CNET: Is AMD still relevant?

[grimpr]

Since this thread is going to hell in a handbasket. I'll say it.

LOL_Wut_Axel stops posting and futurefields takes over at that time. I wish I had access to the IP access lists.

Another one bites the dust, +1 on my ignore list. Thanks!

 

[Puppies04]

Default Quote: Originally Posted by futurefields View Post AMD's target market is the bottom feeder. "I just want the cheapest computer that will run WoW and D3 @ 30-40fps" And that's fine.. that's what they are there for. I just think it's hilarious when people try to act as though they are still somehow competitive with Intel. The fact is Intel could put AMD out of business. They could easily price their chips even less, and just completely annihilate the price/performance benchmark, more than they do already. Intel *let's* AMD survive. Intel would never survive trying to operate at AMD's margins. AMD lives on margins that would kill Intel. The shareholders would revolt. The payoffs and the bribery would stop. The company would fall apart within 4 quarters of AMD style margins. The CEO would be gone and the battle would stop. As a curious side note, Intel makes its money by providing payoffs such as the ultrabook bribes. Those payoffs dont count against its margins. So what Intel is basically doing, in addition to the obvious crimes (for which they will be found guilty of probably 3-4 years from now) is cooking their books. The concept is simple: Say you make widgets for $100 apiece. You sell them for $300 leaving you a nice wonderful 67% margin. Everything is good, everyone is happy. But what do you do if you cannot sell your widgits for $300 anymore? Easy. You create an UltraWidget standard and hand out a bunch of money to people to encourage them to build systems using your widget (and only your widget) for a lower cost. Now with the total systems costs lowered, you have just inflated the demand for your $300 widgets. So you can keep your prices at $300 per widget and thus your margins remain at 67%.

Ok at this point I had just about had enough crap for the day. Who gives a damn about margins on a single product, all investors and shareholders are interested in is total turnover and total profit at the end of the year (and maybe dividends).

I will make you a $300 dollar widget, it will be a pile of crap but I will pay you $299 for every widget you buy from me. Can I get some help holding back all the potential investors........

 

[frozentundra123456]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57448692-92/is-amd-still-relevant/

I have to agree about AMD over promising.

Wow, this post will be like blood in the water is to sharks to the AMD fans.

I would have to say the author oversimplified the case. He was sort of off base to claim AMD is not into the tablet, mobile market. They may not be strong there now, but that is the segment the new CEO is trying to enter. Only time will tell if they can be successful, as there are already a lot of competitors and Intel is starting to get into it also.

I would agree with you though, that I would be willing to cut AMD a lot more slack if they did not over and over again promise more than they can deliver.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Intel would never survive trying to operate at AMD's margins. AMD lives on margins that would kill Intel. The shareholders would revolt. The payoffs and the bribery would stop. The company would fall apart within 4 quarters of AMD style margins. The CEO would be gone and the battle would stop.

As a curious side note, Intel makes its money by providing payoffs such as the ultrabook bribes. Those payoffs dont count against its margins. So what Intel is basically doing, in addition to the obvious crimes (for which they will be found guilty of probably 3-4 years from now) is cooking their books. The concept is simple: Say you make widgets for $100 apiece. You sell them for $300 leaving you a nice wonderful 67% margin. Everything is good, everyone is happy. But what do you do if you cannot sell your widgits for $300 anymore? Easy. You create an UltraWidget standard and hand out a bunch of money to people to encourage them to build systems using your widget (and only your widget) for a lower cost. Now with the total systems costs lowered, you have just inflated the demand for your $300 widgets. So you can keep your prices at $300 per widget and thus your margins remain at 67%. Obviously this is a cut and dry accounting scam worthy of a JP Morgan bankster swine Wall Street Wall of Shame. But this is exactly, exactly what Intel is doing if they do not count these ultrabook bribes against their margins. They would be attempting to cover up falling margins. That would be very bad news for the entire sector! These are the kind of games that result in market moves like what happened in 2008. But that of course is another story.

Umm..... isnt it the point of a business to operate at a high margin?? And as far as business practices go, get over the past. Intel paid AMD 1 billion dollars a couple of years ago, it is done. If you have proof of your current accusations, why dont you turn them over to the FTC or something.

