AMD no longer competing with Intel, goes Mobile

[mmj_uk]

Wish they mentioned this pre bulldozer so none of us wasted our time waiting.

What's worse is the way that they released 990FX well ahead of the CPU, I thought it was strange at the time but shrugged it off. Looking back it's clear why they did it, at least they made some money from all those who unnecessarily upgraded under the illusion that BD would be decent.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Here is a comment from the main chap at Hardware Canucks:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-Goes-Mobile&p=5005083&viewfull=1#post5005083

"This is a prime example of reading too much into a PR person's statement.

How does:


"We're at an inflection point," said AMD spokesman Mike Silverman, according to a Mercury News report. "We will all need to let go of the old 'AMD versus Intel' mindset, because it won't be about that anymore."

Become:

In a move than could very well be interpreted as exchanging one problem for another, Advanced Micro Devices has decided to stop focusing so much on the PC business and get its act closer together on the mobile front.

All the spokesperson said is that the market isn't JUST about competing with Intel anymore. That is 100% true. With ARM-based cores making some serious inroads, the traditional "PC" space has evolved a lot in a very short time. AMD and Intel now have to think of everyone from Samsung to Qualcomm.

Heck, Bulldozer may not be the greatest but is it a product without a future? No way. It has plenty left in the tank and could become a go-to option in certain circles once the kinks are worked out."

 

[Alkalinepro5]

In b4 'Phenoms are all you need for gaming'.

Bye bye AMD, your hopelessly pathetic CPUs wont be missed.

Care to name one game which a bog standard Phenom II X4 can't run?

Even Skyrim only uses 70% max of my CPU, and my GPU always craps waaayyy before the Phenom is even close to its limits, and all this from a £90 CPU which I bought back in june.

This is sad news.

 

[Gashman]

holy mother Mary, the start of this thread makes me realise what a bunch of total idiots are posting, as enthusiasts this is the worse possible news for us. who wants the cynical, shady and dishonest Intel being the only provider in the desktop space? whoever says 'me', sorry but its a truly idiotic statement.

AMD have been the only thing keeping Intel honest for many years now, think that as soon as AMD disappear (like so many of you want for some stupid reason?!) it'll be all flowers and roses, believe your sadly mistaken on that front. last thing we need is artificially inflated prices, slowed development and the crappy Prescott style 'speed bump' product launches all the time.

Edit: and 'bhavv' +1 for the stupidest comment of the year so far...well done!

 

[Ryan-3]

Bye bye AMD, your hopelessly pathetic CPUs wont be missed.

We still have their awful drivers after every new GPU launch to look forward to!

 

[Pottsey]

You do realise that all of the marketshare gains AMD has actually achieved this year are in the mobile market??

Last I heard they lost market share and fall to something really low like 1% (EDIT or was it fall under 10%?) if you look at the entire mobile market. Pretty much everything is ARM and Intel. What has AMD achieved? I can honestly say I haven't seen anything but I could have missed it.

 

[fizzle-187]

Such uneducated drivel in this thread, firstly its a god damned softpedia thread.......... I've had a go at people posting links to theres because EVERYTHING they've published and everything linked for months has been utterly incorrect.

Secondly, focus more on the mobile market........... does not equal leaving the PC market, anyone who thinks a company with several billion a year in turnover in pc sales will leave it overnight for mobile, is deluded.

Not least because Laptops "are" mobile, and laptop sales have over the past 5-6 years grown to make desktop sales not a significant part already.

Llano is a successful mobile part, Trinity will be faster, have lower power options and higher power options on top of being faster overall anyway, that will be another successful mobile chip. Bobcat has been a huge volume and very successful mobile chip.

They will likely want to push out a bobcat that can handle tablet level power usage, why wouldn't they.

Expansion is the key to success for many many businesses.

As for Pottsey, another ridiculous statement, AMD compete FAR better with Intel on mobile, low power and APU performance, all key for the sector AMD want to focus on, and compete less well at the extreme high end...... so they want to fight in an area they are stronger in, shocking.

Bhavv, same old moronic drivel.

Question why is the 2500k £155....... answer, because the X6 was £150. AMD chips are awful........ then why can a Bulldozer beat a 2500k, why can it beat a 2600k, do you know how good those two chips are, they are the product of the best cpu producer on the planet, and Bulldozer can beat both on occasion, all the time, no, so what?

As always, Bulldozer was a server chip, its got server level huge cache, power consumption and design, which is why its size, power usage and cache are FAR more comparable to SB-E than SB, which was obvious to anyone with half a brain.

