Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,769
- Location
- Planet Earth
Slippers.
-
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.
What would happen if AMD stopped making CPU's
- Thread starter Gtiracer
- Start date
+2
Remember not long ago when the 8800 cards from Nvidia were miles ahead of anything else. NOW Power-wise AMD and Nvidia are about even.
Ok so the green team have better drivers most of the time, and ok the green teams cards are more expensive, but some might argue that they are better quality and last longer.
I for one really hope AMD release something good soon to combat the new upcoming Intel Ivy Bridge chips.
To get the best for the consumer the competition needs to be furious.
Battlefield 3 Vs COD(?) keep it at that level
It would be bad news indeed if AMD dropped out.
But right now while Intel does have an undoubted performance advantage (and the vertical transistors sound a very big step forward on top of that) for most people either
A) AMD provide something with enough performance
or
B) Their GPU is the bottleneck.
So for that reason I think AMD can hang in there, however there is a problem for me personally, I'm a Evequest 2 fan, and that MMO gobbles up CPU cycles like no other program around today, a 4Ghz I7 isn't enough...
They seriously should use it as a benchmark for games, so while I'm using a AMD PhenonII 955 right now I guess I'll be moving to Sandybridge soon ish unless Bulldozer can both arrive soon and also be worth buying (the AMD exec writing the story about how X86 performance didn't matter anymore didn't fill me with confidence there!).
It does look like AMD's core technology is at least 2 years now behind Intel (after seeming to almost catch up on process geometry, which surprises me since IBM is involved there and back when I used to work at Toshiba the IBM tech was suspiciously good compared to the rest of industry).
But right now while Intel does have an undoubted performance advantage (and the vertical transistors sound a very big step forward on top of that) for most people either
A) AMD provide something with enough performance
or
B) Their GPU is the bottleneck.
So for that reason I think AMD can hang in there, however there is a problem for me personally, I'm a Evequest 2 fan, and that MMO gobbles up CPU cycles like no other program around today, a 4Ghz I7 isn't enough...
They seriously should use it as a benchmark for games, so while I'm using a AMD PhenonII 955 right now I guess I'll be moving to Sandybridge soon ish unless Bulldozer can both arrive soon and also be worth buying (the AMD exec writing the story about how X86 performance didn't matter anymore didn't fill me with confidence there!).
It does look like AMD's core technology is at least 2 years now behind Intel (after seeming to almost catch up on process geometry, which surprises me since IBM is involved there and back when I used to work at Toshiba the IBM tech was suspiciously good compared to the rest of industry).
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,344
- Location
- Eltham
I don't actually think it'd be too different from now, where we'd see the difference is in how quickly they release faster versions and new architectures. Just look at what has happened when AMD has screwed up their products and what Intel has done to counter, what changed wasn't the prices especially.
It's not illegal to be a monopoly, they'd simply be under added scrutiny to ensure that they don't abuse their position as a monopoly.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 2,141
True, but it was largely because intel made several major mistakes with their prescott chips, which allowed AMD to take the lead.
Unless intel screw up again in a similar way, it's unlikely they'll be able to do the same again. Their R+D department just doesn't have the funds to stay neck and neck with intel.
Sometimes it's the smartest best funded who make the biggest screw ups doesn't always pay to make assumptions and given we havn't seen what BD is all about yet any talk of amd being out of the game is highly premature. If people ask me for a budget spec at the minute i usuallty point them the amd way if they have the cash i point them to intel been that way for a while now and probably won't change anytime soon.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Idea's are free, spending on R&D doesn't guarentee a great chip, but gives you more chance of getting the right people together on the right team to come up with something great. A team that costs £1mil a year could come up with the next greatest invention while a £100mil a year team might come up with a marginal performance improvement.
Ontario/Zacate are awesome chips that make Intel chips based on core architecture, and Atom look like crap. In the 5-20W chip bracket they offer vs Atom's FAR better graphical and cpu performance, and vs low end mobile Core architecture chips, less good cpu but better power, and WAY higher gpu performance and better overall system performance.
I've been saying for years though, basically the big problem is that Intel have been designing new chips for the best process available at any given time, AMD haven't. 32nm chips have only just started shipping and bulldozer is now designed as a 32nm chip. Intel created Sandybridge with a view to being shrunk to 22nm shortly, and Ivy bridge is designed for what can be done at 22nm.
If you look at priceerformance ratio I believe the top 20 are all AMD processors.
my favourite quote ever
Of course AMD will pull out of the CPU market soon! They're going into the APU market 
.
Joking, but even if AMD lost the CPU war and pulled out, ARM is quickly catching up hence all ARM manufacturers will be Intel's next rivals.
.Joking, but even if AMD lost the CPU war and pulled out, ARM is quickly catching up hence all ARM manufacturers will be Intel's next rivals.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 92
I would look at this differently. This will likely never happen but if and before it does you should buy Intel shares as this will signal to investors that Intel is the only force (in this industry), and as a result when the economy (sales) go up more and more smaller investors will rush to buy remaining free floating shares thus causing the share price to spike (beyond a reasonable stock multiplier level).
Unfortunately you can rest assured someone would buy AMD's CPU business. It's less obvious who though so while I'm certain Intel shares would go up I'm not sure which horse to bet on in as far as AMD's potential buyer.
Of course I doubt AMD will ever die off so low, they'll just grab the economy stage and try and sell as many less powerful (desktop, laptop, handheld) CPU's as they can to emerging markets such as Chine and India. That's where the money's going and coming from these days.
Unfortunately you can rest assured someone would buy AMD's CPU business. It's less obvious who though so while I'm certain Intel shares would go up I'm not sure which horse to bet on in as far as AMD's potential buyer.
Of course I doubt AMD will ever die off so low, they'll just grab the economy stage and try and sell as many less powerful (desktop, laptop, handheld) CPU's as they can to emerging markets such as Chine and India. That's where the money's going and coming from these days.
I'm not going to get into a debate every time over this especially after doing 12-14 hours a day this week at work.
Just because you cant think of other reasons that does not mean there aren't any.
If all other things were equal & it was just a matter of being able to switch AMD CPUs with Intel CPUs & all other features intact including cheap unlocked multi's then yeah there would be no reason to choose AMD.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 142
- Location
- Sheffield, GB
It's not illegal to be a monopoly, they'd simply be under added scrutiny to ensure that they don't abuse their position as a monopoly.
I'm sure restraint of trade would be enforced if they threatened AMD's market position. I'm not entirely sure what their position is on their integrated graphics boards, but that could be seen as an aggressive move. As I say though i'm not sure how they sell it. But tying or refusal to deal might be in action there. And lets just say i call price gouging on their high end CPU's. £1000 for a consumer CPU? Really? Same architecture and same CPU, just with unlocked area's. Shanannigans!
I'm sure restraint of trade would be enforced if they threatened AMD's market position. I'm not entirely sure what their position is on their integrated graphics boards, but that could be seen as an aggressive move. As I say though i'm not sure how they sell it. But tying or refusal to deal might be in action there. And lets just say i call price gouging on their high end CPU's. £1000 for a consumer CPU? Really? Same architecture and same CPU, just with unlocked area's. Shanannigans!