Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is It Too Little Too Late

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 80 à CPUs
August 18, 2009 12:04:23 PM

First of all let me make it perfectly clear this is not a fanboy, flame, troll, or any intended bad purpose thread as a moderator here at THGF it would not be in my best interests to start a thread like that, however this is a thread of my own concerns regarding AMD, and its future survivability.

In the day that AMD was King of the hill, with the socket 939 FX line they got there by standing on the shoulders of the OCing community, when Intel released the Core 2 and AMD had no counter to it and Intel surged ahead, AMD laid down like a dog and decided to shoot for the business market, Opterons rained down and AMD walked away from the OCing community, the very ones that put them where they were.

Intel was smart enough to see the worth of the OCing community so they allowed their CPUs to be OCd, Intel leaves AMD in the dust like a Top Fuel Dragster vs a Volkswagon Beetle, so now after realizing their mistakes AMD is trying to regain the OCing community by flooding the market with their Black Edition CPU line of unlocked multiplier CPUs, unfortunately they still don't cut it.

This surely seems like a bash AMD thread but its not, I have been loyal to AMD for years hoping for AMD to be able to come back and pull a rabbit out of the hat, but with the overclockability of the Intel 775, and the raw power and overclockability of the I7 line can AMD actually, continue this half stepping and survive.

More about : late

a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 1:05:37 PM

^ IMO AMD simply did not have the resources to compete everywhere Intel has - look at the cancellation of Bobcat in the netbook market as just one example. And it taking 2+ years for them to finally catch up with Intel's previous gen on desktop CPUs. If Intel keeps executing its roadmap like it has for the last 3 years, and AMD sticks to theirs, by the time their next gen CPU Bulldozer comes out Intel will be 2 gens ahead. It all comes down to $$, and with Intel a year ahead on process nodes, that's a year ahead on lower fab costs and hence profit margins.

AMD rested on their laurels with K8 for too long, and Core2 basically caught them with their pants, skivvies and socks down :) . So for the next couple years, we'll see the P2 975, 985, $9.95, a sawbuck :) .

It's basically a Heimlich squeeze in all directions, and it already caused AMD to cough up their fabs last year. Despite the fanbois claiming that being a stroke of genius, yadda-yadda, I'm fairly certain that AMD would have loved to keep their fabs if it had been a financially viable option. Besides, it was Hector's idea and we all know what kinda genius he is :) .

Also, I don't think the enthusiast market is that big or compelling anymore - computers in general and CPUs in particular are just commodity items nowadays & Joe 6-pak could care less that some CPU got up to 5GHz on air or 7GHz on LN2. Sorta like the Ham Radio enthusiasts being a well-recognized group of expert enthusiasts 50 or 60 years ago, but once everybody had a transistor radio, or at least a cellphone :) , the Hamsters faded into insignificance.

Shouldn't this thread be in the AMD & Intel sticky??
August 18, 2009 1:23:54 PM

Hehe ^^ I agree, all these black editions made only to make OC'ers go nuts & crazy and say "OMG OMG AMD HAS UNLOCKED MULTIPLIER * Dribbling mouths * AMD FTW INTEL COST 1K UNLOCKED LET'S GO BREAK WORLD RECORD AND KICK A$$!". Though even the "locked" C2Qs and i7s seem to overwhelm the unlocked BEs.

I however, think that the number of enthusiasts is bigger now, than it was for let's say 5 years ago. I must say however, the progress in technology in the CPU & Graphics area is going very fast and is accelerating! Back when there were Pentium 3s AMD came with the Athlons and kicked Intel's a$$. AMD kicked Intel's Pentium butt all the way until the Core 2s came out. Since then AMD has been behind, all the time...
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 1:43:32 PM

Quote:
^ IMO AMD simply did not have the resources to compete everywhere Intel has



You're a real genius aren't you fazers? :whistle: 
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 2:44:02 PM

...and so it begins....
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 3:12:47 PM

jennyh said:
You're a real genius aren't you fazers? :whistle: 


LOL - I can tell you appreciate my amazing grasp of the obvious, eh :D ?? I guess I could get a job at AMD's Department of Du'h with this skill level, no doubt... :sol: 


Now, other than my delivery, which part of my post do you wish to contest??
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 3:33:36 PM

Well, lets step back a little bit

take a look at the amount of people caring what CPU their computer has vs what can it do.

