Dark days, AMD share price at lowest ever.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 20 Jul 2015 at 21:05

Gregster said:
http://www.pcper.com/news/General-T...015?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Interesting that they are selling more desktop CPUs?? :confused:

The FX CPUs are pretty old,so I wonder if its more the APUs in this case??

But it was the graphics and computing section which fell in sales,which is BOTH CPU and GPUs.

That must have been a massive crash in laptop CPU and dGPU sales at least since they blame a large drop in mobile sales for a significant amount of the losses.

Its not surprising where its hard to find any AMD laptops even having Kaveri let alone Carrizo. They really need to do something about improving their traction with OEMs.

Both Intel and Nvidia are killing them in this regard.

Freddie1980 · 21 Jul 2015 at 16:32

You could make a list a mile long about AMD's problems as there that numerous but in general I would say these are the biggest areas of weakness currently facing AMD from a product POV:

- Virtually no presence in the Server market. Lack of products in this area and what they do have isn’t competitive.
- No presence or solutions in the high end computation market. Dominated by Nvidia Tesla range.
- No presence in the low end mobile market. (Although traditional competitors Nvidia and Intel struggle in this area as well)
- So called enthusiasts CPU’s are paired with 5 year old chipsets which don’t natively support USB 3.X or PCI-E 3.
- They haven’t given us a new GPU architecture since 2011, GNC 1.2 left behind Maxwell in terms of performance per watt.
- Mainstream CPU’s released in 2011 were no better than previous models and sometimes worse which AMD hasn’t recovered from in terms reputation. Piledriver can’t get near Haswell or Broadwell let alone Haswell-E which has the same TDP.

Basic problem is they don’t seem to be able to release genuinely new products quick enough. By the time we get Zen and the next range of GPU’s it will have been 6 years on the same chipset, 5 years for the lame duck of Bulldozer to bite the dust and at least 4 years for a proper replacement for GNC. Products like Bulldozer point to bad management, lack of new GPU designs points to a lack of money.

HardStyler3 · 21 Jul 2015 at 16:45

No presence or solutions in the high end computation market. Dominated by Nvidia Tesla range.

WAT?

No presence in the low end mobile market. (Although traditional competitors Nvidia and Intel struggle in this area as well)

Apus in lower end notebooks are very very good

humbug · 21 Jul 2015 at 16:50

My Motherboard

SABERTOOTH 990FX 4 years old and has USB3

Fury-X is 275 Watt TDP
Fury-Nano is 175 Watt TDP
GM200 is 250 Watt TDP
GM204 is 165 Watt TDP

bru · 21 Jul 2015 at 20:42

humbug said:
My Motherboard

SABERTOOTH 990FX 4 years old and has USB3

Yup it does support USB3 and SATA 6Gbps, which is of course good.

But it is four years old, which is of course kind of his point.

fs123 · 21 Jul 2015 at 20:55

Zen should hopefully change AMD's position in the CPU market. If it does have much better IPC as claimed then it should rival Intel's CPU range, especially if it comes in with a minimum 8 cores. GPU wise they need to keep the refreshes and updates within the 6-8 month cycle unlike what they did with Fiji.

D.P. · 21 Jul 2015 at 21:52

humbug said:
My Motherboard

SABERTOOTH 990FX 4 years old and has USB3

Fury-X is 275 Watt TDP
Fury-Nano is 175 Watt TDP
GM200 is 250 Watt TDP
GM204 is 165 Watt TDP

Nvidia and AMD don't use the same way of measuring power consumption though.

The FuryX pull around 40-50Watts more power yet is significantly slower than a 980TI. Worse still, the FuryX uses HBM memory which supposedly saves around 30w, and the water cooler lowers operating temp reducing electron leakage, further reducing power consumption by around around 20w.

Performance per watt when equalizing memory and cooling, Maxwell v2 is a long way ahead.

humbug · 21 Jul 2015 at 23:48

D.P. said:
Nvidia and AMD don't use the same way of measuring power consumption though.

Your right about that, Maxwell can double its TDP just by overclocking, even some factory overclocked 970/80's are 60% over their TDP.

Unless you run them stock they ain't any more efficient than Kepler or GCN.

bru said:
Yup it does support USB3 and SATA 6Gbps, which is of course good.

But it is four years old, which is of course kind of his point.

The point is older or not it does have the features Freddie1980 thought it didn't, given they do have those features its not an issue.

Mauller · 22 Jul 2015 at 00:15

fs123 said:
Zen should hopefully change AMD's position in the CPU market. If it does have much better IPC as claimed then it should rival Intel's CPU range, especially if it comes in with a minimum 8 cores. GPU wise they need to keep the refreshes and updates within the 6-8 month cycle unlike what they did with Fiji.

Not just that. But Zen has SMT. So it essentially has 16 Threads, 2 per core.

HardStyler3 · 22 Jul 2015 at 00:17

D.P. said:
Nvidia and AMD don't use the same way of measuring power consumption though.

The FuryX pull around 40-50Watts more power yet is significantly slower than a 980TI. Worse still, the FuryX uses HBM memory which supposedly saves around 30w, and the water cooler lowers operating temp reducing electron leakage, further reducing power consumption by around around 20w.

Performance per watt when equalizing memory and cooling, Maxwell v2 is a long way ahead.

its significantly slower when the 980ti is overclocked and when its overclocked it uses much more power

uksoldierboy · 22 Jul 2015 at 00:49

D.P. said:
The FuryX pull around 40-50Watts more power yet is significantly slower than a 980TI.

