• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Q1 2015 Earnings - 23 cents a share loss, to exit dense server (SeaMicro)

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mrmt said:
Intel iGPU is already good enough for most scenarios outside gaming, what they are doing is to extend the performance envelope in order to capture more revenue share from this market and extend the performance envelope of Ultrathin devices. Basically this extra GPU performance doesn't add much value beyond certain market brackets.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if the only ambition is to satisfy the "office type workloads", then the iGPU from 5 years ago would suffice.

So then why does Intel spend an ever increasing percentage of the die area on beefing up the iGPU? You mentioned that "this extra GPU performance does not add much extra value beyond certain market brackets". So then why allocate that much die area to the iGPU on general CPUs, increasing the cost for all consumers, of which you said most will not benefit from it anyway?
 
Fjodor2001 said:
Yes, but if the only ambition is to satisfy the "office type workloads", then the iGPU from 5 years ago would suffice.

So then why does Intel spend an ever increasing percentage of the die area on beefing up the iGPU? You mentioned that "this extra GPU performance does not add much extra value beyond certain market brackets". So then why allocate that much die area to the iGPU on general CPUs, increasing the cost for all consumers, of which you said most will not benefit from it anyway?
Click to expand...

GPU workloads have increased. Websites demanding GPU acceleration, higher resolution displays, heavier codecs and it's always good to be ready in case of OpenCL takes off.

Ed: You are also disregarding the means to reach this 50% proportion. Intel went up slowly going from 15% to 50% in four generations, while AMD went straight to 50% in generation 1 and stayed there since then. AMD could indeed have reached a correct conclusion when projecting the future, but they certainly didn't pick the right path and timing to reach the aforementioned conclusion.
 
Last edited:
How is intel igp good enough from years on, but amd cpu performance is not good enough?

Some people here should jump ship to amd cpus. Those are plenty fast for typing such BS on anandtech forums...
 
Erenhardt said:
How is intel igp good enough from years on, but amd cpu performance is not good enough?

Some people here should jump ship to amd cpus. Those are plenty fast for typing such BS on anandtech forums...
Click to expand...

You can plug in a better dGPU if you aren't happy with your iGPU.

You can't plug in a better CPU if you're unhappy with your, erm...iCPU.
 
Well, as I always say when it get to this, the market has spoken, which is more relevant to what the consumer wants, good cpu or igpu. Of course I am sure that is just because consumers are stupid and dont know what is best for them. Of course, maybe AMD should market what the consumers want, instead of trying to force then into "moar coars" and an igpu that is in limbo between more than you need and not good enough.
 
mrmt said:
GPU workloads have increased.
Click to expand...

Yes, but nowhere near to match the iGPU performance increase. iGPU performance has increased much more than the GPU workload for average user. How come, if iGPU performance was already "good enough" 5 years ago?
 
frozentundra123456 said:
Well, as I always say when it get to this, the market has spoken, which is more relevant to what the consumer wants, good cpu or igpu. Of course I am sure that is just because consumers are stupid and dont know what is best for them. Of course, maybe AMD should market what the consumers want, instead of trying to force then into "moar coars" and an igpu that is in limbo between more than you need and not good enough.
Click to expand...

Didn't you say you used to work for AMD? You're sounding like their worst anti-advocate... 😉
 
frozentundra123456 said:
Well, as I always say when it get to this, the market has spoken, which is more relevant to what the consumer wants, good cpu or igpu. Of course I am sure that is just because consumers are stupid and dont know what is best for them. Of course, maybe AMD should market what the consumers want, instead of trying to force then into "moar coars" and an igpu that is in limbo between more than you need and not good enough.
Click to expand...

Yep. Its funny how people defend a strategy the market didnt want. And attack the one that gave the market exactly what it wanted.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
Well, as I always say when it get to this, the market has spoken, which is more relevant to what the consumer wants, good cpu or igpu. Of course I am sure that is just because consumers are stupid and dont know what is best for them. Of course, maybe AMD should market what the consumers want, instead of trying to force then into "moar coars" and an igpu that is in limbo between more than you need and not good enough.
Click to expand...

So let me get this, consumers buy Intel Celerons/Pentiums because of the CPU performance ???
There are AMD APUs that have the same or better CPU performance than those Intel CPUs but they also offer way higher iGPU performance as well.
Explain why consumers choose the Intel CPU performance of a Celeron/Pentium with low iGPU performance and not the AMD APU.
 