AMD is trying to move a platform ahead when people are demanding more power, and more flexibility and their attempts of the spider deal is alright.

And if they can get the SoC style chips with decent gfx on-die out first by at least a year.

Then yes, they can win, not good for us enthusiasts by any margin, but they can survive and win.
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 4:54:21 PM

Unless AMDs roadmap changed again this morning while I wasn't looking, Bulldozer (fusion) won't be out until 2011. It's possible they could pull it in like they did Istanbul, but this is supposed to be a radically new architecture with on-die GPU, at least the last time I read about it. So if anything I would expect it to get pushed out, given the complexity and novelty.
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 5:38:53 PM

Same for intel on this one, but with them acting faster with on die pcie, who knows what will happen...

amd talked about this first, and they made the ati move to support it, whilst even if intel pushes out something like lynnfield with GMA onboard their biggest selling point would be lower integration costs for OEM, which some say is very big, whilst i hope and imo, they will not draw much of a market when people still can't do more things with their boxes.

Then there is LRB, if that comes out and it becomes on-die with a current gen (as in 4800 G200) perf, then AMD will simple be dead if fusion is not launched with a good performance, and i hope then ati lives on...



a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 6:04:09 PM

It'll be interesting to see how the on-die IGP in Clarkdale (?) performs - I had heard something like 4x performance increase, which will probably compete well with AMDs IGPs. Time will tell.

As for the future, check out THIS link for some info on relative R&D expenditures. Seems that Intel's is something like 4x AMD's, but then AMD's revenues are something like 9x smaller than Intel's. So AMD is like the 90-lb swimmer with a 30-lb brick tied to him, while Intel is the 800 lb fat guy who can float even with a 120-lb brick tied to him :D .

Anyway, my point above is that Intel spending so much more on R&D, is likely to pull even further ahead of AMD. However this is a simple analysis since Intel obviously spends R&D funds on much more than CPUs & GPUs. Such as buggy SSDs :sol:  ...
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 6:23:13 PM

Who cares what igp intel put on the same die? It's gonna be total garbage anyway. I'd rather wait another 2 years for something that was actually worth buying instead of any intel igp.

Funnily enough, in 2 years time intels igp's will probably be about the same as AMD's are now. :D 
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 6:34:35 PM

Well I guess it's my time to disagree.... Yes intel pwns AMD.. we all know this but as far as overclocking goes the only Intels that can achieve high clocks are SOME 775 dual core CPU's and the old pent 4's.... As far as AMD goes they hold the record for the highest quad overclock both on the AM2+ platform and the AM3. The fact that the i7's cannot compete with AMD's records is IMO embarrasing since you are paying a premium in the first place..... There is absolutely NO excuse for intel to sell a chip (enthusiast chip BTW) for a grand that cannot crush AM3's when it's time for Ln2...... That is my complaint for Intel....

IMO as long as we keep buying both Intel and AMD chips, the cycle will never end.....

Intel = VERY Fast and Expensive

AMD = Fast and Inexpensive

I agree with medjohnson7, as long as my chip can hold its own.... I will never be interested in spending mad coin on something that will give me a slight performance gain....



August 18, 2009 6:41:40 PM

Well the way I look at it is that as long as the little guy(AMD) puts out not the fastest, but CPUs that can hang with or close to the big guy, for a decent price, and they can handle all my needs, I will be buying their product. Not a fanboy for either side, but I want to see AMD stay alive, and hopefully come out with the fastest CPU's . Is that going to happen? Who knows, but one can hope.
August 18, 2009 7:20:52 PM

I wonder what is keeping AMD alive, given their big quarterly losses. It reminds me of Eastern Airlines, who told us (I worked for them at the time) that they had plenty of cash to handle the losses but went bankrupt anyway.
August 18, 2009 7:21:38 PM

