Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Real Reason Behind AMD's Downfall

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 29, 2007 8:53:08 PM

For the past year we have been bombarded with news of AMD's Phenom and Barcelona Quad-core processors. This seems to only trouble one person. ME!

The question everyone should be asking is why didn't AMD release the K10 dual core first? Instead they chose to chase a more ambitious dream, albeit difficult to bring to reality - even Intel said it would have difficulty making such a chip.

Further more, Intel had done all the research for AMD and suggested that the market for Quads was not as great as that for the dual cores. AMD still went guned for the Quad.

One thing is clear, had AMD made the K10 dual core (Kuma), it would be very close in performance to the core 2 duo, and it would not have required the much talked about L3 cache with the dreaded bug.

One must ask - if AMD had gone ahead and made the K10 dual core, instead of playing "I have bigger balls than you" against Intel, would they be in a different position right now?

The answer is yes. AMD would be producing Kuma and bringing in revenue, that revenue would then be channeled to producing and fine-tuning the defunct Phenom/Barcelona.

So who is to blame for the downfall of AMD?

Hector Ruiz! Why - because he promised a core 2 quad killer - yet these are not mainstream CPU's but more enthusiast. He went ahead and put most of AMD's finances into the Barcelona/Phenom project and ignored the Kuma CPU. All along they should have been working on releasing a safe bet Kuma, not the high risk Barcelona.

Hector took the AMD ship in the wrong direction - he took it into the core wars with a great looking gun - but no cash to buy the ammo.

December 29, 2007 8:59:21 PM

Intel built the 900 and 800 sereies cpus while they stole the core 2 basic designf rom amd and did the R&D on it.

They combined the 8oo and core 2 to make the qx6700 sprinkled in some tech from p4 mess

amd tried to jump to quad cores when os is only ready for 2 threads - thread rotation may be the issue?

yes I agree with your thread - amd did something many do - they projected publicly. who knows why?

if they had kept a low profile then we be paying alot more for cpu's
December 29, 2007 9:33:56 PM

is AMD still gunning for the tri-core? i really don't see a market for that. maybe OEM and thats about it.
Related resources
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 29, 2007 9:38:31 PM

We don't really know what the Kuma core could have done. I know why AMD went for Quad core first though.

Due to their delays they had in Phenom they had to try. I give them the credit for trying but they still screwed themselves over since they somehow could not get a dual core version out first.

I am not sure why they couldn't since it was basically just a K8 with enhancements, not a new arch like Core 2(technically Core 2 is a new arch from the P4/PD series just based on PIII) so it should have been very easy to update K8 to K10 and release it.

But I think the problems and delays stem from the L3 cache itself as this is AMDs first try for a L3. And with their direct connect architecture might not work right with it without any sort of major overhaul. I know Intel had a L3 with some of its P4 EE's but since it used the FSB and was a single core it might have had less problems. All AMD really needed to do was pump up the L2 like Intel did and make that a shared cache instead of trying to add the L3 as a shared chache.

I just wounder where Kuma is now. You would think that after the Phenom flop they would have rushed Kuma out as fast as possible.
December 29, 2007 9:46:15 PM

teh_boxzor said:
is AMD still gunning for the tri-core? i really don't see a market for that. maybe OEM and thats about it.


Surely tri-core would just be a defective quad-core with one failed core? If three cores work, it's much better to sell it as a tri-core chip than throw it away.
December 29, 2007 9:49:23 PM

And if 3 of em fails, sell it as a single core!
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 29, 2007 9:52:16 PM

I have also heard that what AMD had planned was to make only Quad cores and if one had a bad core or two they would market them a tri/dual cores. Even single cores are supposed to be just quad cores with only one core working.

I would hope not. Although that may be effective to AMD price wise, only to make one type of cored CPU, it might not be as that might cause some problems.
December 29, 2007 10:21:54 PM

Thing is, AMD plans to release some Kuma's without L3 cache but bigger L2 cache.

This is something they should have and COULD have done 6-9 months ago.

