# Why doesn't AMD create a better CPU architecture to compete with Intel again?



## qubit (Jan 18, 2014)

AMD's siamesed cores module architecture has been used for its CPUs since Bulldozer was released over two years ago in October 2011 to disappointing reviews.

It's lead to AMD humiliatingly losing the performance war* against Intel with this design, so I've been wondering why they persist in using it to this day? They've tweaked it a bit here and there, but since it's been over two years now, surely they could design a better architecture instead and take a leaf out of Intel's book to make performance competitive again while being careful not to step on their patents?

For all the usual and obvious reasons, I'd much rather see a strong AMD competing head to head with Intel every generation, rather than this performance monopoly that Intel enjoys.

*EDIT:* To clarify, what I meant was that AMD lost the performance war when Intel released Conroe way back in 2006, but remained reasonably competitive, with aspirations of matching Intel's performance someday. However, the Bulldozer release cemented just how hopelessly far behind AMD were, completely humiliating them, with the gap only growing wider as time moves on.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 18, 2014)

Wait AMD was aiming to beat Intel in performance?

source?

To be fair. I think alot of it has to do with R&D funds but more importantly I think certain types of architecture and transistor setups are actually owned intellectual property. and theirfor cant be used by someone else. Which probably explains why AMD hasnt used scalar architecture like nvidia and stays with supar scalar. Its more of a pigeon holed market from what I see.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 18, 2014)

No, its more that AMD has had a ass backwards idea for years now and since they have devoted years of R&D time to it they are going to follow through, and they have an idea that it will cause them to win. Considering the slight IPC improvement in the latest offering and how their chips are now in consoles, and they are working on the software  (so it seems) to make their hardware win.........I hope it works out for them only so there is good marketable competition again. 


Making a CPU is far beyond a transistor does A, or can add A plus B. It falls back to the amount of time electrons are moving through the traces to get from cache to the actual transistor, and then back. t his is why AMD chips have latency issues, and why they suck at non pipelined or heavily threaded pipelined instructions. Or instructions that don't fit in the pipeline that can be spoon fed to the CPU cores. 


They keep hoping for a software revolution to use GPU cores for these jobs, and for pure speed (Giggle Hurtz) to overcome their failings in IPC.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jan 18, 2014)

I think AMD has bigger worries: ARM processors. I can see tablets and phones replacing casual use computers, and it wouldn't be long before we get full "Office" suites, which will signal the start of office computers abnadoning x86. The transition is not going to be fast (imo fastest transition is 10 years at least), but once it happens x86 will be pushed straight into niche. Even servers are using graphics cards for their main firepower.


----------



## qubit (Jan 18, 2014)

I'm just musing, Solaris.

Back in the day AMD certainly were competing with Intel for performance, as any rival CPU manufacturer would want to do. Command the top prices and brand prestige and recognition all go with it, obviously. Think back to 2005 when the Athlon 64 ruled the day. I bought one and then the dual core version, which were fantastic for the time.

Instead, they seem to have just resigned themselves to this fate of underdog and have gone for the "value"market instead. They don't like to be there and neither do we. It sucks.

Nice avatar. 

EDIT: thanks for your replies steevo, fourstaff. Saw them after I posted. Making a competing product certainly isn't a trivial matter, that's for sure.


----------



## micropage7 (Jan 18, 2014)

personally i just feel ok with AMD processor performance but i just expect AMD would squeeze their power consumption. 
it would be great


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 18, 2014)

qubit said:


> I'm just musing, Solaris.
> 
> Back in the day AMD certainly were competing with Intel for performance, as any rival CPU manufacturer would want to do. Command the top prices and brand prestige and recognition all go with it, obviously. Think back in 2005 when the Athlon 64 ruled the day. I bought one and then the dual core version, which were fantastic for the time.
> 
> ...



The big problem that I see is during the intel change in power around the penryn era AMD was looking total collapse in the face and Intel literally had billions to burn on R&D and they already had a solid product using P3 pipeline arc (slightly more advanced mind you) while AMD was attempting to still BE a company they burned what they could into the buyout of ATI to float on GPUs for a bit. They lost their job a week before the rent was due. Its been a long time coming for sure. but Intel just has the R&D lead. You have to understand intel shows us some pretty roadmaps but to the bearded elders with high level security badges that power point slide is old. 

Regardless of the flack I have given and AMD in general has gotten their cards are coming around to be more nvidia contenders then they used to when ATI lost that race a little after the 9800 years. I think they are taking the right course since it seems they are dumping all the improvements on GPUs atm. Intel has never had good performing IGPs its a fact that their arc simply sucks. AMD has the right of it since they seem to be more focused on their GPUs. Integrating that tech into their APU lineup will probably beat intels APU options even though they cant do it with cores customers will get a more "even" usability experience with a proper balance between computing power and HD graphics. Atleast in theory. So they could very well pick themselves up on sales of APU units and GPUs while affording some time at intel's CPU heels for a bit longer.

I might be onto something

or completely talking out my ass. This is my interpretation of AMDs current scenario.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 18, 2014)

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...ache-and-memory-benchmark-here.186338/page-10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_predictor



AMD
L2 10ns = 10 billionths of a second = 10 CPU cycles of stall for any instruction not found in the L1 cache minimum. If this was a 1Ghz processor and you had 100% cache miss it would be as effective as a 100Mhz processor that was 100% effective. ** Not exact math, and since the instruction may be found in the L3 cache even a 100% failure of the L2 will not result in a failure to process data, it will occur at a very slow rate, like one in 33 CPU cycles give or take a few.**
L3 33ns = 33 billionths of a second = 33 CPU cycles of stall.


VS

Intel

L2 3ns
L3 10ns

Intel HT uses pipeline stalls to feed the "core" instructions waiting in the cache while the transfer from the first thread occurs. So instead of an actual 10ns penalty, the core still may use 6 of those cycles on another thread to improve total instruction per clock.

In short, AMD processors spend most of the time waiting for instructions when they don't meet the IPC that Intel does. However the longer pipeline sometimes (server applications with large data sets and small common requests) is better, as the when the data is found in the cache or there is no possible way to have all the data in the cache, they perform on par with Intel.


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 18, 2014)

AMD has the right ideas but they can't realize them at the right time.

Kaveri should have been here like 3 years ago, not this week. Right now only a handful of apps are capable of taking advantage of HSA and not even to its fullest potential, it'll take at least a couple of years to have a software environment that matches the processor capabilities. AMD nerfed their CPUs expecting the GPU to take on the load but it took 3 years for their plans to come into fruition.

As for the Athlon 64, AMD had the idea of northbridge integration early on and made it big with the A64 IMC but once Intel put all their resources into that avenue not only did they catch up but speed past AMD. AMD engineers could be extremely talented but Intel has like 100x the engineers AMD does. You just can't take on those numbers with talent alone.


----------



## suraswami (Jan 18, 2014)

I have a I7 based desktop and laptop at work and at home have FX 8320.  I don't miss the I7 at home and don't miss the FX at work.  At home FX gives me good gaming experience for cheap and thats what matters.  You can keep comparing 200FPS to 300FPS and get giddy about it or stop worrying about e-penis and use your existing one for a glorious pee happiness!

Future is GPU and multi-threaded computing and thats where AMD has their bite.  Intel will only follow that (as always).

For comparison sake lets talk about Gaming Consoles, AMD literally wiped out Intel from it.  Will anyone talk about it?


