AMD no longer competing with Intel, goes Mobile

I'm going to go right ahead and assume, for the sake of this post, that Softpedia isn't totally wrong all of the time (it is). It might not be a terrible thing for AMD to do so long as they're not totally committed to only producing chips for mobile devices. I mean, probably the most significant jump in performance Intel has had in recent years came from the Core 2 line of processors, which were derived from their entirely mobile/laptop-focused Core line of processors. If AMD focus mostly on the laptop and tablets market, then they're going to want to be developing a very high performance, but low energy processor (so, low clock speed). Potentially that could be helpful for them in the desktop market further down the line.

Certainly, if nothing else, AMD is getting good at finding ways to make their low performance processors look fairly attractive in the mobile market. For example the Llano APUs have appeal because they have by far the fastest graphics units that you can reasonably expect to find in a sub-£600 laptop.
 
Dear AMD,

Why do your chips suck?

Please reply.

*AMD's reply:

Dear valued customer, please dont abandon hope with AMD cpus just yet. Our upcoming 16 core CPUs in 2014 will see a 10% performance boost over our current faildozers.

Oh, so in 2014 you will have 16 core chips that still prform worse than current intel I3s? Okay.
 
bhavv said:
Dear AMD,

Why do your chips suck?

Please reply.

*AMD's reply:

Dear valued customer, please dont abandon hope with AMD cpus just yet. Our upcoming 16 core CPUs in 2014 will see a 10% performance boost over our current faildozers.

Oh, so in 2014 you will have 16 core chips that still prform worse than current intel I3s? Okay.
Click to expand...


That is as lame a statement :

"Secured Loans available for the upcoming release of the New Core i7-5770K Desktop processors - now available with 8 cores"

I am fully aware that AMD have not been able to compete with INTEL since the S939 cpus, and yes the much hyped Bulldozer fell flat on its face. I do beleive that AMD will continue to invest in R&D for the future, and will produce a cpu that will compete on the same level as Intels best architecture at that time.
 
demonstag said:
I do beleive that AMD will continue to invest in R&D for the future, and will produce a cpu that will compete on the same level as Intels best architecture at that time.
Click to expand...

Well according to the article that this thread is based on, that isnt going to happen.
 
bhavv said:
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'.
Click to expand...
You are aware that in the s939 days, a venice core 3500+ was under £100, and outperformed almost everything intel had on offer?

I don't understand why people are happy to see AMD go, when their existence makes no difference to them, while if they stop, the effect will be nothing but detrimental
 
Last edited:
bhavv said:
Dear AMD,

Why do your chips suck?

Please reply.

*AMD's reply:

Dear valued customer, please dont abandon hope with AMD cpus just yet. Our upcoming 16 core CPUs in 2014 will see a 10% performance boost over our current faildozers.

Oh, so in 2014 you will have 16 core chips that still prform worse than current intel I3s? Okay.
Click to expand...

Ugh your posting style stinks
 
Lightnix said:
I mean, probably the most significant jump in performance Intel has had in recent years came from the Core 2 line of processors, which were derived from their entirely mobile/laptop-focused Core line of processors.
Click to expand...

I would actually say it was Conroe that put the ball back in Intel court. Thats where they started to get it right with IPC and Power consumption, Then it just got better there after. The original Core 2 Duo stuff was good, but nothing land mark. although their overclocking potential was nice.

The comments earlier by someone about the cost of the X2 4400 being so much. well yeah, But its only the same principal as buying the other top of the range processor, 980x for example. This is overclockers. No one in their right mind would have bought that particular processor, unless they had money to burn(Or they dont overclock) They would have bought the cheaper one and overclocked. Just like people do\did with the 750\760\2500k.

So the equivalent chips to an X2 4400 would have been the opterons. And could be had sub £200, Or the X2 3800, Again cheaper and overclocked to the same spec as the X2 4400.
 
Last edited:
joebingo said:
You are aware that in the s939 days, a venice core 3500+ was under £100, and outperformed almost everything intel had on offer?
Click to expand...

Yes I am aware and thats why I bought one, except the 3500+ was priced at £150-£180, in fact the same price point that the 2500k is currently at. However they still charged over £300 for a 4400+, and £500 for a 4800+ which were the best architectures, whereas Intel currently offer their latest architectures at <£250. Intel actually price their high end CPUs a lot more 'generously' than AMD ever did.

I don't understand why people are happy to see AMD go, when their existence makes no difference to them, while if they stop, the effect will be nothing but detrimental
Click to expand...

Because they cant produce decent CPUs anymore like they used to. I dont think that losing AMD would be detrimental.

Its been about 5-6 years now, and AMD still havnt been able to produce a CPU thats equivalent clock for clock to Intel since the C2D.


wannabedamned said:
The comments earlier by someone about the cost of the X2 4400 being so much. well yeah, But its only the same principal as buying nay other top of the range processor, 980x for example. This is overclockers. No one in their right mind would have bought that particular processor, unless they had money to burn(Or they dont overclock) They would have bought the cheaper one and overclocked. Just like people do\did with the 750\760\2500k.
Click to expand...


The 4400+ was the cheapest CPU with the highest core that AMD offered back then. It was equal to an I7 920-960, or 2600k right now, not to an I7 980. Many people in 'their right minds' chose the 4400+ for its 1 Mb cache as opposed to the lower models which only had 512 kb. The 3800+ would have been comparable to current I5 CPUs.

E.G:

S939 : Equivalent current Intel CPU

Single core Athlon : I3
Dual core 512 kb X2 : I5
Dual core 1 Mb X2 : I7.
 
Last edited:
wannabedamned said:
We always knew that the extra cache was only the equivalent to an extra 200mhz. :p So the cost really wasnt worth it
Click to expand...

Exactly. Its like the current I5 vs I7 - 512 kb vs 1 Mb cache on those S939 dual cores.

However a lot of people still want to have the better core, as lots of people currently choose to buy I7s even though they are barely any better than I5s.

The way I can see it - Intel charge less for the lowest models of their top architecture than AMD did back then, so I dont understand the 'Intel are expensive / overpriced' arguments when they have comparatively better pricing across their entire current CPU range.

I'd rather not see a return to AMD's S939 pricing.
 
Last edited:
bhavv said:
I'd rather not see a return to AMD's S939 pricing.
Click to expand...

It was all relative though, the competing Intel chips were priced high at the time? (If I remember right)
This thread is fairly hilarious.

You've got people actively posting against AMD like they have had their lives ruined by them. Intel have never done wrong by them.

You've got people who have blind faith in AMDs current release CD. Newsflash, the performance improvement in Windows 8 isn't that significant... Not enough to make buying a BD chip a good idea right now.
You don't buy a CPU NOW because it might work a little better a year down the road.

I almost thought this was the graphics forum for a while...
 
bhavv said:
Yes I am aware and thats why I bought one, except the 3500+ was priced at £150-£180, in fact the same price point that the 2500k is currently at. However they still charged over £300 for a 4400+, and £500 for a 4800+ which were the best architectures, whereas Intel currently offer their latest architectures at <£250. Intel actually price their high end CPUs a lot more 'generously' than AMD ever did.
Click to expand...

Quite right actually, sorry - it was under £100 when I bought one rather than on release.

I'm pretty sure Intel's current equivalent to the 4800+ is currently priced somewhere in the £700 region though.

Because they cant produce decent CPUs anymore like they used to. I dont think that losing AMD would be detrimental.
.
Click to expand...

Complete loss of any competition on performance/price ratio wouldn't be detrimental?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom