AMD's Future of CPUs?

[Antaredja Kartasasmita]

Hi Peeps, I;m not asking questions about problem now, I wanted to discuss about AMD's future of CPU no, APU, Are they really going to mid-lows on CPU?
Or will they re-create Phenom?

 

[vmN]

I dont even think AMD knows what they are going to do in the future.

 

[JOOK-D]

My predicition is that they'll ditch CPUs and stick to APUs. The more RnD they do on that will be more profitable than trying to chase intel on the CPU front.

 

[JOOK-D]

I dont even think AMD knows what they are going to do in the future.

:lol: fair point.

 

[Calculatron]

Alas! Currently they are vacillating when it come subject of actual CPUs.

I currently do not understand all the nuances of the differences when it comes to processors. I'm still not quite certain on how the different processes of creating and utilizes silicon in a CPU affect things; which is better for what purpose.

A lot of people hammer on instructions per cycle (IPC) and, it seems to a lesser extent, pipelines. These are easier concepts to understand in the grand scheme of things, but don't necessarily paint the whole picture. A lot of people also want to draw similarities between AMD's current Bulldozer-based architecture and Intel's old Netburst architecture. There's certainly a lot for comparison, but there are contrasting points as well. The prime contrasting point, and this is going to cause some upset, is that AMD is making it actually work. Yes, a company with a magnitude more resources is brute-forcing their way ahead with raw performance, but, drawing perhaps too many similarities, it could be said AMD took up where intel failed and made it work.

I think it's interesting that AMD was able to go this direction and further it in the way they did. I'm interested in seeing where they take ultimately take it, although the better way to say it is I'm interested in seeing the effects of their decisions. So far, they've done a pretty good job of changing the market. It'll be a shame if they end up tossing it all away just to follow Intel's footsteps. (Does anyone remember when AMD spent 5-6 years reverse engineering the 386? I think it was the first time they really made a name for themselves in making a bigger, better, faster processor, but it was just a clone.) On the flipside, more competition, particularly in the more discerning high-tier enthusiast market, is something that would be nice.

It's really late, and I probably am not making much sense. Long story short, I'd like AMD's vision for its new type of processor to be realized, and hopefully in a timely manner. In the immediate future, although there is not plans for it in 2014, hopefully AMD puts out an 8-core FX-style steamroller chip with its old SOI type of silicon fabrication, that way it can benefit not only for its better performance, but increased clock speeds. Will it be the best thing since sliced bread? Probably not, but we can't depend on 8-core Visheras forever. That's only hardware though. What software changes will come about that might utilize a new style of processor better? *shrugs*

 

[pmccall2]

I think that HSA is the future for AMD, and so for the time being APU's are going to be AMD's focus. This does not necessarily mean that AMD will not release any more CPU's, but any that are released will be a stopgap measure until APU type hardware is ready for servers and enthusiasts.

I think that in the near term AMD will keep producing thier current line of APU's, and most likely a beefier version for enthusiasts.

Looking a bit further out I think AMD will try and strip the GPU section of the APU down into just the compute units necessary for HSA. This will be for server chips, but possibly AMD will produce enthusiast chips with this design as well.

In the far term I see AMD integrating ARM as well, and possible integration of these different types of compute units into its compute modules.

 

[Batguerra]

I don't think AMD is going to stick with low end cpu's, even because they announced the Mantle, API that supposely will be 45% faster than DX and will use up to 8 core of oyur processor (FX 8350). AMD is really smart, they are investing in console chipsets for Xbox One and PS4, which means that pretty much every game will run better on AMD, but that's just expectation.

 

[jaguarskx]

AMD will no longer manufacture CPUs. I stated that back at the start of 2012, but that was financial reasons since from a financial point of view they were in pretty bad shape which would affect the long term ability for AMD to continue operating as a business.

