Editorial Bulldozer Beats Politicians As The Biggest Fail

[cadaveca]

perhaps, but poor management practices seem to stick around longer than the poor managers that put them into practice. i hope we see a significant turn around in the coming years by AMD or I see a split in their future.

Yeah, for sure. But I feel that nVidia is in a more precarious position than AMD is. The current talk of ARM and Windows is the one thing that might save nVidia. Nvidia working with ARM designs is probably a big part of the reason there is such a push for those designs, even, and probably why we keep hearing about them. For nVidia to succeed...ARM needs to be recognized by consumers.


AMD bought ATi, as the integration of CPU and GPU into the same silicon was inevitable. If they had not made the move when they did, current FM1 chips wouldn't be as good as they are now. Those chips...are fantastic. But there's no real marketing of the FM1 platform, because board partner profits seem low within that platform.


The "percieved" failure of AMD isn't a failure at all..but merely the tough time between transitioning the company's focus from being a CPU-focused brand, to a homogenous computing brand. Of course the CPU side of things is going to suffer...that's what needs to make the greatest changes. That fact that this is ignored quite often is shocking, to say the least.


Although BD in the desktop space seem like a bad product, it's actually far more exciting than most think; it only seems bad because consumers(enthusiast sites) perceive AMD as a CPU company..which they are not.

I mean, I've said time and agian that nVidia is NOT a hardware comany...that they are a software company, that just happens to make some hardware too. Of course, I got that from nVidia's CEO making a speech...


Likewise, AMD is not a CPU company. AMD's only failure is educating their consumers on that change, as nVidia has failed to distingish themselves as a software-focused company.


I don't see why that's a big deal...or why it makes Intel better than AMD. They aren't even in direct competition with each other. Marketing would like you to think so, but truly, each has their own separate markets, and each excels in meeting that markets needs.

 

[Lionheart]

Humanity is the biggest fail ^_^

 

[Easy Rhino]

Yeah, for sure. But I feel that nVidia is in a more precarious position than AMD is. The current talk of ARM and Windows is the one thing that might save nVidia. Nvidia working with ARM designs is probably a big part of the reason there is such a push for those designs, even, and probably why we keep hearing about them. For nVidia to succeed...ARM needs to be recognized by consumers.


AMD bought ATi, as the integration of CPU and GPU into the same silicon was inevitable. If they had not made the move when they did, current FM1 chips wouldn't be as good as they are now. Those chips...are fantastic. But there's no real marketing of the FM1 platform, because board partner profits seem low within that platform.


The "percieved" failure of AMD isn't a failure at all..but merely the tough time between transitioning the company's focus from being a CPU-focused brand, to a homogenous computing brand. Of course the CPU side of things is going to suffer...that's what needs to make the greatest changes. That fact that this is ignored quite often is shocking, to say the least.


Although BD in the desktop space seem like a bad product, it's actually far more exciting than most think; it only seems bad because consumers(enthusiast sites) perceive AMD as a CPU company..which they are not.

I mean, I've said time and agian that nVidia is NOT a hardware comany...that they are a software company, that just happens to make some hardware too. Of course, I got that from nVidia's CEO making a speech...


Likewise, AMD is not a CPU company. AMD's only failure is educating their consumers on that change, as nVidia has failed to distingish themselves as a software-focused company.


I don't see why that's a big deal...or why it makes Intel better than AMD. They aren't even in direct competition with each other. Marketing would like you to think so, but truly, each has their own separate markets, and each excels in meeting that markets needs.

of course amd and intel are in direct competition. they are both competing for a share of the x86 workstation market. even with amds lower price tag, intel still destroys them. why? because intel is a better run company with a lot of industry power behind it. intel on its own could sway the entire industry to adopt a new architecture for the desktop and amd would be shit out of luck. thankfully for amd, intel is content with churning out better workstation chips at a higher profit margin.

 

[qubit]

Yeah, it's bad. I think the act of myself even watching it is pretty fail. Why did I do it?