One thing that has to be made clear - Intel makes it's money from the Duo's not the Quads. They only reached 1 million quads 2 months back. Everything else was a Duo. AMD is working on a Quad mobile CPU - again another mistake!

IF AMD had made the Kuma, which would have been a much, much, much easier chip to make - even with the L3 cache - they would be selling millions of Kuma's this Christmas. In fact, it would have been easier for AMD to hit the 3.0 Ghz mark with Kuma.

Since they had been making x2 at 65nm for about a year now, it would have made logical sense to start with Kuma - make revenue - then go for th experimental. At least they would have a product on the market that could compete with the Core 2 Duo's which are still very relevant.

Instead, AMD will release Kuma in 6 months time to battle 45nm Intel chips.

They are a year late with Kuma and they have no excuse for that.

All this because they were trying to live up to their wishful CEO's dreams bringing Intel down instead of strategically planning their poduct line whilst minimizing risk.

I'll be frank - many people would have bought Kuma 6-9 months ago - perhaps even me if it came in at 3.0Ghz. What is the reason for Kuma Q2 2008? Can anyone explain?
December 29, 2007 10:53:24 PM

dragonsprayer said:
Intel built the 900 and 800 sereies cpus while they stole the core 2 basic designf rom amd and did the R&D on it.




Totally incorrect. Core and Core2's basic design was taken from the Pentium 3 and Pentium M lines. AMD had jack squat to do with the part's design.
December 29, 2007 11:09:06 PM

Yup, AMD threw a hail mary when all they needed was five yards for the first down.

Incomplete, turnover on downs.
December 29, 2007 11:13:37 PM

sedaine said:
I'll be frank - many people would have bought Kuma 6-9 months ago - perhaps even me if it came in at 3.0Ghz. What is the reason for Kuma Q2 2008? Can anyone explain?


If Kuma had come out last June like it was originally slated, I probably would have bought one myself. There isn't much real reason for quads now, and far less then. But I think a real reason for the delay of Kuma was teh troubles with K10 in general and the Phenom quad in particular. AMD only has a relatively small amount of money for R&D, so it put that money into trying to get the quad right. Now that has failed, so its dropping back to try to get Kuma out.
December 29, 2007 11:36:10 PM

jkflipflop98 said:
Totally incorrect. Core and Core2's basic design was taken from the Pentium 3 and Pentium M lines. AMD had jack squat to do with the part's design.


the 800 series is the 2 die in a package technology
then the 900 single die due core netburst

the core 2 came after the 900 series - the 900 was dual core pentium, shrinks

the qx6700 is the core 2 dual core combined with the 800 series dual chip

the point is intel stepped and tested each way or tick tock before they even called it that


as far as amd - the m was similar pipe line to amd - yes they did not buy or steal tech from amd





December 29, 2007 11:38:09 PM

amd first said tri core was a new chip

later in true amd form they said the tri core was reject quads

then even later they added the super rejects will be dual core
December 29, 2007 11:39:02 PM

I reckon IBM should buy AMD as a gateway into the x86 market. If IBM could use it's funding to finance AMD's research we might end up with a total duopoly, which'd be brilliant.

Oh, and they might have enough sense to sack our "friend" Hector.
December 29, 2007 11:47:22 PM

dragonsprayer said:
amd first said tri core was a new chip

later in true amd form they said the tri core was reject quads

then even later they added the super rejects will be dual core


What amazes me is that you'll find poeple on this forum and elsewhere who are arguing with a strait face that the tricore is a valid chip because of blah blah blah. They don't realize that its as if Honda was selling a Civic with a three cylinder engine because they couldn't make the fourht one work. If that hapened there would be screaming and lawsuits all the way back to Japan. But since it's AMD, the people's darling, the completely blind suporters stay up at nites coming up with reasons why buying a chip with one quarter of it turned off because it is just plain faulty is a good thing! Now they're talking about selling chips where half is faulty! How well does that augre for the other half? What did AMD do for you people? Have great sex with you and you bonded for life like some whiny needy b****? I'm no Intel fanboi and I'd be more than hapy to buy a sizzling AMD Phenom or even two on a QFX II. But right now, AMD is nothing more than an embarasement.
December 29, 2007 11:47:27 PM

