The future of AMD?

NorthstarNorthstar
edited September 2006 in Hardware
I don't know if any of you have been reading the hardware headlines lately, but a couple things have happened that have me wondering about the future of AMD. I have always been a fan of AMD because they've almost always offered a solid reliable alternative to a much more expensive Intel counterpart. Not that I have anything against Intel, but when there's healthy competition the consumer benefits greatly.

First thing I read about is how Intel has dropped the pricing on it's P4 and Xeon line of processors, with the speculation that there is new technology planned. Or could it be that they are just becoming more aggressive with AMD? Hard for me to say, so I wonder if anyone on this board knows. So far, AMD hasn't really responded with a plan of action, or if there even is one.

The second news-worthy tidbit is that they've recently purchased ATI. Why not just partner with ATI, why buy ATI? It'll be interesting to see what unfolds with all of this, but in the meantime, if anyone has any speculation, please feel free to share your wisdom. :)

Comments

  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited July 2006
    By buying ATI it gives the the ability do do whatever they want with ATI technology. They can market it out incorporate it into their own designs whatever they want. Freedom of production is the reason to buy out another company.

    I can see now graphics cards that have both a cpu and a gpu on them. Think of the potential there. Screw the physics processor that is now old news. Compared to what this could do. Have the main cpu just doing file system calls and general OS apps. Have the graphics card cpu handling Floating point calcs for graphics, physics processing and full and propper multi-screen support. Have the controls for whatever screen is currently not in the for front passed to the cpu on the video card and have it run that still at full speed. No need to divide up the cycles like you would with a single processor.
  • NorthstarNorthstar
    edited July 2006
    I suppose gpus are getting sophisticated enough now that makers of cpus may want access to that tech. it might even give a bit of hint as to the next-gen of cpu. I can't really see AMD getting into the graphics card business, but I can see them harnessing technology for a next gen cpu, especially seeing how OS'es are becoming much more graphical in nature.
  • NorthstarNorthstar
    edited July 2006
    Wow, Kryyst and I are the only ones who have anything to say on this topic? :speechles
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited July 2006
    I was just thinking that myself.
  • ZuntarZuntar North Carolina Icrontian
    edited July 2006
    Nope, just been reading info about it all over the net. It's all speculation at this point. There are soooo many possibilities/strategies that only time will tell.
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited July 2006
    That's true it's all just a big What If. The only facts we have is that it's happening and that AMD has vowed to keep putting out ATI cards like we are used to for the time being.
  • rapturerapture
    edited July 2006
    AMD need fabs, I don't think the board was even thinking about potential for new technologies.

    That said, GPUs are now more powerful than ever. The cell processor also has a lot of potential to shake things up.

    If future processors are to have major changes then AMD will be in a better position to stay competative.

    Intel also have the biggest share in desktop graphics. Maybe AMD want a slice of that too.
    I can see now graphics cards that have both a cpu and a gpu on them.
    I can't, think of the bandwidth requirements...
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited July 2006
    Don't think in terms of current technology. Hard to gauge the bandwidth requirements but if all processing is done on the card and internalized there I don't think it would be that much of a hit. It'd certainly take the load off the main processor. Heat though - heat and power requirements would certainly ramp up.
  • ZuntarZuntar North Carolina Icrontian
    edited July 2006
    Maybe they want a piece of the chipset market.
  • KuruptKurupt Winnipeg
    edited July 2006
    AMD purchasing ATI could turn to bite them in the ass in the future. If Intel makes some market share back with their new duo core 64's, AMD might not beable to make up that 2 billion dollar defecit they put themselves in, they may not beable to continue offering the prices they are.

    With that said, they'll be making money from the GPU's as well, and it may become a more interesting market for gaming if AMD starts incorporating the technology.
  • NorthstarNorthstar
    edited July 2006
    Rumor has it Apple will announce new Intel based Mac towers with the dual core 64 bit processors soon.
  • rapturerapture
    edited July 2006
    AMD purchasing ATI could turn to bite them in the ass in the future. If Intel makes some market share back with their new duo core 64's, AMD might not beable to make up that 2 billion dollar defecit they put themselves in, they may not beable to continue offering the prices they are.

    ATI currently have the best looking conroe chipset too so maybe things will work out ok...
  • rapturerapture
    edited August 2006
    AMD are dropping the ATi brand, the best Conroe chipset is now made by...

    AMD

    This is a good move, even if AMD can't release an Athlon to compete with Conroe they still have their product in the latest and greatest machines.
  • AranyicAranyic Casstown, OH Icrontian
    edited August 2006
    I havn't kept up on the tech scene that much. But part of it could simply be a marketing thing, I would think you'll have a lot of people that would buy a processor/video card if they could have the same logo on both.

    Having 2 products by the same company makes everything faster/more compatible right ;).
  • Your-Amish-DaddyYour-Amish-Daddy The heart of Texas
    edited September 2006
    Um. Here's an update. AMD bought ATI so they could BEAT Intel's Conroe, but not designing a superiror proccessor, they don't have to. (The Conroe is compared to their P4's. Not AMD's. An AMD x2 3800 performs on par with their E6600 Model.) They're going to design a CnGPU. (Central and Graphics Proccessor) Remember when AMD made the 3dNOW instruction set? This is them taking a step further. I heard this somewhere, but I don't know if it's true. Nvidia said Intel processors are superior with their Video cards, since Nvidia and Intel are sleeping together. Well, I've seen some P4/Nvidia combos that my AMD/ATI beats. Sure, Nvidia made SLI. Intel made PCI-X. Tesla made the Eletric Starter, MSD made it better.

    Ever since 1998, I've been standing beside AMD, because their processors were of superior construction. I stand by ATI, because it is better performance for the games I play. I will stand by them both, because they are where gaming and high end developing are. The top. Intel advertises higher frequencies. AMD provides more thoughtput and bandwidth. That is what current technology needs. The ability to move data quickly, and to handle it in short order. 3.8ghz means jack shit if you only have one pipe. AMD performs more with less. It's no secret on how they do it. Just like in cars. A twelve cylender engine puts out more torque with less energy than a four cylender with more. More threads just means more direct addresses. Nothing more. Intel has two threads in one line. AMD uses instructional lines in groups of four up to eighteen. Intel has 2x1. Amd has 1x**. Intel doesn't have a memory controller on the processor, which means the northbridge has to handle the addressing. AMD's memory controller is built into the processor. 1:1 access time.

    Bottom line. AMD just pulled up to Intel's curb, and said "Get on the bus, it's time to go to school."

    Footnote-- I remember something called Quantispeed for the XP line. AMD maximized the thoughtput per frame, and by this boost, lower speeds were used, meaning that even though they operated at lower frequencies, their output meet or beat Intel's. And, I also remember hearing about people Overclocking their P3's and getting higher performance than the P4's at the time. (The 406 pin socket, and the early 478's.) I'm getting old, and I suffer from a slew of manias. So just take this as the ravings of an insane man.
Sign In or Register to comment.