Didn't take long....

[her34]

intel:

2007-2008 will be big for quad cores

2009 will introduce on-die memory controller and intel's version of hyper-transport (taking away 2 of amd's biggest advantages over intel architecture)


amd:

?????



we're seeing the results of intel's research. what's amd been working on 2005-2006 ?

i really hope something mind blowing comes out of ati deal soon. something more than cheaper budget systems (which intel seems to be also preparing for anyway)

 

[SuperSix]

Originally posted by: nyker96
They has also abandoned their grass root supporter like us in the retail channel last Xmas by shunting CPUs into huge OEMers like Dell and Lenovo leaving retail market dry. Now retailers are giving them a hard time coming back in because most has established new supply channels with Intel now and considering what AMD done Dec, 2006 they are wary to get reconnected with them again.

Personally I can't say I feel sorry for them. Not updating tech. for years, abandoning their original enthusiasts supporters that made them who they are. THey have to understand the support they get from buyers are contingent on quality of product and satisfaction of customer, you let both go, they can't expect people to support them any longer.

I agree 100% (I am a sales manager at a Tier1 AMD disty), it's simple: They hung the channel out to dry for big OEMs. The channel HAD to go Intel - there were no AMD procs available for months (Distributor stock, not ecoms that buy grey and sideways) - The resellers simply couldn't stop building PCs...

This is a major point very few people take into account.

Well said!

 

[Cooler]

It also dose not help that there is a price war and intel can cut much deeper before feeling the same pain as AMD. Now people se AMD as low end which really hurts their image.

 

[Zstream]

AAWWWWWWW I hate fan-boy's.

Look you gubbers

 

[Agentbolt]

PS: I actually own AMD and INTC stock

Thoughts and prayers for the AMD stock.

Seems like a pretty simply explanation to me. K8 was great and AMD sat back to catch a breath, because their R&D simply can't keep up with Intel's. Hell, the only reason Intel managed to crawl out of its hole is because it had TWO R&D teams going simultaneously, and the one they pretty much forgot about (Israeli site that made the Pentium M) made the better product.

People stuck with Intel because 90% of consumers are morons and simply thought "Hmm, more megahertz means it must be faster!" and that was that. The fact that AMD was putting out a better product didn't make much difference.

Now look where we're at. From everything I've heard, Barcelona is basically a match for high-end C2D. It's not going to compete with Intel's 45nm chips. What's AMD's plans past Barcelona? What's it going to compete against Neherlem (however you spell it) with?

 

[PingSpike]

AMD's problem is clear, its just becoming blindingly apparent right now. When they were given the massive opportunity of intel ****** up, they should have run with it and sunk all their profits (er...non-losses?) into R&D to try and build on that lead.

Instead, they sat on their ass...where the fvck are the new products? There aren't any! When did the A64 come out? A long ****** time ago now. Have we actually seen any signfigant changes to it? Dual channel memory, a previous generations tech was added...then a DDR2 memory controller. Its the same thing from like 2-3 years ago. And now, they're right back where they were before. Intel can afford to be slow to react, AMD cannot.

I also agree 939 was killed to fast. DDR2 sucks for AMD chips, it cost more then DDR when AM2 came out and performed worse without the extra expensive DDR2-800. Now the prices have come down...but no one gives a sh|t because they can buy the faster intel chip with cheaper ram and get better performance for about the same money. Every once and awhile I see the super cheap AM2 dual cores and think "Hey...my wife only has a 939 single core...maybe I'll upgrade her machine" I price the change out...motherboard + cpu + new memory and then I think with all the hassle I may as well just spend just a few more bucks and get a nice fast C2D setup.

Remember when intel slashed the prices down on the Pentium D crap right after C2D came out? That stuff was really cheap...but no one wanted it because it totally sucked. Half off at the turd sale. Now AMD is in the same spot...only they don't have a C2D.

This is really disappointing to me...AMD had a great opportunity to become a serious competitor in the market. Now it looks like if they're lucky they'll be able to go back to there old paltry market share...if they're unlucky they'll end up like the cyrix in a niche market with little room for growth. And the worst part is...they might even drag ATI down with them and create a video card monopoly for nvidia. I don't know why they blew their money buying ATI to expand there product offerings when they couldn't even get their act together on the core business. I wonder if ATI would have some products out by now if they weren't attacked to a sinking boat anchor. AMD doesn't have the cash to expand these two businesses, and after their last announcement of "aw shucks investors, looks like we fvcked up" it doesn't even look like they have a plan.

Its funny, everyone was saying nvidia was in trouble because AMD/ATI was going to destroy them. Doesn't look so bad for them now.

 

[mushroom3]

The k7 was good but it didnt deliver a full knockout to netburst (video encoding wtv)...
C2D however is beating it practically in all areas clock for clock... i think thats why amd lost shares that fast, theres no brainer which is the better product, and off course intel have their brand name to help them

 

[Phynaz]

Let's be clear on something. AMD didn't sit aournd for the last seven years. There were at least three cancelled cpu projects during that timeframe.

