AMD Wants To Stop Being Known As The “Cheaper Solution”

[Justinbaileyman]

Is this thread even for real?? AMD needs to wake up and stop selling crap CPU's in the now that should have been sold to compete with Intel CPU's in the past like s775 and LGA1366.Stop whining till you prove your self.Thats kinda like me saying I want to me known as a millionaire but I've only got five bucks in my wallet. Idiots!! God....

 

[Gikaseixas]

Then just release something that competes or beats with Intel i7 lineup. There's no other way to become a premium brand again.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I'm trying to think through how the execution of this strategy will work.

Let's take an optimistic, but still reasonable, guess at how Zen will perform. Suppose that their top FX SKU is an 8-core (16-thread) model, with IPC on par with Sandy Bridge, and a base clock of 3.5 GHz. Assume a TDP of 125W. Such a chip would be pitched against hex-core Broadwell-E (assuming Skylake-E isn't out by that time). In terms of performance, it would beat six Broadwell cores in multi-threaded loads. In single-threaded and lightly-threaded loads, it would fall behind, but still provide respectable modern-level performance.

How much could AMD sell this for? Well, the Intel hex-cores are around $500-$600. So AMD would probably have to go to $399. That's still much better profit margins than what they're making now with ancient Piledriver junk, but it's not going to match Intel's >60% gross.

I don't know enough about the server market to comment on it. But Zen as described surely looks like it could make some inroads there. I wonder if a competitor to Xeon D is feasible.

I dont think it got anything to do with that.

But rather selling 20-50$ ARM CPUs vs 40-150$ x86 CPUs.

 

[mrmt]

Su was quoted as saying during the AMD Financial Analyst Day as saying, “It’s extraordinarily important to ensure that we have competitive, high-performance cores. We have reduced our low-end PC exposure. When you look at AMD’s historical business, we were very, very heavily concentrated in consumer, low end PCs, that was actually our speciality.”

While AMD had a lot of business on the bottom market, I don't think the issue here is lack of trying to go beyond it. K7, K8, K10 and Bulldozer all were definitely aimed at the high end market and AMD got good results with the first two, that the last two ended up on the bottom market was more of a symptom of being outclassed by Intel offers than from designing these products to the bottom market.

Lisa is disguising the fact that "AMD's historical business" is concentrated on the bottom market because of the company's failure, it wasn't a conscious choice as she is trying to portray.

 

[richaron]

While AMD had a lot of business on the bottom market, I don't think the issue here is lack of trying to go beyond it. K7, K8, K10 and Bulldozer all were definitely aimed at the high end market and AMD got good results with the first two, that the last two ended up on the bottom market was more of a symptom of being outclassed by Intel offers than from designing these products to the bottom market.

Lisa is disguising the fact that "AMD's historical business" is concentrated on the bottom market because of the company's failure, it wasn't a conscious choice as she is trying to portray.

Historically AMD was kicking ass...

 

[mrmt]

Historically AMD was kicking ass...

Nope, only in the period between K7 launch until Conroe they kicked ass. The rest of the time they were basically restricted to the bottom market.

 

[richaron]

Nope, only in the period between K7 launch until Conroe they kicked ass. The rest of the time they were basically restricted to the bottom market.

Nope, even out of their prime they we never the "bottom of the market".

You really wanna start cost/perf over all markets?

 

[mrmt]

Nope, even out of their prime they we never the "bottom of the market".

You really wanna start cost/perf over all markets?

No? What were they located before K7 and what happened to them after Bulldozer was launched?

 

[richaron]

No? What were they located before K7 and what happened to them after Bulldozer was launched?

I also had a K6-2 450Mhz it kinda sucked. You expect brownie points? And after Bulldozer launched Linux was always competitive, and even now I can still alt-tab from x1080 Counter Strike on a passively cooled APU to reply to you.

I'm not saying AMD is perfect but I've seen ignorant posts again and again, so much it's almost not worth replying. But every now and then I think the general readers should read posts from actual enthusiats.

 

[mrmt]

I also had a K6-2 450Mhz it kinda sucked. You expect brownie points? And after Bulldozer launched Linux was always competitive, and even now I can still alt-tab from x1080 Counter Strike on a passively cooled APU to reply to you.

I've seen ignorant posts ripped apart again and again, so much it's almost not worth replying. But every now and then I think the general readers should read posts from actual enthusiats.

It doesn't matter whether AMD was competitive or not in terms of performance, but how much they made on each CPU sold. This is the context of Lisa statement.

 

[richaron]

It doesn't matter whether AMD was competitive or not in terms of performance, but how much they made on each CPU sold. This is the context of Lisa statement.

Of course it matters if AMD was competitive in terms of performance.

 

[mizzou]

I've been happy with the "cheaper solution" for the last decade. They were able to fit a nice price/performance segment.

AMD needs to continue being AMD, not be Intel

 

[Sonikku]

The problem here is that they're trying to make a competitive product and undercut their competition with fewer resources and assets. That's pretty darn well impossible, especially when the best minds in the industry smell death on your company and try to get jobs with the company leader. I sure wish it were possible for them to give Intel a serious run for their money again though. I want my multipliers unlocked.

