• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

FEATURED AMD Seems to Effectively Give Up (For High-End CPUs)

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Perhaps, though larger caches have traditionally not given AMD designs the same sort of performance boost that a cahce size increase has given Intel designs.... Not sure if its due to the actual speed of the caches, though historically this has always been true.
 
The articles referenced are interesting from a "these are my thoughts" perspective. Being the new CEO means the guy is going to get interviewed, have his thoughts scribed and published. The fact that AMD needs to have it's focus on making profits and providing shareholders a return on their investment is not a bad thing, so Rory needs to say these things above and beyond being commited to it. The question to me is whether or not he's enthusiastic about chips. Driving shareholder's value by producing chips that sell in large quantities and profitably is his job. What's his passion?

If the guy really likes the technology of the company he's leading, he'll figure out a way to fund ongoing research into newer technologies. He's got to know that if he gives up the high end sector completely he'll not just lose the Overclockers of the world, he'll eventually be only making products that China is trying to make, the R&D lab will be less than an afterthought, and AMD will go back to making chips for some other designer, which is how they got their start.
 
All this makes me wonder if this will open the door of opportunity for a new start up CPU maker or is that not possible any longer given the huge head start that Intel has?
 
I think the barrier to entry is far too high, to be honest. You'd need an existing chip maker to jump in, like nVidia.

EDIT: Or if AMD sell off their CPU portfolio to a new company ...
 
Nope, its late in the days for anyone else to compete. Anyone who bought out AMD would likely just use their patents as a patent troll..... The best thing we can hope for is for AMD to succeed with their 3rd gen APU's. If they succeed with this, then Intel will simply have no answer.

Changing the GPU component to full vector based compute promises to make the GPU far more flexible in the workloads they can handle. I believe that the x86 component of the GPU will become important only in what it can offload onto the GPU side if they pull this off correctly. It has the potential to become a game changer. Unless Intel buys nVidia they have no chance of coming up with somethign to compete. This relies on AMD getting this right though, and I've seen them get things wrong more often than right so I guess I'll have to see where thig=ngs are at in another 5 years or so.

Take a look at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/07/amd_graphics_core_next/
 
Its highly unlikely that intel will buy nvidia in the next 3 years. They do however license certain technology from nvidia, and have some sort of partial non compete agreement with them, I believe. There was talks about this about this last year.

The only company that would possibly have a interest and a background in the technology in enough of a way to get back into the x86 game at a high level would be VIA technologies. But considering there reluctance to rejoin the race since they bought Cyrix about 10 years ago. They mostly focus on small embedded low wattage systems. VIA kinda burned there bridges with AMD at the same time, so there is some bad blood between the two companies.

Maybe samsung or NEC would have an interest in them, since both are still have a major stake in the semi conductor industry. Samsung has been growing quite quickly and has shown the inititive to move into new markets. NEC has wobbled back and forth of the years, but I know they have a interest in industrial application and clustering. I highly doubt IBM would want anything to do with AMD. They have routinely fought with the company in the past. They also have a current attitude of not wanting to deal with the Consumer markets, and perfer mainframe and datacenter computing at this point in time.
 
AMD has said that they won't compete in the high end CPU markets....Not really surprising seeing as they've already bet eerything on APU's. I believe that to be the way of the future anyway.
 
It is never too late for another copmany to join in. Esepcially since Intel has been neutered in its dubious practices

Microsoft's willingness to conform is the key. Which they are doing building windows 8 to run on ARM processors. If ARM decides to go desktop, which all indicators are pointing towards it is AMD that is more at risk than Intel.

I don't think AMD will disappear however. The Llano APUs are amazing and FAR better than anything Intel develops. The PR videos are not wrong. they avoid the uniformed HWBOT benchmarks, that favor Intel and nVidia, instead focus on real world usage, and the Llano dominates that, smooth scaling with multiple tasks running.
 
Neuromancer said:
It is never too late for another copmany to join in. Esepcially since Intel has been neutered in its dubious practices

Microsoft's willingness to conform is the key. Which they are doing building windows 8 to run on ARM processors. If ARM decides to go desktop, which all indicators are pointing towards it is AMD that is more at risk than Intel.