 

[piesquared]

Intel would never survive trying to operate at AMD's margins. AMD lives on margins that would kill Intel. The shareholders would revolt. The payoffs and the bribery would stop. The company would fall apart within 4 quarters of AMD style margins. The CEO would be gone and the battle would stop.

As a curious side note, Intel makes its money by providing payoffs such as the ultrabook bribes. Those payoffs dont count against its margins. So what Intel is basically doing, in addition to the obvious crimes (for which they will be found guilty of probably 3-4 years from now) is cooking their books. The concept is simple: Say you make widgets for $100 apiece. You sell them for $300 leaving you a nice wonderful 67% margin. Everything is good, everyone is happy. But what do you do if you cannot sell your widgits for $300 anymore? Easy. You create an UltraWidget standard and hand out a bunch of money to people to encourage them to build systems using your widget (and only your widget) for a lower cost. Now with the total systems costs lowered, you have just inflated the demand for your $300 widgets. So you can keep your prices at $300 per widget and thus your margins remain at 67%. Obviously this is a cut and dry accounting scam worthy of a JP Morgan bankster swine Wall Street Wall of Shame. But this is exactly, exactly what Intel is doing if they do not count these ultrabook bribes against their margins. They would be attempting to cover up falling margins. That would be very bad news for the entire sector! These are the kind of games that result in market moves like what happened in 2008. But that of course is another story.

Spot on. Posting that here is like jumping into shark infested waters with a gaping laceration on your leg though, kudos. I wonder if intel will ever be able to stand on their technical merits alone. Given a level playing field without buying reviews and decieving consumers, perceptions would be a lot different. They'll attempt to avoid that at all costs, legal or othewise.

 

[AtenRa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ai0UdDOCFMg

I can see products from Small form factor, Tablets, Ultra thins and all the way up to Desktop and Dual/Quad socket Server Motherboards.

I would say the CNET author is just ignorant and next time it should make a better research before writing this kind of articles.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You say stuff that is flat out incorrect man. You need some help, like a real serious reality check. Go look at some benchmarks.

Download a free to try audio program like REAPER and compare how many audio plugins you can run on the slowest i5 compared to the fastest AMD bulldozer before your cpu starts to choke.

You will see what a joke AMD's architecture is.

I agree he is rough around the edges , But did I just here the pot call the kettle out.

 

[sandorski]

Yes.

 

[futurefields]

I agree he is rough around the edges , But did I just here the pot call the kettle out.

Did I just hear the pot call the kettle *black* I believe is how the expression goes.

Look, I'm new here. I'm not going to pretend to know how things work, what the pecking order is, etc. etc.

I signed up here solely to get some help on my new build if something should go wrong.

But then I got caught up, noticed a particular member seems to be doing only one thing here - posting every negative Intel article he/she can find.

Anybody else notice that from piesquared?

 

[sm625]

[/B]
Ok at this point I had just about had enough crap for the day. Who gives a damn about margins on a single product, all investors and shareholders are interested in is total turnover and total profit at the end of the year (and maybe dividends).

That's right. And investors look at margins. They dont look at off balance sheet vehicles used to inflate those margins. When a company does things like this, it is always done to make their margins look good. In 1999 half the companies on the NASDAQ were playing games like this. It is the investor that gets screwed every time.

If you have proof of your current accusations, why dont you turn them over to the FTC or something.

Dude I'm not revealing anything that isnt known and well understood by at least a thousand people. INTC is a Dow Jones Industrial component. Analysts are all over this one. But of course they tend to keep information like this on the back burner until it is time for Mr Bagholder to step up to the plate.

 

[Jacky60]

I think the article is pretty accurate. AMD needed to integrate CPU/GPU into a viable package 2 years ago. They have taken so long they surrendered their advantage resulting from the ATI takeover and Intel will continue to crush them underfoot. Why they didn't push harder and faster we may never know but lack of money is probs the reason.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Sales figures are completely irrelevant, and as we've seen many many times in the past involving intel, has nothing to do with technical merit or consumer appeal. I'm not advocating for IntEl or their shareholders. If AMD is irrelevant with products that give consumers a better user experience at a lower price, then that simply screams more monopolistic market abuse by a company with a fear of competition.

You might want to rethink that post...the bolded parts are a paradox :whiste:

Unless you don't think "consumer appeal" has something to do with sales...

