PDA

View Full Version : Can AMD recover?


Pages : [1] 2

Intel17
08-25-09, 04:19 PM
As we all know, the Intel chips nowadays are widely considered faster than their Phenom II rivals. However, AMD has held the crown before and was, at one point, doing extremely well.

Do you think AMD can recover? They've got ATI, their CPUs are improving, but can they ever take the lead? Or is Intel's sheer dominace going to keep them in the budget sector forever?

Maverick123w
08-25-09, 05:25 PM
Well I'd say AMD actually beats Intel chip for chip in the majority of price brackets its in. Once Lynnfield drops that probably wont be the case, but for now at least I think AMD is doing ok.

Bearclaw
08-25-09, 05:43 PM
It goes in cycles as far as I am concerned. Intel had the lead for a long time before AMD64 came along and then AMD had the lead for a while. They will come back.

candle_86
08-25-09, 06:58 PM
Well AMD untill Athlon targeted the budget range, K6 was faster than Pentium, K6-2 beat Celeron most of the time and K6-III tore apart Celerons. Athlon made them a highend chip maker, AThlon XP helped but they lost mind share to P4 once P4 hit 3ghz. Athlon 64 recovered for awhile, but there is something underlying in AMD, they always even in there prime offered the best budget also, During the reign of Athlon 64 no one could say a Sempron was garbage, or an Athlon x2 3800 or x2 3600 and later the 5200BE where garbage chips, they where best bang for your budget. Again we are there, The Athlon II competes directly with Celeron E1xxx and Celeron E4xxx chips quite welll. Phenom II X2 competes very well with E73xx. This is where AMD shines and will continue to do so, there Phenom X4's can go cheaper, and they could make money on them still, if they couldnt then the X2 550 wouldnt exist.

Now can AMD regain the crown maybe, what will it take though, Id say a radical redesign of there CPU. Phenom II has alot in Common with that First Athlon, the pipeline is still 3 stage, the FPU and ALU's may have increased but function in the same way. There Cache System is identical and still based a 256bit L2 Cache Access, and there out of order processing is seriously lacking compared to intel. While IMC and intergrated NB have gone along way to improve the original design, its still at heart an Athlon.

nekrosoft13
08-25-09, 09:30 PM
I'm suprised how AMD is still in business. They continue loosing money are billions in debt.

As far as AMD is concerend and their business model biggest financial mistake was buying ATI. They were doing fine before that acquisition.

Intel17
08-25-09, 10:08 PM
I'm suprised how AMD is still in business. They continue loosing money are billions in debt.

As far as AMD is concerend and their business model biggest financial mistake was buying ATI. They were doing fine before that acquisition.

But if GPU/CPU are on a collision course like what people are saying, that acquisition could be what saves AMD in the long run.

nekrosoft13
08-25-09, 10:11 PM
But if GPU/CPU are on a collision course like what people are saying, that acquisition could be what saves AMD in the long run.

Could be, all i was saying that that acquisition almost took down both companies. AMD/ATI is worth less now then AMD or ATI back before acquisition.

InqWoN1776
08-25-09, 10:48 PM
Speaking about the ATI acquisition, I have been impressed with how AMD/ATI have been able to compete with NV on the gpu side especially considering their financial performance.

Yaboze
08-25-09, 11:27 PM
I really want AMD to live on, not just for competition, innovation and pricing, but they seem to be in a really good spot. They can make chipsets, CPU's and have ATI, which are still excellent cards.

Nvidia is great and all, but they don't have the CPU thing down yet. Also, their chipsets were iffy (for me anyway).

Mr Bigman
08-25-09, 11:45 PM
Well AMD untill Athlon targeted the budget range, K6 was faster than Pentium, K6-2 beat Celeron most of the time and K6-III tore apart Celerons. Athlon made them a highend chip maker, AThlon XP helped but they lost mind share to P4 once P4 hit 3ghz. Athlon 64 recovered for awhile, but there is something underlying in AMD, they always even in there prime offered the best budget also, During the reign of Athlon 64 no one could say a Sempron was garbage, or an Athlon x2 3800 or x2 3600 and later the 5200BE where garbage chips, they where best bang for your budget. Again we are there, The Athlon II competes directly with Celeron E1xxx and Celeron E4xxx chips quite welll. Phenom II X2 competes very well with E73xx. This is where AMD shines and will continue to do so, there Phenom X4's can go cheaper, and they could make money on them still, if they couldnt then the X2 550 wouldnt exist.