I don't think AMD will disappear however. The Llano APUs are amazing and FAR better than anything Intel develops. The PR videos are not wrong. they avoid the uniformed HWBOT benchmarks, that favor Intel and nVidia, instead focus on real world usage, and the Llano dominates that, smooth scaling with multiple tasks running.
Click to expand...

Not really. If memory serves me correctly the agreement Intel made was to not use illegal business practices as they did against AMD, against them ever again, it didn't make any provisions for other companies. Correct me if I'm wrong. Eiter way, despite the fines they've been given, their business practices clearly paid off and went a long way to their present dominance in the CPU market.

Thing to remember is they're talking about CPU's. At no point in time has AMD said that they're not going to continue focussing on their APU's. If they can get to where they want to go with APU's they have the potential to change computing as we know it anyway in regular general compute tasks.
 
Frankly i don't care about $1000 chips, i would never buy one.

As long as they can get and remain competitive in the $200 -$250 mark, (IE PD) then for me its not an issue, AMD have not had anything in the high end for some years now, that's why Intel charge $1000 there and they can go on doing so for all i care.

All i care about is the sort of thing i have in my rig right now.

$200 CPU's are used for gamers rigs, BD is already matching the 2600K now, and for less money.
 
Last edited:
I don't think any of the other chip makers want to deal with the possible roadblocks intel will put in thier way if they jump to the consumer industry, the damage from that is already done, as it is now any questions people ask about AMD, others reply "get a 2500k instead" quoting X86 benchamarks that have no value to everyday performance other than a few fps in some games.

You say its a great loss but you push amd further away sending everyone over to intel, just pay intel thier $600-$1000 for thier processors so you can get your super pi numbers and stop complaining, you all talk about thier shady business practices then give them your money to make sure they kill any competition that may come into the game, no one is going to step up because of that, you're stuck with intel for now.
 
I don't think we should start giving out bad advice just because AMD can't compete at the high end. If someone has a budget of X and their needs are A, B and C, and an i5 2500K fits it better, then I hope they get recommended an i5 2500K every single time.
 
@ Khan x86 benchmarks are more about bragging rights (i include myself in that) Intel do out perform in x86 other then most (multi-threaded) but AMD still have good performance there, more then good enough to be fast enough to run such software well, so its far from an actual problem.

Now as i have already said AMD are socking it to Intel with modern games, as new gaming benchmarks are coming in they all show BD to be right up there trading punched with the more expensive 2600K.

Looking at gamer rigs, costing less then an Intel for exactly the same performance is a very good thing.

If one wants bragging rights for increasingly out dated low threaded x86 then yes they can pay extra for that privilege. most people in this range don't care about x86 based review sites surrounded by Intel banners, most of them simply think (yeah get real)
 
David said:
I don't think we should start giving out bad advice just because AMD can't compete at the high end. If someone has a budget of X and their needs are A, B and C, and an i5 2500K fits it better, then I hope they get recommended an i5 2500K every single time.
Click to expand...

And I'm not saying not to, the situation is what it is right now, I've always supported small buisness, big corporations ruin innovation once they drive out all the competition, only time will tell what comes of this now, I still refuse to give my money to a company that did and would do again what intel did if no one said "enough". its pretty much telling them they made the right choice.
 
This doesnt really worry me. They have said they are moving onto the APU architecture. Mainstream and servers is where they need to spend there time anyways. If they play there cards right and manage go get some capital over the next few years as they push the homogeneous computing idea we could see a role reversal. The only way I see this failing is that if you can get an Intel chip + nVidia GPU combo that out performs that of the G3 APU + GPU combo at the same price point or lower(like thats ever going to happen).
 
Global foundries owns it. Back in the day AMD actually owned there fabs before good Mr Ruiz ran them into the ground. Now there just a design firm with a very close relationship to a MFG.
 
Global foundries owns it. AMD has no capacity at all these days. Very different from Jerry Sanders famous saying: real men own fabs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
AMD FX-6300 what is the correct voltage for 3.5 GHz ?
Replies
3
Views
1K
EarthDog
EarthDog
mackerel
Arc A380 impressions
Replies
7
Views
773
Niku-Sama
Niku-Sama
Tech Tweaker
AMD AM4 system instability
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
shadowdr
shadowdr
K
AMD system locks up, won't power down w/power button or reset
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
4K
KenS
K
UltraTaco
Will Intel try to crush AMD by giving deep discounts?
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
DaveB
DaveB
Back