ya i agree better then the a rabs
December 30, 2007 12:09:39 AM

Quote:
What amazes me is that you'll find poeple on this forum and elsewhere who are arguing with a strait face that the tricore is a valid chip because of blah blah blah. They don't realize that its as if Honda was selling a Civic with a three cylinder engine because they couldn't make the fourht one work. If that hapened there would be screaming and lawsuits all the way back to Japan.

Nah, fusing off a defective part of the chip is common in the industry and has no measurable impact on performance or power consumption compared to a part designed without the defective units at all. And unlike "fusing off" a heavy cylinder, no one's going to complain if the CPU comes at 21.99g instead of 21.3g.
December 30, 2007 12:14:10 AM

OlSkoolChopper said:
What amazes me is that you'll find poeple on this forum and elsewhere who are arguing with a strait face that the tricore is a valid chip because of blah blah blah. They don't realize that its as if Honda was selling a Civic with a three cylinder engine because they couldn't make the fourht one work. If that hapened there would be screaming and lawsuits all the way back to Japan. But since it's AMD, the people's darling, the completely blind suporters stay up at nites coming up with reasons why buying a chip with one quarter of it turned off because it is just plain faulty is a good thing! Now they're talking about selling chips where half is faulty! How well does that augre for the other half? What did AMD do for you people? Have great sex with you and you bonded for life like some whiny needy b****? I'm no Intel fanboi and I'd be more than hapy to buy a sizzling AMD Phenom or even two on a QFX II. But right now, AMD is nothing more than an embarasement.



Tri-Core is a good idea to help yields.

It's like the E21x0 line or the E63/6400. Were they bad chips because they had half of their L2 Cache disabled becuase it was either defective or ran too hot?

Same with the Q9300 Yorkie.

That being said, I wouldn't be suprised is Dual Core Nehalems were just Quad core rejects.
December 30, 2007 12:20:32 AM

WR said:
Quote:
What amazes me is that you'll find poeple on this forum and elsewhere who are arguing with a strait face that the tricore is a valid chip because of blah blah blah. They don't realize that its as if Honda was selling a Civic with a three cylinder engine because they couldn't make the fourht one work. If that hapened there would be screaming and lawsuits all the way back to Japan.

Nah, fusing off a defective part of the chip is common in the industry and has no measurable impact on performance or power consumption compared to a part designed without the defective units at all. And unlike "fusing off" a heavy cylinder, no one's going to complain if the CPU comes at 21.99g instead of 21.3g.


Besides that, Intel pulled something similar back in the days of the 386 and 486. They'd sell the good chips as a DX version and chips that didn't have a functioning math co-processor as a SX version. Then they came out with an idea of selling an add on chip which added the math co-processor and doubled the mhz speed. When Intel pulled that stuff, lots of people turned to AMD. Of course, the original defective Pentiums caused no small ruckus and a bunch more people to buy AMD chips. It was following the Pentium disaster that I made the switch to AMD.

Olskool- You mentioned a QFX II. I wondered for a while why a version of the 5000+ BE couldn't be made that would work on the old QFX platform, basically just a 65nm version of the old chip, but most likely AMD just wants to forget that platform and wishes everyone else would forget it too.
December 30, 2007 12:53:57 AM

I can't stres enough how much of an AMD or Intel fanboi I'm not. I'm sure that each one of the companies had done their dirty deeds at points in the past, but that doesnt efect me at all. I'm interested in making the most out of my next build, not silicon history. I would be happy to buy a Kraft Peanut Buter CPU as long as the price/perf was good. When AMD has a, say, 2.5 Quad at $300 and a 2.5 Dual at $240, is anyone going to care about the 2.5 Tri at $270? Booooooooooring! Its just anothre desparate marketing ploy from a company which has long lost any shred of integrety and trying to cover up the fact that their manufactering processes are substandard with hype hype hype. The old QFX was a misbegoten POS but I am convinced that there is a signifciant market for a dual socket mobo to handle a quad in each side and which doesnt use FB-DIMMs. AMD screwed the pooch with its first try and now a perfectly good concept has gone the way of the dodobird.
December 30, 2007 1:03:11 AM

