Now all is left is for AMD is to optimize their chips. Well, this year at least lol.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited March 2009
Now all is left is for AMD is to optimize their chips.
Not sure what your definition of "optimize" is, but if it involves selling massive numbers of CPUs for a high profit, yes! I'd like to see AMD be strong again. Let's say for the sake of discussion that next month the Phenom II X4 955 were available and the shipping parts were as good performers as the tested engineering sample. The documented performance would boost their reputation, but they would still need to sell in good quantities. There is rumor that AMD's current fabrication results are very good, that the quality is excellent with very good yields. Now, if they can only match the quality with quantity production. It's unfortunate that things might be coming together for AMD just as the demand for laptops and desktops has collapsed due to the worldwide economic mess.
I haven't owned an intel cpu in 9 years. I also am someone that spent 2 hour trying to convince a CIO of a state to put AMD CPU's in his agencies. And no, I didn't and don't sell computers. That is how strongly I used to feel about AMD.
But today it's a different story. AMD is seemingly competitive. But truthfully, they are holding CPU and GPU development back by just going after mainstream performance. Intel and Nvidia have zero initiative to develop new technologies.
Core I7 is the new standard. And the reason it's so pricey and unseen is because AMD has failed it's supporters by not being able to deliver a competitive product. You can compare AMD's today technology with Intel's yesterday tech all you want. But truthfully, AMD hasn't done much of anything exciting in 4 years.
It has taken me a long time to get to this point. 3 years at least. But I’m disgusted with AMD. If I was building a new PC today I’d probably would go with an AMD phenom II and overclock it because the aps I use benefit the most from a higher clock speed. If I had the money to splurge, I’d go with a core I7 hands down. The sad part is, I should be able to afford core I7 type performance today. Or atleast when you take overclocking into consideration.
My hope is AMD fails and another more deserving company or two is able to somehow gain rights to produce x86 cpu’s in court to keep true competition alive. So when I say they need to optimize their CPU’s, I mean they need to work on doing more per clock cycle to catch up and surpass intel.
I guess I'm just seeing the writing on the wall Thrax. Sounds like it will be an interesting read.
I know I'm a little ticked about the recent litigation Intel may be pursuing and AMD allowing itself to be put in this position. The way I see it, Intel is within it's rights in regards to the foundry company. There are other things too that is ticking me off about the whole situation.
Anyways, looking forward to the editorial.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited March 2009
AMD is seemingly competitive. But truthfully, they are holding CPU and GPU development back by just going after mainstream performance. Intel and Nvidia have zero initiative to develop new technologies.
Unfortunately, they are only competitive in the mass market mid-range and low end, with poor margins in the mid and almost no margins in the low end.
they are holding CPU and GPU development back by just going after mainstream performance
The don't have the resources to go after anything else! They spent ALL their reserves on the ATI purchase. Even though ATI is doing relatively well now, it is not nearly lucrative enough to compensate for the horrendous double-market-valuation price AMD paid for the acquisition. Compounding that problem is the competition. Intel is not sitting still. AMD does not have the ability to price up their chips for better profits. Short of a miracle, I just can't see them surviving in their current state. I think their technology will live on in some form or another, but the AMD name may be headed for extinction.
I think when AMD purchased ATI they realized what many enthusiasts in the market have come to know. AMD realized that the future glory part in any high end build was not necessarily going to be the CPU, but the power shift was leaning more towards graphics processing horsepower.
With a graphics line, AMD has something unique that no other vendor offers. AMD has total platform solutions. Chipset,CPU,Graphics all together, they are the only company capable of this today. I use a system based on an AMD 780/700 chipset, a Phenom II and a Radeon 4870, and I have to tell you, the performance is outstanding.
I understand the enthusiast user might be hoping for AMD's answer to Intel's i7, but what I think AMD has come to realize is that a total system solution, one that offers the correct balance is more important than putting all of their eggs into the power cpu basket. I think their "Future is Fussion" motto reflects this strategy.
The folks at AMD know what they are doing, but the enthusiasts narrow focus on the singular performance CPU champion does not help their cause. Instead, we should be talking about total platform performance, and how it relates to real world computing. We should also place some more emphasis and focus on value, just because it does not appeal to the top 1% of the most hard core users in the market, does not mean that it does not have value to discus it for everyone's benefit.
We all should watch this closely, the vitality of AMD is vital to a healthy competitive computer hardware market. If they fail, enthusiast performance prices are going to go through the roof.