----------



## qubit (Jan 18, 2014)

TRWOV, yeah, I know Intel is much bigger and has much more resources, but this problem seems to be as much about vision, or lack of it, as competing with the bigger guy. I remember all the big layoffs AMD had a few years ago as the fallout from the Bulldozer disaster bit. That wouldn't happen at a company that was well run and had a slight hiccup.

Sura: while framerate always matters, even if it's very high as you "can't have too much processing power" for games (one for a different thread probably) I think it's a good point about shutting out Intel from consoles. Excellent win there, however they did it.


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 18, 2014)

I don't think Intel worries about the videogame consoles. Those kind of large volume deals only help to pay the bills and keep the machine going but you hardly get a profit because of the razor thin margins. Intel isn't on the business of making even.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 18, 2014)

qubit said:


> AMD's siamesed cores module architecture has been used for its CPUs since Bulldozer was released over two years ago in October 2011 to disappointing reviews.



R&Ding a CPU architecture takes a large amount of time and a large amount of money.  Intel has been improving on the same Nehalem architecture since 2009! And Intel has way more money than AMD does to R&D a new architecture.



suraswami said:


> For comparison sake lets talk about Gaming Consoles, AMD literally wiped out Intel from it. Will anyone talk about it?



That is a great point, and AMD has to dedicate a large amount of FAB time to producing those console CPUs.  My guess is that is the largest reason they aren't planning any new top tier PC processors.  The FABs they would be using to produce those high end desktop parts are now dedicated to console CPUs.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 18, 2014)

qubit said:


> AMD's siamesed cores module architecture has been used for its CPUs since Bulldozer was released over two years ago in October 2011 to disappointing reviews.


AMD has been in distant second place since 2006 and the Core 2 launch.



qubit said:


> It's lead to AMD humiliatingly losing the performance war against Intel with this design, so I've been wondering why they persist in using it to this day?


They can't afford to develop a new microarchitecture nor can they afford to compete with Intel on the fabrication processes either.

Put bluntly, AMD's odds of catching up with Intel again in the next two decades are virtually nil.


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 18, 2014)

It wouldn't be so bad if IPC lagged by two generations or so but Steamroller is currently at what? Clarkdale/Lynnfield levels? AMD is basically 4 years behind Intel in terms of IPC.

As some have mentioned, anything this side of Conroe is good enough (I know lots of people still on Q6600s) but for us enthusiasts and for some business that performance delta is a big issue.


----------



## qubit (Jan 18, 2014)

Ford, I remember how long it took them to develop this architecture - 4 years or something? Development hell for certain and likely the reason it came out the way it did, especially with poor managers at the top leading the company. A flawed design that they couldn't let go of and it cost them dear.

While I agree that AMD is probably less likely to catch up with Intel in the real world than winning the national lottery at 13 million to 1, I still think that in principle they could make something competitive in performance with Intel, if they had the right leadership in place. That's why I said about taking a leaf from Intel's book to keep development costs down while being careful to avoid a patent lawsuit. Probably just getting rid of that stupid siamese core would do it. I seem to remember that their old Phenom processors still offer good performance today and that they even beat Bulldozer in certain benchmarks. I imagine that refining the Phenom design could really help them put out a decent processor.

Note that by "competitive", I don't mean that it necessarily has to beat Intel, just offer really good performance, coming close to their products in each price range and put the hurt on Intel. Just look at what they did with their latest graphics cards: slap a decent cooler on them and they're an absolute corker! It's certainly not a one horse race in the graphics market which is as it should be.


----------



## Zen_ (Jan 18, 2014)

The market for high end desktops has pretty much shrunk to enthusiast and professionals, and even we / they don't need to upgrade every few years. It makes no sense for AMD to spend what little resources they have trying to compete in that sector when growth is in cloud servers, console APU's, and maybe mobile x64 if microsoft gets their act together. They need to expend resources on growth sectors, and try to make low end x64 and discrete video cards more profitable to survive as a company.


----------



## qubit (Jan 18, 2014)

Zen_ said:


> The market for high end desktops has pretty much shrunk to enthusiast and professionals, and even we / they don't need to upgrade every few years. It makes no sense for AMD to spend what little resources they have trying to compete in this sector when growth is in cloud servers, and maybe mobile x64 if microsoft gets their act together. They need to expend resources on growth sectors, and try to make low end x64 and discrete video cards more profitable to survive as a company.



Yeah, a fair point, but data centres will always want high performance processors and lots of them. They just seem to have given up and gone in a different direction, when I don't think they should.

EDIT: I think it's a fallacy to think workstations won't need more CPU horsepower. More power leads to better kinds of apps and new capabilities. Otherwise with a "good enough" mentality, we just get stagnation.


Fourstaff said:


> I think AMD has bigger worries: ARM processors. I can see tablets and phones replacing casual use computers, and it wouldn't be long before we get full "Office" suites, which will signal the start of office computers abnadoning x86. The transition is not going to be fast (imo fastest transition is 10 years at least), but once it happens x86 will be pushed straight into niche. Even servers are using graphics cards for their main firepower.


Yes, ARM is a very definite threat all right and Intel could be hit really hard too. It's inherently a better architecture than x86/64 and with similar "go faster" design tweaks as has been applied to x86/64 will really fly. Would it be a good idea for AMD to transition to this architecture over time as it gains traction in the high processing performance space, do you think?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 18, 2014)

qubit said:


> Yeah, a fair point, but data centres will always want high performance processors and lots of them. They just seem to have given up and gone in a different direction, when I don't think they should.



AMD is shining in data centers right now.  Data centers want great multi-threading at reasonable prices, and that is what AMD delivers.  It is a lot cheaper to throw together a 32-Core machine, capable of supporting 30 Single-core or 15 Dual-Core virtual machines using AMD parts than Intel. Basically for the cost of a single 10-Core Intel Xeon data centers can buy two 16-Core AMD Opterons.  Data centers are where the multi-core strategy pays off.


----------



## HD64G (Jan 18, 2014)

TRWOV said:


> I don't think Intel worries about the videogame consoles. Those kind of large volume deals only help to pay the bills and keep the machine going but you hardly get a profit because of the razor thin margins. Intel isn't on the business of making even.



Intel couldn't give the console companys a nice solution because they haven't ant GPU to show them that it would compete 7850's power that PS4's iGPU has. So, they lost long before game started. On the other hand nVidia hadn't any CPU to show them. Only AMD had a solution for both. And with PS4's praphic power, the games we are seeing in the near future both on PCs and consoles will be outstanding. Not terrible ports anymore. Thanks to AMD mind you.


----------



## Bones (Jan 18, 2014)

HD64G said:


> Intel couldn't give the console companys a nice solution because they haven't ant GPU to show them that it would compete 7850's power that PS4's iGPU has. So, they lost long before game started. On the other hand nVidia hadn't any CPU to show them. Only AMD had a solution for both. And with PS4's praphic power, the games we are seeing in the near future both on PCs and consoles will be outstanding. Not terrible ports anymore. Thanks to AMD mind you.



This goes along with what I was thinking.

Just stating some thoughts here.

Intel can do CPU's well, Nvidia can do GPU's well but neither can do both well. While AMD can't do either _as well_, they can do them _well enough_ - This has them in a position to gain ground on Intel related to having the $$ to do more R&D. What I mean here is to increase the $$ they would have to do it in the first place and if they play their cards right, make something of it.

One thing that's helped them is back when they bought out ATI.
AMD made a good move when they aquired ATI and while during that time it was labeled a "Bad Move", it's paying off now - The APU's are the best of that kind you can get, their GPU's while not as powerful as Nvidia's are good enough and they clearly beat anything Nvidia has for Crypto coin mining - maybe it hasn't been noticed how their high end GPU's are selling out everywhere (But of course it has). The combined resources with the AMD/ATI allowed them to develop the APU and it's now being used for consoles and desktops/laptops.
Remember some time ago when Sony was expressing an interest in making CPUs? Sony made a fortune with the Playstation and PS2 consoles with suceeding console models just adding to the pile and AMD has this basic approach in mind but reversed towards consoles. They don't have to compete directly against Intel in the desktop market there, instead they can concentrate on that market to regain financial ground. With the anticipated changes to come in the future with smaller, more powerful components in our setups, smartphones, consoles, ect, they have at least made a sideways move to be successful.
I mean why go through them if you can go around them instead?

Unless Intel has success with either creating GPU type hardware or even goes as far as to aquire a GPU manufacturer such as Nvidia. I don't see them catching up with their own brand of APU anytime soon and I also don't believe they are putting as much into it as AMD has been, or even worried about it so much ATM. You must also remember that performance desktop chips are only a small portion of business for both companies, AMD has far more to gain by going this route than Intel does overall, Intel would have to do one of the above to get going with them and as always it costs $$ to buyout a GPU company/develop GPU tech, do the R&D to make it work with their CPU designs, develop the fab/process for making them AND bring them to market as a sellable product.... AMD has already done all of this.

It's water under the bridge for them, bought and paid for except to continue improving their APU's.

AMD might not if ever catch Intel with their desktop chips but maybe they don't have to. With the recent release of consoles equipped with their APU's, trying to compete against them could actually be bad business for them vs the gains they stand to make by going with consoles as a large part fo their business. What's left is to see how the AMD equipped consoles do and how sucessful they are in the future...... And if they try again to run with Intel as they did once before.
We'll just have to wait and see what the future holds.


----------



## repman244 (Jan 18, 2014)

Fourstaff said:


> I think AMD has bigger worries: ARM processors. I can see tablets and phones replacing casual use computers, and it wouldn't be long before we get full "Office" suites, which will signal the start of office computers abnadoning x86. The transition is not going to be fast (imo fastest transition is 10 years at least), but once it happens x86 will be pushed straight into niche. Even servers are using graphics cards for their main firepower.



People have been saying this for years, but I don't see ARM being a big threat for a few years to come. I think I even saw a sort of "review" which compared the x86 to ARM (I think it was some Atom vs Krait and A15) and the x86 delivered equal performance. The reason IMO is that Intel or AMD never really focused on ultra low power segments - only recently they showed signs of interest.
Another thing is that once you start implementing features into ARM processors for "desktop" use you won't see it as a low power part anymore - x86 have so many things integrated into these days and let's not even start with the instruction sets which ARM lacks.


----------



## HD64G (Jan 18, 2014)

To add some thought, modules is the best way to keep efficiency high in server business which needs parallel calculation and execution. Desktop isn't up there yet as the software hasn't evolved as much but with HSA arriving it goes there faster than before. So, in long term planning ATI aquisition is a very clever plan. Now it is software devs turn to make it work. Some recent samples of HSA capabilities using Kaveri are VERY promising. Interesting times ahead.


----------



## HammerON (Jan 18, 2014)

"Why doesn't AMD create a better CPU architecture to compete with Intel again?"

Simple in my opinion, AMD does not have the resources to compete with Intel and so they do not try.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 18, 2014)

HammerON said:


> "Why doesn't AMD create a better CPU architecture to compete with Intel again?"
> 
> Simple in my opinion, AMD does not have the resources to compete with Intel and so they do not try.



They've created faster architectures than Intel in the past with less resources before.



qubit said:


> AMD's siamesed cores module architecture has been used for its CPUs since Bulldozer was released over two years ago in October 2011 to disappointing reviews.
> 
> It's lead to AMD humiliatingly losing the performance war against Intel with this design, so I've been wondering why they persist in using it to this day? They've tweaked it a bit here and there, but since it's been over two years now, surely they could design a better architecture instead and take a leaf out of Intel's book to make performance competitive again while being careful not to step on their patents?
> 
> For all the usual and obvious reasons, I'd much rather see a strong AMD competing head to head with Intel every generation, rather than this performance monopoly that Intel enjoys.




Because it isn't profitable.  The idea is to increase market share, thus increase shareholder revenue. The best way to do this is to get the masses using their CPUs or APUs, rather than compete in a petty performance war.




FordGT90Concept said:


> AMD has been in distant second place since 2006 and the Core 2 launch.




2nd place, but not distant. They had their moments of catch up. The Athlon X2 architecture speicficially the "Kuma" revision and the original Phenom I almost closed the conroe gap. The gap widened again when Intel moved to 45nm Wolfdale, with time AMD closed the gap again with their Deneb, Callisto and Regor. (Phenom II/Athlon II)

Between 2006-2009, IPC wise AMD was only 1 step behind, but always caught up briefly. Since Intel's I-series they've been 2-3 steps behind IPC wise with no IPC catch up.




FordGT90Concept said:


> Put bluntly, AMD's odds of catching up with Intel again in the next two decades are virtually nil.



They won't have to. In a decade IPC will be less important,  multi threading support will increase and AMD's multi core or multi module approach should pay off.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 18, 2014)

qubit said:


> Ford, I remember how long it took them to develop this architecture - 4 years or something? Development hell for certain and likely the reason it came out the way it did, especially with poor managers at the top leading the company. A flawed design that they couldn't let go of and it cost them dear.
> 
> While I agree that AMD is probably less likely to catch up with Intel in the real world than winning the national lottery at 13 million to 1, I still think that in principle they could make something competitive in performance with Intel, if they had the right leadership in place. That's why I said about taking a leaf from Intel's book to keep development costs down while being careful to avoid a patent lawsuit. Probably just getting rid of that stupid siamese core would do it. I seem to remember that their old Phenom processors still offer good performance today and that they even beat Bulldozer in certain benchmarks. I imagine that refining the Phenom design could really help them put out a decent processor.
> 
> Note that by "competitive", I don't mean that it necessarily has to beat Intel, just offer really good performance, coming close to their products in each price range and put the hurt on Intel. Just look at what they did with their latest graphics cards: slap a decent cooler on them and they're an absolute corker! It's certainly not a one horse race in the graphics market which is as it should be.


Intel is now at 22nm fabs with an excellent architecture and tons of cash; AMD is now at 32nm (starting to release 28nm products) fabs with a poor architecture and in debt up to their eye balls.  You can always tell when a processor manufacturer is desperate because they'll release processors with ridiculous power requirements to bridge the performance gap to the competition.

AMD could have a revolution like they did with Athlon and again with Athlon 64 but it is extremely doubtful.  Even if they did, they still have that expensive fabrication gap to bridge.  As long as Intel has the best fabs, AMD can't compete in performance.

AMD and Intel settled their x86-related patents a while back and it is not likely to resurface.  AMD doesn't have the funds to wage an extended legal battle with Intel and Intel has no intention of running AMD out of town otherwise the anti-trust lawyers are going to be hounding them again.

AMD can't afford the rapid R&D schedules Intel adapted.  That's largely why it split off Global Foundaries so AMD only has to focus on architectural R&D.  Even then, AMD still can't compete with Intel's many architecture design firms around the world.

Phenom was an incremental update to the K10 architecture.  It's been completely abandoned for the Bulldozer architecture because it hit many design walls.