Writing during a break in the football game. Both companies surely have their faults. I turned to AMD because of some things Intel did years ago. But Intel's management has changed for the better and AMD's has turned to the worse. Right now, I'm looking toward an X48 motherboard with an Intel quad for my next build, as soon as the hardware gets released and in stock at Newegg. I'm willing to pay for performance, but when I do, I want just that, performance and no excuses.
December 30, 2007 1:36:39 AM

sailer said:
Writing during a break in the football game. Both companies surely have their faults. I turned to AMD because of some things Intel did years ago. But Intel's management has changed for the better and AMD's has turned to the worse. Right now, I'm looking toward an X48 motherboard with an Intel quad for my next build, as soon as the hardware gets released and in stock at Newegg. I'm willing to pay for performance, but when I do, I want just that, performance and no excuses.


Right on! Go Giants. Not that I give a damn about Eli and Plaxico but I want to see someone anyone cut the Pats (lying cheating videotapers...) down to size. Hold onto that lead NYG!

I've been reading up on X48 and it doesn't seem to realy offer anything too revolutionary, and I cerrtainly am not interested in sheling out for current DDR3 prices. I'm going to be perfectly hapy with a P35 as long as I can stick a 45nm anything in the socket! I'm stil holding onto the scant hope that ncix and other retailers are right and the Wolfies and Yorkies are coming along in three weeks! Let's pray that the Giants beat the Pats and that my Q9550 will be in my paws by the end of Jan! :sol: 
December 30, 2007 2:02:23 AM

I'm waiting for Nehalem before I upgrade, its due 2nd half of next year sometime... Aparently that thing will seriously rock. According to some Intel veep the performance gain Nehalem has over Core2 is actually more than Core2 had over Netburst. It does completely away with FSB (finally) which is a real performance bottleneck on multicore systems.
December 30, 2007 2:09:59 AM

You guys jinxed the Giants!

AMD messed up!
December 30, 2007 2:13:50 AM

nephalem will be replaced by the next revolution and you be waiting and waiting

get a quad and joint the revolution today
December 30, 2007 2:19:22 AM

teh_boxzor said:
is AMD still gunning for the tri-core? i really don't see a market for that. maybe OEM and thats about it.


if they dont sell they'll simply disable another core and bam you got a dual core. gotta do something with the semi working quads. might as well make money.
December 30, 2007 2:30:25 AM

sedaine said:
You guys jinxed the Giants!

AMD messed up!


Dang, you're right! I shoulda kept my big mouth shut. I hate the Pats!

Mark my words: Superbowl - Indy 28 Bucs 34!!!!!!!!!

dragonsprayer said:
nephalem will be replaced by the next revolution and you be waiting and waiting

get a quad and joint the revolution today


I'm waiting until Jan 20. Then I'm pulling the trigger no matter what. If it has to be a Q6600 or an E8400 then so be it. I'm leaning to the Wolfie in that scenario.
December 30, 2007 2:35:40 AM

OlSkoolChopper said:
Dang, you're right! I shoulda kept my big mouth shut. I hate the Pats!

Mark my words: Superbowl - Indy 28 Bucs 34!!!!!!!!!



I'm waiting until Jan 20. Then I'm pulling the trigger no matter what. If it has to be a Q6600 or an E8400 then so be it. I'm leaning to the Wolfie in that scenario.




Ahhhh NO! Indy 34 Bucks 14
December 30, 2007 3:15:07 AM

sedaine said:
You guys jinxed the Giants!

AMD messed up!