Its not just who holds the top rung here.
Its about it all, the igps, power usage, discrete gpus etc etc
Some decent wins for AMD: Their ability to surprise lately shouldnt be under appreciated. Turning duals into quads is a genious move, it has to up sales.
Having the highest clock generated ever on a quad by many differing quads over Intel
The mobile sector is owned on the discrete end now as ATI has taken the lead there
ATIs advanced early release of its DX11 parts

Who knows if itll be enough, but this clearly isnt the same company some have come to hate in the past due to their past failures
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 7:29:44 PM

DXRick said:
I wonder what is keeping AMD alive, given their big quarterly losses. It reminds me of Eastern Airlines, who told us (I worked for them at the time) that they had plenty of cash to handle the losses but went bankrupt anyway.


The reason AMD is still alive is due to the fact that they are still selling alot of CPU's, in the last quarter they have outsold Intel to be frank, but now that the i5's debut is around the corner, we will have to see if that will change AMD's pace....

The economy hit a record low and that helped AMD....Really helped AMD......But who knows what will happen......time will tell......
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 7:33:14 PM

Its like how Honda is tanking while the copycat Hyundai is seeing rises in sales, the cheaper guys will always win in a bad econ time, as people start to cut back. Even if they may not perform as well or last as long as the real deal.
a c 106 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
August 18, 2009 7:35:07 PM

There are a couple of chunks of the market that need the CPU performance that, right now, only Intel can deliver. Where enough time means enough money, even the premium prices Intel charges are acceptable.
For everyone else, it simply doesn't matter. At the low end, however, it sometimes comes down to the quality of the IGP on the chipset. As resolutions go up, and more of even the casual games demonstrate the limp impotence of Intel IGPs, AMD solutions look better. I believe that's a huge market, of both home and business users. AMD may be down, but I don't think they're out, not by a longshot. It may not be their CPUs that save them, but the whole package.
August 18, 2009 7:35:23 PM

Hmmm, where have I heard that this economy would favor AMD more than Intel before?
August 18, 2009 7:55:35 PM

Onus said:
There are a couple of chunks of the market that need the CPU performance that, right now, only Intel can deliver. Where enough time means enough money, even the premium prices Intel charges are acceptable.
For everyone else, it simply doesn't matter. At the low end, however, it sometimes comes down to the quality of the IGP on the chipset. As resolutions go up, and more of even the casual games demonstrate the limp impotence of Intel IGPs, AMD solutions look better. I believe that's a huge market, of both home and business users. AMD may be down, but I don't think they're out, not by a longshot. It may not be their CPUs that save them, but the whole package.



"AMD may be down, but I don't think they're out, not by a longshot. It may not be their CPUs that save them, but the whole package"

I agree with you there and JdJ has said with the way things are and the ever gloom of Jobs, or the lack of Jobs right now, It is hard not to look at AMD's offering's and not go with them for many. They really have made progress, sure there not on top, however, I can't complain In the performance department on my 940 from them, and with the Grafix card performance of the 4800 series, the whole platform thing is really showing very nice performance, and is competive with some of Intels top offerings giving what it cost to build the AMD platform.
a c 80 à CPUs
August 18, 2009 8:04:07 PM

OvrClkr said:
Well I guess it's my time to disagree.... Yes intel pwns AMD.. we all know this but as far as overclocking goes the only Intels that can achieve high clocks are SOME 775 dual core CPU's and the old pent 4's.... As far as AMD goes they hold the record for the highest quad overclock both on the AM2+ platform and the AM3. The fact that the i7's cannot compete with AMD's records is IMO embarrasing since you are paying a premium in the first place..... There is absolutely NO excuse for intel to sell a chip (enthusiast chip BTW) for a grand that cannot crush AM3's when it's time for Ln2...... That is my complaint for Intel....

IMO as long as we keep buying both Intel and AMD chips, the cycle will never end.....

Intel = VERY Fast and Expensive

AMD = Fast and Inexpensive

I agree with medjohnson7, as long as my chip can hold its own.... I will never be interested in spending mad coin on something that will give me a slight performance gain....



