# AMD To Give Up Competing With Intel On x86? CPU Prices Already Shooting Up



## qubit (Nov 29, 2011)

It looks like the Bulldozer disaster might have been too much of a setback for AMD to recover from. After 30 years of competing with Intel in the x86 processor market, AMD is about to give up, even with the 2009 1.25bn antitrust settlement they extracted from them. Mike Silverman, AMD company spokesman said, _"We're at an inflection point. We will all need to let go of the old 'AMD versus Intel' mind-set, because it won't be about that anymore."_ He was vague on the exact strategy that AMD intends to pursue from now on, though. However, the company is widely expected to make a concerted effort to break into the smartphones and tablets market. The big problem with this strategy unfortunately, is that this arena is currently dominated by many other competitors. On top of that, their arch enemy Intel is also trying to muscle in on this space, hence AMD could find themselves back at square one, or likely even further back. AMD's graphics cards are doing well at the moment though and are quite competitive, so it looks like their expensive purchase of ATI back in 2006, might yet save the company from extinction. If they become primarily a graphics card company, they will inevitably end up a lot smaller than they are now though and that's a lot of lost jobs and personal hardship, along with a monopoly x86 market remaining and all of its negative effects on the market.






The current predicament that AMD find themselves in can only be due to bad management, especially with that massive injection of over a billion dollars. Surely they must have seen the way Bulldozer performance was going years ago? Ultimately, it doesn't matter if they would have scrapped Bulldozer as a bad job and tweaked up the reasonable Phenom 2 instead and called it Phenom 3. It doesn't matter a jot what's actually under the hood, what clock speed it runs at and what you call it. Ultimately, it's comparative real-world performance and price that matters, nothing else. Nothing at all. Back in October, we reported on AMD's projection of a 50% CPU performance improvement by 2014. It was clear as day that this was a non-starter against the high performance competition from Intel, who's products are already 50% faster and more _right now_, so today's announcement that AMD is giving up isn't really all that surprising, although depressing.

AMD's move is bad news for PC enthusiasts everywhere as Intel will now be left with no competition in the x86 market and be an effective monopoly. We're already seeing the effects of this with Intel processors trending upwards in price and Intel's Sandy Bridge replacements, Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge, which essentially give the same per core performance as SB, with just a few tweaks to make them "new" products. With more and more computing power being crammed into an ever smaller space, could it be that high powered PCs will become a very small niche market, having been replaced by laptops, very small form factor, low power computers - and games consoles? And what will happen to AMD and NVIDIA when they can't sell high-powered graphics cards in sufficient quantities to be profitable any more? Doesn't bear thinking about, does it?

There's more info, analysis and quotes on this grim situation over at Mercury News.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## qubit (Nov 29, 2011)

Yup, prices are seriously shooting up. I ordered the i7-2700K from Novatech yesterday at £265 with the BF3 vourcher. It's now £275. Overclockers have them on preorder for £300 and no voucher. Ebuyer have them at £282 with no voucher. Looks like I got mine in the nick of time, doesn't it?


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 29, 2011)

proof?


----------



## xkche (Nov 29, 2011)

It's a shame, I hope is another strategy that will be used.


----------



## qubit (Nov 29, 2011)

AthlonX2 said:


> proof?



What?


----------



## kid41212003 (Nov 29, 2011)

Oh shit...


----------



## badtaylorx (Nov 29, 2011)

holy shit.....

are you listening Intel........

you NEED AMD.......

GIVE THEM SOME MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## trickson (Nov 29, 2011)

LOL ! This will never happen .


----------



## Frick (Nov 29, 2011)

qubit said:


> What?



I think he's refering to all the "whats" and "coulds". It's all speculation, only the future will tell us how it'll end.

To the time machine!


----------



## devguy (Nov 29, 2011)

Oh brother.  I read this article this morning, it fails to even mention the APU platform.  Even if Zambezi had been launched with performance surpassing Sandy Bridge, it still would account for a small part of their sales, as that's not where the volume/money is.

For average consumer, an A6 quad with Llano graphics is beyond adequate for everything they'll want to do.  An Intel 2500 might outperform it in CPU tasks handily, but the GPU is much weaker, but still adequate for most users.

I know the gut reaction to AMD's high end chips not matching/besting Intel's high end chips is to say they are screwed and have to give up, but simmé down nah, and remember we enthusiasts aren't the major market!



> Ultimately, it's comparative real-world performance and price that matters, nothing else. Nothing at all.



Power consumption is unimportant?  From what I've seen so far, one of the main attractions of Ivy Bridge over Sandy Bridge is the reduced power consumption.


----------



## Bow (Nov 29, 2011)




----------



## badtaylorx (Nov 29, 2011)

perhaps a joint venture between ARM and AMD

i can just see it now......

AMD+ARM=ARMD


----------



## pantherx12 (Nov 29, 2011)

I think AMD are just not even bothering to go for the top spot now is all, I'm more than sure they'll still make desktop processors and people will still get the level of performance they expect.

Just no more "OMFG FX IS BACK!" and then ballsing it up.


----------



## Mistral (Nov 29, 2011)

Another entertaining editorial, thank you qubit. I can recognize the stuff you post by the writing alone, without having to look at the name of the author.


----------



## qubit (Nov 29, 2011)

Frick said:


> I think he's refering to all the "whats" and "coulds". It's all speculation, only the future will tell us how it'll end.
> 
> To the time machine!



 Ya know, I had a "time will tell" in there, but it somehow got lost in the editing, lol. Never mind, the article still works as it is.



Mistral said:


> Another entertaining editorial, thank you qubit. I can recognize the stuff you post by the writing alone, without having to look at the name of the author.



Thanks, I'm glad you liked it.


----------



## suraswami (Nov 30, 2011)

that means should I grab 2 x 6870 and a 1090T while it is still there?  I was holding off on the upgrade.  may be I jump ship now?

Does this mean they are going to even stop making procs for servers?


----------



## qubit (Nov 30, 2011)

suraswami said:


> Does this mean they are going to even stop making procs for servers?



Nah, that will continue. They still need this kind of horsepower for datacentres and supercomputers, a lot of which are now based around a large array of x86 processors. They'll just be produced by Intel only that's all, with prices starting at a couple of grand...


----------



## MarcusTaz (Nov 30, 2011)

I own a FX-6100 and an Intel Core i7 950 and with the same cards XFX 6970 and the same hard drive setups the only difference is the memory the Intel has 12Gb and the AMD has 8Gb and I play BF3 with NO differences. I do not have to OC the 6100 and the gameplay is smooth. Buy AMD even if you think BD is a failure... Maybe in the overclocking/power consumption dept it is a failure but who give s a rats arse.. Buy AMD and keep the competition... Then you will see Intel prices drop...

I know we all love to OC stuff and bench at times but in the end for me if the rig is snappy and the framerates rock who gives 2 cents... Just pwn n00bs!!!Now everyone go out and buy an FX chip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## freaksavior (Nov 30, 2011)

Waiting on Chris cdawall to reply to this.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 30, 2011)

AMD turned a profit so I don't see what is driving this?

The prices of processors are likely going up because of the holiday shopping season.

If AMD was truly in trouble, there's a lot of companies that would be interested in buying them out for the fabs, x86 licence, and GPUs--IBM being #1.


----------



## GenTarkin (Nov 30, 2011)

OMG, seriously, if AMD exits the x86 market...Intel will have monopoly and get ready for the freakin dark ages PC progression....it will slow to a halt. No more competition really sucks...for us all =/


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 30, 2011)

.........wow...maybe that poll was right.  If bd is the turd that kills amd....my gpus....nooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 30, 2011)

I don't get it. So is AMD quitting the desktop segment or not?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 30, 2011)

FUCK! there goes anymore desire for Intel to continue advancing on their chips in the desktop segment!


----------



## Jonap_1st (Nov 30, 2011)

i knew BD had become major dissapointment for AMD enthusiast, but it didnt stop me to build a rig with their processor. for years i build so many rigs with AMD, only a few of them were Intel. because on low level market, their price point is more competitive than Intel.

if they want to quit for achieving the spot king on the fastest processors its okay, but want to quit entirely from desktop segment? i hope they dont..


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 30, 2011)

What I dont understand is how the AMD engineers find it so damn difficult to make a solid chip that is competitive with Intel's offerings. Especially after all these years.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 30, 2011)

two things:

1: finally the crappy amd can leave x86 and make room for a real cpu company to compete with intel
2: bought time we moved past x86, isn't it...


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 30, 2011)

Just how much money did amd put into bulldozer?


----------



## xenocide (Nov 30, 2011)

GenTarkin said:


> OMG, seriously, if AMD exits the x86 market...Intel will have monopoly and get ready for the freakin dark ages PC progression....it will slow to a halt. No more competition really sucks...for us all =/



Except that then Intel will have to compete against themselves to try and get people to actually buy CPU's.  Why would they continually make the same product when people would then have no reason to upgrade and thus give Intel actual income?  They would face heaps of Anti-Trust suits forcing the company apart well before AMD was allowed to go under.

The bottom line is AMD isn't going anywhere, and they have nobody but themselves to blame for subpar products.  I don't buy for a second that they didn't see BD being weak from the get-go.  It's fucking Multi-Core Netburst with a slightly better version of Hyper-Threading.  I knew just by hearing the description of it that it was going to disappoint.  This article is just sensationalist crap, similar to all those articles that pop up about how Apple will overtake everything and Microsoft is a stones throw from going belly-up.

