no I got an ATI gpu. the amd monkeys in the cpu department had nothing to do with it. However, due to their failures the new gpus cost too much.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD quits the high-end CPU market
- Thread starter MR.B
- Start date
no I got an ATI gpu. the amd monkeys in the cpu department had nothing to do with it. However, due to their failures the new gpus cost too much.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Aug 2011
- Posts
- 871
Regardless of if they're the worst company in the world, they're competition for Intel.
If Intel are the only company putting out any semi-decent chips, they can set the prices as they fancy. People will be forced to pay either inflated prices or have worse chips than they should. At the moment, AMD aren't far enough behind Intel to make people willing to pay a huge premium for the intels (you do pay more, but it's fairly in-line with the performance increase) so they keep Intel from having a monopoly, even if they don't compete.
Soldato
lol
Grow up kid
! sick of you immature fanboys ALL over these forums. Get a life they're just companies! They dont give a **** about you.It's a fact laptops outsell desktops, and tablets are catching up. The percentage the desktop market has, has been declining for years. The average person does not need a massive desktop. A Windows 8 tablet will do almost everything a full size PC can. They will have USB and HDMI output so you could even connect it to massive monitors, TV's, keyboards or anything else you want. More than enough for most people! Both Intel and AMD know this and are focusing more in these areas.
Last edited:
Yes. That would be the reason
It isn't one thing that makes the Intel chips quick, but their complete microarchitecture (by that, I mean the way the different components are put together to make the CPUs, buses, caches etc.). It would be easier and cheaper to poach a complete design team from Intel rather than reverse engineer one. Also a lot of the knowledge of how to make things go quicker is in peoples brains - although it is captured on-chip. Understanding why certain decisions are made is almost as important as making them in the first place.
Soldato
best move they've ever made to be honest, cater to a much much bigger market that way. genuinely have a chance to knock Intel on their rears in some areas of the market, also going down the mobile orientated route can only be good for power efficiency and the likes. still the Intel following on here must be so truly happy that the evil, corrupt, nasty, vindictive Intel have almost driven their competitor out of a market, 1 - 0 to the bad guys, well done.
Also the 'Bulldozer design is terrible' cult would get a massive shock doing some reading on the architecture rather than endlessly bashing it, beating it and claiming its 'the worse processor ever...', watch this space and am eagerly waiting the 'hype' that'll come around when Intel inevitably steal some of Bulldozers ideas and use it themselves, of course it'll be the best thing since sliced bread then!
Also the 'Bulldozer design is terrible' cult would get a massive shock doing some reading on the architecture rather than endlessly bashing it, beating it and claiming its 'the worse processor ever...', watch this space and am eagerly waiting the 'hype' that'll come around when Intel inevitably steal some of Bulldozers ideas and use it themselves, of course it'll be the best thing since sliced bread then!
There are probably not too many on here qualified enough to talk about the architecture - unless they are processor architects of course.
Design companies are always borrowing off each other anyway. If an architecture idea in Bulldozer helps Intel go faster on one of their future chips, then AMD should have a patent on it if they want to make any claim on it. The Silicon world is full of protective patents.
Anyway, the fact is bulldozer is a poor performer by comparison to Intel for most things. Doesn't matter how neat the architecture actually is if you can't get any significant performance out of it.
Last edited:
Agree with this. Refocusing on areas where they can do very well is a good move.
Soldato
Probably because it'll also have the benefit of being a very fast CPU, which Bulldozer currently is not.
Caporegime
Well that's depressing.
We now need a new competitor in the CPU market.
We now need a new competitor in the CPU market.
Soldato
Seems to me the company has decided it can make more money elsewhere in a growing segment of the market, sounds perfectly sensible.
Soldato
Good on them, at least they cant be slagged off every time they release a desktop CPU that does not beat Intel any more as they have said that they are not going to even try from now on.
Associate
Good Bye AMD. Hello SUPER ridiculously expensive INTEL chips
Soldato
Why buy when the AMD APU package is so much better value ? Such that ....
Exactly and AMD is clearly the leader with APUs and this worries Intel a lot. The demand going forward is for APUs not raw compute.
Personally I think it's good that we have such a variety at the moment
Its 'architecture' is x86 and x86-64 and it loses badly to Intel in both.
In terms of having a clever design it doesn't mean much when there are faster, better value & more power efficient processors available.
Indeed, if each Bulldozer core was about 25%-50% faster with the same 1ghz+ overclocking headroom it would be a very popular chip, even if there were only 6 cores in total.
Last edited:
Really? I'd have thought the Nvidia Tegra chipset was more popular. ARM cores have x86 beat for low power apps and battery life is king for portable equipment....
Soldato
AMD APUs and the Tegra chipsets are currently aimed at different power brackets, you can't compare the two.
This is a sad day for us minority in the high end desktop space, but I think its the right direction for AMD to take.
Intel prices will probably be similar to how they are this generation, AMD had nothing to compete with them performance wise after all. It makes no sense for them to make their chips ridiculously expensive, no-one would buy them.
The push towards heterogeneous computing could work out very well for AMD as a company. All the best to them.
And the big area set for expansion is mobile computing. Unfortunately for Intel/AMD, ARM is king there due to low power levels. Intel are better than AMD for power consumption too, so that's another nail in AMDs coffin.
The embedded chip manufacturers (Broadcom/ST) who are coming from set top boxes towards media players are where the PC chip will have to worry. They both have ARM licenses and are used to processing video. Expect to see media players with those chips in in the coming years rather than PCs.
Personally, I think AMD will just quietly fade. Sad as Intel need someone on their heels for the high end market.
Soldato
AMD is open to becoming an ARM licensee in the same way Nvidia are. Nvidia are hardly king pin in the low power space themselves, their graphics solutions are beaten by PowerVRs, and TI and Samsung can make better CPUs.
Traditionally AMD have been lower power than Nvidia on the graphics card front, and have a lot more experience than Nvidia on designing CPUs, they could have great potential as an ARM licensee.
They have great potential in the tablet space if everything works out, but it would be many many years before their designs are low power enough for smartphones (barring full ARM adoption, which is unlikely)
Samsung - ARM licensee and their CPUs are all ARM based as far as I know. TI - ARM CPUs. ST ARM licensee. Broadcom ARM licensee. Apple use Samsung ARM based devices. The CPU world is coming down to two mainstream architectures - x86 and ARM. ARM have a march on x86 for low power, and Intel is way ahead in its implementation of x86 on how to do low power over AMD.
As to AMD being a CPU company - I don't think that matters if you are licensing an ARM core. You get a complete implementation and the rules to lay it out as part of the license. You need to be able to produce systems and the embedded chip makers have an advance on AMD for that.
I don't think AMDs future is particularly bright TBH.