been saying it for months. I'm going for a 2xQuad system. I'm just waiting until the dust clears later this year and see which way to go with it.
April 2, 2007 9:44:13 PM

Like most here, I don't mind paying less for my next got to have it processor, but not at the expense of stock performance. Although the dividends that Intel pays are pretty nice, I would like to see better returns from the 800 pound gorilla.

Long live AMD & Intel!!!
!