Recently AMD released the following slide which shows that the number of CPUs sales are declining. Only 1 out of every 10 processor sold is a CPU and notice the downward sloping trend means the number of CPUs sold will like to continue dropping. It could be that by the end of 2014 only 1 out of every 12 processor sold is a CPU.

Based on the slide, there is really no financial incentive for AMD to design CPU only processors anymore. In 2015 Piledriver CPU production will be shuttered and there will be no successor. Next year AMD will solely be focusing on socket FM2+ for desktop PCs. The only AMD CPUs will be the socket FM2+ Athlons.

 

[jaguarskx]

I will add that AMD will continue to design Opteron server CPUs. But they are aimed at servers not home PCs or laptops.

 

[Lessthannil]

AMD still needs to think about their current situation. It will be a while before HSA will catch on. Mantle will also take a while, too. Until then, Kaveri isnt much of an upgrade against Richland (Which wasnt much of an upgrade against Trinity). The Piledriver chips are only somewhat competitive and that is more towards price than actual performance. Both Kaveri and Piledriver have relatively high power consumptions. The "65w" A8-7600 really pulls almost 100w when given a load.

Also, the "one size fits all" approach still doesnt work when the APU's CPU side still lags far behind Intel's solutions. I'm not saying they have to be a CPU powerhosue, but if they cant even beat Nehalem, which is almost 6 years old, they have problems on that front.

 

[Antaredja Kartasasmita]

Hmm.... so APU is the future of AMD, but are they only went to Gaming? and not those lightning fast calculations and stuff and those perf/watt? and what's AMD for?

 

[Batguerra]

SO that's it, intel has dominated the market? Total monopoly? AMD should keep pruducing desktop cpu's, they should give more of themselves and make their cpu's better perfomance per core.

 

[Casper Larsen]

I will predict that nerds will continue to be just as terrible at predicting the future gaming as we have always been, while continuing to make proclamations with complete certainty

 

[Casper Larsen]

Hmm.... so APU is the future of AMD, but are they only went to Gaming? and not those lightning fast calculations and stuff and those perf/watt? and what's AMD for?

What?:s

 

[Antaredja Kartasasmita]

i5's TDP isn't even 100w stock
Zambezi's best CPU has 100w TDP, fuck logic

 

[Master-flaw]

I think AMD is holding off investing in high end hardware for a couple reasons. Number one would be the cost benefit ratio. High end CPU's are only a fraction of there market and cutting edge isn't cheap to fund.
Another reason is the software support. It's easy to say their 8 cores are inferior but in truth they don't have developer support to back it. Can't really blame them as it isn't easy to thread 8 cores. Developers rather give Intel the nod and call it a day. I think ATM they are more focused on software support and working with developers on all fronts to get performance out of their design. They are pretty much locked into the modular/multi-core core design as the investment is already there. Changing focus would be to risky and costly.

Ultimately they arn't going to see much improvements in speed until the get developers on their side. A newly designed 8 core isn't going to be worth the release ATM....Better off looking for support from a number of developers, seeing where they stand and then seeing what they can do with their hardware.

 

[Casper Larsen]

i5's TDP isn't even 100w stock
Zambezi's best CPU has 100w TDP, fuck logic

I think AMD is holding off investing in high end hardware for a couple reasons. Number one would be the cost benefit ratio. High end CPU's are only a fraction of there market and cutting edge isn't cheap to fund.
Another reason is the software support. It's easy to say their 8 cores are inferior but in truth they don't have developer support to back it. Can't really blame them as it isn't easy to thread 8 cores. Developers rather give Intel the nod and call it a day. I think ATM they are more focused on software support and working with developers on all fronts to get performance out of their design. They are pretty much locked into the modular/multi-core core design as the investment is already there. Changing focus would be to risky and costly.

Ultimately they arn't going to see much improvements in speed until the get developers on their side. A newly designed 8 core isn't going to be worth the release ATM....Better off looking for support from a number of developers, seeing where they stand and then seeing what they can do with their hardware.

