AMD FX 8-Core Processor Black Edition promo vid.

[Vesku]

Sure they are up against a behemoth, but they aren't doing themselves any favors by backing vaporous marketing like "Fusion" and "Vision" without strongly attaching their name. The only reason to avoid attaching AMD to their marketing is if the board of directors vetos it all the time because they've been secretly hoping for an angelic buyout offer for the last 20 years. At least this video name drops more than their previous advertising.

 

[taltamir]

amd amped! Has some potential. I think they should rework the basics on their marketing. Vision branding seems too much like it was brainstormed during a synergy meeting, lol. Also, what idontcare pointed out, redirect that ferrari money. I can't imagine it falls into the interests of many of your actual customers. Better to use that money to fund better developer support, let those dirt racing games cover your race fan customers.

AMD AMPED! FTW!
Epic success there, I like it.

 

[zebrax2]

I agree with the others AMD needs to get some "catchy" advertising

 

[frozentundra123456]

So? Whether or not you like it in desktops or not is irrelevant. The point is it's part of the Essential market, and there Ontario and Zacate does better than Atom. Both are available for desktops, and you asked for desktop CPUs.


As far as the other ones, who cares if the Pentium has two cores and the Athlon three? We're comparing based on CPU performance and price, which is what you asked for. The Athlon II X3 445 is overall faster than the Pentium G620. As for the Phenom II X4 vs the Core i3, again, same thing. Core i3 is two cores with HyperThreading and Phenom II X4 is four cores, something you weren't keen on mentioning. It doesn't matter if it has more cores. If it's superior in CPU performance, it's superior (granted, in case of the Core i3 vs the Phenom II X4 they're pretty evenly matched). Perhaps you should've used another argument.

Also, FYI, the lowest tier Intel CPUs are the Celeron line and not Pentium, which will be released with the Sandy Bridge architecture soon in single and dual-core variants.

I guess I missed those "essential" desktops with Ontario and Zacate processors. I dont think I have ever seen one except in a "nettop" tiny form factor. If you want to call that a desktop, then I guess you are right. However, I was trying to be fair and give AMD credit in the laptop and smaller portable market. I dont know why you felt it necessary to attack me for that comment.

And the the fact that a quad core AMD chip of their best architecture can barely match a dual core I2300 was the point of what I was saying. AMD's architecture is so far behind Intels that it takes four cores to match 2 cores from intel.

And do you seriously think it is fair to compare a Celeron to a triple core AMD processor?? Why dont you compare a Celeron to a Sempron??

 

[jvroig]

If tech enthusiasts like us can think of a far cooler slogan, it just shows how poor marketing is at AMD. It can definitely be a lot better.

Instead of looking for solutions or what clicks or what's trending or what is cool, they are all probably stuck in their marketing cubicles, complaining about how they are a victim of their circumstances because Intel is a monopoly. Boo-hoo, we should send them some tissue.

Again, no money left over for marketing. Marketing is not free, auto makers for example spend a heck of a lot on it, especially the likes of Ford, GM, and Toyota.

Your concern has been answered, not just once. What more do you want?

They don't have to, and I'm not saying their goal should be to out-spend Intel.

All I said was their marketing needs to improve, and that doesn't necessarily mean "spend more than Intel". It just literally means improve their marketing, and that takes into account not just ads/promos, but the whole she-bang:
-the 4 P's (or the Marketing Mix): Product, Price, Place, Promotion
-Extended Marketing Mix: People, Process, Physical evidence

Given a finite set of funds, there are several ways to accomplish your goal (in this case, "marketing") and design a marketing strategy, depending on what factors (the different P's) you put emphasis on over others.

Let me make that even more straightforward: Given a finite set of funds, there are several ways to accomplish your goal, meaning several ways to use your marketing budget, no matter how big or small it is. If their marketing is not working now, then they should use their budget in a different way, and given that marketing is composed of several factors (see Marketing Mix and Extended Marketing Mix for an intro), they certainly will not run out of options for their limited budget.

