Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

QOTD: How Would You Change AMD?

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 66 comments

AMD, arguably the CPU company that's gone through the most significant changes in the last several years, has yet to scratch the surface of what it can really do.

More recently, AMD decided to establish a separate company to handle semiconductor manufacturing, and is now focusing much on designing and engineering, as well as emerging technologies. It's purchase of ATI was definitely a big announcement for the industry several years ago. AMD hasn't always been this bold however. In its early days, it mainly followed in Intel's shadows. This is in stark contrast from the AMD we all know today.

Granted, not all is rosy. AMD is in the middle of a heated disagreement with Intel over the use of Intel's x86 technologies. Financially, it's still up and down.

The question of the day is: How would you run or change AMD?

Would you have purchased ATI? Perhaps another company, or none? Would you attempt to even create a whole new CPU architecture? Would you also have formed Globalfoundries? Let us know.

Display 66 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 13 Hide
    sid_nag17 , March 31, 2009 8:36 PM
    Amd - Great job launching the Phenom II Processors but you people really need to pull up ur socks or even those will be taken away by intel.
    Buying ATI was a great move and now nvidia is shitting due to the competiton from ATI. I used to be a nvidia fan now im all ati!!!

    plese keep up the good work and do something about the i7. i donnt wanna spend $1000 for a rig!
  • 10 Hide
    Daller , March 31, 2009 8:15 PM
    How do you propose to remove redundancy without laying off some people? :D 
Other Comments
  • -3 Hide
    Judguh , March 31, 2009 8:07 PM
    I would have held off from buying ATI for a while... at least until the price tag would have been more attractive. Instead of laying people off, offer incentives of working harder and smarter in order to introduce new and even better products quicklier and more efficiently. Of course, remove the redudancy within the company and cut costs wherever possible.
  • 10 Hide
    Daller , March 31, 2009 8:15 PM
    How do you propose to remove redundancy without laying off some people? :D 
  • -6 Hide
    jsloan , March 31, 2009 8:17 PM
    i would partner with china to produce next generation cpu, they have the money, manufacturing, patience and they need / would love the technology. then with china's deep pockets, amd can go head to head against intel, us congress would go nuts...
  • 7 Hide
    jeraldjunkmail , March 31, 2009 8:18 PM
    Narrowing your focus will be the mantra of any successful company for the next 5 years. AMD will do well by this, and other companies should take note. Are you listening Steve Ballmer?
  • 4 Hide
    Avenger762 , March 31, 2009 8:22 PM
    I would not have spun off Global Foundries. I would take any extra capital I have and dedicate it to R&D. AMD in the past has gone a different route in CPU architecture andhas been quite good at beating Intel in real-world performance. AMD CPU's have had slower clock speeds but far better performers due to better design. That is also working for ATI as well. The Radeons produced lately are able to beat Nvidia and be cheaper--also better design. R&D will win out.
  • 4 Hide
    hardwarekid9756 , March 31, 2009 8:25 PM
    Global Foundaries: Shoulda been done a LONG time ago.
    ATI: Great move
    New PRocessor Architecture? Absolutely not.

    AMD needs to build a stronger portfolio in the x86 space. they need to build a crown-winner. They also need to get on board with Intel in the sense that they need to invest in die shrinks. They're lagging behind in architecture, engineering, and performance. All of AMD's innovation is gone. They need to step up the game.
  • 5 Hide
    Anonymous , March 31, 2009 8:32 PM
    They need to spend more on research and development.
  • 13 Hide
    sid_nag17 , March 31, 2009 8:36 PM
    Amd - Great job launching the Phenom II Processors but you people really need to pull up ur socks or even those will be taken away by intel.
    Buying ATI was a great move and now nvidia is shitting due to the competiton from ATI. I used to be a nvidia fan now im all ati!!!

    plese keep up the good work and do something about the i7. i donnt wanna spend $1000 for a rig!
  • -6 Hide
    kelbo , March 31, 2009 8:38 PM
    well, they should have invested the money the spent in buying ATI into research and development of technologies to take the lead that intel has since a while ago. A processor company falling behind is in danger of falling obsolete.
  • 4 Hide
    Anonymous , March 31, 2009 8:39 PM
    1. cut the ridiculous consumer cost of notebook chips (ZM chips cost more than Intel's)
    2. Opteron server chipsets need to be released YESTERDAY. No one wants to buy Opterons based on nVidia chips now that nVidia & AMD are enemies.
    3. Southbridge RAID for enterprise -- Intel's RAID SUCKS. Intel's chipsets have been terribly unstable, and their RAID has serious problems like the cache settings won't survive a reboot, etc. AMD could do better and gain a following here.
  • 7 Hide
    idisarmu , March 31, 2009 8:46 PM
    fx2236I would Sold AMD To Intel or Vice-versa , So we Can have Better CPU with both technologies and for Less $$

    idiot... you think a monopoly would result in lower prices?