Now can AMD regain the crown maybe, what will it take though, Id say a radical redesign of there CPU. Phenom II has alot in Common with that First Athlon, the pipeline is still 3 stage, the FPU and ALU's may have increased but function in the same way. There Cache System is identical and still based a 256bit L2 Cache Access, and there out of order processing is seriously lacking compared to intel. While IMC and intergrated NB have gone along way to improve the original design, its still at heart an Athlon.

I thought you were banned a couple of years ago shaw.

Canle86 is that guy people talked about alot kemper or kindle i think.

AthlonXP1800
09-08-09, 07:28 AM
After reading Lynnfield Core i5 & i7 reviews, I dont know how AMD will recover by cut the price of all Phenom II and Athlon II CPUs because it all overpriced while Intel is now better and cheaper. AMD is now at 11th quarterly loss with $7.8bn total net losses with $5.2bn debts and guess next quarter Q3 2009 will be another loss and importantly it will be quote... "AMD not make a profit for 3 years".

Can AMD recover? No fat chance! AMD probably will call in liquidators sometime next year when total net losses exceed their $8.6bn total net assets & equity as well not paid $5.2bn loan repayments.

AMD's Asset Smart strategy had failed, Global Foundry didnt saved AMD as they never made profit out of it. AMD is still considering sell all stakes in Global Foundry to raise cash.

nekrosoft13
09-08-09, 01:04 PM
yap, doesn't look good for them. i'm suprised they are still in business, how can company float this long and keep loosing money year after year.

Thunderbolt56
09-08-09, 02:12 PM
Since all you business model and marketing geniuses have it all figured out, I guess AMD and Intel can stop all their competitive marketing strategies, pocket the millions they spend on that and simply wait for AMD to finally S**t the bed.

Personally, I think AMD would do well...if

1. Intel would buy stock in them
2. Leak enough tech in the back door and shift AMD even farther into a particular niche market.

They would have a public image of competition and the accompanying price parity, a monopoly on the entire market and complete ownership of the semiconductor and silicon worldwide market.

Us, being representative of the average consumer would pay dearly in the long run, but that's what happens when captialism is abandoned and insider trading/profiteering are allowed to happen.

Heinz68
09-08-09, 02:31 PM
AthlonXP1800 is predicting AMD dead at least couple times a year (his favored subject). According to his predictions AMD should have been dead 3years ago.

For the benefit of every PC user and mainly PC gamers I hope AthlonXP1800 is again dead wrong.

EDIT
doesn't look like dead from this angle
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2081637&postcount=1

hell_of_doom227
09-08-09, 04:46 PM
With i7/i5 release AMD is dead unless they do something radically. They need to release 6 Core CPU as soon as possible, that would attract a lot of buyers.

Logical
09-08-09, 05:33 PM
With i7/i5 release AMD is dead unless they do something radically. They need to release 6 Core CPU as soon as possible, that would attract a lot of buyers.

Again...i doubt it.

Drolfrawd
09-08-09, 05:52 PM
From a Historic poin tof view, I hope AMD survive. Would be a real shame if they go.

Netscape went, that was a shame.It gave birth to Firefox, so progress in the end.

If they do go ,competition will emerge, you can be sure of that.

Shamrock
09-08-09, 09:16 PM
I didn't approve of AMD buying ATI. I knew this would happen.

hell_of_doom227
09-09-09, 09:03 PM
AMD will stay. 6 Core would sell really well at this point.

noko
09-11-09, 07:06 PM
I thought ATI has been making money for AMD for awhile, maybe not enough to offset the huge buy cost but in the right direction. This coming ATI generation of video cards looks to be extremely promissing and beating the competition to the punch. This should make AMD even more money. Now AMD has a complete plateform or at least all the major components for mobile and desktops as well as servers. Intel does not, plus the more Intel sells the more AMD will make via ATI. Must have discreet video cards for anykind of performance for 3d, if ATI regains market share, which I predict (mobile market is already there), then AMD maybe will turn the corner. Their cpu offerings are not bad either but they need to really push with the server market and high end desktop.

uOpt
09-11-09, 08:32 PM
I'm suprised how AMD is still in business. They continue loosing money are billions in debt.