Oh, don't feel too bad about it: I tried to watch The Return just because the lovely SMG was in it. The movie was so bad however, that I just had to quit after about a third of the way through despite my eyes very much wanting to see more of this particular eye candy.

the only reason bulldozer is more fail than our politicians is because the amount of hype brought to you by sites like TPU. why does everyone cheer loudly for AMD? they are a terribly run company that since athlon X2 have not put out a decent chip to match intel. let's face it, they suck. intel ftw.

Yup, putting out a string of also-rans and pricing them in the "value" range isn't real competition. As I've said previously somewhere, this is partly why Intel's latest and greatest is now not giving us what we want: improved single threaded performance. SB-E is near as dammit identical to SB with more cores and IB has a few modest enhancements. Hardly enough to set the market on fire, is it?

The other reason of course, is that today's low end chips can do just about any desktop task very well, including playing 3D games. You only really need the extra horses for specialised tasks and hardcore gamers.

 

[eidairaman1]

this is news??? thumbs down. Quit beating a dead horse, no fun and sounds like a broken record.




-end rant-

 

[ensabrenoir]

Man this is gret stuff.........what are we suppose to be talking about?

 

[HossHuge]

After reading this people must have realized that our politicians are a bigger fail because it seems they have caught up.

Where's the new poll?

 

[cadaveca]

of course amd and intel are in direct competition. they are both competing for a share of the x86 workstation market. even with amds lower price tag, intel still destroys them. why? because intel is a better run company with a lot of industry power behind it. intel on its own could sway the entire industry to adopt a new architecture for the desktop and amd would be shit out of luck. thankfully for amd, intel is content with churning out better workstation chips at a higher profit margin.

Um, nice try, but that's poppycock.

Intel OWNS x86, and THAT is why they are so successful. Intel has graciously SHARED the x86 market with AMD, granting AMD a LISCENCE to incorporate x86 designs in their own products.

At the same time, AMD OWNS x64, and grants Intel a liscence to use thier designs in Intel products.


That's a PARTNERSHIP, not competition. It's marketing that would have you chose one over the other that obfuscates the fact that AMD and Intel work together in a partnership on a daily basis.

AMD agrees to pay INTEL a royalty on the Net Revenue from sales and
other dispositions of Royalty-Bearing Units as a percentage of such
Net Revenue according to the following schedule:

http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/operations/ip/802.html

AMD is even PAYING Intel for the right to share part of the market.

X86 isn't a market...it's a technology. Like RISC, PowerPC, ARM, and Cell, x86 is part of a much larger market, but marketing would have you beleive it's a market all on it's own, so that the numbers appear better.

Intel OWNS and CONTROLS alot of what AMD does.

Intel bends AMD under their weight whenever they chose to:

SANTA CLARA, Calif. March 16, 2009 - Intel Corporation today disclosed that the company has notified Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) that it believes AMD has breached a 2001 patent cross-license agreement with Intel. Intel believes that Global Foundries is not a subsidiary under terms of the agreement and is therefore not licensed under the 2001 patent cross-license agreement. Intel also said the structure of the deal between AMD and ATIC breaches a confidential portion of that agreement. Intel has asked AMD to make the relevant portion of the agreement public, but so far AMD has declined to do so. AMD's breach could result in the loss of licenses and rights granted to AMD by Intel under the agreement.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2009/20090316corp.htm


To think that Intel and AMD are in competition directly doesn't makes any sense, except by marketing terms. It's funny, jsut becuase the two have the biggest sales numbers, that other x86 producers, like Transmeta, don't even get mentioned when x86 is considered.


Intel even admits that their control of x86 patents and technology is why they are the giant they are today:

"Intellectual property is a cornerstone of Intel's technology leadership and for more than 30 years, the company has believed in the strategic importance of licensing intellectual property in exchange for fair value. However AMD cannot unilaterally extend Intel's licensing rights to a third party without Intel's consent," said Bruce Sewell, senior vice president and general counsel for Intel. We have attempted to address our concerns with AMD without success since October. We are willing to find a resolution but at the same time we have an obligation to our stockholders to protect the billions of dollars we've invested in intellectual property."

 

[Halk]

I'm wondering if the failure of AMD Bulldozer means that Intel will rest on their laurels and not compete with themselves strongly. Does that mean Ivy Bridge will bring very little to the table except higher profit margins for Intel? Are Intel going to continue to develop their processors, reduce their thermal footprint, size and power consumption (to compete with ARM) but not increase their processing power? Do they feel that Sandy Bridge was a mistake and that 2500/2600K were too powerful for the platform and have raised the bar too far?

