Monday, September 21st 2015
CPU Whiz Jim Keller Leaves AMD
Jim Keller, one of the lead architects of AMD's x86 CPU architectures, has left the company. He held the post of Chief Architect of Microprocessor Cores at AMD. With his association, AMD's launched some of its most successful CPU architectures, such as the original K7 (Athlon, Athlon XP, Duron); the very first 64-bit x86 architecture, and K8 (Athlon64). Keller then left AMD to join Apple, in its development of the A4 and A5 SoCs, before rejoining AMD in 2012 to begin work on the "Zen" architecture.
Keller's departure doesn't throw "Zen" in jeopardy. "Jim helped establish a strong leadership team that is well positioned for success as we enter the completion phase of the "Zen" core and associated system IP and SoCs," said AMD in a statement. "Zen" remains on-track for sampling in 2016, and its "first full year of revenue" in 2017, which would indicate a market launch some time in 2016. AMD CTO Mark Papermaster will take over as additional charge of Keller's position.
Source:
Hexus.net
Keller's departure doesn't throw "Zen" in jeopardy. "Jim helped establish a strong leadership team that is well positioned for success as we enter the completion phase of the "Zen" core and associated system IP and SoCs," said AMD in a statement. "Zen" remains on-track for sampling in 2016, and its "first full year of revenue" in 2017, which would indicate a market launch some time in 2016. AMD CTO Mark Papermaster will take over as additional charge of Keller's position.
68 Comments on CPU Whiz Jim Keller Leaves AMD
Anyway, I wasn't talking about companies. Companies will go for the better deal. The end. Some might care about the brand that sells better to a specific part of the public(Alienware), but companies like HP for example, will just go with what looks a better deal.
As for individuals, I don't know how much of a minority they are, but I don't think that the situation today is the same as it was 5 years ago. I think with only 9.4 millions cards sold in the last quarter, the average Joe is a bigger part of the pie compared to 5 years ago, and if AMD is selling less than 2 millions cards, that part of the pie is really significant for them. And while 2 months ago it was really difficult to advice someone to choose a Radeon over a GTX, today is pretty easy. We can keep saying that this is insignificant, but without specific numbers how can we know? I have news to you. Everyone feels the same sometimes in forums. You think I saw smoke's posts, differently? "I will bookmark this post and remind it to you in the future". WTF?...
As to the misunderstanding, it is likely a language thing. Apology accepted, as I was not attacking you.
I will only comment one part of your post I DON'T GIVE A BEEP ABOUT YOU. You are not the center of my world. I don't bookmark your posts. I didn't added in my calendar a reminder to update my post to inform you about anything. You started it, remember? YOU are posting a huge pile of nothing. Not me.
Have a nice day. And... get a life.
I think that one of AMD's biggest problems is their marketing people. They keep making promises that AMD products aren't good enough to keep.
Bulldozer was a good example, and Fury was hyped far too much.
Combine that with unrealistic pricing of new AMD products, and you alienate your customers.
They're drilling more holes in their boat when they should be rowing for shore.
Pre-release AMD Fury claims were quite spectacular, but the same day as Fury release of the GTX-980Ti really trimmed their sails. (Fury being a little underwhelming for brand new technology)
The Ti card should have trimmed AMD's prices,.....but it didn't. (they're hell bent on profits and to hell with sales)
I have an FX-9590 system that performs pretty good. I like it enough to keep it here along with my 4790K and 4770K boxes.
I would like to buy a Fury GPU, (or two) but they want too much for them. I will not until the prices come down.
While the disappointment of the enthusiasts is understandable, the impact I suspect pales in comparison to some of the spinning AMD has done to OEM's. Fantastical AMD claims regarding grabbing 25% (presently <1%) of the server market when attempting to court the enterprise OEM's, all the while cutting features out of designs, seems to have left a very bad situation. It's all about the short term gain rather than the long term outlook. Intel has it's own skeletons in the closet (Itanium, Larrabee), but at least multiple steams of research going concurrently tends to mitigate the issues- as does Nvidia whose non-x86 forays (Shield, Tegra) have been considerably less than stellar, but tend not to be deal breakers because it isn't their core business. AMD looked at Nvidia and saw what the company had done by separating a product from the number series naming convention with Titan - introducing a (mostly fictional) elite product line outside of the 700 and 900 series. Consumers lapped it up - much to the consternation of AMD ( I don't know why it should, both companies have done the same in the past with the 6800 Ultra Extreme and XT Platinum Edition cards for example). AMD was merely copying Nvidia's example - but lacked a couple of key ingredients (four if you count availability, and the fact that it wasn't the fastest single GPU card at launch as the Titan's have been) - the brand awareness of Nvidia, and a lack of record breaking by the Fury X. Dominating the HWBot leaderboard brings its own kudos and PR bonanza even if the records are achieved with sub-zero cooling. EVGA's 980 Ti Classified Kingpin sold out in minutes not because it is appreciably faster than any other air cooled 980 Ti, but because of the nameplate it possesses.
AMD are in mostly uncharted territory by pricing the Fury X (and Nano) so high. Nvidia has a record of pricing high, so those buying their cards have been hardened to the cost reality. AMD on the other hand are still measured as the value option, so I suspect that shelling out $650 in the context of its abilities isn't so much an issue as past history. High end graphics buyers also generally realize that AMD institute heavy price cutting in the face of bad market share numbers, so there is definitely a case to be made for playing the waiting game. Personally neither vendor is exciting me this round. I did have a 980 Ti (Giga G1) briefly, but decided to sell while the market was still high. I'll wait for Pascal and Arctic Islands unless I find a deal that is too good to pass up.
No, your main point is they suck as long term planning. Which they apparently don't.
You can have poor profits and great product and the opposite, sucky expensive products that still outsell the competitor, as we've seen with Intel's Prescott or nVidia's Fermi.