The cost benefit argument is completely fair, but the rest is just AMD excuses. There are countless companies that claimed to have made superior tech that developers just didn't take full advantage off.

So far we have a lot of promises and hype for the future but very little to show for it. Intel is still king for anybody who is building a really serious build.

 

[Antaredja Kartasasmita]

Yeah, but a 100w TDP for an APU? Pfft, Phenoms can do that faster with less wattage, at least in the past. The cost benefit is agreeable, And it's most logical in anything. The lower endies users that only uses laptop for small works even went on intel's dual-core, which is, a shame to AMD, they aren't popular to people that aren't as familliar to techs today, at least CPU

 

[Calculatron]

If they can get Dual Graphics working properly, entry-to-mid-tier rigs will definitely be viable.

 

[Master-flaw]

i5's TDP isn't even 100w stock
Zambezi's best CPU has 100w TDP, fuck logic

I think AMD is holding off investing in high end hardware for a couple reasons. Number one would be the cost benefit ratio. High end CPU's are only a fraction of there market and cutting edge isn't cheap to fund.
Another reason is the software support. It's easy to say their 8 cores are inferior but in truth they don't have developer support to back it. Can't really blame them as it isn't easy to thread 8 cores. Developers rather give Intel the nod and call it a day. I think ATM they are more focused on software support and working with developers on all fronts to get performance out of their design. They are pretty much locked into the modular/multi-core core design as the investment is already there. Changing focus would be to risky and costly.

Ultimately they arn't going to see much improvements in speed until the get developers on their side. A newly designed 8 core isn't going to be worth the release ATM....Better off looking for support from a number of developers, seeing where they stand and then seeing what they can do with their hardware.

The cost benefit argument is completely fair, but the rest is just AMD excuses. There are countless companies that claimed to have made superior tech that developers just didn't take full advantage off.

So far we have a lot of promises and hype for the future but very little to show for it. Intel is still king for anybody who is building a really serious build.

Really isn't an excuse though...AMD's design does have a lot of power and it shows on some benchmarks. Yes it can be used, but at what cost to the devs?

Not throwing this on anyone but AMD as the support should've already been there prior to taking a pseudo route. Still though, for what they have, their price is on point for gaming and other tasks.

An excuse is an excuse only with-out action. AMD's now taking the console market and turning on a lot of developers to ways of using the available power they have(mantle). 8 cores is 8 cores no matter which way you cut it.

I'd say Intel is running themselves into a ditch now and are going to have to turn developers on to the same methods AMD is now. More cores....it has to be done eventually, as single-core speed is going to hit a wall.

For AMD to even consider putting out a new line of 8 cores would be ludicrous without the developer support they are trying to get now.

 

[leeb2013]

AMD will no longer manufacture CPUs. I stated that back at the start of 2012, but that was financial reasons since from a financial point of view they were in pretty bad shape which would affect the long term ability for AMD to continue operating as a business.

Recently AMD released the following slide which shows that the number of CPUs sales are declining. Only 1 out of every 10 processor sold is a CPU and notice the downward sloping trend means the number of CPUs sold will like to continue dropping. It could be that by the end of 2014 only 1 out of every 12 processor sold is a CPU.

Based on the slide, there is really no financial incentive for AMD to design CPU only processors anymore. In 2015 Piledriver CPU production will be shuttered and there will be no successor. Next year AMD will solely be focusing on socket FM2+ for desktop PCs. The only AMD CPUs will be the socket FM2+ Athlons.

I love the quote on the slide "9 out 10 PCs already shipping with CPU and GPU on same silicon". Isn't that just because most CPUs sold are Intel and most intel CPUs have onboard GPU? That's not to say everyone uses the onboard CPU. I suspect that no-one who plays decent games does so. It will be a very long time, if ever, that onboard GPU catches up external GPU. They would have to stop developing external GPUs for that to happen.