Ok, the Patriots won. They're the first team with a perfect season. :bounce: 

Now where were we. Ah yes, AMD's troubles, X48's and other such innaities. So in the fourth quarter 08, maybe AMD will be like a comeback king. They may have a new CEO that knows what he's doing, some new money to pay the guys down in R&D, and I'll find a nice redhead to go sailing with me. Anybody else dreaming?

As for the X48, it's supposed to solve a few of the probems that the X38 has, jump the FSB up to 1600, get the newest, fastest quad, allow two ATI cards to power my monitor and otherwise should keep me computing happy for a couple years. Its late and I'm headed off to bed. Night guys.
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2007 3:38:36 AM

sailer said:
Ok, the Patriots won. They're the first team with a perfect season. :bounce: 

Now where were we. Ah yes, AMD's troubles, X48's and other such innaities. So in the fourth quarter 08, maybe AMD will be like a comeback king. They may have a new CEO that knows what he's doing, some new money to pay the guys down in R&D, and I'll find a nice redhead to go sailing with me. Anybody else dreaming?

As for the X48, it's supposed to solve a few of the probems that the X38 has, jump the FSB up to 1600, get the newest, fastest quad, allow two ATI cards to power my monitor and otherwise should keep me computing happy for a couple years. Its late and I'm headed off to bed. Night guys.


Quote:
Ok, the Patriots won. They're the first team with a perfect season.


2nd team. 72 Miami and they won the super bowl too.
December 30, 2007 3:53:32 AM

sailer said:
Ok, the Patriots won. They're the first team with a perfect season. :bounce: 

Now where were we. Ah yes, AMD's troubles, X48's and other such innaities. So in the fourth quarter 08, maybe AMD will be like a comeback king. They may have a new CEO that knows what he's doing, some new money to pay the guys down in R&D, and I'll find a nice redhead to go sailing with me. Anybody else dreaming?

As for the X48, it's supposed to solve a few of the probems that the X38 has, jump the FSB up to 1600, get the newest, fastest quad, allow two ATI cards to power my monitor and otherwise should keep me computing happy for a couple years. Its late and I'm headed off to bed. Night guys.



No, not the first team... '72 Miami Dolphins were first and they also won the super bowl that same year. So for this to really count the Pats need to win the superbowl. However, back in '72 there were only 14 games in a season... so it is a monumental achievement / salary cap / free agency and everything else a team has to deal with.

Many of the records set tonight may never be broken again or at least not for a very long time. Very good game considering it doesn't mean anything for the play off picture. These coaches really have some nads to risk injuries of key players that could cost them something in the playoffs.


Back to the AMD situation..... You know I've thought about this and now all of a sudden intel is delaying. That's the bad thing when both these two aren't cranking is we go into a period of them charging big bucks for only small gains in performance.

I wonder if intel is doing this on purpose, because they know they have the lead and now they sit back to make more money on stuff already on the market. Knowing full well if they release the new batch prices will drop on current top lines.

Once Amd releases something close then blam they drop something out only slightly faster and there we go again. If this is the case how long will it take for fanboi's to wake up?

Is Intel deceiving? :heink: 
December 30, 2007 4:22:47 AM

why buy anything but a q6600?

i have running 3.8ghz in 780i mobo
i have one running 3.7ghz in x38 mobo

i have been shipping 3.61ghz systems since summer

the new chips are downgrades - yes clock for clock they are faster but you have to spend double for minor improvements

1333 and 1600 fsb is the knief in the back of overclocking systems.

what if mobo chipsets do not go past 2000fsb?
what if intel ships all locked 1600fsb chips?

that would double the price or more of a 3.6ghz quad system
December 30, 2007 4:39:22 AM

haha funny how this thread turned from AMD's trouble with ze hector, to football games x] lol!

but anyways, i mean, if i was intel, i would do the same thing they are doing now, hold back ur next gen of processors as long as possible, milk the money from the current duo's/quads, as they seem to be doing that very well. and once amd comes back with an "answer", release ur next gen batches of processors uve been holding back. jes seems logical to me. my $.02
December 30, 2007 6:09:02 AM

I read the title of this thread and I instantly think of tabloids. The AMD bashing seems to get more and more of Hollywood's style each time.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 30, 2007 6:44:00 AM

What in the hell have you been smoking? Did you hit the bubbly to early? AMD F'd up, they should have done this, they should have done that. What would be impressive is if you said all this BEFORE K10 was launched, and then bumped this showing how right you are/were.