The reason why graphics cards are pretty even field is because TMSC manufacturers AMD and NVIDIA GPUs.  Neither have a fab advantage.  The Intel head hanchos haven't been convinced to give Larrabee Intel's best fabs either so they're not using their capital to get an advantage.  That could change in the future but seeing as graphics cards sales in general have been in decline, Intel is likely to stay out of the DX/OGL discreet market.


----------



## HammerON (Jan 18, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> They've created faster architectures than Intel in the past with less resources before.



They did however that was a while ago (10 years).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 18, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> 2nd place, but not distant. They had their moments of catch up. The Athlon X2 architecture speicficially the "Kuma" revision and the original Phenom I almost closed the gap. The gap widened again when Intel moved to 45nm Wolfdale, with time AMD closed the gap again with their Deneb, Callisto and Regor. (Phenom II/Athlon II)
> 
> Between 2006-2009, IPC wise and was only 1 step behind, but always caught up briefly. Since Intel's I-series they've been 2-3 steps behind with no IPC catch up.


Compare Athlon 64 FX-62 to Core 2 Extreme X6800.  There was no competition.  When Core 2 Quad debuted, AMD had no answer.  Phenom (AMD's first quad-cores) debuted November 19, 2007.  Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (Penryn-based Yorkfield at 45nm) debuted November 11, 2007, 8 days before Phenom and easily trounced it.  FX-62, prior to the Core 2 launch, was the last time AMD came close to holding the performance crown.




Dent1 said:


> They won't have to. In a decade IPC will be less important,  multi threading support will increase and AMD's multi core or multi module approach should pay off.


Power consumption is what is becoming most important.  AMD isn't doing so well in that department because of their fab disadvantage.


----------



## qubit (Jan 18, 2014)

That's an excellent post Ford, thanks. 

A lot of what you said I "knew" from half remembered facts, especially about the huge debts and lack of resources, but I didn't have a clear overall picture of the situation, unlike now. I guess given all this, the newish management have made the right strategic choices given the resources they have. newtekie said above that they're big in datacentres with a price advantage and more cores for a similar price to make up the performance deficit (not quite the same words, but similar overall meaning) so that architecture must be good enough to make them money.

It wouldn't surpise me that if AMD really were about to go under of their own doing, Intel would prop them up to avoid antitrust. Maybe they already have, but we just don't know it? Perhaps they did it by not being "too competitive" which wouldn't show in any financial transactions between the two companies. How do we know there isn't a gentleman's agreement between them that they'll compete, but each company keep to particular product niches? Carrying on the speculation, Intel's top Iris graphics core is not appearing on any 4000-series CPU you can buy. (Has it even been released yet in any form?) Could this be a deliberate attempt not to compete too strongly with AMD's APUs, helping AMD to maintain an "advantage" and thus maintain sales?

It's a shame AMD can't continue with a better Phenom (just lose the name though, it's awful lol). I've seen several TPU members with Phenom 6 core CPUs say that they're still happy with their gaming performance despite the age of the CPU.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 18, 2014)

HammerON said:


> They did however that was a while ago (10 years).



I know but it proves it can be done.




FordGT90Concept said:


> Compare Athlon 64 FX-62 to Core 2 Extreme X6800.  There was no competition.  When Core 2 Quad debuted, AMD had no answer.  Phenom (AMD's first quad-cores) debuted November 19, 2007.  Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (Penryn-based Yorkfield at 45nm) debuted November 11, 2007, 8 days before Phenom and easily trounced it.  FX-62, prior to the Core 2 launch, was the last time AMD came close to holding the performance crown.)



Putting the extreme editions to the side. I wouldn't say AMD hasn't be close at times, in 2006-2009 AMD had its moments.

The Athlon Kuma could compete respectably with the Core 2 Duo Conroe.
The Phenom I Quad (Agena) could compete respectably with the Core 2 Quad Kentfield.
The Phenom II (Callisto) and Athlon II X2 (Regor) was very similar to the Core 2 Duo Wolfdale clock for clock, and sometimes outperforming it.
The Phenom II X4 (Deneb) was similar to the Core 2 Quad Yorkfield clock for clock, and sometimes outperforming it.





FordGT90Concept said:


> Power consumption is what is becoming most important.  AMD isn't doing so well in that department because of their fab disadvantage.



Perhaps.



qubit said:


> It wouldn't surpise me that if AMD really were about to go under of their own doing, Intel would prop them up to avoid antitrust. Maybe they already have, but we just don't know it? Perhaps they did it by not being "too competitive" which wouldn't show in any financial transactions between the two companies.



Go under? This is the best AMD have done financially in many years since buying ATI. They've finally managed to balance their books.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 18, 2014)

Random question:

Does anybody know if there will be a 6 core or 8 core Steamroller based on the Kaveri APU? Maybe with the gpu disabled?


----------



## Melvis (Jan 18, 2014)

HammerON said:


> They did however that was a while ago (10 years).



less actually, 7.5yrs ago.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 18, 2014)

qubit said:


> A lot of what you said I "knew" from half remembered facts, especially about the huge debts and lack of resources, but I didn't have a clear overall picture of the situation, unlike now. I guess given all this, the newish management have made the right strategic choices given the resources they have. newtekie said above that they're big in datacentres with a price advantage and more cores for a similar price to make up the performance deficit (not quite the same words, but similar overall meaning) so that architecture must be good enough to make them money.


Even when AMD made their entire business out of reverse engineering Intel processors and producing replicas, AMD was able to stick around because they could undercut Intel's prices.  The work Microsoft, Sony, and virtualization has given them will likely keep them solvent and I never said it wouldn't.  Just don't expect AMD to compete with Intel's best any time soon because they won't.



qubit said:


> Perhaps they did it by not being "too competitive" which wouldn't show in any financial transactions between the two companies.


Intel is clearly holding back.  Virtually all the chips they launch are good for at least another 0.5 GHz overclock whereas good luck getting much out of an FX-9590's already ridiculous 4.7 GHz and 220w TDP.  Put bluntly, this means Intel has an oversupply of chips that could run much higher stock clocks.  Intel also charges $50-100 more for processors in the same price bracket to curb demand.  The two combined have the effect of driving customers to AMD.  If Intel really wanted to put AMD out of business, all they would have to do is reduce the price on processors across the board and turn the clockspeeds up.  But they don't, again, because of anti-trust risk.  Instead, they redirect their capital towards efforts that benefit the entire industry like ultrabook standards, Thunderbolt, and high-performance computing with Larrabee (NVIDIA gets a lot more business in this area than AMD with their Tesla cards).  Intel's policy, since the 1980s, is to do-no-evil towards AMD.



qubit said:


> Carrying on the speculation, Intel's top Iris graphics core is not appearing on any 4000-series CPU you can buy. (Has it even been released yet in any form?) Could this be a deliberate attempt not to compete too strongly with AMD's APUs, helping AMD to maintain an "advantage" and thus maintain sales?


In a way, yes.  Intel only packages Iris Pro 5200 with high end processors because they rightfully assume that most computers those processors go into have discreet graphics.  It's effectively a mid-range GPU for a platform that anticipates having high-range GPUs installed.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 18, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Intel is clearly holding back. Virtually all the chips they launch are good for at least another 0.5 GHz overclock whereas good luck getting much out of an FX-9590's already ridiculous 4.7 GHz and 220w TDP. Put bluntly, this means Intel has an oversupply of chips that could run much higher stock clocks. Intel also charges $50-100 more for processors in the same price bracket to curb demand. The two combined have the effect of driving customers to AMD. If Intel really wanted to put AMD out of business, all they would have to do is reduce the price on processors across the board and turn the clockspeeds up.