 

[Antaredja Kartasasmita]

If they can get Dual Graphics working properly, entry-to-mid-tier rigs will definitely be viable.

dual GPUs are shit today, most games don't even support it before 3 patches, so I don't think it'll be viable and effective

 

[Heroesneverquit]

Leeb2013 I was thinking the exact same thing. Most premade Pcs sold have an APU to cut down on costs as the general pc buyer doesnt know the difference. And also because most pcs are intel chips and most of them have integrated gpus. Although that doesnt mean they are actually using them. I feel that thing is a bit skewed.

 

[pmccall2]

AMD still needs to think about their current situation. It will be a while before HSA will catch on. Mantle will also take a while, too. Until then, Kaveri isnt much of an upgrade against Richland (Which wasnt much of an upgrade against Trinity). The Piledriver chips are only somewhat competitive and that is more towards price than actual performance. Both Kaveri and Piledriver have relatively high power consumptions. The "65w" A8-7600 really pulls almost 100w when given a load.

Also, the "one size fits all" approach still doesnt work when the APU's CPU side still lags far behind Intel's solutions. I'm not saying they have to be a CPU powerhosue, but if they cant even beat Nehalem, which is almost 6 years old, they have problems on that front.

Hmm.... so APU is the future of AMD, but are they only went to Gaming? and not those lightning fast calculations and stuff and those perf/watt? and what's AMD for?

i5's TDP isn't even 100w stock
Zambezi's best CPU has 100w TDP, fuck logic

I think AMD is holding off investing in high end hardware for a couple reasons. Number one would be the cost benefit ratio. High end CPU's are only a fraction of there market and cutting edge isn't cheap to fund.
Another reason is the software support. It's easy to say their 8 cores are inferior but in truth they don't have developer support to back it. Can't really blame them as it isn't easy to thread 8 cores. Developers rather give Intel the nod and call it a day. I think ATM they are more focused on software support and working with developers on all fronts to get performance out of their design. They are pretty much locked into the modular/multi-core core design as the investment is already there. Changing focus would be to risky and costly.

Ultimately they arn't going to see much improvements in speed until the get developers on their side. A newly designed 8 core isn't going to be worth the release ATM....Better off looking for support from a number of developers, seeing where they stand and then seeing what they can do with their hardware.

The cost benefit argument is completely fair, but the rest is just AMD excuses. There are countless companies that claimed to have made superior tech that developers just didn't take full advantage off.

So far we have a lot of promises and hype for the future but very little to show for it. Intel is still king for anybody who is building a really serious build.

Really isn't an excuse though...AMD's design does have a lot of power and it shows on some benchmarks. Yes it can be used, but at what cost to the devs?

Not throwing this on anyone but AMD as the support should've already been there prior to taking a pseudo route. Still though, for what they have, their price is on point for gaming and other tasks.

An excuse is an excuse only with-out action. AMD's now taking the console market and turning on a lot of developers to ways of using the available power they have(mantle). 8 cores is 8 cores no matter which way you cut it.

I'd say Intel is running themselves into a ditch now and are going to have to turn developers on to the same methods AMD is now. More cores....it has to be done eventually, as single-core speed is going to hit a wall.

For AMD to even consider putting out a new line of 8 cores would be ludicrous without the developer support they are trying to get now.

Unfortunately I feel that developers are going to have to be drug by the nose to drink the multithreaded cool-aid. Even when intel hits the proverbial wall with x86 performance dont expect developers to go multithreaded overnight, they will drag thier feet until its absolutely necessary for them to multithread applications.

But thats not saying that some software wont take advantage of multithreading, just that it will be sometime before multithreaded applications are the norm.

 

[Lessthannil]

The time that we will need 8 CPU cores will ve much further in the future than the foresseeable one.

The demand for 8 core CPUs wasn't created out of need but out of a want for AMD because Bulldozer/Pile/Steamroller performs badly without 8 cores.