Quote:
The question everyone should be asking is why didn't AMD release the K10 dual core first?


Probably because K10 was supposed to be a quad core chip. Remember AMD saying the bullcr@p about how native quad was better then glued? K10 was supposed to be a native quad core chip, why would they release a dual core version of first? I hear Chevy just developed a new aluminum V8, should they release an inline 4 cylinder model of it first?

Quote:
One thing is clear, had AMD made the K10 dual core (Kuma), it would be very close in performance to the core 2 duo


Seeing as the quads aren't close, why would the duals be? As a matter of fact, when I read reviews of K10, they usually talk about how well it scales with cores. (meaning more cores = more performance.) To me, this means duals would perform worse then the quads if you look at the percentage of performance you'd get.

Quote:
One must ask - if AMD had gone ahead and made the K10 dual core, instead of playing "I have bigger balls than you" against Intel, would they be in a different position right now?
The answer is yes. AMD would be producing Kuma and bringing in revenue, that revenue would then be channeled to producing and fine-tuning the defunct Phenom/Barcelona.


If they had done this, they would get bashed for not having a quad. If you look at the server reviews, the K10 chips look a lot better. Had they not developed this chip, they would be losing the server market really badly, and that is a much more profitable place then desktop/retail.

Looking at the "points" you made, I'm not sure you know enough about whats going on. I know I don't, and I can see right through your "logic". I realize what I said was to reasonable for you to understand, so I will go elsewhere. Sorry to breakup your AMD bashing party.
December 30, 2007 6:57:50 AM

Why does everyone seem to hate the Pats? Sure the "spygate" issue was a big mistake, but I think being 16-0 speaks loudly for them. I really don't understand why they would try to cheat with such a potent offense in the first place, but they have redeemed themselves...
December 30, 2007 7:43:53 AM

cnumartyr said:
Tri-Core is a good idea to help yields.

It's like the E21x0 line or the E63/6400. Were they bad chips because they had half of their L2 Cache disabled becuase it was either defective or ran too hot?

Same with the Q9300 Yorkie.

That being said, I wouldn't be suprised is Dual Core Nehalems were just Quad core rejects.


Sorry, but the Q9300 is a different mask set than the other quad core processors. That is why it is at a Mx stepping and the QX9650 is at a C0 stepping. Two completely different set of masks to make the chips.
December 30, 2007 9:19:11 AM

I think AMD felt under valued by everyone, so they rushed to get Quads out. Releasing a cheap fast cool overclockable dual core would have been a much smarter move. I am a bit of a fanboy and I am thinking about a Q6600. A false quadcore is better than a true **** one.

If they had released a DC earlier then they would have had some funds etc to improve the quadcore. It needed to match the Q6600 on price and performance at least - I mean ffs you can push a Q6600 well into 3ghz range. So come on AMD. WAKE UP.
December 30, 2007 10:05:19 AM

I agree with the OP, AMD tried to pull another coup like they did with the native dual core chip vs the Pentium D and this time it backfired. It's quite ironic that the advantage they have had with HT and the IMC the last few years has turned into their achilles heel because it prevents them from doing MCM in its present state.