Intel lowering prices and turning clock speeds up won't put AMD out of business in today's climate. That would have worked in the 1990s and early-mid 2000s, when AMD's bread and butter was enthusiast desktop segment. But now the market has changed to mobile processors, AMD have diversified to APUs where they're becoming the market leader with the more superior product. Even if Intel lowered their i7/i5 APU prices  by $5-100 with increase the clock speed 500Mhz it would still be an inefficient APU with a slow GPU. Yes they'll slow the momentum of the FX series (which is already RIP) but wouldn't touch the Trinity and Kaveri in its CPU/GPU/Price for its humble overall performance.  Even if Intel got its claws in AMD desktop market AMD is already be making headway in the mobile and console market which means AMD would struggle but not be put out of business.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 18, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> Putting the extreme editions to the side. I wouldn't say AMD hasn't be close at times, in 2006-2009 AMD had its moments.
> 
> The Athlon Kuma could compete respectably with the Core 2 Duo Conroe.
> The Phenom I Quad (Agena) could compete respectably with the Core 2 Quad Kentfield.
> ...


Kuma debuted December 15, 2008; Conroe debuted July 27, 2006.
Agena debuted November 19, 2007; Kentsfield debuted November 2, 2006.
Callisto debuted 9 February 2009, Regor debuted January 2011; Wolfdale debuted January 2008.
Deneb debuted January 8, 2009; Yorkfield debuted March 2008.
Intel was to the market 1-2 years before AMD in every case. Considering the number of transistors is said to double every 18 months, Intel was consistently ahead a generation during that period.



Dent1 said:


> Intel lowering prices and turning clock speeds up won't put AMD out of business in today's climate. That would have worked in the 1990s and early-mid 2000s, when AMD's bread and butter was enthusiast desktop segment. But now the market has changed to mobile processors, AMD have diversified to APUs where they're becoming the market leader with the more superior product. Even if AMD


If you could get an Intel 22nm processor quad-core for the price of an AMD 32nm dual-care, would you buy the AMD?  That's about quadruple the performance for half the power consumption.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 18, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Kuma debuted December 15, 2008; Conroe debuted July 27, 2006.
> Agena debuted November 19, 2007; Kentsfield debuted November 2, 2006.
> Callisto debuted 9 February 2009, Regor debuted January 2011; Wolfdale debuted January 2008.
> Deneb debuted January 8, 2009; Yorkfield debuted March 2008.
> Intel was to the market 1-2 years before AMD in every case. Considering the number of transistors is said to double every 18 months, Intel was consistently ahead a generation during that period.




But that is precisely my point.  Between 2006-2009, AMD have been only 0-1 step behind Intel. With periods of brief catch ups. yes their counter came year late but they caught up IPC each time. This is why I disagree with you saying "distant second place since 2006".  Catching up a year late isn't distant. I would say they were a short-distance away from Intel 2006-2009 and sometimes no-distance away from Intel.

But I would agree they're in a distance place since the i-series as AMD have been 2-3 steps  behind in IPC. AMD is content to stay on par Intel's first generation of I-series IPC with their multithreading gamble.




FordGT90Concept said:


> If you could get an Intel 22nm processor quad-core for the price of an AMD 32nm dual-core, would you buy the AMD?  That's about quadruple the performance for half the power consumption.



I would most likely buy Intel. But that decision won't put them out of business if AMD have diversified well to other markets (which they are doing).

Doing that would likely hurt Intel too, not financially, but its brands credibility.  They are supposed a premium brand. You won't see a Ferrari lowering the price to kill off Ford. Because even if Ford go bankrupt Ferrari brand is now worthless.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 18, 2014)

A generation (~18 months) behind in computer technology is distant.  Prior to the launch of Core 2, AMD (Athlon 64 X2) and Intel (Pentium D) were in the same generation.  I'd guesstimate Intel is about two generations ahead of AMD now.

AMD was behind in IPC back then and they still are now.  A 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo E6600 beat the snot out of the 2.8 GHz FX-62 (Windsor).  A 3.9 GHz Core i7-4770K beats the snot ouf the 4.7 GHz FX-9590.  AMD processors require more clocks to accomplish the same amount of work compared to Intel processors.

AMD isn't doing well in smartphones nor tablets which are the only market that is really expanding.  When AMD bought out ATI, AMD was worth 10:1 what ATI was worth.  That likely hasn't changed.  Profit margins are larger for processors than GPUs.  AMD did well to get the Microsoft and Sony contracts which may turn into repeat business down the road but even so, AMD's position is frail and has been since 2006.

Intel is not a "premium brand."  "Extreme Edition" is premium brand held by Intel just as "Black Edition" was a premium brand held by AMD.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 18, 2014)

AMD's design of 'more, slower cores' is paying off in video encoding, DX11, and even moreso with mantle.


they made designs for a future need, and that need is coming out now.


----------



## Vario (Jan 18, 2014)

They want to cater to the server market.  They destroy intel on cpu per $ in that market.  The FXs are just server modules.  All parallel tasking!  The prices for opteron vs xeon make AMD a very powerful competitor for servers and scientific computing.  Just check newegg for a simple example, you can run 24 cores for only 2 grand or so for complete setup (granted a server size of ram would probably add even more)

Wish they kept the K series stuff.  They were closer to intel's performance at the time.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 18, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A generation (~18 months) behind in computer technology is distant.  Prior to the launch of Core 2, AMD (Athlon 64 X2) and Intel (Pentium D) were in the same generation.  I'd guesstimate Intel is about two generations ahead of AMD now.



In real terms it isn't that distant. We were trained for AMD/ Intel and ATI/Nvidia to release counters performing products immediate and we were spoilt. Those days are done. The business plan on both sides have changed.  The real world doesn't update their computer every 18months to care.



FordGT90Concept said:


> AMD was behind in IPC back then and they still are now.  A 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo E6600 beat the snot out of the 2.8 GHz FX-62 (Windsor).  A 3.9 GHz Core i7-4770K beats the snot ouf the 4.7 GHz FX-9590.  AMD processors require more clocks to accomplish the same amount of work compared to Intel processors.



With respect to the 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo E6600 we know it outperformed the 2.8 GHz FX-62. My argument is AMD had a suitable counter about year later.  Which I don't think is too distant. IMO.

With respect to the  3.9 GHz Core i7-4770K beating out the  4.7 GHz FX-9590, I agree with you as I said I think since the i-series the IPC distance is at its widest as AMD have not once caught up momentarily not even 2 years later. Its clear their intentions are not to catch up IPC but beat Intel long term with better multi threading performance.



FordGT90Concept said:


> AMD isn't doing well in smartphones nor tablets which are the only market that is really expanding.  When AMD bought out ATI, AMD was worth 10:1 what ATI was worth.  That likely hasn't changed.  Profit margins are larger for processors than GPUs.  AMD did well to get the Microsoft and Sony contracts which may turn into repeat business down the road but even so, AMD's position is frail and has been since 2006.



Agreed, but takes time. But they've expanded enough to concentrate all their efforts 100% in a new arena if they hypothetically lose the desktop market.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Intel is not a "premium brand."  "Extreme Edition" is premium brand held by Intel just as "Black Edition" was a premium brand held by AMD.