They purchased ATi because they were dying and hoped a graphics section could prop them up while they were trying to get Phenom manufacturing processes under control and generate profit rather than useless scrap silicon.
Meanwhile, how is an integrated solution from AMD/ATi compelling? It doesn't get us significantly better performance, doesn't significantly reduce price, doesn't significantly improve stability, security, interoperability, customer service...
At the end of the day, they're all still discrete parts made to work with everything else. So they have an integrated option - what good is it?
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited March 2009
With a graphics line, AMD has something unique that no other vendor offers. AMD has total platform solutions.
Yes, you are right. If they can only leverage that before they go belly up. Trends take a long time to develop.
The folks at AMD know what they are doing, but the enthusiasts narrow focus on the singular performance CPU champion does not help their cause.
The enthusiasts - if you mean people like us here at a tech forum - do influence the market, but I do not believe to a great extent. Every member of every PC tech forum could switch to AMD/ATI tomorrow, and it would scarcely change the Intel:AMD market share and quarterly earnings/margins.
It's a matter of compelling technology and platforms that make OEMs eager to implement it. If said platforms are available in quantity with uniform quality at a good price, it will be used. Maybe now? A year ago and two years ago there really wasn't much compelling for AMD in any category.
I surely hope the latest products are just the beginning of good things, and not just a spike.
The bias against AMD, such as in the days when "You're getting a Dell, dude" was heard every day on TV - those times are gone. The only people who are still rabid brand fanatics are a core of Apple users and, yes, AMD fanboys who won't switch to Intel for anything! If AMD doesn't succeed now, it won't be because of a perception problem. AMD was on the road to be being absolutely huge during the A64 peak, but following A64, they pissed away almost every gain they made. What bright ideas they did have were seriously dampened by lack of financial resources due to the purchase blunder of ATI and the seeming belief that Athlon/Opteron 64 would reign supreme forever. The ATI acquisition itself was smart, I believe, but not the crazy price AMD gambled on it. If AMD doesn't survive, it won't be because of public perception and OEM's willingness for uptake, it will be because of AMD mismanagement and blunders between 2005 and 2008.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited March 2009
I use a system based on an AMD 780/700 chipset, a Phenom II and a Radeon 4870
I don't deny that's a very nice system that will handle most anything you throw at it. In my case, I'm using overclocked Q6600s and Nvidia 9800GX2s because it's a knockout combination for Folding@Home.
My point in the above paragraph is not about particular pieces of hardware. I previously had predominately AMD and ATI equipment. Two years from now, who knows, it might AMD/ATI again. If AMD has exciting product available - individual components or platforms - they will sell. The 4XXX series of video cards is all the evidence I need to offer for my argument. Gamers didn't hesitate changing brands.
"They purchased ATi because they were dying and hoped a graphics section could prop them up"
Snarkasm,
We do not see eye to eye on that statement. If AMD was healthy enough at the time to overpay for a very large and established company like ATI, they were far from going under.
AMD saw the value in platform computing.
They also realize that they are so many die shrinks away from maxing the realistic potential of what a single multi core CPU can offer a consumer in terms of raw processing speed. Graphics tech still seems to have some room to grow though, and its quickly replaced the CPU as the glory component in any enthusiast system.
AMD purchased ATI because they are forward thinking. Did it perhaps cost them a little in CPU development? Sure, but will it be more important in the long run to be able to offer compelling total system solutions? Thats my bet.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited March 2009
AMD purchased ATI because they are forward thinking. Did it perhaps cost them a little in CPU development? Sure, but will it be more important in the long run to be able to offer compelling total system solutions? Thats my bet.
That's my bet too, if they don't go broke before they can reach that point. Investors and users waited, and waited, and waited. There's only so much waiting anyone will do. The problem was/is not AMD's vision, but their lack of ability to deliver. I have faith, but it's part of my religion. Dell, HP, Lenovo, and Acer don't rely on faith. They want product in their hands available in quantity. Just recently AMD went beyond the hope and promise phase into the here-it-is phase. Let's hope that continues.<!-- / message --> <!-- attachments --> <!-- / attachments --> <!-- sig --> <!-- / sig --> <!-- ic-postbit-content -->
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
Comments
But today it's a different story. AMD is seemingly competitive. But truthfully, they are holding CPU and GPU development back by just going after mainstream performance. Intel and Nvidia have zero initiative to develop new technologies.
Core I7 is the new standard. And the reason it's so pricey and unseen is because AMD has failed it's supporters by not being able to deliver a competitive product. You can compare AMD's today technology with Intel's yesterday tech all you want. But truthfully, AMD hasn't done much of anything exciting in 4 years.