The fact is, things in the Tech Industry move fast, and fluctuate often, for all we know the 7xxx series could blow the 6xx series away and AMD could post huge gains in their GPU segment, we just don't know.  I mean, TSMC's Revenue was down ~35%, but everyone still raves about how great they are doing.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 30, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> i knew BD had become major dissapointment for AMD enthusiast, but it didnt stop me to build a rig with their processor. for years i build so many rigs with AMD, only a few of them were Intel. because on low level market, their price point is more competitive than Intel.
> 
> if they want to quit for achieving the spot king on the fastest processors its okay, but want to quit entirely from desktop segment? i hope they dont..



I don't know about Jakarta but here AMD is only competitive in the $125-180 price point. That may be a popular price point but apparently not enough to survive on.


----------



## CDdude55 (Nov 30, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I don't get it. So is AMD quitting the desktop segment or not?



Probably just shifting focus after Bulldozer, they more likely just want to focus on other markets as stated such as mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. 

I still think it's nonsense that AMD will be quitting the desktop CPU market, as there is still a lot of money to be made in that segment.


----------



## mtosev (Nov 30, 2011)

one more failure like BD and they can exit the cpu market.they didn't learn anything from the Phenom fail:/


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 30, 2011)

When *BEASTS* get cornered they get 180% more vicious and become super agressive as they are fighting for their life/survival.

When *AMD* gets cornered, they lay down and prepare to get rick-rolled without a fight.

-------

you could say that AMD has been fighting for a long time - If you can class rolling over as as fighting then yeah, they the best at it.

Bulldozer is not the first monumental fuck up AMD have made.... Remember the days when AMD staff said their new CPU's were 'PHENOM-INAL'?? Then Intel came out with a game changer - the Core 2 Duo and slapped AMD's new phenom around like a cheap worthless whore.

I still remember reading a article in customPC magazine about AMD talking about their phenom and their thoughts on Intels new C2D chips. Aparently, AMD knew about the new C2D chips way before the phenom was due for release but refused to delay it while they tweaked the performance some more.

And the same thing happed with Bulldozer except Bulldozer was a 'victim' of clever marketting. AMD had ample time to come up with a superior CPU since the C2D's, C2Q's and even SB chips as they were out long before AMD's BD. And what happends??? they fail to grasp victory again. 

AMD's move does not suprise me. Obviously I want them to carry on competing just like everyone else does but it comes to a point in the road where flogging a horse no longer makes the horse run faster.


----------



## qubit (Nov 30, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> two things:
> 
> 1: finally the crappy amd can leave x86 and make room for a real cpu company to compete with intel
> 2: bought time we moved past x86, isn't it...



I like it - yes and yes. 

The only problem with point 1 is that "exclusive" licence. I use the quotes, because I know VIA and one or two others have an x86 licence, so I don't quite understand the deal here.

I might have to research this point and perhaps write up an editorial on it.


----------



## GenTarkin (Nov 30, 2011)

Things would be lookin a lot better for amd at this point if they just would have simply marketed the 8 core as a 4core 8 thread processor. Everyones perception of the new CPU would have been quite the opposite if that were the case.


----------



## qubit (Nov 30, 2011)

@FreedomEclipse

That's a great rant and well put.


----------



## pantherx12 (Nov 30, 2011)

I'm fairly certain AMD are going to remain in the x86 market but probably focus on APUs, assuming computing software carries on the way it is APUs are a good investment.

(APUs would make great super computer processors potentially given that they have a GPU in them that can do floating point brilliantly) 

They also don't make bad desktop cpus for the very same reason ( although not many desktop apps that utilise the tech at the moment)


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 30, 2011)

GenTarkin said:


> OMG, seriously, if AMD exits the x86 market...Intel will have monopoly and get ready for the freakin dark ages PC progression....it will slow to a halt. No more competition really sucks...for us all =/



you really think the existence of AMD is what's driving intel's incredible innovation rate


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 30, 2011)

I don't think Intel should be punished for doing well. If Amd can't keep up with Intel why should Intel help them out? If we end up with an Intel monopoly, it might not be so good for us, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Remember, in business the idea is to crush your opposition, not help them to crush you. Unfortunately it's a dog eat dog world.


----------



## qubit (Nov 30, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> you really think the existence of AMD is what's driving intel's incredible innovation rate



Why would they bother if they had no competition?


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 30, 2011)

qubit said:


> Why would they bother if they had no competition?



Why do you think they have any competition?


----------



## qubit (Nov 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Why do you think they have any competition?



Well, yeah, it's _something_. Well, it was until Sandy Bridge came out...


----------



## Thefumigator (Nov 30, 2011)

tigger said:


> I don't think Intel should be punished for doing well. If Amd can't keep up with Intel why should Intel help them out? If we end up with an Intel monopoly, it might not be so good for us, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
> 
> Remember, in business the idea is to crush your opposition, not help them to crush you. Unfortunately it's a dog eat dog world.



Not sure how it will go out as monopoly is illegal in the US, Europe, Japan and many other countries.

I don't think Mike Silverman is right. He may say what he thinks but there will always be AMD competing against intel. Look at VIA, they still offer their processors, not sure if they sell them but they are there. AMD got around 20% of CPU market share. Its not that bad, the problem is that in the times we're living anything can happen.


----------



## KainXS (Nov 30, 2011)

I think Intel just caught AMD off gaurd and now they're paying for it, actually no . . . . they should have stopped developing BD once they saw how bad it was in closed testing

If they stopped and continued the Phenom II line, this would be a different situation

they really stepped on a mine they made themselves.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 30, 2011)

qubit said:


> Well, yeah, it's _something_. Well, it was until Sandy Bridge came out...





Thefumigator said:


> Not sure how it will go out as monopoly is illegal in the US, Europe, Japan and many other countries.
> 
> I don't think Mike Silverman is right. He may say what he thinks but there will always be AMD competing against intel. Look at VIA, they still offer their processors, not sure if they sell them but they are there. AMD got around 20% of CPU market share. Its not that bad, the problem is that in the times we're living anything can happen.



The same thing applies to both comments here.

Intel owns say 75% of the CPU market. They have the capacity to meet the demand of that part of the market, but really, not much more than that.

AMD has 23%. They currently have issues getting chips on store shelves.

AMD can NEVER compete with Intel until they can PRODUCE enough chips to meet Intel's demand. The cost of the foundries needed is not possible for AMD's foundry partners, nor anyone else.

Intel literally OWNS the market, because they OWN the fabrication facilities. Even if x86 code use disappeared completely tomorrow, Intel would still own the market, as none else can make the chips the meet demand. As long as computing products are sold, Intel will own the CPU market completely, and that's just that.


If hte industry is truly going to thrive, each company needs to centralize focus on the products they produce, in order to meet specific needs, rather than a broad range of capabilities. Current technology is so advanced that there really is very little need for further growth in overall computing power...we need more uses for computing technology before that will ever become an issue.

Frankly, I think dropping the x86 CPU market is the bet thing for AMD, so they can focus on GPU designs, and use other companies CPUs to power their GPU technologies. All AMD really needs is a small, efficient CPU, not any server-based technology like Bulldozer is. Low-power, small footprint technology has far more possible uses once functionality is "made-to-order".

The sad part is that AMD needs the revenue from CPU sales to pay their loans.


----------



## Makaveli (Nov 30, 2011)

GenTarkin said:


> OMG, seriously, if AMD exits the x86 market...Intel will have monopoly and get ready for the freakin dark ages PC progression....it will slow to a halt. No more competition really sucks...for us all =/





nvidiaintelftw said:


> FUCK! there goes anymore desire for Intel to continue advancing on their chips in the desktop segment!



Do you guys know how a business the size of intel works.

They have shareholders which demand profit and innovation.

Even if AMD tanks intel still has to release cpu's to hold their huge profit margins up.

And no is gonna buy sandbridge 3 if its only 100mhz faster than the last and with no IPC improvement. The server market always need faster chips and we just get the left overs for desktop processors that is always how it has been.

And the desktop segment is slowing down due to the shift to more mobile devices it was already happening and will happen regardless if AMD is here or not.


You need to start looking at the bigger picture!


----------



## Mistral (Nov 30, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I don't get it. So is AMD quitting the desktop segment or not?



Of course they are not. You'll be getting AMD branded chips for years to come. 



Easy Rhino said:


> two things:
> 
> 1: finally the crappy amd can leave x86 and make room for a real cpu company to compete with intel
> 2: bought time we moved past x86, isn't it...



Ahahah on 1. Who do you suggest that be?
2: About time we move past d-sub too (yah, on computer's that's happening but friggin TV's will be calling it a "PC input" for ages)


----------



## bigboi86 (Nov 30, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> two things:
> 
> 1: finally the crappy amd can leave x86 and make room for a real cpu company to compete with intel
> 2: bought time we moved past x86, isn't it...



I am disappointed in AMD's inability to compete with Intel, but that does not make AMD a crappy company. 

I suppose noone remembers when AMD held the performance crown back in the Athlon XP/64 days. This made Intel completely change the way they designed processors. They realized that  you can make a fast processor by making it more efficient instead of just ramping up clockspeed(p4). 

Intel wouldn't be what it is today if AMD never stepped in.

I don't know why they're having such a hard time, a few years ago they were doing great.

However, I don't think that Intel will slow down their development of extremely fast processors with AMD gone. 

I will personally miss having great processors for a good price.

I just unlocked an Athlon II x4's L3 cache and clocked it to 3.5ghz for 100 bucks. Wish I could get that kind of bang for buck with Intel. 

I have nothing against either processor manufacterer, competition is good for the consumer. These companies kept each other in check for years.

I hope AMD bounces back but it looks like the company is being ran by pussies now. They are ready to give up. Sad, really. 

Just because Intel wins in synthetic benchmarks doesn't mean that AMD processors are crappy. Most users wouldn't see a difference while using a high end AMD machine vs a high end Intel machine.


----------



## Deadlyraver (Nov 30, 2011)

AMD is a good company for progression of technology, so they should be fine with this new move that they have.

Despite the loss of profit, the company is still slowly increasing in profit for their Phenom series as affordable solutions, and same goes for their server solutions. My thought is that they are just rethinking their company after helping innovate such products like the popular APUs. AMD is a collaborative company in nature, allowing a fair chance competing in other markets.

If anything, they are making a catalyst (haha) towards future solutions with their presence in mobile computing solutions. If they progress well, they may give high performance desktops another go. As for Intel, they are either going to monopolize and show weakness in value for other competitors in the market or stay where they are and slowly begin price cuts.


----------



## xaira (Nov 30, 2011)

i said it soo many times, amd should give up on the high end stuff and go mid range/low end/energy efficient, thats where all the volume is, this is a sad day, but i doubt intel will be given the market on a silver platter, someone will step in to save amd


----------



## qubit (Nov 30, 2011)

@cadaveca

So Intel own the market because they own the fabs to meet the demand, regardless of what happens? Yeah, I'll go with that. 

I don't agree that more computing power isn't needed though. It's one of those things that's classically "never enough" and there's always an application to soak it all up. Even though it might just be the same thing done 100 times faster, this can still be enough to bring about a paradigm shift. To give you an example, take voice recognition. It's a notoriously difficult thing for a computer to do accurately and with little training, since computers don't have the awareness and the "smarts" that humans do, to implement a proper artificial intelligence. However, the speed of today's processors allow for this functionality to a passable extent.

Another one is weather prediction. It can be pretty accurate up to about three days in advance now and that's simply because of the huge amount of processing power available on today's supercomputers.


----------



## Makaveli (Nov 30, 2011)

bigboi86 said:


> I am disappointed in AMD's inability to compete with Intel, but that does not make AMD a crappy company.
> 
> I suppose noone remembers when AMD held the performance crown back in the Athlon XP/64 days. This made Intel completely change the way they designed processors. They realized that  you can make a fast processor by making it more efficient instead of just ramping up clockspeed(p4).
> 
> ...



I remember those days fondly and I still have an opteron 170 in my HTPC.

However, I don't think this is accurate at all.

"Intel wouldn't be what it is today if AMD never stepped in."

AMD got ahead because intel screwed up and was trying to push megahurtz as king until physics slapped them in the face.

Intel always has been and always will be bigger than AMD, and they recovered from the P4 with conroe. When you have deep pockets you can screw up and recover with ease AMD on the other hand doesn't have this luxury. I'd give them credit for fighting this David vs Goliath battle we have enjoyed for this many years but they were always fighting a the war they could never win! AMD just won a single battle with A64.

There would be no AMD without intel not the other way around.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 30, 2011)

I'm sorry, but this is just a load of FUD.

AMD is not leaving the market.


----------



## hv43082 (Nov 30, 2011)

MarcusTaz said:


> I own a FX-6100 and an Intel Core i7 950 and with the same cards XFX 6970 and the same hard drive setups the only difference is the memory the Intel has 12Gb and the AMD has 8Gb and I play BF3 with NO differences. I do not have to OC the 6100 and the gameplay is smooth. Buy AMD even if you think BD is a failure... Maybe in the overclocking/power consumption dept it is a failure but who give s a rats arse.. Buy AMD and keep the competition... Then you will see Intel prices drop...
> 
> I know we all love to OC stuff and bench at times but in the end for me if the rig is snappy and the framerates rock who gives 2 cents... Just pwn n00bs!!!Now everyone go out and buy an FX chip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Why would the consumer pay more for a lesser product?


----------



## Makaveli (Nov 30, 2011)

hv43082 said:


> Why would the consumer pay more for a lesser product?



I'm waiting for this answer also....


----------



## Disparia (Nov 30, 2011)

"Intel wouldn't be what it is today if AMD never stepped in."

On the flip side of that, Intel could have been much more if AMD hadn't stepped in 

Intel had a ~5 year top-down plan for introducing IA64 to the industry, from specialty applications to mobile. But after the first phase, who comes in and c-blocks them? AMD with x86-64. We got short-term gratification, but at what expense? Could theorize over several paragraphs, but I'll sum it up that could be have been driving flying cars by now.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 30, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I'm sorry, but this is just a load of FUD.
> 
> AMD is not leaving the market.



There aren't that many Burger King's or Wendy's here compared to KFC and McDonalds. Essentially they "gave up competing" and just kept what they already have but never expanded. But that doesn't mean they left the fastfood market here.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 30, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> There aren't that many Burger King's or Wendy's here compared to KFC and McDonalds. Essentially the "gave up competing" and just kept what they already have but never expanded. But that doesn't mean they left the fastfood market here.



That's what I mean. People are screaming like it's the cpu apocalypse, but the fact of the matter is, they are just admitting the position they have already been in for decades.

Nothing will really change.


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 30, 2011)

qubit said:


> @cadaveca
> 
> So Intel own the market because they own the fabs to meet the demand, regardless of what happens? Yeah, I'll go with that.



It's very simple. Let's say that there's a market for five computers. Intel steps in an says, "hey, I can make 4 of those" and AMD says "I could make only one and I'm not so sure". Of course Intel will get more business.




About the article, the "We're at an inflection point. We will all need to let go of the old 'AMD versus Intel' mind-set, because it won't be about that anymore." quote doesn't mean that AMD will throw the towel with x86 CPUs. They're just saying "Don't expect out next CPU to be a Sandy Bridge killer".


----------



## Efraim (Nov 30, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> It's very simple. Let's say that there's a market for five computers. Intel steps in an says, "hey, I can make 4 of those" and AMD says "I could make only one and I'm not so sure". Of course Intel will get more business.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Think the post above is indeed the fact.AMD will be always be there in cpu market unless they fuck up again*should the change the marketing, this wont happen(most likely).

and if this is also part of their marketing, showing that they even 'throw the towel with x86 CPUs' and next time, they come up with something not so bad, the market trust may change again in their favor.At least they'll gain the share they had before the SB era.


----------



## pakbambang (Nov 30, 2011)

no weapon against intel?


----------



## MarcusTaz (Nov 30, 2011)

hv43082 said:


> Why would the consumer pay more for a lesser product?



Why is it lesser... that is subjective on your take. If you support AMD you buy the chip... it is not going to self destruct your pc... so the intel performs better.. who cares , my point is both PC's feel the same and game the same.  1 or 2 framerates and not going to kill you.... no one is telling you how to spend your money. I think my FX -6100 is a decent chip... I paid 130 for mine a lot less then a core i5


----------



## Super XP (Nov 30, 2011)

IBM will never let AMD go under, absolutely no way. Who on earth want's Intel dictating what CPU technologies will be chosen? I don't so.

AMD will only change there strategy and compete on Price/Performance until they can get something competative out that blows Intel out of the water


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 30, 2011)

An Intel monopoly is actually the "best" monopoly you can ever have. They can never successfully stop progress in science and technology anyway. And the pace of development would still be staggering even under a monopoly. Which sets it apart from, for example, a company having a monopoly on oil.

I'm not saying that an Intel monopoly is automatically a good thing though, but rather it's not that worse as some (many?) are wont to paint it out.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 30, 2011)

Super XP said:


> IBM will never let AMD go under, absolutely no way. Who on earth want's Intel dictating what CPU technologies will be chosen? I don't so.
> 
> AMD will only change there strategy and compete on Price/Performance until they can get something competative out that blows Intel out of the water



I like this guy


----------



## xtremesv (Nov 30, 2011)

GenTarkin said:


> OMG, seriously, if AMD exits the x86 market...Intel will have monopoly and get ready for the freakin dark ages PC progression....it will slow to a halt. No more competition really sucks...for us all =/



I don't know. The future seems to be mobile, desktop computing is not going to last. I think not only AMD is in trouble, Intel needs to speed up its strategy toward smartphones and tablets.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Nov 30, 2011)

Inflection: A turning or bending away from a course or position.

Very well could been a move away from there current bulldozer/piledriver strategy. Leaving the desktop sector would be crazy.

Push out what is left.

Cutting power consumption and price for piledriver.

Keep up the good work with the graphics cards.

Perhaps dabble in the smartphone/tablet sector. (Now I know Intel are meant to enter the smartphone market in 2012 but AMD could grab a sizeable share depending on price).

Down the line with a new architecture, Intel didnt see it coming because of the smartphone battle "BANG" AMD is back.


More what im saying is a move away from what AMD are doing right now is obvious, someone said if the marketing of the FX had been different this might not have happened, that is on the money.

Its the same mistake Intel made with the believe in GHz, AMD are just piling on the cores.
AMD could move away from the cores and look for something a little more refined.


----------



## Gjohnst4 (Nov 30, 2011)

Are they killing off the road map now though? Can I still expect Piledriver with it's 10% gain, or is this what is being scrapped?


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Nov 30, 2011)

Gjohnst4 said:


> Are they killing off the road map now though? Can I still expect Piledriver with it's 10% gain, or is this what is being scrapped?



Cant see it being scrapped, to much work has already went in to it, even to break even it will still go ahead.


----------



## mysticjon (Nov 30, 2011)

i always loved amd over intel, amd needs a new buisness strategy, they will always be number 2. They (amd) lacks innovation and they seem afraid to start something new and fresh. theres all these companyies who are putting out the same products but with their own differences. All the tablets do the samething, there all touch based, the only thing tat sperates each tablet is the GUI and its hardware and whatever perks there apps have. If amd wants to strive to the top, they need a younger and fresher generation of minds/workers. You can only improve on a certain technology until you deplete its usage. The again with the bullshit US ecomony i doubt our generation will be able to repair our previous generations big whooping pile of bullshit they paved for us


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 30, 2011)

Gjohnst4 said:


> Are they killing off the road map now though? Can I still expect Piledriver with it's 10% gain, or is this what is being scrapped?