So you're basing your statement on Ln2 OC tests ???, well that would be viable if those same AMD CPUs could produce those results on air and water cooling, but they don't.

All that claimed speed from OCing with Ln2 brought on the OOHs and AAHs, and some of us fell in that jump on the AMD bandwagon, but the actual OCing reality on air and water cooling was no where near the claims at all.

Intel has as much right to sell their high end CPUs for a Grand as AMD did, or did you forget the release prices of the AMD FX57 and AMD FX60, when it comes to an air or water cooling setup the real results of OCing AMD come in very disappointing, when compared to what you can get out of an Intel.

I own Intel and AMD, so I have both to compare as far as their OCing capabilities of what they can and cannot do, and my present results are from air cooling, so I know where the limitations are between the two, thus the reasons for my concerns in the first place.

Its understandable that you'd wave your AMD flag so high, its like walking through a desert looking for water and AMD finally gave you some, of course you'd appreciate it, you're dying from thirst, unfortunately you're still dying from thirst, because what AMD actually gave you was Ln2.


a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 8:12:05 PM

jennyh said:
Who cares what igp intel put on the same die? It's gonna be total garbage anyway. I'd rather wait another 2 years for something that was actually worth buying instead of any intel igp.

Funnily enough, in 2 years time intels igp's will probably be about the same as AMD's are now. :D 


Well since Intel has >50% of the graphics market with their presently crummy IGPs, then 4x improvement might get them another 15 - 20% marketshare. So I'd guess AMD had better be caring about what IGP Intel puts on the Clarkdale :) 

We should see some reviews of this "total garbage" IGP in a few months, about the same timeframe as your "guarantee" of AMD returning to profitability :D ...
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 8:14:06 PM

DXRick said:
I wonder what is keeping AMD alive, given their big quarterly losses. It reminds me of Eastern Airlines, who told us (I worked for them at the time) that they had plenty of cash to handle the losses but went bankrupt anyway.


Well AMD has been busy selling of chunks of themselves, but now that they are down to bone + ATI, I'd hafta guess it'll be ATI next on the auction block, if their financials don't improve as soon as some here like to guarantee :) .
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 8:20:00 PM

OvrClkr said:
The reason AMD is still alive is due to the fact that they are still selling alot of CPU's, in the last quarter they have outsold Intel to be frank, but now that the i5's debut is around the corner, we will have to see if that will change AMD's pace....

The economy hit a record low and that helped AMD....Really helped AMD......But who knows what will happen......time will tell......


You do know that AMD lost CPU marketshare last quarter, right? All the gain they made in the first quarter, so they're down below 20% again...

Just to set the facts straight, AMD underperformed the street expectations last quarter - they lost 62 cents per share - INTC and NVDA actually outperformed the street and had a positive return per share. So, no - the economy hurt AMD and helped INTC and NVDA. For proof, read the conference call transcripts from Meyer et al after the Q2 report came out.
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 8:24:15 PM

I agree with you ryan, I always agree with you... im just upset that Intel is really overpricing their chips....Im not trying to argue over the whole Ln2 debate, just kinda sucks that you pay good money on something that does not perform when you push it..... On Air AMD does not do bad at all , nor does Intel.... But look at it this way....

Yesterday I clocked my x2 550 @ 3.9Ghz ( 1.45v vcore ) ( 1.4v for the NB ) using DDR2 800MHZ <--- stock overall temps never hit 48c (ambient @ 26c)

3dmark06 score : 16,210 ( 550 used as a dual core ) GTX 260 (216) stock clocks

===========================================================

Now a friend of mine that owns an Intel Q9400 overclocked to 3.6Ghz using a 4870x2 failed to surpass my score.... that is an EMBARRASMENT due to the fact that he is running 4 cores and it is obvious that his GPU should crush my 260... That is my point.....

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-253377_29_300.ht...

on top of that he is running 8Gb of DDR2, while I run 3.25Gb (XP).... that just makes it even worse...
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 8:32:31 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Hmmm, where have I heard that this economy would favor AMD more than Intel before?