 

[mrmt]

Of course it matters if AMD was competitive in terms of performance.

Matters to who? For the consumer buying AMD processors, yes, it does. But for AMD investors and executives, it doesn't, really. All what matters is how much money the company made, and from this perspective they are a bottom market company.

 

[Gikaseixas]

But for AMD investors and executives

The perspective here is from users, not investors. Why are financials figures so important to some people?

 

[mrmt]

The perspective here is from users, not investors. Why are financials figures are so important to some people?

First because someone quoted Lusa Su talking to an audience of financial analysts, but even if the perspective is the user then AMD is really bottom market as most of the market shuns their offers and simply don't buy them. Only when the perspective is a niche user (overclocker, linux benchmark geek, etc) AMD is not bottom market.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I wish them luck. But the reason that AMD CPUs are cheaper, is that they end up slower... mostly in benchmarks.

Maybe they need to take the bull by its horns, and invent / re-invent some benchmarks, that would show AMD in a more favorable light compared to their competitors.

 

[myocardia]

I wish them luck. But the reason that AMD CPUs are cheaper, is that they end up slower... mostly in benchmarks.

Maybe they need to take the bull by its horns, and invent / re-invent some benchmarks, that would show AMD in a more favorable light compared to their competitors.

They've been trying that for the past 3 or 4 years, and it seems that the average user isn't very interested in being able to unzip something slightly faster, using software that they have to buy, for the 3 or 4 zip files they download per year. Crazy, huh?

 

[frozentundra123456]

The perspective here is from users, not investors. Why are financials figures are so important to some people?

Because Lisa Su's job is to ensure the company makes money, which was the point of her statement, and the original post. It doesnt make sense to quote from a financial analyst day presentation about market segmentation and then say financials dont matter.

But I agree with a previous poster. Su is being a bit disingenuous here. AMD's position as a value leader in the low cost segment stems from their mediocre performance and mis-reading what the market wants, rather than a conscious decision to appeal to that segment.

 

[VirtualLarry]

But I agree with a previous poster. Su is being a bit disingenuous here. AMD's position as a value leader in the low cost segment stems from their mediocre performance and mis-reading what the market wants, rather than a conscious decision to appeal to that segment.

For their big cores, that much is true. But what about their small core strategy? That had to be designed for "good enough" computing, seeing as how poor the ST performance was for those cores, and continues to be. But they were cheap. (That was a concious decision from AMD, was it not, to target that particular market?)

Perhaps this is a sign that they are ONLY going to go after "big core" (big IPC) designs, from now on out, and drop the small core stuff? Then again, for a little while, the small cores were what were making AMD enough money to stay afloat, even though they cemented AMD in the minds of buyers as the "cheap" solution. (E1/E2/A4 laptops / AIOs, I'm looking at you.)

 

[Arachnotronic]

For their big cores, that much is true. But what about their small core strategy? That had to be designed for "good enough" computing, seeing as how poor the ST performance was for those cores, and continues to be. But they were cheap. (That was a concious decision from AMD, was it not, to target that particular market?)

Perhaps this is a sign that they are ONLY going to go after "big core" (big IPC) designs, from now on out, and drop the small core stuff? Then again, for a little while, the small cores were what were making AMD enough money to stay afloat, even though they cemented AMD in the minds of buyers as the "cheap" solution. (E1/E2/A4 laptops / AIOs, I'm looking at you.)

They confirmed at the FAD that the Cat cores were dead.

 

[mrmt]

Maybe they need to take the bull by its horns, and invent / re-invent some benchmarks, that would show AMD in a more favorable light compared to their competitors.

That would make Intel processors also look better.

Perhaps this is a sign that they are ONLY going to go after "big core" (big IPC) designs, from now on out, and drop the small core stuff? Then again, for a little while, the small cores were what were making AMD enough money to stay afloat, even though they cemented AMD in the minds of buyers as the "cheap" solution. (E1/E2/A4 laptops / AIOs, I'm looking at you.)

Nothing wrong in having a budget product line, but when your budget product line becomes your most successful and visible line, then it's trouble.

 

[VirtualLarry]

They confirmed at the FAD that the Cat cores were dead.

Well, that will be interesting to see how that pans out in the OEM space now. Since I think AMD's presence in the OEM market was primarily cat cores (other than the boutique gaming rig vendors).

It may not matter for a few quarters yet, as I thought I had heard that AMD had quite the inventory backlog too.

 

[erunion]

I see the statement as a reflection on the current roadmap. Nothing new in the budget segment means they are focusing on the top end.

In 2017, I'm sure we'll hear how AMD is bringing an unsurpassed experience to the budget consumer.

 

[erunion]

Well, that will be interesting to see how that pans out in the OEM space now. Since I think AMD's presence in the OEM market was primarily cat cores (other than the boutique gaming rig vendors).

It may not matter for a few quarters yet, as I thought I had heard that AMD had quite the inventory backlog too.

Well, i think what he meant was that no new products are in the pipeline. They will still be selling current cores well into 2017.