Their slogan is a failure. It does not resonate with their consumers.
This video and this comic is a failure. I already know and like AMD (4GHz Thuban here, still DDR2), so they don't have to sell me hard, but I still don't like it, and can't imagine any of my non-AMD-knowledgeable friends will get excited by it. I don't know why they went for comics as a medium, but if they really wanted such a medium, they should have bribed DC or Marvel to have Batman or Iron Man endorse it for them, rather than Ruby and her 8 ninja friends we couldn't even care about, and the timing couldn't be better given how both Batman and Iron Man have popular movie franchises now that endear them to even non-comicbook fans.

Or, of course, not go for comics as a medium. This makes more sense to me, but I wouldn't exactly be heartbroken to see Batman or Iron Man endorse Bulldozer.

Just because they are already spending $50M for marketing (not a real figure, just a placeholder) does not mean they cannot do better unless they spend more than $50M. Using the same amount of money, they can just spend on different things and be more effective.

Instead, we have a slogan that seems to have been made by a busybody executive, and ads that do not even seem to attempt to resonate with the consumers. And bored tech enthusiasts, while deriding the marketing attempts, seem to actually have devised a better slogan.

 

[AnandThenMan]

AMD AMPED!

What does that mean? Why will it make me want AMD? And it makes it sound like an audio product.

Ah well, Internet nerds are definitely better at this marketing stuff than the losers working at AMD. You guys should apply for a job at AMD. Toss in a performance guarantee to sweeten the deal, like in 2 years your marketing push will increase volume shipments by 20%.

BTW, is it possible to find out how much AMD spends on marketing?

 

[Vesku]

AMPED = amplified, implies power, implies you'll feel it when you use an AMD product

Would make a good tie in to the AMP Energy Drink to boot.

Are you saying you don't find Fusion and Vision a bit flat compared to other tech marketing?

 

[AnandThenMan]

I find AMD's marketing flat in just about every way. I actually consider them to no even have a marketing department, I doubt they do. They do scraps, bits and pieces of stuff, mostly web based. AMPED! is not bad, have to let it linger for a bit though. I can maybe see it working well for the performance stuff, yes. For mobile, not so much.

AMD needs TV commercials, or at least some kind of sustained Internet campaign. I just don't think they have the coin, I really don't.

 

[Idontcare]

I can maybe see it working well for the performance stuff, yes. For mobile, not so much.

AMD Unplugged!

 

[AnandThenMan]

AMD Unplugged!

Hey now we're getting somewhere. But you realize, somewhere there is a marketing team with "writers block" reading this thread, going, YES! Let's use that!

BTW, there are a lot of tie-in opportunities with that slogan, I mean a boat load.

 

[jvroig]

I find AMD's marketing flat in just about every way

BTW, is it possible to find out how much AMD spends on marketing?

Then stop making excuses for them all the time like you've done in this thread. First you say "they don't have the coin, they spent everything on R&D, yadda yadda yadda" as if it were fact, and then now you say you don't even know their budget for marketing. Then why even say they "didn't have money left"? For all you know, they could have allotted 20% of the budget or more for marketing.

You don't even seem to have a grasp of basic intro to marketing, because all you believed until recently was that "they don't have the coin, and Intel is a monopoly", as if marketing and its effectiveness was SOLELY reliant on $$$, or that it was the ONLY factor AMD was screwing up. It isn't, and it wasn't. Stop making excuses for them.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Well that was rude. Just stating my opinions.

Then stop making excuses for them all the time like you've done in this thread. First you say "they don't have the coin, they spent everything on R&D, yadda yadda yadda" as if it were fact, and then now you say you don't even know their budget for marketing. Then why even say they "didn't have money left"? For all you know, they could have allotted 20% of the budget or more for marketing.

You don't even seem to have a grasp of basic intro to marketing, because all you believed until recently was that "they don't have the coin, and Intel is a monopoly", as if marketing and its effectiveness was SOLELY reliant on $$$, or that it was the ONLY factor AMD was screwing up. It isn't, and it wasn't. Stop making excuses for them.

 

[jvroig]

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be rude. Perhaps I should have put an emoticon or two somewhere in there to communicate the "tone" better across the internet. My apologies.