I suspect some guy with red hair, funky-green suit and a penchant for saying "What - me worry?" :D 

So far the respective quarterly reports beg to differ with you :sol:  .

Of note, AMD is still concentrating on the shrinking DT market, whereas they had almost a year's notice now that the netbook segment would be the fastest-growing in the lousy economy. They shouldda had Bobcat + decent mobile out long before now...

a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 8:36:57 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
You do know that AMD lost CPU marketshare last quarter, right? All the gain they made in the first quarter, so they're down below 20% again...

Just to set the facts straight, AMD underperformed the street expectations last quarter - they lost 62 cents per share - INTC and NVDA actually outperformed the street and had a positive return per share. So, no - the economy hurt AMD and helped INTC and NVDA. For proof, read the conference call transcripts from Meyer et al after the Q2 report came out.


fazers, I never said AMD gained when it comes to their shares, I will not argue over this since it is OBVIOUS that AMD is still alive due to the economy.... if the economy were in good shape AMD would be on the verge of banruptcy.... Intel didnt do great either, both companies lost due to the economy but AMD did gain ground with thier price to performance chips.....just cause a company lost a couple of cents per share does NOT mean there was no revenue......
August 18, 2009 8:39:34 PM

@ Ryan
"All that claimed speed from OCing with Ln2 brought on the OOHs and AAHs, and some of us fell in that jump on the AMD bandwagon, but the actual OCing reality on air and water cooling was no where near the claims at all. "
I was partly guilty for those claims, as 4Ghz wasnt the norm, as we all found out early on, but none of those "claims" were official
August 18, 2009 8:43:24 PM

I have to say I saw the youtube vid on AMD breaking the record and sure that was great and all, but in the real world, Who cares. Ln2 and a record high Ghz speed is great and all for testing, but not really a sustainable one. It doesn't give me any water, and I am not dying of thirst with my builds with AMD. They perform very well, and I am happy with them.

I was happy with my 9850 B.E. but yes I was dissapointed, with how poorly it overclocked, and the fact that cool and Quiet was a joke on the Phenoms. Performance was ok, though, and I could still game on it with out problems.

With the launch of Phenom II's they sovled that problem, and I guess you could say quenched my thirst
a c 80 à CPUs
August 18, 2009 8:52:40 PM

Everyone the one thing we all want, or should want, is for AMD to survive, because if AMD does not survive and Intel were to gain total CPU unopposed dominance, our OCing days will be over.

You will get the performance level you pay for, if you want increased performance you'll buy a higher priced, higher performing CPU, you will not be OCing it, because they could just lock the multiplier and FSB range, and as far as OCing its over.

Both Intel and AMD are allowing us to OC today, they're even marketing their CPUs to the OCing community, so this tug of war between them is great for us, however its in all our best interests even if you are an Intel total fan, that AMD survives.
August 18, 2009 8:57:57 PM

I think saying a chip is over priced is not were it is at. It is called supply and demand, and if some wants to pay the price Intels asking for what performance there offering then, and the performance meets there demands or needs, then they got what they paid for.

For some there are better options for less money and their demands and needs. It really is that simple.

Perfect example,

I can build custom homes, I know what it cost per sq. foot given certain products, materials to finish a new home. Look at the cost of housing and the big pop in the housing bubble, and the fact most poeples homes are not even worth 50% of there value. I can build a very nice new home (2000 sq. foot home) 3 bedroom/ Two bath for around $50,000 cash. So to me with my experience and the ablity to build a new home for that, I can say that most homes today are way over priced.

I guess until I can build and fab my own processor who am I to say any companys CPU's is over priced? I may be able to say it isn't the best value, but not overpriced.
August 18, 2009 8:59:34 PM

4Ryan6 said:
Everyone the one thing we all want, or should want, is for AMD to survive, because if AMD does not survive and Intel were to gain total CPU unopposed dominance, our OCing days will be over.

You will get the performance level you pay for, if you want increased performance you'll buy a higher priced, higher performing CPU, you will not be OCing it, because they could just lock the multiplier and FSB range, and as far as OCing its over.