    I think AMD should have gone skipped phenom I and skipped straight to a 45nm Athlon 6400X2... but then with HT3.0 ofc and the other phenom features... I bet that if they had skipped phenom I, then Phenom II would JUST start coming out right about now- or maybe a few months from now... but we would be sitting on Athlon 6800x2's or something running at 3.4-3.6 ghz at stock speeds... and overclockable to higher speeds than the E8400/E5200.
  • 4 Hide
    solymnar , March 31, 2009 8:51 PM
    I would orient my platform on synergy between the GPU and CPU, offloading and balancing wherever possible so that both are taken full advantage of instead of working independent of one another.
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , March 31, 2009 8:55 PM
    Well its kinda pointless to rehash history. I would have definitly waited on native quad core and extended the athlon 64 dual core fruther before moving to naitive quad. That was their biggest mistake.

    But as for the future, they need to look into merging th compare and jump instructions like intel did, its just too big of a performance gain. Im seriously surprised they haven't done it yet.

    They also need to see how easy they could add multiple threads per core to the chip. This is essential in the server world, not so much for your average user.

    Beyond that, work on cache latency, needs to be brought down.

    --------

    On the manufacturing side, their 45nm process seems strong. However, they need to execute 32nm flawlessly and get it out the door ASAP.
  • -1 Hide
    grieve , March 31, 2009 8:56 PM
    Purchase much insurance, sell my stocks, dump some gasoline and be very UN-careful when lighting my cigarette.… FIRE!!! I’m kidding of course.

    I think they should focus on new and improved products instead of rebranding and also creating more low/mid range stuff. Take a break from releasing “mid-range” processors and spend ALL that cash on surpassing Intel / Nvidia.
  • -2 Hide
    T-Bone , March 31, 2009 9:02 PM
    Keep investing in R&D; keep shrinking die; make CPU w/RAM on same die (4/8 GB).
  • 3 Hide
    sublifer , March 31, 2009 9:05 PM
    JudguhI would have held off from buying ATI for a while... at least until the price tag would have been more attractive. Instead of laying people off, offer incentives of working harder and smarter in order to introduce new and even better products quicklier and more efficiently. Of course, remove the redudancy within the company and cut costs wherever possible.

    ATI already had the next two generations in the works, maybe more. Their price wouldn't have gotten much lower...

    That said.
    I'd like to see AMD make their own architecture. A true 64 bit (maybe even step up to 128 bit or something else) architecture that they could design to be backwards compatible with x64 (which is theirs anyway) and design a new platform for it but keep the standard open. That way Intel could go hither with their x86 licensing, AMD could make an open platform of the future for itself and maybe even license out to Intel or other companies so they could make products for their platform.

    I know you could say that they don't have the support to go forward with a unique platform, but if its made well and holds great advantage over existing platforms, it could work.
  • 2 Hide
    antilycus , March 31, 2009 9:08 PM
    A) Hire me and move me to a warmer climate
    2) Show your employees how valuable they are to you(much more then the useless management)
    C) BREAK AWAY FROM THE BULLSH!! ADVERTISING MODE. SHOW THE BENEFITS OF 64-bit processing, because Intel's crack at it SUCKS! IF I could get a 16 core 64-bit processor running 2.0 ghz for under 200 w/ motherboard (not ram) I would sell my teeth instantly.
    GREEN) Most of the time, management doesnt have a clue what the market wants. They've spent too long managing employees and getting over paid and underworked. Start listening to your engineers. Start listening to the Customer Service agents, start listening to everyone but stock holders and corporate management....most of the time, they are honestly... useless
    APPLE) ATi is known for taking what works, throwing more at it and selling it at current NVDA prices. Break that mold and get more specialized. Get in talks with Newtek or whomever to help your 3D Rendering packages. The common user isn't the guy spending $20,000 its the one spending 100-200 dollars...
  • 1 Hide
    Titanius , March 31, 2009 9:11 PM
    I would have played things differently than what AMD did except I would have bought ATI at the same time they did.

    For CPUs:

    K8: The last K8s would be 90nm, on Socket 939 with a DDR controller and two types: Single and Dual Core.

    K9: It would be 65nm, the introduction of Socket AM2, a DDR2 controller, and a CPU with two cores or four cores designed kind of like the K8 but different: all cores would have two or three treads (two for Athlon X2, three for Athlon FX) 1MB or 2MB of L2 cache per two cores and 4MB L3 cache and make the quad cores just like the Core 2 Quad, put two Dual-Core K9s on one die. This would have beaten the Conroe.
    K10: Use the same architecture but build a true quad core (just like today) but introduce Socket AM3 (which is backwards compatible with AM2) and a DDR3/DDR2 hybrid memory controller. Oh and 45nm. It would be built in the same way as the Phenom II but have many other additions that AMD didn't have time to incorporate like Multi-Treading (three treads or more per core) and I would have a Phenom FX which could mop the floor with Core i7.

    For chipsets:
    I would have made more 6xx series chipsets, not just the 690G

    And today I would have a similar but very different AMD, one that wouldn't have gone the way of Global Foundaries because it would have a lot more money to play with and at this time I would have completely dominated the server market. And K11 is coming with 32nm or even jump over 32nm and go all the way to 22nm beating Intel completely.

    Ahhh, one can dream, hehe!
Display more comments