It would have made far more sense to have gone for an enhanced dual core chip first without the L3 for the desktop market. If what they say about all their chips being designed with modular units now, including modular caches this should have been easy. A native quad core with L3 could then have been targetted for 45nm initially as a server chip. If they had not got bogged down with the L3 at this stage they could have focused on more IPC enhancements as well, particularly in the integer department. This is how the A64 managed to compete despite having a big clock speed deficit and is the only way I can see AMD competing with Intel for the forseeable future given how far behind they are with process technology. It just sucks that they are now a generation behind in terms of architecture too.
December 30, 2007 10:22:14 AM

OlSkoolChopper said:
What amazes me is that you'll find poeple on this forum and elsewhere who are arguing with a strait face that the tricore is a valid chip because of blah blah blah. They don't realize that its as if Honda was selling a Civic with a three cylinder engine because they couldn't make the fourht one work. If that hapened there would be screaming and lawsuits all the way back to Japan. But since it's AMD, the people's darling, the completely blind suporters stay up at nites coming up with reasons why buying a chip with one quarter of it turned off because it is just plain faulty is a good thing! Now they're talking about selling chips where half is faulty! How well does that augre for the other half? What did AMD do for you people? Have great sex with you and you bonded for life like some whiny needy b****? I'm no Intel fanboi and I'd be more than hapy to buy a sizzling AMD Phenom or even two on a QFX II. But right now, AMD is nothing more than an embarasement.


also AMD will not charge you the price of a quad core with tri-cores, so what is the problem there that made you gone ape sh!t??
December 30, 2007 10:50:10 AM


I'm not a Intel or AMD fan but I like what my computer can do for me..
Quad core. I've got one. Bloody Great ! ( VIDEO EDITOR )

But isn't business interesting.....

I think AMD ( like INTEL ) are not thinking about the now..that takes care of itself... but thinking of the future. This is business...

Lets think outside the box for a moment.

AMD got most of their success in the server dept. Now the desktop they've got Intel to fight. Desktops are what concern almost all of us, right? We use our computers everyday at work, then come home to email.

Hang on wait... What about our watches, they're computers, even DVD players, TV screens, even intelligent LCDs.

They recently bought out ATI with the idea of making all-in-one chips. Both CPU and graphics. ( micrsosoft touchscreens ).

What if in say the next three years AMD were so brilliant that they developed "THE" chip but, instead of making it in the desktop arena they managed to get "THE" chip into every mobile phone in production...WOW...Big $$, then came the McDonald's exclusive deal for the next ten years...Double Big $$.

Business is business guys. I can't say I agree with what intel are doing at the moment but that's my position now.

If I won say $ 12,000 on some game show and found out it wasn't quite all that I'd thought it would be...so I decide to invest in Intel $ 1.72 shares. not bad. Next two years AMD got bust. Damn, computers cost a hell of a lot more. But wait, My shares are now worth $ 9. 82 each.

Tell you what... I'd buy that CEO a Drink.

Business is like poker... don't show all your cards. It's bad business. Wait to see what the other players have got... or better yet. Take the approach of the 'Bluff' (hype) and see if that will win you out till the next game.

AMD lost this round ( IMO ) but there is still money in the kitty.
December 30, 2007 12:19:39 PM

I like how some people act all hysterical about AMD turning partly defective quad core chips into tricore chips.
Intelligent and reasonable content is getting harder to find on these forums every day it seems.

What AMD will do with defective quad core chips has been done with almost all chips in the past, cpu, gpu, whatever.
A chip is not good enough? Sell it at a lower mhz. A chip is not good enough for even that? Disable a part and see if it's still useful.

All those folks screaming about how horrible this makes amd, probably have partly disabled GPU's in their computers without them being aware of it.

blablabla
December 30, 2007 12:23:04 PM

Yes Jakc is right. A cpu isn't made a certain mhz, (with the exception i feel of the lower end C2Ds i feel). A batch is made and a certain number are stress tested. The speed they fail at is lowered slightly and rounded to the nearest marketing level (2.33, 2.66, 3 etc) and boxed and sold. This "conspiracy" has been going on for years...
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2007 12:53:11 PM

Some good points here.

I find myself thinking why didn't they rework the K8 dual core and fix the glaring issues with the poor cache and prefetchers?

