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

[AtenRa]

The A8-7650 Review just hit AT for those who haven't seen it:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9217/the-amd-a8-7650k-apu-review-also-new-testing-methodology

I find it interesting that it is priced a hair below the i3 4130 ($15), but it performs SLOWER or very close in all of the tests they ran until they compared integrated graphics.

I guess the changes haven't started yet, or they think if they price it higher, people will just think it's better.

Here's what I would tell AMD : Remember when your chips were faster and cheaper than comparable Intel chips? Doing the opposite on both counts is not the way to make things better.

It is also unlocked, at 4.3GHz it is faster than even the Core i3 4330 in MT loads and you also get a nice iGPU. Not to mention you can CF with a cheap R7 240 dGPU and play every game at 1080p Low (30fps and above) for $5 more than the a high Core i3 Haswell.

A8-7650K + R7 240 2GB DDR-3 = $155

Core i3 4360 = $150
Core i5 4430 = $185

This is the best deal you can get for a low budget Gaming system. You cannot have the same CPU and GPU performance at this price from Intel.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It is also unlocked, at 4.3GHz it is faster than even the Core i3 4330 in MT loads and you also get a nice iGPU. Not to mention you can CF with a cheap R7 240 dGPU and play every game at 1080p Low (30fps and above) for $5 more than the a high Core i3 Haswell.

A8-7650K + R7 240 2GB DDR-3 = $155

Core i3 4360 = $150
Core i5 4430 = $185

This is the best deal you can get for a low budget Gaming system. You cannot have the same CPU and GPU performance at this price from Intel.

Why do you always exclude the cheaper i3s on purpose? And why do you always have to overclock AMD to even be able to try and sell it?

A crappy R7 240 is 60-70$. Why even bother with this junk. Not even mentioning all the crossfire issues.

Yet again you just show how crappy AMDs APUs are. A 860K+R7 250 or 260 instead.

 

[Ajay]

She has to say that. If she doesn't show confidence in the line up, who will? But OTOH they are planning a stable revenue even counting with the low bar set in their Q215 forecast, and they are expecting further OPEX cuts, so she isn't completely out of touch with the reality, and her actions aren't backing up this "strong line up statement". OTOH even this low financial forecast got a lot of flack in the Q&A.

Well, yes, that's the role of the CEO; I was thinking it must suck a bit. I'm just listening to the Q&A. Wish I had transcripts instead of the video.

They are already a different company. They went from competing on all CPU segments, netbooks to 4P servers to being a niche companies competing in a few brackets of the bottom market, and their current plans don't envision competition across all segments. The question is whether they will need to shrink even further or if they will somehow stabilize their business.

I think K12 postponement is a hint that AMD will cancel it if demands doesn't materialize, just like they did with Skybridge.

Well, what I mean by that is that the big core CPU development budget will be effectively dead if Zen doesn't produce the revenue and margins necessary for continuous, focused development. Papermaster seems confident in the architecture, while at the same time indicating that the 14FF node is a big variable for AMD. I think it fairly obvious that dropping CMT in favor of SMT, etc., and having the leadership of someone like Jim Keller a substantial IPC improvement is very likely. GF delivering on performance expectation is less likely. And interesting point of note is that AMD is going after initial 14FF production, but is waiting - waiting till GF has time to mature their 14FF process. Some of this is just time (Zen won't be ready for early 14FF production) - but it also positions AMD a bit better vis-a-vis GF's yields and top bins.

 

[AtenRa]

Why do you always exclude the cheaper i3s on purpose? And why do you always have to overclock AMD to even be able to try and sell it?

Cheapest Core i3 4160 = $120
Cheapest R7 240 2GB DDR-3 = $50
total = $170

A8-7650K = $105
Cheapest R7 240 2GB DDR-3 = $50
total = $155

You get higher MT performance when OCed and higher GPU performance with the bonus to play almost every game at 1080p Low/Med (30fps or above)

A crappy R7 240 is 60-70$. Why even bother with this junk. Not even mentioning all the crossfire issues.

New drivers are way better and solved lots of issues since last year.

Yet again you just show how crappy AMDs APUs are. A 860K+R7 250 or 260 instead.

R7 250 GDDR-3 is not faster than the APU + R7 240. And if you go for the GDDR-5 version it only has 1GB memory.
Next choice is the R7 250X but the 2GB GDDR-5 version costs $100. So it will be faster but it also cost more than the APU + 240.

