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

[Ajay]

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.

Yes, the lack of a viable 20nm node for APUs and GPUs blew up AMD's roadmap and sucked allot of R&D money into a vacuum. AMD can recoup some of the engineering put into those designs, but most of it is gone. AMD has lost all revenues from that product cycle. I'm really amazed that Zen isn't delayed at this point - perhaps Keller realized what was happening soon enough and convinced C-level execs to divert most of the ARM and Cat core engineers onto Zen. This would also explain the delay of K12 and Carrizo having to push on alone for a couple of years.

This is the second body-blow that AMD has taken recently (with the first being the horrific rollout of Bulldozer). Each of these management failures took out a CEO. Zen cannot be a failure**, if AMD intends to stay in the CPU business. The stakes are that high, IMHO.




**Zen needs to deliver on performance, perf/watt, sell at a high ASP with good margins. Make no mistake folks - this is a very tall order.

 

[Madpacket]

I hope AMD release more competitive CPUS so they can demand a higher values for them but with only 40 percent IPC gains being mentioned I don't see how.

 

[Ajay]

I hope AMD release more competitive CPUS so they can demand a higher values for them but with only 40 percent IPC gains being mentioned I don't see how.

Oh, a 40% gain in IPC (over excavator) at Kaveri like clocks would do it. But that 40% is based on simulation results and we have no idea where the clocks will land.

 

[alcoholbob]

To be honest...only in the past 4 years has AMD been "just the cheaper solution".

At least on the CPU side...they were always taking names (well, "always").

And while all is looking grim for AMD right now...I would love to see them throw down the glove one more time...simply because I love having an actual choice.

If Zen fails...I'll have to go Intel no matter what...since, y'know..I need reasonable performance. But I'd still like for Zen to be a success.


And their GPUs...well...who knows, the 400 series might be the one, even though it has to fight Pascal.

I think it's more like twice as long as 4 years...more like 8 years. I haven't considered AMD for a build since 2007. And from 1999-2006 every PC and laptop I had were powered by AMD Athlon.

 

[el etro]

If AMD chose to shrink Phenom II to 32/28nm and give incremental updates on it after every one year like they did with Bulldozers, they would be much better now.


Anyway, even if Zen will not be the game changer, AMD will be much better with the New processor. The bulldozers bad per-thread performance pretty much hurt badly their CPUs market share.

 

[Ajay]

If Zen isn't a game changer for AMD then AMD's days as a CPU vendor will virtually end. They will be stuck in the low price commodity market with no exit (except shutting down their CPU business and becoming a different kind of company). 'Good enough' apparently isn't, as far as OEMs are concerned.

 

[positivedoppler]

This would pretty much revert things back to the Pentium MMX, PII, Cyrix MX, and AMD K6 days.
Intel was the most expensive. Cyrix was the cheapest but the best integer performance. AMD performance was pretty close to that of Intel and at a slight discount. Aside from the overclocked celeron, Intel's budget lineup never could touch AMD's offering for a very long time...actually it wasn't until the Bulldozer era and Intel introduced the unlocked Pentium.

AMD didn't choose to become the budget alternative, years of neglect to their FX lineup is what caused it. Had AMD shrunk the FX to 28 nm and worked on the IPC, the FX line probably be much more competitive against the i5 offerings in dGPU systems. But would they have been able to recoup their R&D cost?

On the APU side, overall Intel vs AMD performance on the 28 vs 22 node is actually a wash. AMD had a far better igpu and Intel was superior on the cpu side. The problem for AMD is that the market didn't care for AMD's superior igpu performance. Gamers bought a dgpu anyway and business users didn't really need the extra fps of AMD's iGPU.

 

[SPBHM]

I think AMD was only outside of the "cheaper solution" during the k7-k8 days for around 5 years let's say.

k6-2 still had some serious disadvantages, and even k7 at times...

if they want to go back to the k7-k8 glory days, they have a lot of work to do, considering their financial problems, process disadvantage, it sounds impossible, unless Intel makes bad choices again, being to comfortable with their position on the desktop CPU market and focusing to much on something else.