 

[mikeymikec]

"Be epic"? The marketing guys at AMD deserve a slap.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I guess I missed those "essential" desktops with Ontario and Zacate processors. I dont think I have ever seen one except in a "nettop" tiny form factor. If you want to call that a desktop, then I guess you are right. However, I was trying to be fair and give AMD credit in the laptop and smaller portable market. I dont know why you felt it necessary to attack me for that comment.

And the the fact that a quad core AMD chip of their best architecture can barely match a dual core I2300 was the point of what I was saying. AMD's architecture is so far behind Intels that it takes four cores to match 2 cores from intel.

And do you seriously think it is fair to compare a Celeron to a triple core AMD processor?? Why dont you compare a Celeron to a Sempron??

You show yet again you have no clue of the topic. For one, Essential equals the low-end market when talking about CPUs. Two, you asked for AMD CPUs that could beat Intel's in absolute performance. I then showed you some that had either the same or very similar prices and AMD's were faster overall. Also, you again failed to mention the fact that the Core i3 has four threads, probably since it doesn't boost your bias in favor of Intel. You asked for faster AMD CPUs, I pointed out some. Then you come out with technicalities that don't even have anything to do with what you asked. If it's faster, it's faster. Period.

You're so clueless of the topic that you even pulled out of nowhere that I want to compare a Celeron to an Athlon II X3. And I don't compare a Celeron to a Sempron because you're the one that asked for examples of faster AMD CPUs, not vice versa.

Also, going by your logic, we shouldn't call netbooks laptops since they're "a tiny form factor".

 

[guskline]

Wow, as launch date approaches we sure are feisty! My humble take is that Bulldozer needs to be at least equal to the I5 2500k/I7 2600K chips and at the same price for AMD to gain traction. I have until recently, always been an AMD user (at home at least). I liked the underdog status of AMD plus the fact that they could soup up an Intel rig - remember the 386DX40 AMD chip? As they years went on AMDs management upheavels seemed to take a toll on them. I stayed loyal all the way through the Phenom II CPUs eventhough the Intels were beating them with the I7 first series chips.
I think the breakthrough was when Intel released the k series of CPUs with overclocking ability that I started to take notice. Finally, when the SandyBridge was released I really looked at the CPUs closely. Frankly, I was impresse3d with how Intel handled the P67/H67 chipset issue and got it cleaned up. Then the Bulldozer started to make noise. I waited until June but the delays in AMD production coupled with solid Intel gamer performance make me "go to the dark side" (whatever that means) and build an Intel rig1 below. I knew that to get a performance boost of a significant nature with the mb in rig2, even putting an AMD 1100T wasn't going to be a game changer so starting off with a new mb meant either getting an AMD 990fx chipset but no new CPU or getting an Intel Z68 chipset and a readily available I5-2500k with Ivy bidge upgrades possible. I made my choice.
As I follow these threads, I wonder how the Bulldozer will really stand up to the I5 2500k or the I7 2600k. Only time will tell.

 

[frozentundra123456]

You show yet again you have no clue of the topic. For one, Essential equals the low-end market when talking about CPUs. Two, you asked for AMD CPUs that could beat Intel's in absolute performance. I then showed you some that had either the same or very similar prices and AMD's were faster overall. Also, you again failed to mention the fact that the Core i3 has four threads, probably since it doesn't boost your bias in favor of Intel. You asked for faster AMD CPUs, I pointed out some. Then you come out with technicalities that don't even have anything to do with what you asked. If it's faster, it's faster. Period.

You're so clueless of the topic that you even pulled out of nowhere that I want to compare a Celeron to an Athlon II X3. And I don't compare a Celeron to a Sempron because you're the one that asked for examples of faster AMD CPUs, not vice versa.

Also, going by your logic, we shouldn't call netbooks laptops since they're "a tiny form factor".

I dont think I am clueless, I think you are so biased in favor of AMD that you refuse to acknowledge anything I say, and are completely ignoring my points. I did not bring up the celeron, you did. And I dont see why you keep pointing out that the i3 has four threads. That also proves my point, just like comparing a quad core to the i3. Intel has a superior architecture. The i3 gives equal performance to an AMD quad, and uses less energy. Or are you going to find a way to deny that also??