The only people who thought an 8 core Bulldozer was going to beat a 8 thread 2600k by massive margins, were the people who believe Raven when he said a 6970 would smash a 580gtx. Believe the impossible, get disappointed, but be disappointed with the right person, yourself, not the company or chip that couldn't match the impossible expectations of a few idiots.

This.

I remember Raven going on how the 6870 was 70% more powerful than a 580! What a retard.

 

[wkingsnorth]

So basically:

• AMD are dead
• Intel can now charge whatever they like
• Nobody will buy it
• Intel will then lose all sales and die
• Therefore it is in Intel's interests to keep 'competetive'

Errr, solved?

 

[StonedPenguin]

So basically:

• AMD are dead
• Intel can now charge whatever they like
• Nobody will buy it
  [*]Intel will then lose all sales and die
• Therefore it is in Intel's interests to keep 'competetive'

Errr, solved?

Errr, what?

 

[Matterez]

But AMD are apparently now making RAM with Patriot or something, i'll edit in a link soon.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2128668/amd-memory-modules-bid-simplify-decision

Probably just taking RAM and slapping their name on it though...

 

[V4NT0M]

Gay, never bought an Intel CPU.

 

[demonstag]

So Bulldozer did not live upto the massive expectations laid on it by not only the media but also by the industry in general. AMD have always produced quality CPUs that have been affordable to everyone. If you look at the Top 5 Frequency World Records, AMD FX CPUs hold 3 of them. Bulldozer has not lived upto the hype, due to its inability to handle single threaded aplications at the same clock speeds as well as Intels 2500K. However in applications that are heavy threaded then the Bulldozer does compete and compete well. A faster core speed is required for any future developments of this CPU.

However the Bulldozer is new architecture and has brought Power gating and superior Turbo Core function over both the Phenom II and the Sandybridge CPU. I hear people on the forums saying that games are not fully using more than 4 cores, well the same could be said in reverse in respect to the Bulldozer CPU, the current software (Games and Business) does not know how to use the new architecture of the BD to its full advantage.

Bye bye AMD, your hopelessly pathetic CPUs wont be missed.

I think that if AMD were to hang up there gloves in developing new desktop CPUs, then ALL of us WILL miss AMDs processors, whether we are in the AMD camp or the Intel camp.

I personally have not used Intel CPUs in my systems since the 486 Dx2/66, Why? basically due to the massive price difference between Intel CPUs and AMDs CPUs. That is until now, I have bought Intels i7-2700K due to my own dissapointment that the new Bulldozer CPUs were not as good as I thought they would be, and as I was looking to upgrade my system I decided to buy Intel, this does not mean I would not go back to AMD when they improve on the current offering of Bulldozer or Piledriver

I think most people will agree that Intels Extreme CPUs are just a little bit rich for most people and if AMD moves away from Desktop CPU development and production, then most of Intels CPUs will become a little bit rich for most people not just the Extreme versions.

 

[Rroff]

This.

I remember Raven going on how the 6870 was 70% more powerful than a 580! What a retard.

He claimed 30-40%:

Back on topic IIRC ARM has taped out samples for 20nm mobile chips with great results and already working on the next generation (which is over 2-3 years away) so AMD doesn't really have a chance in hell of going up against them here. While on the topic of AMD - although probably just knee jerk reaction to AMD moving some key people from the GPU side over to the CPU side, I hear from a previously reliable source that AMD is looking to sell off the GPU business for some quick cash (this is probably just rumour) but I'm keeping my ear to the ground on this one.

AMD is far from dead, tho on a lot more shaky ground than it appears... IMO they have got stuck in a bit of an ideology groove and may need to swallow a bit of pride but are fully capable of becoming successful once again.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Arm hasn't taped out 20nm parts, they are working with TSMC(as will other companies, including AMD) to get test parts going on 20nm. Thats how the world works, in the SAME article/statement from them they also talk about the first ARM 28nm chips going into full production in Q4 2012........ yet also claim 20nm will be ready from Q1 2013.

Basically, BS, the article is fantasy and is likely a bit of a mix up in dates more than anything. Q4 2012 for 28nm ARM chips to be in actual products, is very likely, but that is why 28nm is really just getting up to volume, it will still increase in volume WELL into 2013, and probably still ramping up a bit in 2014.

2009 IIRC for 40nm, looking like 2012 for 28nm........ early 2013 for 20nm......... not a chance in hell.

If you remember Haswell was recently shown, a 22nm chip not due till realistically VERY late Q1 2013, maybe late Q2, and that was shown a couple months ago over 18 months in advance basically and that won't be the first chip and certainly won't be the first test chip.