Both Intel and AMD are allowing us to OC today, they're even marketing their CPUs to the OCing community, so this tug of war between them is great for us, however its in all our best interests even if you are an Intel total fan, that AMD survives.



^^^+1 and 100% agree. That is why 5 of 6 of my last processors have been AMD.
August 18, 2009 9:01:39 PM

And why did Intel release a sub 1000$ black chip? First one Ive seen in a loooong while.
AMD is at least making them take notice, at those segments anyways, where AMD does do well
If LRB tanks, and if certain things happen this gen of gfx cards, and fusion is partially solved with this "rumor" of the ATI cards structural changes, things could change quickly
August 18, 2009 9:03:14 PM

The dev or future dev of PCs is changing drastically, and by 2012, its a whole new ballgame
August 18, 2009 9:05:46 PM

Wouldn't that be very interesting if things took that course? I for one can't wait to see what happens. Lets just hope AMD can stay around to help keep things in somewhat of a balance, even if there always chasing Intels coatails or so it would seem.
August 18, 2009 9:19:06 PM

Well, everyone complains about AMDs troubles buying ATI, but whats the future looking like to everyone here?
A fusion of gpu/cpu, where the needs are great enough for Intel to spends untolds amount of money for LRB.
Thats the next evolution, and like it or not, without ATI, in a few years, having more monies now or not wouldnt matter for AMD
August 18, 2009 9:21:55 PM

Intel are evil. Intel stole all of its ideas from AMD. Intel has double cheeseburger processors. AMD would never make double cheeseburger processors, they are too advanced. AMD doesn't make high-end desktop CPUs because they know consumers don't want them. AMD doesn't make netbook CPUs because they know consumers don't want them. AMD has better integrated graphics because no matter what everyone always wants to be able to play crysis at 5 fps on their AMD E-Machine.

So to recap, AMD are superior and Intel are very the evil.








And I almost forget, Intel BK 3Q 2009.




Fin.
August 18, 2009 9:23:19 PM

I'll tell you what would trulybe ironic, and please, no flames, its not aimed at Intel here at all, but if LRB fails, the x86 approach just proves out to be fail, and the gpu/shader approach is seen as the only real best way, is if Intel had to buyout a hostile nVidia
August 18, 2009 9:26:58 PM

I never did and I think it was a very smart move on there part to do so. Hopefully it will pay off for them in the long run.
August 18, 2009 9:33:00 PM

Well, its not to be taken lightly, as this is the future were heading towards.
If that should happen, AMD would own, no matter what tic tock or process or anything.
It would come down to SW layers, in which any app has easy preset availability, and without it, itd make SSE type improvements, very small in comparison, as an example.
Thats why the push back of BD, with GSX on the horizon, as well as fusion etc.
Thats why Intel is trying to hit it square on with LRB

And dont go thinking LRB isnt some easy to do. Whens the last time Intels had to push any processor back three iterations, including at least 1 node shrink? And that this isnt costing them much more than Nehalem, since most of Nehalem already existed with tons of libraries
August 18, 2009 9:37:33 PM

OvrClkr said:
I agree with you ryan, I always agree with you... im just upset that Intel is really overpricing their chips....Im not trying to argue over the whole Ln2 debate, just kinda sucks that you pay good money on something that does not perform when you push it..... On Air AMD does not do bad at all , nor does Intel.... But look at it this way....

Yesterday I clocked my x2 550 @ 3.9Ghz ( 1.45v vcore ) ( 1.4v for the NB ) using DDR2 800MHZ <--- stock overall temps never hit 48c (ambient @ 26c)

3dmark06 score : 16,210 ( 550 used as a dual core ) GTX 260 (216) stock clocks

===========================================================

Now a friend of mine that owns an Intel Q9400 overclocked to 3.6Ghz using a 4870x2 failed to surpass my score.... that is an EMBARRASMENT due to the fact that he is running 4 cores and it is obvious that his GPU should crush my 260... That is my point.....

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-253377_29_300.ht...

on top of that he is running 8Gb of DDR2, while I run 3.25Gb (XP).... that just makes it even worse...




Be happy not upset, sounds like you made a good choice and a very decent rig. That is called Value, enjoy it.