The grand visionary Hector bit off more than he could chew. And he continues to with Fusion and Torrenza.

They need to get an operations guy in charge for a while to clean up the mess Hector has made.

 

[defiantsf]

Another thought, it's not easy to eat Intel's lunch without expecting major payback. If it was, AMD or anyone else would have beaten them (i.e. greater marketshare vis-a-vis Intel) a long time ago. The ATI acquisition is a great long term bet since it changes the rules of the game. But its timing, so close to the Empire Striking Back, is poor. This is quite apparent to everyone now.

 

[hans007]

after the horrible conference call, i shorted AMD stock.

 

[gorobei]

the ATI merger has a lot of potential. I attended a nvidia rollout event of the 8800 series. The evolution of processing power seems to be going towards programmable sub/stream processors. 128 SPs in the 8800gtx and "320" streams for the R600. After hearing about the benefits for game programmers with DirectX10 and the performance boost of having a flexible pipeline, I was impressed with the potential. The PS3 and Xbox360 are pushing towards a combined cpu/gpu approach. Buying ATI gives AMD a chance to leapfrog ahead in this area. Instead of having a numbers of cpu core race(dual, quadcore, octo?) that amd will probably lose, why not have a CPU with a couple of discrete cores and a ton of flexible sub-processors?

as far as AMD making better product: I was refering to better for the consumer. Anyone remember overpriced, overheating rambus memory? Or space heater class P4 70W TDP? Intel made you buy into these technologies. AMD let the market decide which standards to follow. Unfortunately this monkey see, monkey do approach made them abandon socket 939 for AM2 just so people could use ddr2 (with minimal benefit.)

 

[Spook]

AMD Athlon filled a market that was dropped by Intel by introducing the monstrosity we all know as the P4. It was a flub from day one, and continued to be an albatross. AMD's whole Athlon series fit the bill very well, in much the same way that P3's dominated over K6's because of the faults in that chip series. So, now the shoe is on the other foot, and the cycle continues. I don't know if AMD has a way to pull out of this one, they certainly have less to play with, and don't appear to be able to hold our for a few years like Intel.

 

[idiotekniQues]

intel made a very impressive comeback.

wow.

i really hope amd has something up their sleeve.

 

[PingSpike]

If AMD had anything up their sleeve, they would have been ranting about it to keep their stock price from falling further in the toilet. When they say nothing, that means they have nothing.

 

[coldpower27]

Intel regained revenue marketshare shared easily as they aren't the ones that had to drop prices to compete so dramatically. We currently don't have the numbers for unit marketshare though, so we will have to see if AMD's price drops are enough to retain unit share.

AMD has never had very strong revenue based marketshare, I don't think they ever breached 20% on that one.

 

[her34]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
If AMD had anything up their sleeve, they would have been ranting about it to keep their stock price from falling further in the toilet. When they say nothing, that means they have nothing.

which makes everyone wonder what they've been doing for the past few years besides ati deal

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: her34

Originally posted by: PingSpike
If AMD had anything up their sleeve, they would have been ranting about it to keep their stock price from falling further in the toilet. When they say nothing, that means they have nothing.

which makes everyone wonder what they've been doing for the past few years besides ati deal

Building up manufacturing capabilities mostly. They tried to protect their Opterons as much as possible by lowering power usage and offering virtualization. Unfortunately for them they did nothing for performance for neither the mobile, desktop, or media work station segments. I won't put the blame on AMD's R&D funding nor their engineers but their top level executives who targeted only specialized market segments through out half a decade.

AMD's innovations , work environment, and ingenuity is in a league above Intel's. They brought HTT, dual core, virtualization, video encoding, floating point performance, an IMC, and much more against a giant competitor who has 4x as much funding for R&D. It's not normal to see a company 1/8th the size of it's competitors and to out class them the way they did.

However AMD's top level executives were do for another fumble. They didn't prioritize performance as a specific internal goal. Performance is fundamental in prolonging the products life cycle. It's what technology is; to do more with less. It's what every customer wants in every segment. What AMD wanted was to remain "innovative" and "cost effective" which is hardly being specific at all. I can find a way to grow a flower from a CPU die that uses 10 less watts of energy an hour and call it innovative and cost-effective. Thus charging 1k a pop for it and then only reaching a specific few into buying it (like environmentalists and acid stamp lickers).

AMD has to stop catering to the few and begin innovating for the many.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: Regs
AMD's innovations , work environment, and ingenuity is in a league above Intel's. They brought HTT, dual core, virtualization, video encoding, floating point performance, an IMC, and much more

The examples you cited after proclaiming AMD's "innovations, work environment, and ingenuity" to be "in a league above Intel's" are underwhelming compared to the grandiosity of the claim. Many of the items you list were either only partly AMD's creation or ideas that were hardly new or particularly "innovative".