Intel is a premium brand.  Pentium is a premium brand to cater for mainstream to enthusiast audience. The Extreme Edition is a sub-brand to cater for a more prestigious subset of premium products.

AMD is perceived as a economy to cater for both mainstream and enthusiast market on a budget. The FX-62 was a premium-subset of a economy brand a bit like Ford Mustang being a premium subset of the economy Ford brand.

Like the Mercedes brand is premium, even their lower end C-class would hold more prestige than the Ford name. It's the same with Intel, the name holds a certain reputation and quality and perceived luxury amongst most people. When everyday people think of AMD they think "cheap" or "Ford" or "second best" regardless of benchmark ranking. Go to any PC shop and the first thing people say is "No it has to be Intel I don't care if the FX X6 is faster than the i3".


----------



## Vario (Jan 18, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> In real terms it isn't that distant. We were trained for AMD/ Intel and ATI/Nvidia to release counters performing products immediate and we were spoilt. Those days are done. The business plan on both sides have changed.  The real world doesn't update their computer every 18months to care.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They are unlikely to remake that IPC advantage because their current architecture is more for parallelization for servers.  I think the FX x6 is a great chip though and I'd buy it for anything under an i5.  The 8320 is an amazing value as well.  The biggest thing is the current AMD chips don't really bottleneck graphics cards so for gaming, and you like AMD, buy AMD.  They are also great for crunching.  I bought intel to replace my phenomII because I wanted smoother starcraft 2 performance.  I went with an i7 because I want it to last 5 years minimum and that seems more future proof.  I had the money for the premium product.  If I didn't, I'd have gotten an 8320.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 18, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> In real terms it isn't that distant. We were trained for AMD/ Intel and ATI/Nvidia to release counters performing products immediate and we were spoilt. Those days are done. The business plan on both sides have changed.  The real world doesn't update their computer every 18months to care.


In "real terms," that's approximately double the performance.  Case in point: Intel had quad-cores out while AMD had dual cores.



Dent1 said:


> With respect to the 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo E6600 we know it outperformed the 2.8 GHz FX-62. My argument is AMD had a suitable counter about year later.  Which I don't think is too distant. IMO


And Intel had a product that was about 120% faster when that debuted.  People don't wait a year for AMD to catch up; they buy what fits their needs now.



Dent1 said:


> Intel is a premium brand.  Pentium is a premium brand to cater for mainstream to enthusiast audience. The Extreme Edition is a sub-brand to cater for a more prestigious subset of premium products.
> 
> Like the Mercedes brand is premium, even their lower end C-class would hold more prestige than the Ford name. It's the same with Intel, the name holds a certain reputation and quality and perceived luxury amongst most people. When everyday people think of AMD they think "cheap" or "Ford" or "second best" regardless of benchmark ranking. Go to any PC shop and the first thing people say is "No it has to be Intel I don't care if the FX X6 is faster than the i3".


Intel is a manufacturer; Core i7 is the premium brand of Intel.  Daimler AG is a manufacturer; Mercedes-Benz is the premium brand of Daimler AG.  Ford Motor Company is a manufacturer; Lincoln is the premium brand of Ford Motor Company.  AMD is a manufacturer; FX is the premium brand of AMD.

Your last sentence refers to "brand awareness."  AMD doesn't have any because they don't advertise to the general population.  Intel does.


----------



## LightningJR (Jan 18, 2014)

Mussels said:


> AMD's design of 'more, slower cores' is paying off in video encoding, DX11, and even moreso with mantle.
> 
> 
> they made designs for a future need, and that need is coming out now.




Video encoding? Maybe equal to Intel but nothing amazing. DX11? Link? Mantle.. we'll see..

Give me a 15% more efficient Phenom II in 32nm and 8 cores and get rid of everything after and including bulldozer.

Designing for the future, great for many things, for CPUs, BAD.

AMD: "Bulldozer, designing for the future, amazing new architecture. Will be GREAT in 3 years."

Consumer: "Great..."


----------



## Vario (Jan 18, 2014)

LightningJR said:


> Video encoding? Maybe equal to Intel but nothing amazing. DX11? Link? Mantle.. we'll see..
> 
> Give me a 15% more efficient Phenom II in 32nm and 8 cores and get rid of everything after and including bulldozer.
> 
> ...


Sadly won't ever happen.  The bulldozer is just an overhyped inexpensive server design.  IPC wasn't the priority, just lots of cores in task manager. It would have been better if they revised the phenom a bit longer and released the 8350 instead of the 8150 at all.  The 8150 really hurt their reputation.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 18, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> In "real terms," that's approximately double the performance.  Case in point: Intel had quad-cores out while AMD had dual cores. And Intel had a product that was about 120% faster when that debuted.  People don't wait a year for AMD to catch up; they buy what fits their needs now.




But everyday people are buying Intel regardless whether its 120% faster or 120% slower. Its Intel, its the brand people know and recognises.

Back in 2005-2006 as an enthusiast I actually went from a Sempron to an Athlon 64 X2. Because it was the cheapest solution. I didn't have to change my motherboard and the Athlon 64 X2 was literally 40-50% cheaper than Intel. Maybe 100% cheaper as I kept my board.

Same thing in 2009, I really wanted an Intel rig, but already had a compatible board and Intel had nothing cheaper than the Athlon II X4 that could match its performance.

So I'm a enthusiast on an economy budget. This is what AMD specialise in. But I understand for everyday people are going to buy Intel and don't care to do my cost analysis.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Intel is a manufacturer; Core i7 is the premium brand of Intel.  Daimler AG is a manufacturer; Mercedes-Benz is the premium brand of Daimler AG.  Ford Motor Company is a manufacturer; Lincoln is the premium brand of Ford Motor Company.  AMD is a manufacturer; FX is the premium brand of AMD.





Regardless. You get my point.

Normal people don't know what Daimler AG is. They know Mercedes.

Ford Mustang is still a premium brand compared to a Ford KA or Ford Fiesta or Ford Focus Brand so its relative.

Lets go with Ford Lincoln, the Lincoln would be equivalent to FX-62, a premium brand within an overall economy brand. This is what AMD is Ford, the Lincoln is the FX-62

But lets be honest globally overall even the most luxurious Lincoln would have a lesser prestigious perceived reputation than any Mercedes class - (in the UK  Lincoln and Mustang are not even too commercially available. Never even seen one in real life as with 99% of the people here.)



FordGT90Concept said:


> Your last sentence refers to "brand awareness."  AMD doesn't have any because they don't advertise to the general population.  Intel does.



Agreed.



Vario said:


> Sadly won't ever happen.  The bulldozer is just an overhyped inexpensive server design.  IPC wasn't the priority, just lots of cores in task manager. It would have been better if they revised the phenom a bit longer and released the 8350 instead of the 8150 at all.  The 8150 really hurt their reputation.




I agree with the tweaking of the Phenom architecture could have brought AMD to the performance level to compete with the first iteration of the i-series, whilst they refined the Bulldozer design. But I'm guessing their business model changed.




LightningJR said:


> Video encoding? Maybe equal to Intel but nothing amazing.



There are a few situations like rendering and transcoding where a cheap FX 8350 can hang with a  i7 Extreme Edition @ £1000+. In those scenarios it is amazing.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 18, 2014)

micropage7 said:


> their power consumption.


And that's one of the (many) reasons I bought an Intel for my new build. And I couldn't find any AMD that would fit my needs for that price.

If AMD comes up with something that worth I will surely buy it. But now it's too late, they have 4 more years until I build a new one...

Happy New Year!


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 18, 2014)

I really want a 8 core Steamroller..if the price is right. I know they've dropped the FX brand but I still want my 8 cores!

My board doesn't support the FX Piledriver, so if I change boards I'm likely to go Intel if I can't get a cheap 8 core Steamroller and a cheap FM2+ board.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 18, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> Normal people don't know what Daimler AG is. They know Mercedes.


Because Daimler AG pumps millions into marketing and advertising to raise Mercedes-Benz brand awareness.



Dent1 said:


> Ford Mustang is still a premium brand compared to a Ford KA or Ford Fiesta or Ford Focus Brand so its relative.


Mustang, Ka, Fiesta, and Focus are all different models by the brand/make "Ford."



Dent1 said:


> Lets go with Ford Lincoln, the Lincoln would be equivalent to FX-62, a premium brand within an overall economy brand. This is what AMD is Ford, the Lincoln is the FX-62


Ford Motor Company owns Lincoln and Ford makes/brands. "Ford Lincoln" does not exist.

*Lincoln MKT*
Manufacture: Ford Motor Company
Brand/Make: Lincoln
Model: MKT

*AMD FX-6300*
Manufacturer: AMD
Brand/Series: FX
Model: 6300



Dent1 said:


> But lets be honest globally overall even the most luxurious Lincoln would have a lesser prestigious perceived reputation than any Mercedes class - (in the UK  Lincoln and Mustang are not even too commercially available. Never even seen one in real life as with 99% of the people here.)


A lot of people would disagree with you when it comes to the Lincoln Blackwood.


This is getting way OT.  To respond to the question in the title: AMD would "create a better CPU architecture to compete with Intel" if they could.  AMD's K6, K7, and K8 architectures made Intel scramble because they were revolutionary (namely, high IPC compared to Intel and beating Intel to the x86-64 punch).  AMD could hit on another brilliant idea and have one of those moments again but the odds are slim.  The only thing I can think of is AMD making a hybrid x86/ARM processor that's better than what Intel came up with.  Good luck with that though.



Blue-Knight said:


> And that's one of the (many) reasons I bought an Intel for my new build. And I couldn't find any AMD that would fit my needs for that price.


That's what made me cringe buying AMD on the last build I made.  The AMD platform cost less but the power consumption is double what Intel offers for $50-100 more.  I went with AMD though because the client likely wouldn't spend that extra $50-100 so I looked for power savings elsewhere (read: the GPU).


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 18, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> extra $50-100


Ah, no. My CPUs are low-end, $50 or less (no space for extra $50 or $100).

And that's more than enough. And single core performance is crucial for me.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 18, 2014)

FordGT90Concept,

The thing is Europe Lincoln virtually doesn't exist. Lincoln Blackwood might be more prestigious than a a Mercedes only in the USA, but travel anywhere outside of USA and Canada they will say "what is a Lincoln? ".  I actually only know what is because we watch American TV. Never seen one on the road before.

Blue-Knight,

You seem to be on a more shoe string budget than me lol


----------



## Fourstaff (Jan 18, 2014)

repman244 said:


> People have been saying this for years, but I don't see ARM being a big threat for a few years to come. I think I even saw a sort of "review" which compared the x86 to ARM (I think it was some Atom vs Krait and A15) and the x86 delivered equal performance. The reason IMO is that Intel or AMD never really focused on ultra low power segments - only recently they showed signs of interest.
> Another thing is that once you start implementing features into ARM processors for "desktop" use you won't see it as a low power part anymore - x86 have so many things integrated into these days and let's not even start with the instruction sets which ARM lacks.



I see people doing their work through Googledocs off their tablets, its definitely possible to build an office ecosystem around ARM (phone+tablet+laptop). Its much more mobile and seamless as compared with x86 + ARM ecosystem, and we all know putting x86 into phone will not happen anytime soon given what Intel has done and what Microsoft didn't do. Your average office worker will not need a lot of processing power, but will greatly benefit from a seamless work environment.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 18, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> You seem to be on a more shoe string budget than me lol


It is not because I do not have more money to spend. It is because there's no reason for me to buy a $200 or $300 CPU as I do not need all of the power they have to offer.

But of course, I will buy the CPU which have higher performance per core and more power efficient for $50 or less as my money doesn't grow on trees and I want it to worth every cent.

Happy New Year!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 18, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> The thing is Europe Lincoln virtually doesn't exist. Lincoln Blackwood might be more prestigious than a a Mercedes only in the USA, but travel anywhere outside of USA and Canada they will say "what is a Lincoln? ".  I actually only know what is because we watch American TV. Never seen one on the road before.


The fact Lincoln Blackwoods are not heard of in Europe makes them more prestigious than Mercedes-Benz which are readily available.  Only 3,356 Blackwoods were built in 15 months of production.  Again, you're talking about brand awareness and that has nothing to do with how prestigious a product is.  Case in point: you've probably never heard of the Tucker 48 but only 51 of those were made.  A Tucker 48 in pristine condition will fetch more than $1 million USD which is more than most Mercedes-Benz vehicles.


----------



## Bones (Jan 18, 2014)

Here is an interesting post over at OCF on the subject of Kaveri.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7614615&postcount=10


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 18, 2014)

FordGT90Concept, you know more about cars than me so you probably right. But try and explain that to the average joe here and they will say Lincoln what?

Thanks Bones,

There was a cool Mantle promo video within:


----------



## Enterprise24 (Jan 18, 2014)

I really hope amd will create cpu that can threaten intel again.
When no competition then almost no improvement ipc 6% increase each gen since sandy bridge is ....

Some game can't be easily parallel like total war rome 2 my old 3770k @ 5ghz and ram 2400mhz is heavily bottleneck with many ten thousand units on the battlefield.

Just order 4770k and hope it can oc to at least 4.7ghz to match my old 3770k.

I will see if strong imc in haswell will push ram to 2933mhz. And maybe i can run rome 2 better.


----------



## EpicShweetness (Jan 21, 2014)

We've reached an odd end with computing power, and user demand. It's the "Good Enough" era.

I can remember between 1998-2006 updating my computer (literally $1000's) every 2 years, sometimes less. Software was keeping up with the potential of hardware, and everything was bigger better faster. Now I don't need a 4960X to play video games were all other options will impact the playablity of it. I threw $600 at my a media computer and 1080p without a hitch. That's amazing! I remember getting top end video cards, (or close to it) shinning example was my GX2, that thing was $600! I used that thing for all of 2 years, before bigger better faster came out. Now I have 7870, and that has been far surpassed, but it was never top end, and I never needed faster. My CPU went form 4 cores and 8 threads to just 4 cores and 4 threads. I didn't use my I7 920 to 100% all the time, and I don't even use my 3570k to 100%.

It is a good question as to why AMD can no longer compete in level fields with Intel. However, I don't think they have to, there is something else out there, and they have the vision to see it.


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 21, 2014)

EpicShweetness said:


> We've reached an odd end with computing power, and user demand. It's the "Good Enough" era.
> 
> I can remember between 1998-2006 updating my computer (literally $1000's) every 2 years, sometimes less. Software was keeping up with the potential of hardware, and everything was bigger better faster. Now I don't need a 4960X to play video games were all other options will impact the playablity of it. I threw $600 at my a media computer and 1080p without a hitch. That's amazing! I remember getting top end video cards, (or close to it) shinning example was my GX2, that thing was $600! I used that thing for all of 2 years, before bigger better faster came out. Now I have 7870, and that has been far surpassed, but it was never top end, and I never needed faster. My CPU went form 4 cores and 8 threads to just 4 cores and 4 threads. I didn't use my I7 920 to 100% all the time, and I don't even use my 3570k to 100%.
> 
> It is a good question as to why AMD can no longer compete in level fields with Intel. However, I don't think they have to, there is something else out there, and they have the vision to see it.