I don't think that would be scrapped. Since they already have presence in pricepoints less than $250, they'll just be starting from there and going down in price. They're not going to just （╯°□°）╯︵ s∩ԀƆ doʇʞsǝp. They'll just stick to where they are currently and just "work" from there. Some improvements, but not expanding any further.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 30, 2011)

What i see AMD doing more of is providing a system platform, Vid Card GPUs, CHipsets, CPUs, and now Memory.

N tell u truth AMD has been a better choice for price/performance ratio. Yes the i series CPus are good from intel but in long run they will fall flat as software developers start releasing more threaded programs. AMD may not be the fastest in town but they are looking into the future of software development. FX isnt a disaster to say the least because many who have bought the product are actually very satisfied and happy with their purchase.


----------



## mechtech (Nov 30, 2011)

hmmmmmmmmmmm  interesting.

Well I doubt this will happen, I mean the gov would probably break up Intel for being a monopoly so Intel would probably even bail them out, who knows.

"And no is gonna buy sandbridge 3 if its only 100mhz faster than the last and with no IPC improvement."

From someones comment, well if AMD did say screw it and pulled out of the market, and 4 years down the road your mobo craps out and the sandy3 has diff pin config and its only 100mhz faster you are going to buy it cause you have no choice.  And the Prescott sucked and people still bought them over the superior A64 at the time.

It would be the same thing if GM was the only car maker on the planet and after they got their monopoly they only made cavalier's, well the other option would be walk.

I just wish ATI didn't get bought out, as for the cpu I run a AMD 955BE and most of the time it idles, and I have no reason whatsoever to upgrade it.  My wife's zacate E-350 1.6Ghz dual core laptop runs 'typical everyday' things smoothly.

As for the majority of people they don't know or care, as long as the pc starts when they push the button so they can check their email and watch youtube thats all that matters to them.


----------



## hv43082 (Nov 30, 2011)

MarcusTaz said:


> Why is it lesser... that is subjective on your take. If you support AMD you buy the chip... it is not going to self destruct your pc... so the intel performs better.. who cares , my point is both PC's feel the same and game the same.  1 or 2 framerates and not going to kill you.... no one is telling you how to spend your money. I think my FX -6100 is a decent chip... I paid 130 for mine a lot less then a core i5



You still have not provide a logical reason why the consumer would pay more for a lesser product.  I appreciate your brand loyalty but there are more applications than just gaming.  AMD chip did not outperform Intel equivalent on those tasks while costing more and consuming more energy.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 30, 2011)

bigboi86 said:


> I will personally miss having great processors for a good price.
> 
> I just unlocked an Athlon II x4's L3 cache and clocked it to 3.5ghz for 100 bucks. Wish I could get that kind of bang for buck with Intel.
> 
> Just because Intel wins in synthetic benchmarks doesn't mean that AMD processors are crappy. Most users wouldn't see a difference while using a high end AMD machine vs a high end Intel machine.



Have you been asleep for the entire existance of Sandy Bridge?  You can get an i3-2100 that would outperform that exact CPU in almost every task for basically the same price.  The reason AMD is now losing is because with SB, they are barely holding on to their Price\Performance standing.  Intel realized by aggressively pricing their consumer CPU's, they could deal massive damage to AMD's sustainability.  The even more overshadowing truth, is that although you can get similar performance from AMD CPU's for cheaper, as of the last 2-3 years you have to consistantly wait 6-9 months after an Intel release to get it.  They are constantly a generation behind, and it is killing them.



Wile E said:


> I'm sorry, but this is just a load of FUD.
> 
> AMD is not leaving the market.



Like I said, sensationalist garbage.



MarcusTaz said:


> Why is it lesser... that is subjective on your take. If you support AMD you buy the chip... it is not going to self destruct your pc... so the intel performs better.. who cares , my point is both PC's feel the same and game the same.  1 or 2 framerates and not going to kill you.... no one is telling you how to spend your money. I think my FX -6100 is a decent chip... I paid 130 for mine a lot less then a core i5



Because it is worse in terms of Price\Performance.  It goes for $160 on Newegg, when you can get even an i5-2400 for $190 which will outperform it across the board.  Or you could even just get a Phenom II X4 for $110 that offers similar performance, or a true Six-Core Thuban for the same price or slightly cheaper.  No matter how you slice it BD is not that great.  If you were starting from scratch, building a budget system you go either i3-2100 or PII X4 (maybe X6) and for a mid-high level system you go i5-24/2500/k or i7-26/2700k.  BD is NOT cost effective.


----------



## Frizz (Nov 30, 2011)

Well look at the bright side now that AMD have owned up, no more bs marketing performance graphs


----------



## TheGuruStud (Nov 30, 2011)

Intel pays for this kind of FUD. Don't forget that.They sponsor hardware sites around the globe dedicated to discrediting AMD. Intel CAN NOT stand competition (akin to apple suing everyone).

The most recent bout is with the 6200 opterons. Check out some reviews. Your typical intel shills are hailing it as a big of a disaster as zambezi....yet REAL review sites show it to be faster and HALF the price. LOL. 

Anytime you read a review and they leave out test setup details, are mismatching parts, and hurtling insults at AMD like a school child, you know what the game is.


----------



## Widjaja (Nov 30, 2011)

random said:


> Well look at the bright side now that AMD have owned up, no more bs marketing performance graphs



I guess I missed the bs ones which showed promise.
I viewed a fair few of the Engineering sample results and they unfortunately sucked.
I was hoping it was just the engineering sample processor, BIOS and software causing the poor results I was viewing for a 8 core processor.


----------



## Inceptor (Nov 30, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> About the article, the "We're at an inflection point. We will all need to let go of the old 'AMD versus Intel' mind-set, because it won't be about that anymore." quote doesn't mean that AMD will throw the towel with x86 CPUs. They're just saying "Don't expect out next CPU to be a Sandy Bridge killer".



Exactly right.
As to what it means exactly, there is no statement to that effect.

They would have to push on with nearly all of the planning and designs for their 'top end' roadmap, for Opteron development.  Also, to provide cpu 'modules/cores' for the APUs.  They can easily EOL discreet desktop CPUs after the Piledriver release, thereby increasing manufacturing capacity for their APUs, both low power mobile and higher power desktop design paths.  Doing that would probably increase their sales numbers, overall, over the long term.

That quotation above is just stating the obvious.  It's marketing PR to correct the mountains of prior PR blunders.


----------



## Widjaja (Nov 30, 2011)

Is it me or has the Topic title changed?

AMD for the longest time e.g. K8 processor release have been boasting the AMD64 label.
Even though the software windows released has not been smooth in 64-bit.
About that time it was XP 64-bit.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 30, 2011)

TheGuruStud said:


> Intel pays for this kind of FUD. Don't forget that.They sponsor hardware sites around the globe dedicated to discrediting AMD. Intel CAN NOT stand competition (akin to apple suing everyone).
> 
> The most recent bout is with the 6200 opterons. Check out some reviews. Your typical intel shills are hailing it as a big of a disaster as zambezi....yet REAL review sites show it to be faster and HALF the price. LOL.
> 
> Anytime you read a review and they leave out test setup details, are mismatching parts, and hurtling insults at AMD like a school child, you know what the game is.



Browsing through Google searches there's not that much reviews on the new Opterons, there are two which concludes favorably to the Opterons because of their pricing. The other review sites are more like random blogs, with "reviews" with no graphs at all and more akin to customer feedback in Amazon or Newegg.

Thus you're complaining about a trivial thing.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 30, 2011)

TheGuruStud said:


> The most recent bout is with the 6200 opterons. Check out some reviews. Your typical intel shills are hailing it as a big of a disaster as zambezi....yet REAL review sites show it to be faster and HALF the price. LOL.
> 
> Anytime you read a review and they leave out test setup details, are mismatching parts, and hurtling insults at AMD like a school child, you know what the game is.



http://arstechnica.com/business/new...chmarks-are-here-and-theyre-a-catastrophe.ars

Ars used AMD's own results to prove that their own product was a disappointment.  Nothing biased about that.  The fact is BD across all platforms underperforms.


----------



## cyberloner (Nov 30, 2011)

i am computer man... i always sell amd and use amd.... 
i am using bulldozer now.... bulldozer is a fast cpu.... just benchmark screw up only...
if software is built to utilize use with bulldozer... i think all benchmark belong to amd...


----------



## Widjaja (Nov 30, 2011)

cyberloner said:


> i am computer man... i always sell amd and use amd....
> i am using bulldozer now.... bulldozer is a fast cpu.... just benchmark screw up only...
> if software is built to utilize use with bulldozer... i think all benchmark belong to amd...



highly likely performance would have turned in AMD's favour since their promotion of AMD64 IF windows and other developers of applications were able to follow suit during that time period.

But unfortunately they did not.


----------



## NC37 (Nov 30, 2011)

This is Radeon 3870 all over again. If you can't beat em in high end, work the low and mid range. Then come back later with a product capable of challenging the high end. 

There is no way AMD can get out of the APU market. They have been and are going to be hit sellers because they can and do compete well with Intel on price and graphics performance. However, their major desktop CPUs...that they could temporarily fold. 

I don't think this is a "we quit x86 entirely," deal. This is more like, we're focusing on what we can do well. Which isn't enthusiast level CPUs. Stop worrying about us Intel, we're not secretly planning anything.

Of course what this means is...Intel will stagnate. No reason to push performance higher means they can sit around twiddling their thumbs. When you quit prodding the 800lb gorilla with a poo stick, it eventually goes back to sleep. This is the perfect chance for AMD to refocus and come back after they've gotten their house in order.


----------



## krisna159 (Nov 30, 2011)

i think amd lack of good marketing..if u ask  customer in here (my country indonesia,)about AMD product they will answer "what is amd?",people in here just few knows about amd,they only knew intel product line up only..because intel had alot advertising,


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 30, 2011)

Also to add, Bulldozer will likely come into its own when it transitions to the 22nm.  Every other fab AMD uses is completely shit.  90 nm (Athlon 64) was good, 65 nm (Phenom) sucked, 45 nm (Phenom II) was good, 32 nm (FX) sucked.  22 nm is likely to be good.

Of course it won't be able to hold a candle to Ivy Bridge but if you're looking for a cheap processor that's "good enough," AMD has that market pretty well cornered.




krisna159 said:


> i think amd lack of good marketing..if u ask  customer in here (my country indonesia,)about AMD product they will answer "what is amd?",people in here just few knows about amd,they only knew intel product line up only..because intel had alot advertising,


This too.  AMD has virtually no brand recognition because they refuse to advertise except on their website (e.g. Ruby) and games (powered by AMD).  Neither are effective at reaching the masses and they *must* change that.  AMD's decision to not advertise is the dumbest thing since square wheels.


----------



## krisna159 (Nov 30, 2011)

i think AMD "should" be use "tick-tock" strategy,build his own fabs,and gest new marketing strategy to sold out buldoser.CMIIW


----------



## laszlo (Nov 30, 2011)

nothing new as we already had intel monopoly even if don't see it

i think amd will prepare in background something which will be better than current line


----------



## Vancha (Nov 30, 2011)

NC37 said:


> Of course what this means is...Intel will stagnate. No reason to push performance higher means they can sit around twiddling their thumbs. When you quit prodding the 800lb gorilla with a poo stick, it eventually goes back to sleep. This is the perfect chance for AMD to refocus and come back after they've gotten their house in order.



This seems to be the optimistic view that makes the most sense. Intel will be resting on their laurels for a bit, so now seems like the time for AMD to spend some time reevaluating, retargeting and coming up with a response after whatever the fuck it is that went down there in the past few years.


----------



## kyussgr (Nov 30, 2011)

GUYS PRICES HAVE GONE UP BECAUSE...... IT IS CHRISTMAS TIME ONCE AGAIN..... IT HAPPENS EVERY YEAR... COME ON...

AMD has lost the competition with Intel a long time ago. You think that because of Bulldozer AMD will shutdown? 'We' computer enthusiasts will not buy Bulldozers but the 'others' do not have a clue.... They just want buy a PC... They have a budget and they don't mind whether is it says Intel or AMD.. They just want something that costs 500 Euros (less of what we spend on a cpu and mobo alone) and enables them to go on facebook... 

How many of us 'overclockers', 'upgraders', 'extreme gamers' are out there? (compared with the rest of computer users)?

What kills AMD the most is the price / performance ratio. The fact that they don't lower their prices after all the negative publicity means that they are selling to the 'WOW 8 Cores!!!' consumers right now. In time they will lower their prices... and more people will be convinced to buy...

To tell you the truth do you think that any gamer who wants to play Skyrim or BF3 will notice any real difference on i5 or Bulldozer? I don't think so...
I am running BF3 multiplayer with everything on high on an overclocked (4Ghz) Core2Duo E8400 (on air) without any problems!!! (with the aid of an gtx570 of course!!!)...... 
I am waiting for Ivy Bridge you see....


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 30, 2011)

OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssss


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 30, 2011)

kyussgr said:


> GUYS PRICES HAVE GONE UP BECAUSE...... IT IS CHRISTMAS TIME ONCE AGAIN..... IT HAPPENS EVERY YEAR... COME ON...



Prices neither go up nor down due to Christmas over here.


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 30, 2011)

Either i don't know how to read those charts or something else, but from the looks of it they made the biggest profit this year in the last 6 years.

AMD Fusion is the future and their gfx segment is also very alive. CPU's, quite frankly they really haven't released anything significantly bad ass to have reason for profits really. After Athlon XP and Athlon 64, they are really struggling. They have to make a massive breakthrough for high end or just forget the speed crown and build on budget and mainstream systems. Because quite frankly this is where the money is. If you sell 5000 CPU's for 600 EUR it's nothing compared to 500.000 CPU's for up to 200 EUR.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Nov 30, 2011)

i dont think intel has anything in the same segment as lano that would even touch it in regular use so to throw it all AMD would be insane plus and despite all this bulldozer is still sold out everywhere so what gives, BS thats what gives, intel fanboy gripped and ran off with BS you intel fanboys are gettin on my tits now i like intel but for fucks sake i never want just intel as a choice


SORT YOUR EFFIN EDITORIAL NEWS out not just this site but all sites need to stop with the permanent spankin of AMD by fanwankers of intel
and regardless of BS's percieved poor benches its no where near as bad as some go on especially considering the unoptimized nature of many benches and os's imho most benches are balls anyway as in most GAME banches BS isnt so bad


----------



## PaNiC (Nov 30, 2011)

KainXS said:


> I think Intel just caught AMD off gaurd and now they're paying for it, actually no . . . . they should have stopped developing BD once they saw how bad it was in closed testing
> 
> If they stopped and continued the Phenom II line, this would be a different situation
> 
> they really stepped on a mine they made themselves.



+1
This is what intel did with larrabee and that's why we got sandy bridge.


----------



## GSquadron (Nov 30, 2011)

This news is fake
1. Amd has only 1 competitor Intel on cpu side
2. Amd is the best gpu manufacturer for now
This thread is truly fake, if amd had that low amount of profit, than no gpus at all
neither cpus.... what is more now comes ram which means amd is going high!
Also, i know from my school that companies of diesel always show up as they
don't profit or even loose, but they go on earning a lot of money.
This is made because of taxes, so nothing to do with intel.
Amd will never show up their "real" revenue.
There are even companies like coca-cola which for 12 years here in Albania shows
-500k $ of loss for each year, but if they were loosing than they would not
sell anymore coca-colas.... so it is fake


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 30, 2011)

I also like AMD a bit more based on great past experience with Thunderbird and Thoroughbred processors from them and because they sort of feel less how can i put it, "dirty" than Intel. But then i went for 3 Intel CPU's. Now after quite few years i've made a comeback to AMD with their excellent Zacate (E-450) platform. I was really hoping for Bulldozer to succeed but oh well. I hope next one will do it...


----------



## xenocide (Nov 30, 2011)

RejZoR said:


> I also like AMD a bit more based on great past experience with Thunderbird and Thoroughbred processors from them and because they sort of feel less how can i put it, "dirty" than Intel. But then i went for 3 Intel CPU's. Now after quite few years i've made a comeback to AMD with their excellent Zacate (E-450) platform. I was really hoping for Bulldozer to succeed but oh well. I hope next one will do it...



That's how it is for me.  The first PC I ever built myself had a Athlon XP 2500+ in it (thing was a monster at the time) and I didn't even bother going back to Intel for several years.  I went from a 2500+, to an Athlon 64 3200+ (S939), to an Opteron 148 (OCed like a boss), then an Athlon 64 3800+ X2.  After that I had to go for a Q6600, it was unbeatable at the time.  Haven't had a reason to buy an AMD CPU since, I almost bought a Phenom II 955 X4, but I held out of SB, and boy was it worth it.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 30, 2011)

freaksavior said:


> Waiting on Chris cdawall to reply to this.



Had to come up with some sort of good reply...



We have already seen AMD shape a lot of things in the past year ever wonder why AMD is pushing "the future is fusion" so hard? That might be the saving grace along with ATi. I am already seeing it how many intel notebooks for $299 can you play a lot of todays games on? The E-350 series chips kicks some major ass in the low budget laptop market. AMD is taking that over. Coming from my sales at BBY experience those laptops are the ones that sell 15-20 per store every Sunday. Thats just BBY, throw in newegg, amazon and other etailers. Those notebooks are damn near bestselling on every single site. Now move up to the A4 chips with integrate 65x0 graphics on them and you have a budget gamer that can play ALL of todays games with decent settings, throw in hybrid xfire with another 65x0 chip and you have all high settings for under $700. Something intel cannot touch. As drivers mature those chips keep getting better. There is no way the influx of fusion chips is by mistake. AMD is trying to take as much low end market as humanly possible. We may loose the high end with AMD's bulldozer fiasco, but if they can stake a claim in low/midrange markets that is the bulk of home computing. Word of mouth travels better than commercials if one housewife get a FUSION sticker and loves it they all go get one. The top 4 selling laptops at my Walmart right now are all AMD based and under $700. All it takes is one salesman to go hey these perform similar this ones cheaper and games play better.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Nov 30, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I don't know about Jakarta but here AMD is only competitive in the $125-180 price point. That may be a popular price point but apparently not enough to survive on.



yeah, in here. low-mid range market are the most profitable one. but sadly though most of people still dont know about how competitive AMD at those price point. so they just brought Intel without knowing there's better option for cheaper price on sub $100 processor..

btw, APU still have a future. so AMD better not leaving cpu market completely..


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 30, 2011)

kyussgr said:


> GUYS PRICES HAVE GONE UP BECAUSE...... IT IS CHRISTMAS TIME ONCE AGAIN..... IT HAPPENS EVERY YEAR... COME ON...
> 
> AMD has lost the competition with Intel a long time ago. You think that because of Bulldozer AMD will shutdown? 'We' computer enthusiasts will not buy Bulldozers but the 'others' do not have a clue.... They just want buy a PC... They have a budget and they don't mind whether is it says Intel or AMD.. They just want something that costs 500 Euros (less of what we spend on a cpu and mobo alone) and enables them to go on facebook...
> 
> ...



Prices are hiked on everything and then once black friday rolls around they go back to normal to make people think prices are lower, when they truly are not- aka price is where the product started at. N Ya for those buying consoles, buy a used model n haggle the SOB that is trying to sell it for 250-300 dollars- stating you can get one for 250 etc


----------



## xenocide (Nov 30, 2011)

cdawall said:


> Now move up to the A4 chips with integrate 65x0 graphics on them and you have a budget gamer that can play ALL of todays games with decent settings, throw in hybrid xfire with another 65x0 chip and you have all high settings for under $700. Something intel cannot touch.



I'm going to disagree.  For $700 you can get an i3-2100 or maybe even i5-2400 setup with a 6850 or so that would blow that setup away in most tasks.  The "Hybrid Crossfire" setup is crippled at best, and still in it's infancy.  I don't think the 6xxx series will be it's time to shine no matter what.



cdawall said:


> As drivers mature those chips keep getting better.



No matter what, they are still AMD\ATi drivers which are historically bad.  I have to completely uninstall and reinstall drivers every time I update them, and even then it's only to a 50% success rate.  It's stuff like that that really scares users away.



cdawall said:


> There is no way the influx of fusion chips is by mistake. AMD is trying to take as much low end market as humanly possible. We may loose the high end with AMD's bulldozer fiasco, but if they can stake a claim in low/midrange markets that is the bulk of home computing.



It was more because they could actually make those at the time.  AMD was having so many problems getting BD CPU's in decent enough yields to even make shipping worthwhile, they had to do something to keep sales and revenue up.  Luckily for users, the end result was very beneficial.



cdawall said:


> The top 4 selling laptops at my Walmart right now are all AMD based and under $700. All it takes is one salesman to go hey these perform similar this ones cheaper and games play better.



You assume salesman at these places know what the hell they are talking about.  I spent several minutes listening to some 15 year old kid explain why Laptop X was clearly better than Laptop Y for gaming because it had a bigger screen (15.6' vs. 14.1' for what it's worth) with literally no consideration put into the CPU, GPU, Cost, etc. at a Best Buy recently.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 30, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I'm going to disagree.  For $700 you can get an i3-2100 or maybe even i5-2400 setup with a 6850 or so that would blow that setup away in most tasks.  The "Hybrid Crossfire" setup is crippled at best, and still in it's infancy.  I don't think the 6xxx series will be it's time to shine no matter what.



Fine me a NOTEBOOK with all of that for $700 and I will buy it right now. I do like the fact that you still buy an AMD card with it though.



cdawall said:


> Those notebooks are damn near bestselling on every single site. Now move up to the A4 chips with integrate 65x0 graphics on them and you have a budget gamer that can play ALL of todays games with decent settings



You took that line out of context. AMD's desktop market is shit and I could care less about it. Hybrid Crossfire is also one hell of a lot more stable than the Intel option. Go find reviews of a Intel IGP+NV graphics that doesn't have a list of people complaining that the one driver that does work with the IGP/NV swithing doesn't work with any new games.




xenocide said:


> No matter what, they are still AMD\ATi drivers which are historically bad.  I have to completely uninstall and reinstall drivers every time I update them, and even then it's only to a 50% success rate.  It's stuff like that that really scares users away.



Most people update with windows update. It is 100% successful at deleting one .inf and replacing it with another. Cool thing about windows update is it couldn't care less about CCC. Not to mention 90% of the people updating the drivers are the people of forums like this. The rest couldn't care less. Does it play farmville still? How about WOW? After that point nothing needs to be touched. In all honesty last time I updated my netbooks X1270 I deleted the inf and told windows to use the new one. Worked beautifully. Also this is coming from someone who has played with crossfire when it was new and you had to play musical parts to get it working. Had 4x3850's, mixes of X2's and single cards, you name it I probably ran it in the 3-4XX0 series.




xenocide said:


> It was more because they could actually make those at the time.  AMD was having so many problems getting BD CPU's in decent enough yields to even make shipping worthwhile, they had to do something to keep sales and revenue up.  Luckily for users, the end result was very beneficial.



They never slowed the production Phenom II's during the time. Fusion chips were equally as difficult to manufacture as BD and even included multiple dies with different manufacturing processes. Talk about complicated you integrate a 32nm CPU with a 40nm GPU!




xenocide said:


> You assume salesman at these places know what the hell they are talking about.  I spent several minutes listening to some 15 year old kid explain why Laptop X was clearly better than Laptop Y for gaming because it had a bigger screen (15.6' vs. 14.1' for what it's worth) with literally no consideration put into the CPU, GPU, Cost, etc. at a Best Buy recently.



I can't vouch for anything that I didn't work at. There is often one salesman who knows what they are talking about at those stores. Aaron (freaksavior) and I were the ones at BestBuy, the resident nerds so wonderfully named by the manager, but we had our place when people wanted stupid ridiculous questions answered the two of us could feed them full of quite a bit of knowledge. You will always have the teenybopper at Bestbuy they are cheap and can still sell a laptop to anybody who walks into that store.


----------



## Recus (Nov 30, 2011)

> AMD To Give Up Competing



It's music to my eyes.


----------



## Red_Machine (Nov 30, 2011)

nVIDIA actually has an x86 license, but Intel won't let them use it.  It's a shame, I'd quite like a system with all nVIDIA components.

And I agree on the whole "Intel monopoly not being as bad as we all dread" thing.  In Britain, we loved our monopolies, and we got some of the lowest prices and best products/service around.  But, because everybody is terrified of them, they'll forceably break up Intel if AMD pulls out of the desktop scene which is a big shame.  Same would happen to Microsoft if Apple went under.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 30, 2011)

i think this rumor is BS. After AMD just announced making RAM for the market, they are quitting CPUs? this rumor was probably started by intel fanbois and/or AMD/bulldozer haters.

wasnt the whole point in AMD getting out new RAM to rival intel's XMP profiles?


Even if this is true, i think AMD is going to put all development into the FM1 socket. Something tells me that we will get competetive CPUs, _with_ integrated GPUs on core


----------



## Red_Machine (Nov 30, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> i think this rumor is BS. After AMD just announced making RAM for the market, they are quitting CPUs? this rumor was probably started by intel fanbois and/or AMD/bulldozer haters.



Quoting an AMD employee, yo.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 30, 2011)

i think many of you are kidding yourselves over the impact little old crappy amd will have leaving the market. they are already an afterthought in the mind of intel. there are a lot more important factors that impact how intel innovates and does business.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 30, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> i think many of you are kidding yourselves over the impact *little old crappy amd* will have leaving the market. they are already an afterthought in the mind of intel. there are a lot more important factors that impact how intel innovates and does business.



Flamebait much?

AMD still holds an 18% market share and Intel 80%. Thats commonly available knowledge. Without AMD competing with Intel we will see processor markups again. Competition is good in every way it brings out the best product, best price and more options. Think if there was no AMD when the P4 was released? Who is to say Intel would have gotten there collective heads out of their asses and fixed that to release Conroe? As long as AMD holds its current marketshare through the quarter they could always bounce back. As far as intel's way of doing business yea right thats why AMD won that 1.45 _billion_ antitrust. The only business plan Intel follows is when in doubt cheat, lie and steal. Hell the old P4 commercial specifically quote needing a P4 to use XP...I mean really?


----------



## unsmart (Nov 30, 2011)

x86 doesn't equal CPU just profit for intel. You could read this as "were not paying intel anymore". There are more extension out that are open source and it looks like MS is planing on working with them more. This could just be the death of x86 that's been talked about for years now. the money is in mobile devices, set tops, and cloud none of whom need x86.


----------



## Altered (Nov 30, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> i think this rumor is BS.



Its only "rumor" if you dont believe stuff that comes strait from the source. But the BS part comes from all industries as they all seem to fudge things to get a certain reaction. Maybe an attempt to get Intel to slow down thinking they won the battle?  



> *"*We're at an inflection point,*"* said company spokesman Mike Silverman. *"*We will all need to let go of the old 'AMD versus Intel' mind-set, because it won't be about that anymore.*"*



However from what I read we may be taking it a little overboard. I see a lot of room in what they say to still make chips. The best I can get is they dont want to be compared to Intel for some sort of imaginary throne.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 30, 2011)

well it just doesnt make any sense. why would they even put BD into production if they knew it was such a fail and they would quit??


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Nov 30, 2011)

IMO AMD made a mistake killing the ATI brand name.

AMD should think of itself as a technology "group" and incubate a portfolio of excellence in different fields.  And have different product lines targeted to those markets.

AMD CPU, ATI, MAD (Memory acceleration devices), Spinner (mobile devices), etc. There is, IMO, a ball and chain effect by over "incorporating" diverse product lines and R&D.


----------



## lukcic (Nov 30, 2011)

I support AMD because:

tried Intel, and for my use AMD was and still is a better choice (example: try to use dism with all patches for windows; Intel based PC will die and will be unusable for a few hours, while AMD finishes 1 hour before an Intel and during the task the PC is usable)

I don't care for the quantity of game framerates; I play games 2x in a month

I use Sony vegas for rendering and it truly uses all cores on the AMD platform to the max, while Intel....that's just sad story behind....

I was thinking buying a laptop, a cheap laptop with the CPU virtualization and I wanted an Intel (I was recommended by  I friend who I trust about these things), the problem was that the Pentium mobiles don't have virtualization, while even the cheapest model of any AMD CPU has it. This rises a question "Why would I buy an Intel???" 

So here you have my opinion and logical reasons why I support AMD. Now I own a 8-core AMD beast and it does the job damn good!


----------



## werez (Nov 30, 2011)

As long as they make "good - enough"  chips and don`t charge a fortune for them , i don`t care about AMD losing ground performance wise . They don`t need to keep up ... Anyway im pretty sure that all this is just plain BS . Via is crap and they still sell alot


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 30, 2011)

lukcic said:


> I support AMD because:
> 
> tried Intel, and for my use AMD was and still is a better choice (example: try to use dism with all patches for windows; Intel based PC will die and will be unusable for a few hours, while AMD finishes 1 hour before an Intel and during the task the PC is usable)
> 
> ...





this is also the reasons i use an AMD. fuck i5 
AMD just feels a lot faster somehow.


----------



## MilkyWay (Nov 30, 2011)

When did hearsay and conjuncture count as front page news?

You know historically AMD started making Intel cpu copies? It was licensed to manufacture Intel cpu then it won a lawsuit against Intel and started to make its own processors.


----------



## pantherx12 (Nov 30, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> nVIDIA actually has an x86 license, but Intel won't let them use it.  It's a shame, I'd quite like a system with all nVIDIA components.
> 
> And I agree on the whole "Intel monopoly not being as bad as we all dread" thing.  In Britain, we loved our monopolies, and we got some of the lowest prices and best products/service around.  But, because everybody is terrified of them, they'll forceably break up Intel if AMD pulls out of the desktop scene which is a big shame.  Same would happen to Microsoft if Apple went under.



Eh?

You realise monopolies do the opposite right?

They sell cheap initially to weaken/destroy competition and then their prices go up as soon as there's no one to compete with.

That's why people are terrified of them.

Companies like Tesco pretty much wiped out the butcher/baker industry as well, in my town their used be like 10 butchers, now there's one permanent and another guy who comes in a lorry  ( so cheap! Love that dude) 


Monopolies are the worst thing people can allow  They take away choice and the monopoly has no need to compete as it's the only one providing the service/product so can charge what it likes and people have to pay that.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 30, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Eh?
> 
> You realise monopolies do the opposite right?
> 
> ...



As I have already pointed out in the previous page, generally speaking yes monopolies are "bad", but an Intel monopoly is "not as bad as you would think" because no company, no matter how big, can stop scientific and technological progress...unless they spend absurd amounts of money in doing so that being a monopoly in the first place isn't profitable at all.


----------



## pantherx12 (Nov 30, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> As I have already pointed out in the previous page, generally speaking yes monopolies are "bad", but an Intel monopoly is "not as bad as you would think" because no company, no matter how big, can stop scientific and technological progress...unless they spend absurd amounts of money in doing so that being a monopoly in the first place isn't profitable at all.



Of course development wouldn't stop as people will still want more power, but the prices man, think of the prices!


----------



## catnipkiller (Nov 30, 2011)

Easy to spot fan boys from both sides. If you think this will be a good think for the pc gaming world you have your head up your own ass. Prices of Intel chips will only go up and up and if you think differently you need a kick in yer face. Only a fool would hope for a monopoly in the pc world.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 30, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Of course development wouldn't stop as people will still want more power, but the prices man, think of the prices!





Law of Supply and Demand would still be at work, generally speaking. 

What would happen in an Intel monopoly is not the complete breakdown of the law of supply and demand (where they are able to peg their products at high prices right off the bat) but rather an "inflexibility" of the interaction between supply and demand. Specifically, prices are less susceptible to market forces, but are actually still a bit similar to the situation that we have right now. You could say it's monopolistic competition, but Intel can't really "dictate" prices because it is also essentially competing against itself, which is primarily caused by progress in science and technology.


----------



## Red_Machine (Nov 30, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Eh?
> 
> You realise monopolies do the opposite right?



BT?  The electric/water/gas board?  Royal Mail?


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 30, 2011)

catnipkiller said:


> Easy to spot fan boys from both sides. If you think this will be a good think for the pc gaming world you have your head up your own ass. Prices of Intel chips will only go up and up and if you think differently you need a kick in yer face. Only a fool would hope for a monopoly in the pc world.





So you're saying that if someone said "Something A is not as bad as you think", that someone meant "Something A is the best thing in the world!"?


----------



## pantherx12 (Nov 30, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> BT?  The electric/water/gas board?  Royal Mail?



BT is shite. 

Those 3 things are run by several different companies not one by it's self.


Royal mail is expensive as HELL lol ( fine for anything under a kilo and not expensive though I guess)


I'm shipping a tv soon, royal mail it would of cost me £30 and I'd have to go to the post office, to get a courier it costs me £10 including £500 insurance and they pick it up from my house, I don't even need to write the address on the parcel as they come with stickers!


----------



## chron (Nov 30, 2011)

this pisses me off to no end


----------



## fullinfusion (Nov 30, 2011)

I will rant when I get back outa Wisconsin


----------



## Red_Machine (Nov 30, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> BT is shite.
> 
> Those 3 things are run by several different companies not one by it's self.
> 
> ...



I'm talking about back when they WERE monopolies.  They were all owned and operated by the government.  Royal Mail still is a monopoly to some extent, but it really has gone to hell in the last decade.


----------



## pantherx12 (Nov 30, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> I'm talking about back when they WERE monopolies.  They were all owned and operated by the government.  Royal Mail still is a monopoly to some extent, but it really has gone to hell in the last decade.



Owned and operated by the government isn't quite the same as a true monopoly as in theory* if it's government owned it's owned by the public and so people can kick up a fuss about it/protest etc etc.

Can't really do that against a business.



* In theory because the government never listens to people 


Also as they were government owned they would of been seen as a necessary service I.E they can't over charge for it because people required it. (Governments supposed to provide after all, supposed to distrubute the money we give them in a sensible way and invest in things that are good, again obviously doesn't actually happen lol but it's how it should be)


----------



## Recus (Nov 30, 2011)

lukcic said:


> I use Sony vegas for rendering and it truly uses all cores on the AMD platform to the max, while Intel....that's just sad story behind....



Everyone know that tasks like this runs faster on GPU.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Nov 30, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> you really think the existence of AMD is what's driving intel's incredible innovation rate



yes but not for the reasons the guy you quoted mentions. Simply put if AMD exits the x86 market, Intel get's chopped up like a cow on the butchers block. 

All you guys worrying about amd should worry about what the U.S. govt will do to intel if it has a monopoly. Case and point. At&t had a nice monopoly on the phone markets years and years ago. They had excellent service, phone costs were low, and advancements were happening right and left. 

Sombody cries to the govt. "At&t has a monopoly and we can't enter the market"

At&t gets chopped up. Phone service goes down the tube, customer service goes down the tube, and phone costs tripled. 

Years later we now all pay hundreds a month for our mobile phone bills because some asshat in the U.S. govt thought their monopoly was bad. They created a dark age of phone advancement and service by breaking up a monopoly.

That's exactly what will happen to intel if amd leaves pc market.



That said. *AMD isn't leaving the pc market*. They're merely focusing more on mobile (ie laptops, tablets, phones) and less on desktops/workstations/servers. Looking at the market it makes sense to shift to mobile. This is especially true with the all on one chip apu style that seems to be decently successful for amd.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 30, 2011)

qubit said:


> @cadaveca
> 
> So Intel own the market because they own the fabs to meet the demand, regardless of what happens? Yeah, I'll go with that.



Yeah, I mean, there is still  TONNE of consumer demand, so someone needs to make chips, whatever form they take. Frankly, I see it possible that Intel could produce chips for AMD, once AMD is not producing x86 designs. of course, like I said earlier, AMD needs the small revenue they get from CPU sales to pay their bills, so it's not like they are really gonna stop making CPUs...they simply need to change people's mindsets about what they expect.



> I don't agree that more computing power isn't needed though. It's one of those things that's classically "never enough" and there's always an application to soak it all up. Even though it might just be the same thing done 100 times faster, this can still be enough to bring about a paradigm shift. To give you an example, take voice recognition. It's a notoriously difficult thing for a computer to do accurately and with little training, since computers don't have the awareness and the "smarts" that humans do, to implement a proper artificial intelligence. However, the speed of today's processors allow for this functionality to a passable extent.
> 
> Another one is weather prediction. It can be pretty accurate up to about three days in advance now and that's simply because of the huge amount of processing power available on today's supercomputers.



Supercomputers, as you kinda hint at, have the power needed for super-heavy compute tasks. The one problem with such infrastructure is that the cost is highly prohibitive. Making such things MORE AFFORDABLE is the real answer to such needs.

AMD can meet that market segmanet, and they already do. It's worth noting that AMD did ship Bulldozer as a server chip first, so there's no question, really, where the priorities are. Marketing simply goofed hardcore with Bulldozer, and that is all. To me, Bulldozer is exciting, contrary to the opinion of most reviewers.


----------



## Baam (Nov 30, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> When *BEASTS* get cornered they get 180% more vicious and become super agressive as they are fighting for their life/survival.
> 
> When *AMD* gets cornered, they lay down and prepare to get rick-rolled without a fight.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately AMD's fight left them when Jerry Sanders left.


----------



## dir_d (Nov 30, 2011)

Updated Article to the one Softpedia released yesterday.
here


----------



## Inceptor (Nov 30, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> well it just doesnt make any sense. why would they even put BD into production if they knew it was such a fail and they would quit??



I don't think they knew it would be 'such a fail' until after they were pumping out ES and seeing the performance in benchmarks, tweaking the steppings, pumping out more ES.  At that point, it was too late, all they could do was delay and hope to fix a few problems.  But they had no choice but to release BD eventually, at that point, in order to recoup some of their capital expenditures on R&D.