 

[ensabrenoir]

I'm wondering if the failure of AMD Bulldozer means that Intel will rest on their laurels and not compete with themselves strongly. Does that mean Ivy Bridge will bring very little to the table except higher profit margins for Intel? Are Intel going to continue to develop their processors, reduce their thermal footprint, size and power consumption (to compete with ARM) but not increase their processing power? Do they feel that Sandy Bridge was a mistake and that 2500/2600K were too powerful for the platform and have raised the bar too far?

I see the lead engineer of sb getting a


Or the guy in the mailroom getting labels mixed up

 

[Fx]

damn cadaveca, you really laid some truth out there and I couldnt have presented the facts any better. good to see others understand the situation

 

[Easy Rhino]

Um, nice try, but that's poppycock.

Intel OWNS x86, and THAT is why they are so successful. Intel has graciously SHARED the x86 market with AMD, granting AMD a LISCENCE to incorporate x86 designs in their own products.

At the same time, AMD OWNS x64, and grants Intel a liscence to use thier designs in Intel products.


That's a PARTNERSHIP, not competition. It's marketing that would have you chose one over the other that obfuscates the fact that AMD and Intel work together in a partnership on a daily basis.




http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/operations/ip/802.html

AMD is even PAYING Intel for the right to share part of the market.

X86 isn't a market...it's a technology. Like RISC, PowerPC, ARM, and Cell, x86 is part of a much larger market, but marketing would have you beleive it's a market all on it's own, so that the numbers appear better.

Intel OWNS and CONTROLS alot of what AMD does.

Intel bends AMD under their weight whenever they chose to:



http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2009/20090316corp.htm


To think that Intel and AMD are in competition directly doesn't makes any sense, except by marketing terms. It's funny, jsut becuase the two have the biggest sales numbers, that other x86 producers, like Transmeta, don't even get mentioned when x86 is considered.


Intel even admits that their control of x86 patents and technology is why they are the giant they are today:

interesting, but none of that negates the fact that they are in direct competition with each other for sales (share of the market) since they both make processors for x86 desktops. this goes for any industry. if two companies make widgets that to the end user do the same thing they are in fact in direct competition.

 

[NC37]

People being able to vote multiple times does not equal an accurate poll. It just means you are a politician

 

[btarunr]

I think the bigger fail with Bulldozer is timing, just like with DNF.

If DNF was released with the kind of gameplay (even if not the same graphics), in say 2004, it would have gone on to become a GOTY. The standards for games were different then. Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 ruled, not Battlefield 3 and Call of Babby Modern Nappy 3.

Likewise, if Bulldozer released in just early 2010 instead of now, it would have been a hornet vs. bee contest. FX-8150 would have beaten Lynnfield and most Bloomfield parts under $583 to pulp.

 

[cadaveca]

interesting, but none of that negates the fact that they are in direct competition with each other for sales (share of the market) since they both make processors for x86 desktops. this goes for any industry. if two companies make widgets that to the end user do the same thing they are in fact in direct competition.

Okay, I hear your perspective, but I think you are painting the picture with brush strokes that are far too broad.


If, at any point, AMD threatened Intel's market share, I'm sure that AMD would have to pay a penalty to Intel. It only makes sense in liscencing agreements like this, that if you grant a "competitor" access to your technology, you protect your profits in some way...and not just give it up freely for a fee.

At the same time, AMD lacks the fab capacity to threaten Intel in any reasonable way. Intel will ALWAYS own the market, as AMD has no way to increase their capacity due to the cost of owning foundries.

Because of this, AMD is not, and never will be, a threat to Intel's market share. Maybe by a few percentage points, but the fact of the matter is that no matter what happens, AMD's market share can only reach so high, and cannot increase in any reasonable amount.


As such, they are not directly competing with each other, except for marketing purposes. Intel needs AMD due to the x64 liscencing, and monopoly laws, so AMD isn't going anywhere either. For AMD to be a success, all they need to do is continually make products, and fill their limited capacity, which they seem to have no problems doing currently. That doesn't change the fact that Intel owns the market though.