Why didn't they do some more work on the latency issues (that Core2 have fixed with P3 / M as a great start) as well as widening the entire structure?

Obviously they spend a great deal of time with the logic behind HT3 and the interconnects between all four cores, but wouldn't you think getting 2 right would have been a better start?

Then they could have glued two cores together using HT3 interconnects ... which would have been superior to Core2's current system.

Would one of the AMD Engineers please like to reply here?? (hey ... just pick a weird username ... we will get the gist).

We know you read THG ... your nerds ... you cannot resist!!

Their obsession with providing a superior scaling engine for high end servers has resulted in a niche market chip that has largely let everyone else down.

A L3 cache is also what you do when you have completely run out of ideas in CPU design ... we are not stupid.

The end result if the poor IPC and rushing the product to market with low end clocks is a massive perception of failure ... which will undoubtedly damage their server market segment anyway.

Core2 might not scale as well but as it is a far superior engine for the majority of the market ( single socket systems) and it has succeeded spectacularly well.

AMD I am available to head up your marketing department ... just PM me.

You need me guys ... I have 6 mths leave up my sleeve so I can pop over there and sort things out in a jiffy.

I can also understand what the engineers are talking about ...

Something clearly got lost when aligning the strategic business plan to reality in the marketplace ... and rolling that out to the R&D Division.

Also picking a fight with Intel is just stupid.

Intel is like IBM ... they won't notice you unless you attack them ... they will take a long time to respond ... they will then bury you ... or buy you out. Liken them to the US Miltary!!

AMD has still not learned where their place in the market is.

They cannot be everyone's answer ... because they would simply not be able to meet demand anyway.

End rant.

December 30, 2007 12:56:31 PM

What is your job Reynod?
December 30, 2007 1:22:47 PM

jkflipflop98 said:
(quote)dragonsprayer wrote :

Intel built the 900 and 800 sereies cpus while they stole the core 2 basic designf rom amd and did the R&D on it.(/quote)

Totally incorrect. Core and Core2's basic design was taken from the Pentium 3 and Pentium M lines. AMD had jack squat to do with the part's design.


jkflipflop98 is correct... wiki "Intel P6" and "Intel Yonah"
December 30, 2007 1:23:17 PM

OlSkoolChopper said:
What amazes me is that you'll find poeple on this forum and elsewhere who are arguing with a strait face that the tricore is a valid chip because of blah blah blah. They don't realize that its as if Honda was selling a Civic with a three cylinder engine because they couldn't make the fourht one work. If that hapened there would be screaming and lawsuits all the way back to Japan. But since it's AMD, the people's darling, the completely blind suporters stay up at nites coming up with reasons why buying a chip with one quarter of it turned off because it is just plain faulty is a good thing! Now they're talking about selling chips where half is faulty! How well does that augre for the other half? What did AMD do for you people? Have great sex with you and you bonded for life like some whiny needy b****? I'm no Intel fanboi and I'd be more than hapy to buy a sizzling AMD Phenom or even two on a QFX II. But right now, AMD is nothing more than an embarasement.


DELETED Who the hell would would sue Honda for selling them a three cylinder engine... that had 3 cylinders?

What amazes me is that you'll find people on this forum and elsewhere who are arguing with a straight face that throwing away a quad core with only one defective core is a valid idea and selling a three core processor that works as advertised is entirely a bad business move.
December 30, 2007 1:30:27 PM

notherdude said:
Quote:
Ok, the Patriots won. They're the first team with a perfect season.


2nd team. 72 Miami and they won the super bowl too.


Ok, should have said first team to win a perfect 16 game season. The Dolphins had a perfect 14 game season.
December 30, 2007 2:17:33 PM

I would not buy an AMD (especially tri-core) CPU here's why:
If AMD had so many failures in their production process of quad core chips they had enough to start a whole tri-core product line, then the quality of their production process must suck so who's to say that even a tri-core chip wouldn't have other defects that squeezed through testing or could cause failures over time?
Also its a good indicator that it probably won't overclock very well if at all.
!