When I had my single 4870 and with my Raid 0 set up with 2 WD 640 blacks and 4 gb of ram, and the 940 B.E. at 3.6 I am just above your score of 16,210. Once again, sounds like you got a very decent rig there, and spent less then he and I did to get ours.
August 18, 2009 9:39:52 PM

This is AMDs and Intels best hope of fighting Amdahls law, which, by the way starts with AMD heheh
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 10:52:34 PM

OvrClkr said:
fazers, I never said AMD gained when it comes to their shares, I will not argue over this since it is OBVIOUS that AMD is still alive due to the economy.... if the economy were in good shape AMD would be on the verge of banruptcy.... Intel didnt do great either, both companies lost due to the economy but AMD did gain ground with thier price to performance chips.....just cause a company lost a couple of cents per share does NOT mean there was no revenue......


I haven't seen any marketshare breakdown by CPU model types - segments yes but not by individual models. All that is known outside of AMD is that (1) they currently have one producing fab (well, GF has it anyway), (2) it is still producing >50% 65nm CPUs since AMD hasn't achieved 45nm crossover yet, and (3) it is not operating at capacity. Intel currently has 4 fabs producing mostly 45nm (they achieved crossover a year ago), with one fab D1D converting to 32nm.

62 cents per share loss x 640 million shares = a lot of cash down the drain. Yes AMD had ~$1.2B income, but they had even more expenses & value writeoff. The article I linked to above shows AMD spending something like 35% of their income on R&D, whereas Intel only spends 15% of income on R&D. Intel's R&D still amounts to much more than AMDs simply because Intel has a far larger income.

Unfortunately AMD has to keep R&D spending at this level if they want to stand any chance at all of keeping pace with Intel. It's like playing no-limit poker where the rich guy keeps making large bets because he's winning most of the time. Eventually the poor guy trying to stand pat in the game will run outta chips, despite selling his watch, ring, pants, skivvies, sox, etc :D .
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 10:56:17 PM

Agreed and well said..... Hopefully AMD will survive and we will be able to have the best of both worlds for years to come...

I just like the fact that I don't have to break the bank to get a system that can fill all my needs.
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 10:59:52 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I'll tell you what would trulybe ironic, and please, no flames, its not aimed at Intel here at all, but if LRB fails, the x86 approach just proves out to be fail, and the gpu/shader approach is seen as the only real best way, is if Intel had to buyout a hostile nVidia


I don't think Intel buying nVidia would pass antitrust muster with the current administration. That would give Intel something like 75% of the graphics market, to go along with their 80% CPU share.
August 18, 2009 11:02:56 PM

That market is relative tho, and would and is disappearing.
SoC, and fusion ends the igp and eventual discrete markets both

Im not saying this will happen, but if it did, Intel would be hurting, as would nVidia, and theyd have to collude anyways in this
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 11:09:37 PM

AMD definitely needs to gain some OEM market share. You can hardly see AMD mentioned at Dell's website. Plus, like 90% of system builders just build Intel-based systems.
Also, AMD is not a known brand, many people say "Intel" or "Pentium" the moment you ask them about a computer processor. They definitely need to spend money on marketing.
Here's a link: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10240294-64.html
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2009 11:15:49 PM

Well there are still a few good companies that refuse to eliminate AMD as an option... Companies like cyberpower, ibuy-power, falcon northwest and many more still build with AMD, so as long as people buy, AMD should be ok....... hopefully....
August 18, 2009 11:24:19 PM

Also, much like IBM, the OEMs themselves dont want to limit themselves too much.
Whether this means the OEMs taking advantage of AMD because of its current situation, and getting better deals, AMD doesnt need the same profit margin as Intel does in the same competing brackets, they just have to make a profit period.
So, deals can and will be made, it may not look pretty for awhile, but the OEMs want AMD around
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2009 12:12:44 AM

I second that!!!!

+1

Hey Jay, lets say AMD does capsize later on in life.... Will the CPU's and mobos be worth something 15-20 years later....Just like the FX's that go for 800.00$ on ebay??
!