 

[AnandThenMan]

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be rude. Perhaps I should have put an emoticon or two somewhere in there to communicate the "tone" better across the internet. My apologies.

No worries, sometimes things are "lost in translation" in these types of forums.

I know my posts come across as making excuses, but I'm over emphasizing to make a point. BTW, back in 1999-2000 I believe it was, I recall that AMD actually outspend Intel in marketing. Currently, all I see from AMD is co-op stuff like magazines and flyers. And of course the occasional, slightly awkward YouTube video.

Speaking of Bulldozer, the longer it's vaporware, the more impressive it has to be at launch, that's just the nature of delayed products. So really, anything will probably be a letdown.

 

[podspi]

Speaking of Bulldozer, the longer it's vaporware, the more impressive it has to be at launch, that's just the nature of delayed products. So really, anything will probably be a letdown.

Yea, although personally I have been revising my personal expectations of performance downward for quite some time now.

 

[Phynaz]

So then what should AMD do? Make up their own jingle? It took Intel years and millions of dollars to drive that tune into our subconscious.

Yes, exactly. Consistency in message. When has AMD ever had a consistent message?

 

[soccerballtux]

Yes, exactly. Consistency in message. When has AMD ever had a consistent message?

when have they ever had a TV ad? Ever? I've never seen one. There's gobs of people who still say "well I've never had a problem with Intel" and the general fear of "what if it doesn't work because it's not Intel?"
This is what kills AMD imo...

 

[AnandThenMan]

when have they ever had a TV ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPi7oaalDcA

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I dont think I am clueless, I think you are so biased in favor of AMD that you refuse to acknowledge anything I say, and are completely ignoring my points. I did not bring up the celeron, you did. And I dont see why you keep pointing out that the i3 has four threads. That also proves my point, just like comparing a quad core to the i3. Intel has a superior architecture. The i3 gives equal performance to an AMD quad, and uses less energy. Or are you going to find a way to deny that also??

Of course I'm biased in favor of AMD. That's why I'm typing this from a laptop with an Intel Core 2 Duo T9600 and a GeForce GTX 260M.

Nice try.

AMD is better overall on entry-level segments and competitive on mainstream segments. As of now, they're well behind in the performance segment.

You asked for your examples, I gave you some. Then you come again with how Intel has a superior architecture at those prices. Well, why would you expect otherwise? They have much more money for R&D and aren't using a two-year-old architecture.

You asked for CPUs with higher raw performance. Whether it has one or two more cores doesn't matter. You asked for examples of them being faster and I presented them. Stop making up technicalities and just admit you're wrong.

 

[Phynaz]

when have they ever had a TV ad? Ever?

Who says the message has to be over TV? I hardly ever watch TV.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Of course I'm biased in favor of AMD. That's why I'm typing this from a laptop with an Intel Core 2 Duo T9600 and a GeForce GTX 260M.

Nice try.

AMD is better overall on entry-level segments and competitive on mainstream segments. As of now, they're well behind in the performance segment.

You asked for your examples, I gave you some. Then you come again with how Intel has a superior architecture at those prices. Well, why would you expect otherwise? They have much more money for R&D and aren't using a two-year-old architecture.

You asked for CPUs with higher raw performance. Whether it has one or two more cores doesn't matter. You asked for examples of them being faster and I presented them. Stop making up technicalities and just admit you're wrong.

So you admit that intel has a superior architecture. Whatever the reason, it is immaterial. Better is better. End of Story. And AMDs architecture is more like 5 years old than 2.

And if AMD was willing to admit that they were just competeting in the low end on price, I could understand that. But they try to market everything they do as the next great advance. "The future is Fusion". Maybe it is, but they will have to make a chip with both better CPU performance and better graphics than the one they have out now.

And Bulldozer was supposed to be way faster than Sandy Bridge, but we have yet to see it, much less tell if it is faster. So all I am saying is AMD talks a good game, but I have yet to see them back it up in the CPU area.

So anyway, whatever it is we are arguing about, you are right. Dont let the facts confuse you.