 

[TheSlamma]

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.

And when I had my AMD 486-DX 40Mhz OC'd to 50 they were the cheaper option. The guys with the Intel DX2-66's were blowing the doors off my AMD, especially in CAD rendering.

 

[ShintaiDK]

250x 2GB GDDR5 640SP 1000Mhz 80$. 860k 78$.

=158$.

Only a fool would buy the APU.

 

[AtenRa]

250x 70$. 860k 78$.

=148$.

This one is only with 1GB of GDDR-5.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yes 10$ more for the 2GB version.

Not only do you get significant faster performance than your DDR3 CF setup. You also avoid Hybrid CF all together thats even worse with GCN 1.0 cards.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

250x 2GB GDDR5 640SP 1000Mhz 80$. 860k 78$.

=158$.

Only a fool would buy the APU.

You whine about a 95w APU, then suggest a combination that takes up a whole heck of a lot more for not much better performance.

This is getting really, really old.

 

[AtenRa]

Yes 10$ more for the 2GB version.

Not only do you get significant faster performance than your DDR3 CF setup. You also avoid Hybrid CF all together thats even worse with GCN 1.0 cards.

2GB 250X is $100

+ $78 for the Athlon and you are $23 more expensive than the APU + 240.

So as i have said above, you pay more you get higher performance.

Edit: ahh yes there is a 2GB version on AR at $80

So an Athlon 860K at $78 + 250X 2GB GDDR5 at $80 AR = $158

This also shows how overpriced those Core i3s are.

 

[Ajay]

Ugh, we always comeback to specific case analysis and argue back and forth over this stuff endlessly. What a frustrating forum experience

 

[ShintaiDK]

2GB 250X is $100

+ $78 for the Athlon and you are $23 more expensive than the APU + 240.

So as i have said above, you pay more you get higher performance.

No its 80$ with rebate. Just like you depend on yourself.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131662&cm_re=r7_250X-_-14-131-662-_-Product

And your 240 is DDR3.

Only a fool would go the APU route.

 

[mrmt]

Well, yes, that's the role of the CEO; I was thinking it must suck a bit. I'm just listening to the Q&A. Wish I had transcripts instead of the video.

Yes, SOP in the corporate world, you don't overpay, you generate goodwill on the balance sheet, you don't have weaknesses, you have improvement opportunities... but sometimes you must lie with a straight face like Lisa did on that event, she had to tell everyone that she thinks AMD has a strong line up when this fact is thoroughly contradicted by their financial projections.

 

[AtenRa]

No its 80$ with rebate. Just like you depend on yourself.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131662&cm_re=r7_250X-_-14-131-662-_-Product

And your 240 is DDR3.

Only a fool would go the APU route.

yes i edited my post about the 2GB 250X Version,

As for the APU, the thing is you can buy the APU alone without any dGPU in the beginning and later on you can add a dGPU if you need more performance. Again you will get higher perf at lower price than the Core i3 + dGPU.

 

[Shivansps]

Cheapest Core i3 4160 = $120
Cheapest R7 240 2GB DDR-3 = $50
total = $170

A8-7650K = $105
Cheapest R7 240 2GB DDR-3 = $50
total = $155

You get higher MT performance when OCed and higher GPU performance with the bonus to play almost every game at 1080p Low/Med (30fps or above)



New drivers are way better and solved lots of issues since last year.



R7 250 GDDR-3 is not faster than the APU + R7 240. And if you go for the GDDR-5 version it only has 1GB memory.
Next choice is the R7 250X but the 2GB GDDR-5 version costs $100. So it will be faster but it also cost more than the APU + 240.

Sorry, but a GDDR5 250x will kick the ass of any R7 240 In dual graphics... not to mention that in order to have 2GB of VRAM avalible you must match VRAM of both cards, so if the R7 240 has 2GB, in order to have 2GB avalible in game you must assign 2GB to the IGP as well, meaning, at minimum you need 8GB of FAST system ram and you gona lost 2GB.

Im sure you can build a 860K+4GB or 4+2 DDR3-1333+250X 2GB for less that gona cost you a A8-7600K+R7 240 2GB+2x4GB of at least 1866mhz, you can put DDR3-1333 but does not make much sence.

I3 are not overpriced, at least not on the current context, go and see how good they do in GTAv and Cars with big dgpus.