 

[Meghan54]

What I find unbelievable is the notion that if AMD suddenly disappeared, Intel would raise prices exponentially as a result.

Why unbelievable? Because with or without AMD, Intel is pricing against itself. Intel depends on margins and volume of product sales for its profits, dividends, etc. For Intel to, say, double its processor pricing would guarantee sales would drop by probably a like amount.

For instance, if Intel had released IB at a price that was twice what SB sold for, how many do you honestly think Intel would have sold? Betcha it'd be dramatically less than what's sold so far. Jacking up prices like is being suggested by some in this and other threads would extinguish the upgradeitis that Intel counts on for a good number of sales.

Imagine would happen if the bargain basement computer's price suddenly jumped from $300 to $500? A large drop in sales is exactly what would happen. Enthusiasts would delay if not avoid the "gotta upgrade" syndrome that permeates the enthusiast scene of today.

I just think the notion of Intel dramatically increasing pricing if AMD left the cpu market is ill informed and intellectually dishonest.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Did I just hear the pot call the kettle *black* I believe is how the expression goes.

Look, I'm new here. I'm not going to pretend to know how things work, what the pecking order is, etc. etc.

I signed up here solely to get some help on my new build if something should go wrong.

But then I got caught up, noticed a particular member seems to be doing only one thing here - posting every negative Intel article he/she can find.

Anybody else notice that from piesquared?

Well first off. I didn't mean that post to be the quote I intended. I just clicked on the wrong reply . But only the names change around.
Look AT forums is pretty cool . Guys are a bit more laid back and I think smarter than the average forum hound. We have are fanbois me being an Intel fanbois . Mainly because of their research efforts .
The fanbois who foam at the mouth really don't hang here . Like one member posting in this thread other than the one your battling with. I really believe the 1 mad dog(not your guy) we do have only pops up when there are no fires to start else where.,IT wouldn't hurt to be only more open minded . The guy your debating is making some valid points Up to were Maddog influences his word processing. You both made valid points you both are tring to get under each others skin. Maddog is utterring pure garbage and should get points for his pure fairy tale.

 

[Idontcare]

Did I just hear the pot call the kettle *black* I believe is how the expression goes.

Look, I'm new here. I'm not going to pretend to know how things work, what the pecking order is, etc. etc.

I signed up here solely to get some help on my new build if something should go wrong.

But then I got caught up, noticed a particular member seems to be doing only one thing here - posting every negative Intel article he/she can find.

Anybody else notice that from piesquared?

Your post is what we refer to as a "member callout" and it is not allowed in the forums per our Posting guidelines.

AnandTech Forum Guidelines
Please review them and if you have any questions on them then post in Personal Forum Issues or Moderator Discussions, but not here in the CPU forum.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[ShintaiDK]

What I find unbelievable is the notion that if AMD suddenly disappeared, Intel would raise prices exponentially as a result.

Why unbelievable? Because with or without AMD, Intel is pricing against itself. Intel depends on margins and volume of product sales for its profits, dividends, etc. For Intel to, say, double its processor pricing would guarantee sales would drop by probably a like amount.

For instance, if Intel had released IB at a price that was twice what SB sold for, how many do you honestly think Intel would have sold? Betcha it'd be dramatically less than what's sold so far. Jacking up prices like is being suggested by some in this and other threads would extinguish the upgradeitis that Intel counts on for a good number of sales.

Imagine would happen if the bargain basement computer's price suddenly jumped from $300 to $500? A large drop in sales is exactly what would happen. Enthusiasts would delay if not avoid the "gotta upgrade" syndrome that permeates the enthusiast scene of today.

I just think the notion of Intel dramatically increasing pricing if AMD left the cpu market is ill informed and intellectually dishonest.

Correct. Intel have only been competing with itself for several years now. And the current prices reflect the best volume/margin/profit ratio. So lowering or upping the price will damage revenue and profit.

Same with innovation. Intel will continue so, else you wouldnt buy the next CPU.

 

[dastral]

I just think the notion of Intel dramatically increasing pricing if AMD left the cpu market is ill informed and intellectually dishonest.

Are you serious ? do you have any idea how bad a monopoly is for the consumer ?
Why do you think AT&T / Standart Rail got broken up and BIG Mergers have to be approved ?