I 100% agree. But there is always going to be somebody that is going to pretend they don't understand.


----------



## suraswami (Jan 21, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> Ah, no. My CPUs are low-end, $50 or less (no space for extra $50 or $100).
> 
> And that's more than enough. And single core performance is crucial for me.


 
ha ha, last thanksgiving I built a new machine for my friend, FX 8320 + Gigabyte board costs only $100.  He is happy.

Thanks to AMD and MC!


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 21, 2014)

I remember in 2006, all of my mates had AMD machines, including me. I was very clued up and used to read a lot of hardware sites, i saw the conroe was coming out so read up on it. I realised it was a pretty ground breaking chip( at the time it was imho ) so i sold my AMD rig and bought a Intel setup with a P4 (iirc) which really shocked all my mates. When the conroe came out and i got my first one, (the monster OC in my sig) the performance imo was shockingly better than the AMD Athlons my mates had, within 6mths, all my mates had Intel rigs.

Imo, the conroe shocked AMD and the performance was so good, they just could not match it, and have never been able to do so since it came out.


----------



## qubit (Jan 22, 2014)

I've updated my OP to clarify my point about AMD losing the performance war. Thanks tigger for the memory jogger.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 22, 2014)

suraswami said:


> FX 8320 + Gigabyte board costs only $100.


How? The processor alone costs more than $100 ($200 in my country). New, used or special scenario?


----------



## suraswami (Jan 22, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> How? The processor alone costs more than $100 ($200 in my country). New, used or special scenario?


 
We have something called Black Friday sale and you can catch some crazy deals like these.  Both proc and board are brand new.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 22, 2014)

suraswami said:


> We have something called Black Friday sale and you can catch some crazy deals like these. Both proc and board are brand new.


This explains it all. We don't have so much luck here.

If we can buy for the same price you can find in US then it's considered extreme luck! Which I had when I bought my new processor.


----------



## natr0n (Jan 22, 2014)

AMD just needs better CPU architects.


----------



## mastrdrver (Jan 22, 2014)

As in GPU designs, its not like AMD can make a huge change in a year. CPU designs take a long time to come to fruition (I think they're even longer then GPUs). Intel has not really make a huge change since Nehalem. It's just been subtle changes here and there but mostly in power.

They've also come a long way since the initial Bulldozer. With the great improvement we're seen with Steamroller, I think things look good for next year when they release Excavator as it's the one where the big changes are going to happen. If they got 20% increase in Piledriver to Steamroller, I think there could be large increases in single thread performance with Excavator.



Steevo said:


> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...ache-and-memory-benchmark-here.186338/page-10
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_predictor
> 
> ...



That cache comparison is not correct. The L2 cache on AMD processors has more similarity to the L3 on Intel then their L2. This is why you do not see the APUs with L3 because it is not needed. I can't think of it right now so maybe someone smarter then me can fill in the details, but the L3 on AMD is more of memory buffer then for buffering the cores like on Intel CPUs.


----------



## ViperXTR (Jan 22, 2014)

ah, the days o the first athlon and pentium III


----------



## trickson (Jan 22, 2014)

So now it is AMD lagging behind? What wait what happened? I am still on a really OLD ass Intel Q9650 and see no real need for any upgrade thing is still running just fine.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 23, 2014)

mastrdrver said:


> As in GPU designs, its not like AMD can make a huge change in a year. CPU designs take a long time to come to fruition (I think they're even longer then GPUs). Intel has not really make a huge change since Nehalem. It's just been subtle changes here and there but mostly in power.
> 
> They've also come a long way since the initial Bulldozer. With the great improvement we're seen with Steamroller, I think things look good for next year when they release Excavator as it's the one where the big changes are going to happen. If they got 20% increase in Piledriver to Steamroller, I think there could be large increases in single thread performance with Excavator.
> 
> ...


So a second level cache is like a third level cache even though its still the second level cache so it makes the AMD faster somehow even though its still slower but its only because of the cache is different and it doesn't work as well is what your are saying like totally since its like the second cache not the third on the AMD and the third is like the Intel second level cache right?


I have no idea what you are drinking, but perhaps if you continue to drink it, everything will make sense. 


Cache is temporary storage the prefetch pipeline uses, irregardless of who makes the chip there are always multiple levels, adding more cache is a easy way to increase the pipelined throughput of a architecture, however it can backfire and cause other issues with the schedulers and flushing issues. AMD has poor latency caused by their CPU/cache design. Considering it takes years to engineer a CPU core/cache design and to implement the hardware logic to perform the functions you require they have been forced to stick with this design, and improve on it to the best of their ability.


----------



## Peter1986C (Jan 23, 2014)

trickson said:


> So now it is AMD lagging behind? What wait what happened? I am still on a really OLD ass Intel Q9650 and see no real need for any upgrade thing is still running just fine.


The Ivy Bridge CPUs by Intel have a lower power draw at load than AMD's Trinity CPUs/APUs, while _generally _being faster.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 23, 2014)

What we should be asking ourselves is do they actually want to beat Intel?  The R&D that is needed to continously push forward is immense, if AMD are happy with their margins with a portfolio of more budget based solutions why bother?  At the end of the day it's about making money not being faster.  Having said that I appreciate that profitability has been a struggle at times with AMD, though it also has for Intel to a certain degree too.


----------



## alucasa (Jan 23, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> AMD is shining in data centers right now.  Data centers want great multi-threading at reasonable prices, and that is what AMD delivers.  It is a lot cheaper to throw together a 32-Core machine, capable of supporting 30 Single-core or 15 Dual-Core virtual machines using AMD parts than Intel. Basically for the cost of a single 10-Core Intel Xeon data centers can buy two 16-Core AMD Opterons.  Data centers are where the multi-core strategy pays off.



Hard to find AMD servers at data centers though.


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 23, 2014)

alucasa said:


> Hard to find AMD servers at data centers though.



AMD doesn't have the manufacturing capabilities that Intel has. Even if AMD sold every CPU they made on the server market that would amount to what? 15% or so?


----------



## alucasa (Jan 23, 2014)

I would be very happy if 15% was true. But I think it's around 5% max. There are customers who look for AMD specifically but they are very rare. I see one ( if lucky) AMD server out of 1000.


----------



## TRWOV (Jan 23, 2014)

And don't forget that a lot of that capability is going towards game consoles now.

Plenty of people seem to forget that the market share cap for AMD is pretty low so when news come saying that they are doing well in this or that market you can't help but to run into skeptics saying: "I've never seen an AMD server/laptop/all-in-one". Of course you haven´t. When AMD's maximum possible market share sits at <15% it's no wonder you haven seen them.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 23, 2014)

alucasa said:


> I would be very happy if 15% was true. But I think it's around 5% max. There are customers who look for AMD specifically but they are very rare. I see one ( if lucky) AMD server out of 1000.


for my company it comes down to heat and power consumption. In many things the opterons do just as well, after all in visualization, sql, etc more cores = mo better. But when you can get a 65w or less xeon to do the same job as a 125w opteron you're going go with the lower power consumption and less heat model. When you're running your own rig you may not notice too much. But at a co-location with thousands of servers, you're going to friggin notice, and so is your power bill.


----------