 

[exar333]

I think the market is pretty clear that 'APUs' are just not in demand. Any modern CPU now has 'good enough' graphics for web-games or lite-graphics titles. Anything more similar to a console title will require significant IQ/resolution downgrades or a discrete GPU. Period.

The only difference between an APU vs. Intel is (1) price (2) efficiency (IPC). AMD has #1 and Intel has #2 and #3. I prefer to have the jack-of-all-trades with an Intel CPU and add a discrete as needed, rather than be forever limited by the CPU.

There are a LOT of other use cases though. But I do think the market prefers Intel's approach. Credit AMD with pushing Intel to finally start investing die-space in a decent GPU though...

 

[AtenRa]

Sorry, but a GDDR5 250x will kick the ass of any R7 240 In dual graphics... not to mention that in order to have 2GB of VRAM avalible you must match VRAM of both cards, so if the R7 240 has 2GB, in order to have 2GB avalible in game you must assign 2GB to the IGP as well, meaning, at minimum you need 8GB of FAST system ram and you gona lost 2GB.

Im sure you can build a 860K+4GB or 4+2 DDR3-1333+250X 2GB for less that gona cost you a A8-7600K+R7 240 2GB+2x4GB of at least 1866mhz, you can put DDR3-1333 but does not make much sence.

I3 are not overpriced, at least not on the current context, go and see how good they do in GTAv and Cars with big dgpus.

I never said that 250X is not faster, i said it was more expensive at $100.

And yes the Core i3 is very overpriced for low budget gaming systems, have a look at the Athlon 860K + 250X price. Also A8-7650K alone at $105 is faster in MT when OCed and way faster in iGPU at lower price than the cheapest Core i3.

Also, at 4.3GHz the A8-7650K can keep up with the Core i3 even paired with a 290X or 980. And you dont need extra cooler to get the Kaveri at 4.3GHz.

 

[Ketchup]

I see a lot of argument about better graphics performance. Frankly, AMD has had that for years, and the market has shown that is not a saving grace. I am glad that those around here know how to enjoy it, but if Intel IG can do everything most people want, AMD should know by now raw power is what sells CPUs.

My question would be, is it too late?

 

[AtenRa]

I see a lot of argument about better graphics performance. Frankly, AMD has had that for years, and the market has shown that is not a saving grace. I am glad that those around here know how to enjoy it, but if Intel IG can do everything most people want, AMD should know by now raw power is what sells CPUs.

My question would be, is it too late?

A10-7850K is at $140 on newegg, this one has the same performance or better in MT at default (better when OCed) than core i3 4330 and a free iGPU that can play games and could also be used for GPGPU.

But again, the performance of a 4.3GHz kaveri is better or equal vs the Haswell Core i3, plus the A8-7650K is cheaper.

 

[Phynaz]

Ugh, we always comeback to specific case analysis and argue back and forth over this stuff endlessly. What a frustrating forum experience

Yep, same people, same arguments, over and over and over.

Who are they trying to convince?

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Yep, same people, same arguments, over and over and over.

Who are they trying to convince?

Pot meet kettle.

 

[SurelyYouJest]

Micro Center Has the A10-7850K for $109.98

 

[jpiniero]

No, they don't. AMD needs a minimum level of $600 million to keep working.

You really think that much? Well, they are screwed then. Are Junk Bond dealers really that desperate for yield that they would agree to rollover the debt, esp when there is another huge chunk due 2 years later?

I almost think AMD is wasting their time on Zen then considering if they have any future, it's after bankruptcy.

 

[mrmt]

You really think that much? Well, they are screwed then. Are Junk Bond dealers really that desperate for yield that they would agree to rollover the debt, esp when there is another huge chunk due 2 years later?

I almost think AMD is wasting their time on Zen then considering if they have any future, it's after bankruptcy.

The 600MM number comes from AMD. And yes, junk bond are chasing yields like crazy. So much for quantitative easing.

 

[Tsavo]

AMD should pull a Japanese auto branding exercise and concoct a high end company name.

Xtorinox...high end brand for high end brand spenders. Cores out the wazoo. 24 carat cores and gold plated IHS. 1 GB on package L4 cache...in a box hewn from the finest Corinthian leather.

Introducing Eterna from Xtorinox....free upgrades for life.

How much, you ask? If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Peasant.