It has taken me a long time to get to this point. 3 years at least. But I’m disgusted with AMD. If I was building a new PC today I’d probably would go with an AMD phenom II and overclock it because the aps I use benefit the most from a higher clock speed. If I had the money to splurge, I’d go with a core I7 hands down. The sad part is, I should be able to afford core I7 type performance today. Or atleast when you take overclocking into consideration.
My hope is AMD fails and another more deserving company or two is able to somehow gain rights to produce x86 cpu’s in court to keep true competition alive. So when I say they need to optimize their CPU’s, I mean they need to work on doing more per clock cycle to catch up and surpass intel.
I know I'm a little ticked about the recent litigation Intel may be pursuing and AMD allowing itself to be put in this position. The way I see it, Intel is within it's rights in regards to the foundry company. There are other things too that is ticking me off about the whole situation.
Anyways, looking forward to the editorial.
I think when AMD purchased ATI they realized what many enthusiasts in the market have come to know. AMD realized that the future glory part in any high end build was not necessarily going to be the CPU, but the power shift was leaning more towards graphics processing horsepower.
With a graphics line, AMD has something unique that no other vendor offers. AMD has total platform solutions. Chipset,CPU,Graphics all together, they are the only company capable of this today. I use a system based on an AMD 780/700 chipset, a Phenom II and a Radeon 4870, and I have to tell you, the performance is outstanding.
I understand the enthusiast user might be hoping for AMD's answer to Intel's i7, but what I think AMD has come to realize is that a total system solution, one that offers the correct balance is more important than putting all of their eggs into the power cpu basket. I think their "Future is Fussion" motto reflects this strategy.
The folks at AMD know what they are doing, but the enthusiasts narrow focus on the singular performance CPU champion does not help their cause. Instead, we should be talking about total platform performance, and how it relates to real world computing. We should also place some more emphasis and focus on value, just because it does not appeal to the top 1% of the most hard core users in the market, does not mean that it does not have value to discus it for everyone's benefit.
We all should watch this closely, the vitality of AMD is vital to a healthy competitive computer hardware market. If they fail, enthusiast performance prices are going to go through the roof.
Meanwhile, how is an integrated solution from AMD/ATi compelling? It doesn't get us significantly better performance, doesn't significantly reduce price, doesn't significantly improve stability, security, interoperability, customer service...
At the end of the day, they're all still discrete parts made to work with everything else. So they have an integrated option - what good is it?
It's a matter of compelling technology and platforms that make OEMs eager to implement it. If said platforms are available in quantity with uniform quality at a good price, it will be used. Maybe now? A year ago and two years ago there really wasn't much compelling for AMD in any category.
I surely hope the latest products are just the beginning of good things, and not just a spike.
The bias against AMD, such as in the days when "You're getting a Dell, dude" was heard every day on TV - those times are gone. The only people who are still rabid brand fanatics are a core of Apple users and, yes, AMD fanboys who won't switch to Intel for anything! If AMD doesn't succeed now, it won't be because of a perception problem. AMD was on the road to be being absolutely huge during the A64 peak, but following A64, they pissed away almost every gain they made. What bright ideas they did have were seriously dampened by lack of financial resources due to the purchase blunder of ATI and the seeming belief that Athlon/Opteron 64 would reign supreme forever. The ATI acquisition itself was smart, I believe, but not the crazy price AMD gambled on it. If AMD doesn't survive, it won't be because of public perception and OEM's willingness for uptake, it will be because of AMD mismanagement and blunders between 2005 and 2008.
My point in the above paragraph is not about particular pieces of hardware. I previously had predominately AMD and ATI equipment. Two years from now, who knows, it might AMD/ATI again. If AMD has exciting product available - individual components or platforms - they will sell. The 4XXX series of video cards is all the evidence I need to offer for my argument. Gamers didn't hesitate changing brands.
Snarkasm,
We do not see eye to eye on that statement. If AMD was healthy enough at the time to overpay for a very large and established company like ATI, they were far from going under.
AMD saw the value in platform computing.
They also realize that they are so many die shrinks away from maxing the realistic potential of what a single multi core CPU can offer a consumer in terms of raw processing speed. Graphics tech still seems to have some room to grow though, and its quickly replaced the CPU as the glory component in any enthusiast system.
AMD purchased ATI because they are forward thinking. Did it perhaps cost them a little in CPU development? Sure, but will it be more important in the long run to be able to offer compelling total system solutions? Thats my bet.