AMD Slams Intel's Atom S Processor: ''Too Little, Too Late''

56

 The nature of this email left us somewhat speechless, so we would like to share this email with you.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Wolfgang Gruener
Contributor

Wolfgang Gruener is an experienced professional in digital strategy and content, specializing in web strategy, content architecture, user experience, and applying AI in content operations within the insurtech industry. His previous roles include Director, Digital Strategy and Content Experience at American Eagle, Managing Editor at TG Daily, and contributing to publications like Tom's Guide and Tom's Hardware.

  • NightLight
    i think amd needs to work on it's own issues before mouthing off...
    Reply
  • Hellbound
    At this point Intel could probably purchase AMD...as terrible as that sounds....
    Reply
  • memadmax
    Intel is like a steamroller.
    If it didn't aim for small server market, then it simply didn't want to.
    But now that it does, watch out.
    Intel has a tendency to come in and take over any segment it desires lol
    Reply
  • stickmansam
    HellboundAt this point Intel could probably purchase AMD...as terrible as that sounds....There would be issues with anti-trust legislation and bad for us consumers as a whole due to lack of competition (already signs of this in the high end).
    Reply
  • dkcomputer
    Intel should come back with a press release on how AMD has somehow managed to release new, lower performing, higher wattage processors, than the crap they made 3 years ago
    Reply
  • joytech22
    when AMD does not have a comparable processor at this time

    AMD E-Series anyone?
    They may be the consumer part, but they are certainly comparable to anything Atom.

    Also..

    AMD has this fabric, including super-compact motherboards, and it is patented.
    AMD.. Maybe you should advertise these things instead of hiding them away?
    Oh and P.S.. Piledriver is great and all, but why not develop full-size cores instead of the two cores per module approach?

    Imagine the performance from four full cores based on the modified architecture, likely on-par or faster per-core than Ivy Bridge..
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    "Integration is the space Intel has to catch up on, not architecture."

    So many lost words to point out the obvious? Jeez... I'm guessing the AMD slapping was just part of the inside blue joy (or jew?), bwahahaha.

    Cheers!
    Reply
  • AMD has a market share of $1.66 billion while Intel has $102.75 billion. Its like North Korea bad mouthing the US at who is better at annihilating a country.
    Reply
  • photonboy
    Points:
    1) Intel has HASWELL coming to compete in the mobile space, as AMD well knows. Wait another year and see what happens there. I know I'd like a 12" Transformer tablet (tablet/laptop) with an x86 version of Windows 8 rather than RT.

    2) Anyone buying a SERVER device is likely to be somewhat computer literate. I doubt a letter like this will have little impact.

    3) AMD is supposed to be badmouthing Intel, but then make a point of referring to Intel products like the dual-core Atom while saying nothing about their own products? Weird. And they say Intel was "not supportive" (whatever that means).

    *What I did NOT see in this article was ANY solid reasons why Intel could not compute, or why AMD was a better choice. Sigh.
    Reply
  • stickmansam
    joytech22AMD E-Series anyone?They may be the consumer part, but they are certainly comparable to anything Atom.Also..AMD.. Maybe you should advertise these things instead of hiding them away?Oh and P.S.. Piledriver is great and all, but why not develop full-size cores instead of the two cores per module approach?Imagine the performance from four full cores based on the modified architecture, likely on-par or faster per-core than Ivy Bridge..
    AMD has replicated most of the core, might as well replicate the rest
    But I think they want to use HSA and use the GPU in APU's for the floating point stuff
    Reply