DP i really do wonder where you get this idea that the Fury X is "Significantly" slower, it's not, at all from what i've seen.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 22 Jul 2015 at 01:15

The Asus Fury Strix is air cooled:

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/images/perfwatt_2560.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/images/perfwatt_3840.gif

No water cooler and TPU measures actual card power consumption.

Seems to have pretty decent performance/watt,although Nvidia is better.

The AIO water cooler appears to add more power consumption to the Fury X overall.

HardStyler3 said:
its significantly slower when the 980ti is overclocked and when its overclocked it uses much more power

I remember you had GTX980TI cards,didn't you??

Rroff · 22 Jul 2015 at 01:34

Freddie1980 said:
You could make a list a mile long about AMD's problems as there that numerous but in general I would say these are the biggest areas of weakness currently facing AMD from a product POV:

- Virtually no presence in the Server market. Lack of products in this area and what they do have isn’t competitive.
- No presence or solutions in the high end computation market. Dominated by Nvidia Tesla range.
- No presence in the low end mobile market. (Although traditional competitors Nvidia and Intel struggle in this area as well)
- So called enthusiasts CPU’s are paired with 5 year old chipsets which don’t natively support USB 3.X or PCI-E 3.
- They haven’t given us a new GPU architecture since 2011, GNC 1.2 left behind Maxwell in terms of performance per watt.
- Mainstream CPU’s released in 2011 were no better than previous models and sometimes worse which AMD hasn’t recovered from in terms reputation. Piledriver can’t get near Haswell or Broadwell let alone Haswell-E which has the same TDP.

Basic problem is they don’t seem to be able to release genuinely new products quick enough. By the time we get Zen and the next range of GPU’s it will have been 6 years on the same chipset, 5 years for the lame duck of Bulldozer to bite the dust and at least 4 years for a proper replacement for GNC. Products like Bulldozer point to bad management, lack of new GPU designs points to a lack of money.

Vision/direction has been one of their issues (though how much is force of circumstance I don't know) i.e. before Steamroller was released someone at AMD produced a whitepaper detailing exactly how they needed to change the architecture to be competitive against Intel and then when it came to it it appeared like it was largely ignored and they stubbornly went with a vision of how things "should" be done (multithreading, etc.) rather than work with the reality.

IMO the recent GPU lineup is badly executed - the 300 series is overshadowed by the Fury cards, the Fury cards kind of under-deliver - would have been better to release the 390 and 390X as a single "Fury LE" card - get the Fury out (with an AIO, etc. to hopefully get performance up a tiny bit more) and hold the Fury X off for nearer the Christmas season when hopefully some issues could have been sorted out, performance increased a bit and maybe even some more VRAM :S plus availability ready to go - the hype in the meantime wouldn't have hurt and it would have looked far better PR wise.

D.P. · 22 Jul 2015 at 02:08

uksoldierboy said:
DP i really do wonder where you get this idea that the Fury X is "Significantly" slower, it's not, at all from what i've seen.

20% slower at 1080p is significant.

D.P. · 22 Jul 2015 at 02:10

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The Asus Fury Strix is air cooled:

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/images/perfwatt_2560.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_Fury_Strix/images/perfwatt_3840.gif

No water cooler and TPU measures actual card power consumption.

Seems to have pretty decent performance/watt,although Nvidia is better.

The AIO water cooler appears to add more power consumption to the Fury X overall.

I remember you had GTX980TI cards,didn't you??

The non-X is considerably slower again, closer to the regular 980 yet uses much more power, despite using HBM.

The X uses less power because it is cooler, that is just basic physics.

humbug · 22 Jul 2015 at 02:19

D.P. said:
20% slower at 1080p is significant.

You're constantly posting wrong or exaggerated information.

Its 14% at 1080P, 9% at 1440P and 2% at 4K

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html

bru · 22 Jul 2015 at 02:30

humbug said:
The point is older or not it does have the features Freddie1980 thought it didn't, given they do have those features its not an issue.

Your right, it does have support for USB3 and SATA 6Gbps natively, I assumed that when I read about the ASmedia chip supplying these features it would be like the auxiliary chips on my GA x58a UD3R giving support but not doing it well.

Your four year old board is probably doing a better job than mine is. (mine is older though, I think

)

kaku · 22 Jul 2015 at 02:33

humbug said:
You're constantly posting wrong or exaggerated information.

Its 14% at 1080P, 9% at 1440P and 2% at 4K

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html

Aren't those similar to the percentages that are justifying the 290X->390X rebranding though?

humbug · 22 Jul 2015 at 02:36

There is no real performance difference between the 290X and 390X, not when both are on the same Driver. ^^^^^^^^

bru said:
Your right, it does have support for USB3 and SATA 6Gbps natively, I assumed that when I read about the ASmedia chip supplying these features it would be like the auxiliary chips on my GA x58a UD3R giving support but not doing it well.

Your four year old board is probably doing a better job than mine is. (mine is older though, I think )

I had an X58 with an i7 930, good setup but the SATA 2 was very much a bottleneck for my Samy 830.

I would like to go x58 again with an Xeon x5650 despite the SATA2, a good Asus x58 is 2 or 3 times as much as the chip though....

bru · 22 Jul 2015 at 02:47

I've got a Xenon [email protected] and its a stonking chip, hopefully with Windows 10 and DirectX12 it will last me awhile longer yet. there's no way I can afford to upgrade yet so it will have too.