You'll probably find ARM were doing the same thing with 28nm at least 18-24 months ago.

I forget when Glofo showed off their first 28nm finished wafer but I think it was late 2010...... some test structures of basic chips.

Intel, glofo, TSMC make stupid expensive, normally very slow, test parts in tiny test fabs years early usually. The difference between being able to make 1-2 working chips(often not working) at huge expense and having a FAB up and running, ready to produce in the millions a month, years apart.

 

[Rroff]

Well what I heard is they'd taped out working 20nm sample chips but were still 2-3 years away from taping out an actual viable 20nm product - which would put 20nm somewhere around 2.5-3.5 years away (I haven't actually kept up on this stuff in ages only googled the anandtech article couple of minutes ago to make sure I wasn't passing on complete bs).

 

[Klo]

Can't believe how stupid the comment are in this thread. If this is true, we've basically lost the only competitor in the high performance consumer processing market (and yes, Bulldozer is high performance). Intel will be free to set very high prices with non-innovative products, and there will be nothing we can do.

Naturally the Intel fanbois are loving it, and will happily pay the high price it seems.

 

[bhavv]

Pretty pathetic comment, again. Do you undertand the basics of what is known as competition? I can tell you now if this is true, you will be missing them when Intel have absolutely zero competition and they can choose their own price point. No competition means inflated prices and no competition to improve.

Fanboys of PC components need to go outside more and get a life.

I'm not a fanboy, but in all seriousness, AMD have not been competitive in the CPU market since the S939 day.

Intel dont need AMD to improve their products, they have been doing this regardless of giving AMD CPUs a sound thrashing since the C2D.

Intel also didnt need to price I5 CPUs at around £150 to compete with AMD, they did so because their is a market for performance CPUs at this price point.

AMD are simply not needed for Intel to carry on making powerful CPUs. Companies like Intel cannot simply choose their own price points if it meas that no one would be able to afford the product otherwise they wouldnt sell anything.

Question why is the 2500k £155....... answer, because the X6 was £150. AMD chips are awful........ then why can a Bulldozer beat a 2500k, why can it beat a 2600k, do you know how good those two chips are, they are the product of the best cpu producer on the planet, and Bulldozer can beat both on occasion, all the time, no, so what?

The BD doesnt beat Intel chips in the majority of daily PC use for most people, it doesnt even beat the Phenom. In the few cases where the BD does win (CPU benchmarks only I think), there is hardly any market of people buying CPUs for these few purposes. A CPU that only performs well in tiny niche of current applications is still useless compared to something like the 2500k which performs fantastically in almost everything.

(and yes, Bulldozer is high performance).

Naturally the Intel fanbois are loving it, and will happily pay the high price it seems.

You are aware that back in the S939 days when AMD were on top, Athlon X2 4400+ cost £350, and the 4800+ cost over £400 right?????

The only reason why AMD CPUs are currently so cheap is because they are simply crap. If AMD still had the most powerful CPUs, their prices wouldnt be any different to what Intel charge for theirs, and they might have even been higher (you could only have dreamed about getting a <£200 performance dual core from AMD back in the S939 days, but now with Intel you can get top performing I5 CPUs at £150-180).

But you can all believe what you want, simple common sense is lost when discussing CPUs with 'AMD fanboys'.

 

[as905]

if this is true then in few years from now gaming PC's going to be a luxury & gaming on consoles will be the wiser choice for most PC gamers.

 

[bhavv]

BTW heres my CPU history:

K6 II 450
Athlon 1400
Athlon 3000+
Athlon 3500+
Athlon X2 4400+
Intel E8400
Intel I7 920
Intel I7 980.

'Intel fanboy' my ***. I simply realise that AMD havnt had a single chip worth buying since the S939 days.


Here we go then, this was only (almost) 6 years ago:

Doesnt anyone remember what it was like back then? Heres a hint:

'AMD rulez for gaming, Intel sux, dont but Pentium 4s, they are pure crap'.

And everyone in this thread that are currently defending AMD CPUs would have been in that camp in 2006, they wouldnt have thought twice about stepping down to defend Intel CPUs (not that doing so would have been logical seeing how terrible they were at the time).

Then what we get today is people why have remained 'fanboys' of AMD since their S939 days, refusing to accept that the roles have long since been reversed. Seriously, defending current AMD CPUs as 'high performance chips' is just lolworthy at best.

I dont see why I would currently buy any AMD CPU over a 2500k unless I were an AMD fanboy.

 

[MoJoe]

Terrible news I hate to think how much those Ivy Bridge CPU's will cost now. O_O