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: Regs
AMD's innovations , work environment, and ingenuity is in a league above Intel's. They brought HTT, dual core, virtualization, video encoding, floating point performance, an IMC, and much more

The examples you cited after proclaiming AMD's "innovations, work environment, and ingenuity" to be "in a league above Intel's" are underwhelming compared to the grandiosity of the claim. Many of the items you list were either only partly AMD's creation or ideas that were hardly new or particularly "innovative".

Agreed, this claim is laughable.

Dual core: Intel first on the desktop with Pentium D 8xx series
Virtualization: Intel first with Pentium D 9xx series (5 months before AMD)
Video encoding: One of the only strong suits if the Netburst architecture, Intel maintained leadership even with Prescott (benchmarks)

Also, with regard to you other claims, have your worked at both Intel and AMD? If not, how do you know that AMD's work environment is superior to Intel's? Have you studied the complete history of both companies? If not, how can you claim that AMD is the more innovative of the two? Finally, i'm not quite sure what you mean when you say AMD has more ingenuity than Intel... in what way?

 

[kmmatney]

I've satill been doing way more AMD builds than Intel builds, because of the low cost of AMD dual core processors, and great low-end motherboard selection. Of course, AMD is not making very much money off me.

 

[kmmatney]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: Regs
AMD's innovations , work environment, and ingenuity is in a league above Intel's. They brought HTT, dual core, virtualization, video encoding, floating point performance, an IMC, and much more

The examples you cited after proclaiming AMD's "innovations, work environment, and ingenuity" to be "in a league above Intel's" are underwhelming compared to the grandiosity of the claim. Many of the items you list were either only partly AMD's creation or ideas that were hardly new or particularly "innovative".

Agreed, this claim is laughable.

Also, with regard to you other claims, have your worked at both Intel and AMD? If not, how do you know that AMD's work environment is superior to Intel's? Have you studied the complete history of both companies? If not, how can you claim that AMD is the more innovative of the two? Finally, i'm not quite sure what you mean when you say AMD has more ingenuity than Intel... in what way?

I have worked both at Intel and AMD for periods of time - and AMDs work environment is better than Intels. I would certainly not agree with the innovative part - but in general AMD presents a better working environment. That could be AMDs' problem - Intel can be pure hell to work for, but they push people to the limit and force the work to be done.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: kmmatney

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: Regs
AMD's innovations , work environment, and ingenuity is in a league above Intel's. They brought HTT, dual core, virtualization, video encoding, floating point performance, an IMC, and much more

The examples you cited after proclaiming AMD's "innovations, work environment, and ingenuity" to be "in a league above Intel's" are underwhelming compared to the grandiosity of the claim. Many of the items you list were either only partly AMD's creation or ideas that were hardly new or particularly "innovative".

Agreed, this claim is laughable.

Also, with regard to you other claims, have your worked at both Intel and AMD? If not, how do you know that AMD's work environment is superior to Intel's? Have you studied the complete history of both companies? If not, how can you claim that AMD is the more innovative of the two? Finally, i'm not quite sure what you mean when you say AMD has more ingenuity than Intel... in what way?

I have worked both at Intel and AMD for periods of time - and AMDs work environment is better than Intels. I would certainly not agree with the innovative part - but in general AMD presents a better working environment. That could be AMDs' problem - Intel can be pure hell to work for, but they push people to the limit and force the work to be done.

It's great to get an opinion from someone with real experience, thanks for posting. I know when Grove was around things at Intel were extremely intense (i.e. you had to sign in to work every day and if you were 2 minutes late you'd get reamed), but I wasn't sure if that culture had shifted since his departure. You make a good point about motivation as well, perhaps there is more pressure to succeed and excel at Intel than at AMD and that leads to some of the discrepancies. Don't know personally, just speculating based on the reading I have done about both companies. Thanks again for your post.

 

[Phynaz]

AMD's innovations , work environment, and ingenuity is in a league above Intel's. They brought HTT, dual core, virtualization, video encoding, floating point performance, an IMC, and much more against a giant competitor who has 4x as much funding for R&D. It's not normal to see a company 1/8th the size of it's competitors and to out class them the way they did.

Wow, you are so wrong.

1. HT was invented by DEC.
2. Intel released dual core first.
3. Assuming you mean hardware virtuakization, Intel was first.
4. Are you saying you couldn't do video encoding on an Intel cpu?
5. Are you saying Intel didn't perform FP math?
6. Intel had an IMC back in the 386 days.

 

[Regs]

Ok Phynaz, you go ahead and make a Dual Core CPU with an IMC and come back and tell me how wrong I am.

Did I ever state AMD invented it? I might of implied it, in which case im sorry.

However I also implied logic and I hope others would of caught on.

My logic was AMD used an IMC and HTT to make a superior product. At least at the time anyway.

Though If you want we can continue fighting over words for the next 20 replies. Shall we bring the creator of electricity in this? After all, with out him, Intel and AMD would both be up ships creek. Though I think Intel might of re-created electricity too. They got the money.