 

[Enigmoid]

At this point in time its a huge marketing thing too. AMD is entrenched in the minds of consumers as the cheap value brand. Even if AMD released very competitive products they have to turn around the mind of the market (see how many people you still see on internet forums who refuse to use AMD graphics because of driver problems 10 years ago) something that is really really hard to do quickly and cheaply.

 

[ElFenix]

AMD is entrenched in the minds of consumers as the cheap value brand.

i'd say you ask most people what AMD is, they'd say 'who?'

so, no, it's not entrenched as anything, at least from the processor side. even video card side, AMD doesn't have as much exposure as nvidia to the unwashed masses.

 

[VirtualLarry]

i'd say you ask most people what AMD is, they'd say 'who?'

At this point, you might be right, what with how few OEM wins they've been getting lately.

I'm curious how much corporate desktop marketshare AMD has too, if it's not zero.

 

[Maestro1337]

AMD, want to stop being known as the cheapest? Stop making FX processors that get wreckt by 6 years old CPUs from INTEL such as i7 920 and above.

 

[DrMrLordX]

AMD has EoLed AM3+ and all the Vishera FX chips. As soon as Zen shows up, they're gone. I'm not sure what things will look like for FX through 2015, but it wouldn't surprise me if they stop selling the 4xxx and 6xxx chips sometime this year.

So, maybe you should make a suggestion that they haven't already executed?

 

[LTC8K6]

AMD has EoLed AM3+ and all the Vishera FX chips. As soon as Zen shows up, they're gone. I'm not sure what things will look like for FX through 2015, but it wouldn't surprise me if they stop selling the 4xxx and 6xxx chips sometime this year.

Zen is not until 2016 though. Probably mid to late 2016.

 

[2is]

AMD isn't the "cheaper solution" to me. My athlon 500MHz was faster than a P3 550, and my athlon xp 1900+ was the fastest box at my college. And they held a lead for many years after.

They still have a niche, and may play second fiddle these days, but anyone who only knows them as the "cheaper option" doesn't know much about PCs.

Except we aren't talking about what happened at the turn of the century or even before that. I'd say anyone who doesn't think they're the "cheaper option" is probably the one that doesn't know much about PC's. The only time AMD had a clear advantage over Intel was during the Athlon 64 and early X2 days.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Zen is not until 2016 though. Probably mid to late 2016.

And? So Su wants AMD to become known as a reseller of premium products in the future. Obviously that is not going to happen today.

They just laid out how they're going to get to that point. Carrizo and R300 GPUs are their answers to that problem in 2015. Zen puts them closer to their goal in 2016. Expanded Zen products, including Zen APUs for desktop and mobile fill out the lineup in 2017.

It remains to be seen if they can execute, but if they do, they can get there from here. If they don't, they will probably crash and burn.

The FX is a non-entity as far as AMD's future reputation is concerned. It's dead silicon walking, enjoy it (or not) while it lasts.

 

[Dave2150]

I think AMD was only outside of the "cheaper solution" during the k7-k8 days for around 5 years let's say.

k6-2 still had some serious disadvantages, and even k7 at times...

if they want to go back to the k7-k8 glory days, they have a lot of work to do, considering their financial problems, process disadvantage, it sounds impossible, unless Intel makes bad choices again, being to comfortable with their position on the desktop CPU market and focusing to much on something else.

One could argue that Intel are making it far easier for AMD to make a comeback.

Intel is insisting on limiting mainstream CPU's on the desktop to quad core CPU's. If Zen has decent IPC (Ivy Bridge level lets say) then they will simply pull ahead of Intel, since they have 8 core CPU's.

Intel will need to release a hex core to their mainstream desktop line - something they are NOT prepared to do.

 

[mrmt]

Intel is insisting on limiting mainstream CPU's on the desktop to quad core CPU's. If Zen has decent IPC (Ivy Bridge level lets say) then they will simply pull ahead of Intel, since they have 8 core CPU's.

