But why did AMD keep the same 8-thread Bulldozer from 2011 till 2017?!
-
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.
Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15% in Response to Ryzen 3000
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
But why did AMD keep the same 8-thread Bulldozer from 2011 till 2017?!
Caporegime
Because its all they had while diverting all resources to developing a CPU architecture to put them back on the map.
Because that was the best that they could do with the money they had? AMD might have had more resources if Intel hadn't illegally bribed as many companies as they could not to do business with AMD.
Caporegime
Intel has the added excitement of new hardware vulnerabilities every few weeks. That's got to be worth a premium right?
AMD would have been good and well if they hadn't bought ATi and overpaid for it.
Really, seems to work out pretty well in Console space, thin-no margin maybe, but it was better than just letting Nvidia dominate entirely.
Mind you i do wonder what would have happened had ATI folded...
Other companies have their own graphics IP.
Intel's iGPU is hardly worth comparing to a flagship card is it? With Intel entering the dGPU space, it's probably irrelevant if AMD died now, but eh.
I don't think buying ATI was the problem, it was not capitalising on that investment for a long time. GPUs kept the company afloat when the CPUs were in limbo. All that crypto-mining probably paid for the various Zens.
It's also given AMD a unique portfolio of IP that consists of both CPU and GPU IP, that they've used to leverage against each other quite nicely.
The biggest problem AMD had around the time of buying ATI and afterwards is probably divesting from GloFlo, but being tied to them for years, and having people at the top who didn't seem to have Lisa Su's long term vision and technical background when it came to where the company was going to go.
AMD without ATI would just be stuck in the doldrums, getting crumbs from Intel's table, with likely not much to offer but second league CPUs.
Associate
Yeah, for people who can't afford a top quality cpu.
Associate
Exactly this. Check the camel site for how prices dropped shortly after the last release.
Caporegime
Is it just me who got a giggle out of that or..........?
The ATI deal really helped strengthen AMD.
But it made the ATi's products much worse... cough-Vega-cough, cough-Polaris-cough, etc, etc. Rebrands, even some years like 2014 when there were no GPU releases, at all
Caporegime
But it made the ATi's products much worse... cough-Vega-cough, cough-Polaris-cough, etc, etc. Rebrands, even some years like 2014 when there were no GPU releases, at all
It's made AMD dominant in the console marketplace. I dont know how much money that's resulted in but I bet its significant.
But it made the ATi's products much worse... cough-Vega-cough, cough-Polaris-cough, etc, etc. Rebrands, even some years like 2014 when there were no GPU releases, at all
You do realise that ATI sold itself as otherwise it was preparing to go under? We're lucky it didn't go to Nvidia and we'd have had one monopoly in CPUs with Intel, and another one in GPUs with Nvidia.
Caporegime
But it made the ATi's products much worse... cough-Vega-cough, cough-Polaris-cough, etc, etc. Rebrands, even some years like 2014 when there were no GPU releases, at all
The first AMD GPU after they bought ATI was the HD 4870, that or its successors the HD 5870, HD 6970, HD 7970, R9 290X, Fury-X, Polaris/Vega/Navi are bad GPU's, not one of them.
ATI was in the dumps before AMD bought them.