AtenRa said:
So let me get this, consumers buy Intel Celerons/Pentiums because of the CPU performance ???
There are AMD APUs that have the same or better CPU performance than those Intel CPUs but they also offer way higher iGPU performance as well.
Explain why consumers choose the Intel CPU performance of a Celeron/Pentium with low iGPU performance and not the AMD APU.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the questionable accuracy of your statement, what is there to explain? Do you deny that it happens?

Arguing with the market is a good way to go broke.
 
Arachnotronic said:
You can plug in a better dGPU if you aren't happy with your iGPU.

You can't plug in a better CPU if you're unhappy with your, erm...iCPU.
Click to expand...

Yeah, clearly.... If you own a Desktop A4 or A6.... You are totally stuck. Dead End. No Upgrade Path.

It's not like you can upgrade to an A8, A10 or Athlon X4. Obviously, there is no upgrade path for people who buy AMD CPU's.

/sarcasm off
 
dahorns said:
Arguing with the market is a good way to go broke.
Click to expand...

Hardware providers like Intel and AMD "argue with the market" all the time. That's marketing 101. Modern consumers - particularly consumers of "luxury" items which, technically, covers many consumer-level computing devices - buy what they are convinced to buy. Despite what AtenRa says, many consumers would be lucky to wind up with Pentiums or Celerons in their systems instead of Kabini or Bay Trail-D.

It's not just a matter of what OEM's convince consumers to buy, but what suppliers like Intel convince OEMs to present to their customers. If the products don't reach shelves (or do reach shelves in poor packaging), then they don't sell.

Intel has historically done an outstanding job of pushing AMD's products out of critical, desirable OEM space. The K8 vs Netburst scenario is the classic example, but today, Intel still has marketing tools available beyond bribery/subsidies.

In the end, consumers get what they're convinced to buy from what is placed before them (barring the DIY sector, which is a small sector of the market). AtenRa does have a point, and any cursory examination of available desktop or laptop products available in places where many of us informed PC geeks would NOT shop tells you a great deal about why Intel has been able to outsell AMD with arguably inferior products.

AMD frequently finds its chips in poorly-configured or poorly-built units, or in the case of Beema/Mullins, they hardly find their chips at all. AMD's ability to market their products and control their market profile is practically non-existant. Hopefully they'll fix that for Carrizo!
 
Arachnotronic said:
Sure, just tell me where I can get i7-4790K class performance out of the box from an AMD chip.
Click to expand...

Sure, just tell me where I can get an AMD CPU that is priced at $350 MSRP.

Personally, I own an Devil's Canyon -- but AMD doesn't even manufacture a product in that
market segment any more.

(Even the liquid cooled FX 9590's are sold in a lower price tier -- Sub $300).
 
Last edited:
MiddleOfTheRoad said:
Yeah, clearly.... If you own a Desktop A4 or A6.... You are totally stuck. Dead End. No Upgrade Path.

It's not like you can upgrade to an A8, A10 or Athlon X4. Obviously, there is no upgrade path for people who buy AMD CPU's.

/sarcasm off
Click to expand...

It's not like those chips offer inferior CPU performance to LGA1150 options and AMD's own FX.

/sarcasm off
 
AtenRa said:
You mean the Intel chips offer inferior CPU performance at the same price.
Click to expand...

No. I mean AMD's crappy single-thread CPU performance, higher power consumption and their innability to beat Intel's >$300 CPUs like they used to, which resulted in a 315mm2 die 220W power-hog with bundled liquid cooling for less money. If people cared about iGPU performance above all then AMD's situation would be better and your carefully chosen multi-threaded tests/comparisons and usual iGPU propaganda wouldn't be needed.
 
Last edited:
AtenRa said:
With another FX, there are people with FX41xx/61xx/81xx who can upgrade to new FX83xxE series or FX9xxx.
Click to expand...
So they will buy two CPU's to still end up with less performance than they could have got from Intel in the first place. 😵

Not many people are going to do this, hence why AMD's sales have fallen off a cliff.
 
Sweepr said:
It's not like those chips offer inferior CPU performance to LGA1150 options and AMD's own FX.

/sarcasm off
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're doing. FX chips are better on multi-threaded games, but Kaveri chips are generally better performers on single threaded ones.

I have seen a couple users that have sidegraded/upgraded from an FX-6100/4300 to an Athlon X4 860K for its cooler operation and the ability to run faster DDR3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top