Destkops aren't servers, you need a tighter balance between ST and MT performance. If AMD go gung-ho on core numbers then this will be reflected in lower clocks, with correspondingly lower ST performance.

 

[rtsurfer]

One could argue that Intel are making it far easier for AMD to make a comeback.

Intel is insisting on limiting mainstream CPU's on the desktop to quad core CPU's. If Zen has decent IPC (Ivy Bridge level lets say) then they will simply pull ahead of Intel, since they have 8 core CPU's.

Intel will need to release a hex core to their mainstream desktop line - something they are NOT prepared to do.

Intel could release a 6 Core mainstream chip next week if they want to. They don't do it because they don't have any incentive to do so.

If & when AMD brings in a threat to them, they'll do it.

 

[Ramses]

I wonder how much the slower turnover for CPU's as we've discussed before has hurt AMD? No more new cpu every year or less, etc..

 

[erunion]

Intel could release a 6 Core mainstream chip next week if they want to. They don't do it because they don't have any incentive to do so.

If & when AMD brings in a threat to them, they'll do it.

Intel doesn't make more than 4 cores for mainstream because it wouldn't be a better fit for mainstream workloads than the 4 core products they already make.
Intel offers HEDT for those that actually do need more cores.

Of course, Intel 10nm will be released not much later than Zen, so things could be different in 2016/17.

 

[rtsurfer]

Intel doesn't make more than 4 cores for mainstream because it wouldn't be a better fit for mainstream workloads than the 4 core products they already make.
Intel offers HEDT for those that actually do need more cores.

Of course, Intel 10nm will be released not much later than Zen, so things could be different in 2016/17.

I partially agree.
6C/12T can be a "waste" for casual mainstream workloads, but they can offer those cores on the mainstream platform for those who need it, instead of forcing people on the more expensive HEDT platforms.

Their profit margins also have something to do with it IMO.

 

[Dave2150]

Intel could release a 6 Core mainstream chip next week if they want to. They don't do it because they don't have any incentive to do so.

If & when AMD brings in a threat to them, they'll do it.

I think Intel will still be stubborn, and keep their 6 and 8 cores reserved for the HEDT (enthusiast) platform, even if Zen 8 core mainstream CPU's completely outperform the mainstream quadcore I7's.

It would still take many months, if not years, for the OEM's to switch over to Zen - just as it did years ago when the Athlon was superior to the Pentium 3 and 4 etc.

Us enthusiasts will of course buy the 8 core Zen (if the IPC is enough), but we count as a tiny minority in the overall desktop scene.

 

[rtsurfer]

I think Intel will still be stubborn, and keep their 6 and 8 cores reserved for the HEDT (enthusiast) platform, even if Zen 8 core mainstream CPU's completely outperform the mainstream quadcore I7's.

It would still take many months, if not years, for the OEM's to switch over to Zen - just as it did years ago when the Athlon was superior to the Pentium 3 and 4 etc.

Us enthusiasts will of course buy the 8 core Zen (if the IPC is enough), but we count as a tiny minority in the overall desktop scene.

I agree with everything you say.

The sad truth is, if Intel were to remain stubborn, it should lead to their demise, but wouldn't happen because as you said us enthusiasts are a tiny fraction of the market.

As for OEMs, yes they are slow & can be made slower using the "Contra revenue" card.


Also let's not forget another classic Intel strategy

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...ners-over-amd-athlon-benchmarking-shenanigans

 

[Arachnotronic]

I think Intel will still be stubborn, and keep their 6 and 8 cores reserved for the HEDT (enthusiast) platform, even if Zen 8 core mainstream CPU's completely outperform the mainstream quadcore I7's.

It would still take many months, if not years, for the OEM's to switch over to Zen - just as it did years ago when the Athlon was superior to the Pentium 3 and 4 etc.

Us enthusiasts will of course buy the 8 core Zen (if the IPC is enough), but we count as a tiny minority in the overall desktop scene.

Why would Intel give away sales like that?