As far as AMD is concerend and their business model biggest financial mistake was buying ATI. They were doing fine before that acquisition.

No, even before they bought ATI the trouble was there.

When the first news of Core2 came out everybody was astonished and said "I thought we aren't going to see per-core speed improvements anymore?". Because Intel did drastically turned the per-core performance, and performance/power, around after the Netburst disaster.

But then AMD had to go from K8 to K10, and I remember vividly the disappointment that they couldn't hold the K8 clockspeed. Not only that, the per-core improvement was also less than Core2 had shown. So they sat there with slower per core per clock and less clock. > 2 socket systems and true 4-cores were not enough to do great.

I think that one major reason why the bought ATI is the (mainboard) chipset business. Being dependent on NVidia for chipsets was a bad situation. Many people and enterprises don't like NVidia chipsets and even if that model would have taken off NVidia could blackmail into getting a too large chunk of the profit.

In my view, AMD clearly lost when they did not invest enough into making faster per-core chips. They could neither improve the microarchitecture nor get enough clockspeed. That's pretty much all.

Redeemed
09-12-09, 01:21 PM
No, even before they bought ATI the trouble was there.

When the first news of Core2 came out everybody was astonished and said "I thought we aren't going to see per-core speed improvements anymore?". Because Intel did drastically turned the per-core performance, and performance/power, around after the Netburst disaster.

But then AMD had to go from K8 to K10, and I remember vividly the disappointment that they couldn't hold the K8 clockspeed. Not only that, the per-core improvement was also less than Core2 had shown. So they sat there with slower per core per clock and less clock. > 2 socket systems and true 4-cores were not enough to do great.

I think that one major reason why the bought ATI is the (mainboard) chipset business. Being dependent on NVidia for chipsets was a bad situation. Many people and enterprises don't like NVidia chipsets and even if that model would have taken off NVidia could blackmail into getting a too large chunk of the profit.

In my view, AMD clearly lost when they did not invest enough into making faster per-core chips. They could neither improve the microarchitecture nor get enough clockspeed. That's pretty much all.

Well, considering the PhenomII X4s can compete with the likes of an i7 920 means they have room to grow. AMD also has a complete platform to offer- chipset + cpu + gpu. They can afford to offer bundle deals to OEMs at a price neither Intel nor nVidia can easily match. And I'd sooner take an HP with a PhenomII + Radeon over a Core i7/i5 with Intel Integrated graphics (if I were to buy OEM). Far better balance of performance.

Furthemore, AM3 has an incredibly long life span. It'll see 6 core chips, where as the i5s will not. LGA1156 will be short lived (from what I recall).

Also, AMD's bulldozer should be interesting. I can also see AMD bundling more powerful GPUs with their CPUs than Intel can offer, once they go integrated. And with the push for GPGPU that could be a huge plus for AMD.

There's a lot of stuff ahead that looks promising for AMD. They definitely have a very steep up-hill battle ahead of them, but they seem to be setting themselves up for a good position in the long run.

Now they just need to hold out long enough to see it to fruition. :lol: :o

breathemetal
09-12-09, 02:11 PM
Im all for AMD. **** Intel, even though they have "better" cpus atm.
But for the next rig I build, Ill prolly go with AMD/ATI.

Redeemed
09-12-09, 05:31 PM
Im all for AMD. **** Intel, even though they have "better" cpus atm.
But for the next rig I build, Ill prolly go with AMD/ATI.

Interesting. :lol:

Anyhow, I don't think it's an issue of whether AMD can recover or not. I feel it's more an issue of "when".

Right now, they seem to be ignoring the ultra high-end, focusing more on the mainstream and low end parts. If they can nail that down, they can then scale up for high-end components.

Something else I think AMD is doing, is riding on ATi's successes. I mean, as is AMD's processors offer far more computing power than the average Joe computer user needs. If they can continue to focus on high-performance mainstream parts I think they'll do fine. It's just a matter of time.

Redeemed
09-12-09, 06:00 PM
Time is something they DON'T have though. They can't stay in business while losing metric-assloads of cash every quarter. I was an AMD fanboy for the longest time, but I considered their purchase of ATI to be the final nail in the coffin.

Interesting. As that acquisition is about the only thing that can save them right now. :)