They fired the old marketing people.
The new CEO comes in a month before BD release and realizes 'heads need to roll' and 'plans need to change', but still has to release BD in order to create some cash flow and recoup expenses.
Voila, hints of restructuring.  Re-jigging of roadmaps.
No surprises really.
Had to be done by someone eventually.
So now they've come out and said it officially, 
"hey stop hoping for the old days of the original FX processors, we don't give a shit about that anymore"
"we're selling to our core market, and you ain't it Mr/Ms High End Enthusiast"

So much whining, unnecessary garbage, overreaction, trolling, and ego stroking going on; there's a few dozen useless posts in this thread. :shadedshu


----------



## erocker (Nov 30, 2011)

If we're talking about "the fastest CPU on the market" I don't get it? AMD hasn't competed with Intel on this front for about five years.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 30, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Owned and operated by the government isn't quite the same as a true monopoly as in theory* if it's government owned it's owned by the public and so people can kick up a fuss about it/protest etc etc.
> 
> Can't really do that against a business.
> 
> ...



I'm working for the Royal Mail


----------



## Llunker (Nov 30, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> What I dont understand is how the AMD engineers find it so damn difficult to make a solid chip that is competitive with Intel's offerings. Especially after all these years.



Because as you have seen with many AMD ex-employees--AMD likes to take shortcuts.  And shortcuts in this business means your product will suffer because of them.  Thats why...

Some os the best minds in the world have come from AMD and they will tell you straight up that they would still be there if upper management would fix the shortcomings of their company.

Plain and simple--fix it from the top down and you might have a better company


----------



## erocker (Nov 30, 2011)

According to these people: http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/107133-amd-to-attempt-self-resurrection-but-not-with-arm

Mercury News' report is false. Which makes this news report false as well.


----------



## Frick (Nov 30, 2011)

AMD not leaving x86 Market.



> Among other we have a quote from an AMD employee about the stories that says AMD will abandon x86:
> 
> "A new definition of absurdity: interpreting this week's statements from AMD to believe that the company is leaving the x86 market. Get real."


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 30, 2011)

Blah. That sums up my opinion about the whole situation. Even if AMD stays in the x86 market, they are so far behind that they will never be competitive again. So what does it matter?


----------



## erocker (Nov 30, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Even if AMD stays in the x86 market, they are so far behind that they will never be competitive again.



There's more to competition than having the fastest CPU.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 30, 2011)

erocker said:


> There's more to competition than having the fastest CPU.



Can you name me an area of that competition that Intel isn't handing AMD it's ass in? Besides overclocking and winning fail polls?


----------



## erocker (Nov 30, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Can you name me an area of that competition that Intel isn't handing AMD it's ass in? Besides overclocking and winning fail polls?



Intel is making more money on all of their products. AMD still competes with them by selling CPU's. You also don't have to outcompete the competition in order to compete. AMD's current offerings aren't attractive to people like us on tech forums. It doesn't matter we are in the minority. OEM's, prebuilts, etc. are all using more AMD chips than ever before.


----------



## OneCool (Nov 30, 2011)

Cant blame AMD if this move happens.They have to go where the money is at. Tablets,phones,TVs etc.

It wont stop me from wanting a big desktop pc for doing REAL work on.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 30, 2011)

erocker said:


> Intel is making more money on all of their products. AMD still competes with them by selling CPU's. You also don't have to outcompete the competition in order to compete. AMD's current offerings aren't attractive to people like us on tech forums. It doesn't matter we are in the minority. OEM's, prebuilts, etc. are all using more AMD chips than ever before.



True, but I'm a selfish fucker. I want them to compete in the areas that matter to me.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 30, 2011)

Anyone considered that the future market is not x86 32bit  (its dead apart from legacy stuff)
  64bit Processing  is now and  128bit or more is the future
Chips that handle 128 bit or higher processing on multiple cores are no doubt in development ( with or without onboard gpu) and as such will be as far in advance of current 32bit chips as the x86 is over the ancient 8bit processors

"" Progress marches on (in the developers fabs ) and SKYNET grows nearer to reality""


----------



## Temujin (Nov 30, 2011)

Hmm, AMD couldn't improve upon the integrated memory architecture (which conveniently showed up out of the blue)? Couldn't improve inter-core and controller efficiencies? Without these basic concepts, the large FX-8150 is nothing more than a larger 965BE. If AMD puts more effort in to revising Bulldozer's efficiency, it would perform quite a bit better. (i.e. Poor memory efficiency at 1866MHz).

There's money in processors. It is AMD's fault it went this badly. Cutting ties and running off to the waves of money created by mobile devices is the mother of all epic fails. In fact, I would argue that band wagon companies, while cleverly greedy, are their own worst enemies. It's band wagon thinking and planning that all be ensures their existence is limited. 

I noticed a comment on whether or not power consumption was important. It is more important to enterprise than it is to consumers. Consumers would quickly accept a small 10 watt increase just to get the performance.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 1, 2011)

Bd= delorean.  I applaud amd for not trying to be intel and moving in the. Dsirection they've choosen.


----------



## Makaveli (Dec 1, 2011)

Super XP said:


> IBM will never let AMD go under, absolutely no way. Who on earth want's Intel dictating what CPU technologies will be chosen? I don't so.
> 
> AMD will only change there strategy and compete on Price/Performance until they can get something competative out that blows Intel out of the water



Maybe if this was 1990 you may have been onto something but IBM gave up on the Consumer market ages ago.



lukcic said:


> I support AMD because:
> 
> tried Intel, and for my use AMD was and still is a better choice (example: try to use dism with all patches for windows; Intel based PC will die and will be unusable for a few hours, while AMD finishes 1 hour before an Intel and during the task the PC is usable)
> 
> ...





de.das.dude said:


> this is also the reasons i use an AMD. fuck i5
> AMD just feels a lot faster somehow.



Whatever you two are smoking can I buy some?


----------



## btarunr (Dec 1, 2011)

CPU prices all over are expensive, because it's the shopping season. A $250 FX-8150 is going to $280.


----------



## Frick (Dec 1, 2011)

Just wanted to say that CPU prices are pretty much the same over here.


----------



## xenocide (Dec 1, 2011)

Makaveli said:


> Maybe if this was 1990 you may have been onto something but IBM gave up on the Consumer market ages ago.



That's only half true.  They realized PowerPC-based PC's were never going to make it, and being an OEM was costing them too much money.  They still care about Consumers (to the extent anyone can) but have shifted their focus to indirectly  benefit consumers (Game Consoles, Phone Parts, etc.)


----------



## Wile E (Dec 2, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Also to add, Bulldozer will likely come into its own when it transitions to the 22nm.  Every other fab AMD uses is completely shit.  90 nm (Athlon 64) was good, 65 nm (Phenom) sucked, 45 nm (Phenom II) was good, 32 nm (FX) sucked.  22 nm is likely to be good.
> 
> Of course it won't be able to hold a candle to Ivy Bridge but if you're looking for a cheap processor that's "good enough," AMD has that market pretty well cornered.
> 
> ...


65nm didn't suck for AMD. You forgot about Brisbane. Just Phenom sucked, not the entire process.



cdawall said:


> Had to come up with some sort of good reply...
> 
> 
> 
> We have already seen AMD shape a lot of things in the past year ever wonder why AMD is pushing "the future is fusion" so hard? That might be the saving grace along with ATi. I am already seeing it how many intel notebooks for $299 can you play a lot of todays games on? The E-350 series chips kicks some major ass in the low budget laptop market. AMD is taking that over. Coming from my sales at BBY experience those laptops are the ones that sell 15-20 per store every Sunday. Thats just BBY, throw in newegg, amazon and other etailers. Those notebooks are damn near bestselling on every single site. Now move up to the A4 chips with integrate 65x0 graphics on them and you have a budget gamer that can play ALL of todays games with decent settings, throw in hybrid xfire with another 65x0 chip and you have all high settings for under $700. Something intel cannot touch. As drivers mature those chips keep getting better. There is no way the influx of fusion chips is by mistake. AMD is trying to take as much low end market as humanly possible. We may loose the high end with AMD's bulldozer fiasco, but if they can stake a claim in low/midrange markets that is the bulk of home computing. Word of mouth travels better than commercials if one housewife get a FUSION sticker and loves it they all go get one. The top 4 selling laptops at my Walmart right now are all AMD based and under $700. All it takes is one salesman to go hey these perform similar this ones cheaper and games play better.



Still behind in compute power.



cdawall said:


> Flamebait much?
> 
> AMD still holds an 18% market share and Intel 80%. Thats commonly available knowledge. Without AMD competing with Intel we will see processor markups again. Competition is good in every way it brings out the best product, best price and more options. Think if there was no AMD when the P4 was released? Who is to say Intel would have gotten there collective heads out of their asses and fixed that to release Conroe? As long as AMD holds its current marketshare through the quarter they could always bounce back. As far as intel's way of doing business yea right thats why AMD won that 1.45 _billion_ antitrust. The only business plan Intel follows is when in doubt cheat, lie and steal. Hell the old P4 commercial specifically quote needing a P4 to use XP...I mean really?



So, how does the past have anything to do with current strategies and markets?

Sorry, pulling the antitrust card is no longer a valid defense. Time to move on.





lukcic said:


> I support AMD because:
> 
> tried Intel, and for my use AMD was and still is a better choice (example: try to use dism with all patches for windows; Intel based PC will die and will be unusable for a few hours, while AMD finishes 1 hour before an Intel and during the task the PC is usable)
> 
> ...


What are you smoking?

What Intel chips are you comparing to, P4's? Do you perhaps want to compare performance in these apps against a modern Intel owner?

Sorry, but my almost 2 year old Intel system would mop the floor with any current AMD system, let alone a newer SB based system.


----------



## Swansen (Dec 2, 2011)

badtaylorx said:


> perhaps a joint venture between ARM and AMD
> 
> i can just see it now......
> 
> AMD+ARM=ARMD



xD lol armd, thats funny to me


----------



## Hayder_Master (Dec 2, 2011)

Cool, time to put fackin black box agin on Intel K CPU's and sell them as extremes for 1000$.


----------