So, AMD are very much far from failing...


Bulldozer is a fail in the desktop space, but wins out in multi-threaded workloads, which is where BD was targeted for, anyway. Fortunately for AMD, the desktop space is but a small part of the market, and the server market itself is where AMD is focused primarily.


Intel, on the other hand, is releasing broken product after broken product. P67, X79, and SB-E are all parts within the past 24 months that are not fully functional, and have shipped with parts disabled, or require a revision for proper functionality. IN this way, Intel is a fail...at least AMD can bring 100% working chips, which Intel cannot claim...yet.

 

[Easy Rhino]

i guess what you are saying is that AMD is really in a totally different league than Intel despite the fact that they both compete for market share. but the fact remains that AMD is still a terribly run company and they should have never bought ati. people can defend amd all they want, but until i see some real popular and powerful chips out of them and i see their share price go up and confidence within the industry improve then they totally suck.

 

[erek]

with the proper compiler, the BD is upto 30% faster than it's stock situation @ http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=open64_50_bulldozer

 

[cadaveca]

i guess what you are saying is that AMD is really in a totally different league than Intel despite the fact that they both compete for market share.

Yeah, exactly. It's like Ferrari and Dodge. Clearly Intel is Ferrari.

but the fact remains that AMD is still a terribly run company and they should have never bought ati. people can defend amd all they want, but until i see some real popular and powerful chips out of them and i see their share price go up and confidence within the industry improve then they totally suck.

Sure, and that's valid. AMD does NOT have a "top performer", and hasn't in a while. The fact that they compare their non-IGP chips with Intel's IGP chips...says alot. 1155 and FM1 are the similar lines, and SKT2011 goes with AM3+. Looked at in that way, Intel has such a head start I have a hard time beleiving AMD will ever catch up.

But, I don't think they need to, either.

AMD buying ATi is irrelevant. AMD was bleeding funds long before then, going from profit to loss quarter on quarter...long before buying ATi.

 

[ensabrenoir]

Aaaahhhhh..... the fairy dust Laiden "IF" and "in certain situations" in reality land all that matters is ..."IS"

 

[lashton]

Neither BD nor SB-E are fail, in my opinion.


What IS fail, is the marketing surrounding them.


It's clear to me, personally, that both AMD and Intel are having issues with the current silicon node. P67 was recalled, X79 is missing drive functionality(P67 nearly killed it's own drive controller, so this issue with X79 is far worse than portrayed.), SB-E chips themselves aren't fully functional, and seemingly, BD missed it's clock target.

Ok, so there are real physical problems that led to the current situation, but at no point has AMD or INtel ever conveyed that there was any problems. They just hype'd away, not realizing that they hyped away customer satisfaction.

I have always been a proponent of OEMs being more transparent, and more honest with their customers...namely us. If anything, they are even more full of it.

At least, myself, I can remain hopeful. AMD at least has some newer management(and fired some marketing staff), so I'm willing to give them a chance to pull up thier socks, and become the real company they should be. Intel, on the other hand...

A last someone with intelligence, BD will and does KILL Sb in data mining, for Centres that do data mining Sb is an expensive waste of slow money, BD kills everything in Data mining I know I run a Data mine at a majour bank and BD has hit its mark and this is where AMD will make a killing on BD you wait and see, although the marketing was bad, bringing a new Processor to market is always tricky then its the same as firefox vs IE, IE is 100X more secure than FF and faster but EVERYONE says FF is because they are all brainless goons!

 

[ensabrenoir]

my word|

 

[Hayder_Master]

I just wan to say something to AMD, how you lie and say this shit better than core I7 950 by 50%.

 

[loleafidas]

Bulldozer costed me Asus Crosshair V Formula for NOTHING :-|

 

[btarunr]

For our Spanish friends: http://www.chw.net/2011/11/amd-fx-gana-en-ser-mas-decepcionante-que-sandy-bridge-e-y-los-politicos/

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Bulldozer costed me Asus Crosshair V Formula for NOTHING :-|

No, you just believed something that didn't turn out to be true, like me. It's our own fault.