Not only will Intel increase prices (i wouldn't say dramatically) but it would also slow down the Tick/Tock cycle...
Intel already got a few slaps on the hand from authorities (in europe & the US) for "bad habits"....

Correct. Intel have only been competing with itself for several years now. And the current prices reflect the best volume/margin/profit ratio. So lowering or upping the price will damage revenue and profit.

Intel will continue to innovate, else you wouldn't buy the next CPU, but "at a slower pace"
This does not mean that they will make "crappy CPU with a 50% price increase".

But don't expect things to be "sweet" for consumers.

PS : Apple & Luxury items are a proof we are a non rational species.

 

[KompuKare]

What I find unbelievable is the notion that if AMD suddenly disappeared, Intel would raise prices exponentially as a result.

While it's true that Intel has to either make reasons for people to upgrade or find new markets. With their huge capital investment, if their sales were to dive they would be in trouble.

Of course, there are other ways of making an upgrade 'compelling' and without competition Intel may get even more creative with feature segmentation and software 'upgradeable' CPUs. The mess of which Intel CPU has VT-x may be an indication of the sort of market segmentation Intel might try without a viable competitor.

But Intel already do not have any competition in large sections of the x86 market. While the K-edition CPUs are great value for someone willing to pay $200 for a CPU, the under $100 market has been almost stagnant for a while now. Well stagnant for someone like me who likes to buy one of those CPUsand get a ~x2 performance boost. But the under $100 CPUs no longer overclock so they cannot outperform my overclocked E5300 by that kind of margin.

Sorry Intel, no compelling upgrade for me atm.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I think you mistake VT-X with VT-D.

 

[KompuKare]

I think you mistake VT-X with VT-D.

No, I meant VT-x. Just the basic virtualization support with which Intel played segmentation games with for so long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_VT-x#Intel_virtualization_.28VT-x.29:

As of 2009 not all Intel processors supported VT-x, which Intel uses to segment its market.[20] Support for VT-x may even vary between different versions (as identified by Intel's sSpec Number) of the same model number.[21] [22] For a complete and up-to-date list see the Intel website.[23] Even in May, 2011, the Intel CPU P6100 which is in laptops does not support hardware virtualization.[24]

Win7's XP-Mode finally made them (almost) stop that though.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So your argument goes back to 2009 for some Core 2 valueend CPUs? Great.

I´m sure the 3 people that would use VT-X on those are sad.

Instead these people got very fast CPUs for very little money. I´m sure all the rest of the people would be happy to pay more for the VT-X feature they would never use.

And considering XP mode is limited to Pro, Enterprise and Ultimate. Its a poor argument.

It seems people think they are entitled to certain things, while not paying for it.

 

[KompuKare]

So your argument goes back to 2009 for some Core 2 valueend CPUs? Great.

I´m sure the 3 people that would use VT-X on those are sad.

Instead these people got very fast CPUs for very little money. I´m sure all the rest of the people would be happy to pay more for the VT-X feature they would never use.

And considering XP mode is limited to Pro, Enterprise and Ultimate. Its a poor argument.

It seems people think they are entitled to certain things, while not paying for it.

I wouldn't say that. But

1. it was nice to have cheap overclockable CPUs (where's the value in overclocking an expensive CPU?)
2. if Intel are dependent on upgrade cycles and want to sell me some new widget, why should I buy a SB Pentium G840 etc. if it's no faster than what I have?

And there were plenty of people who were stung not being able to run VT-x on laptops. My original post though was more to point out that there are plenty of things Intel without competition can do to lower consumer value without appearing to raise prices.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You saying we "deserve" to overclock an inexpensive CPU? You get basicly the fastest gaming CPU in the world plus free overclocking for 200$. The same class of CPU was around 800$ in 2005.

 

[Vesku]

Not a matter of deserving, just that the unlocked nature of the core 2 low end was fantastic for OCing consumers and helped Intel wipe out memories of P4. OCing has always been popular in the enthusiast community and by locking down chips Intel has set the minimum entry price to OCing at around $200.

Don't have to have a feeling of entitlement to lament how much headroom is locked away in the SB Celerons and Pentiums.

 

[AtenRa]

From Celeron 300 all the way up to Core i3 5xx series we could buy a cheapo CPU, Overclock it and have near or some times better performance than a CPU twice the price.

That ended for Intel's CPUs with Sandybridge. :thumbsdown: