• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How long can AMD survive?

M

markjs

Senior member
I don't read all these silly intel this, AMD that threads anymore, I got bored of it, but what I am interested in is AMD's continued survival. I don't care who makes a better chip, or who's the fastest, bottom line for me is who's got the bang for the buck. It's usually AMD, and we all know, affordable chips will cease to be if AMD goes down. So honestly, wheres it at now? How well afloat are these guys? How much more dark economic times can this little company take?
 
It pretty much all depends on how Hammer pans out. Just wait until Q1/Q2 2003, you'll have a much better idea by then. 🙂
 
AMD isn't only making CPU's, their new plans are to get into other types of semiconductors (not sure what exactly) and build excellent (more than just CPU) parts. 😀

I think AMD will be fine!!!

WTG AMD!
 
Excellent point about intel, if they died, I wouldn't expect AMD to make nice and sell their CPUs cheap either......The same nightmare of through the roof prices would likely prevail eventually.
 
sorry guys but intel has AMD by the short ones.

all intel has todo right now is release low speed (1.5A) hyperthread cpus for $100 each and you can say bye bye to AMD 😉
(those 1.5A cpus would be able to easily run (OC to) a 200fsb) 😀
 
I really want that AMD stays in the bisness becouse the competition does only good for us buyers. Anyhow I think neither of them is doing well at the moment but Intel probably better still.
 
AMD has other markets, as others have mentioned. There's also the fact that they are exanding to new CPU markets (with Hammer entering the server market). So they have a few plans to not just compete with Intel for the enthusiastes.
 
AMD has a contract with microsoft till Nov end this year to display "Designed for windows" or something like that. Once this contract is over, either party can pull out of it at will, though I dont expect the vole to pull out unless la intela has a better handle over it than we can all discern. If ms does pull out, amd would be in dire straits. amd has about 1.1b of research money vs. 10b for intel. if hammer doesn't do well, and I sincerely hope it does, amd could become bankrupt by june or july next year, give or take a few months. I read this in the inquirer sometime ago. I am going to try to find that link. Hold on.
 
It's unfortunate that Anandtech, in their review process, so blatantly champions Intel, rather then just report the results. The fact remains that AMD is all that stands between us and Intel's price gouging policies, a perfect example of which is the $799 Newegg price for the Intel 3.06GHz HT processor. If we can put it all in proper perspective, and sift out the hype from the Anandtech and other reviews, the performance difference between AMD and Intel Flagship CPU's isn't enough to dwell on. Lacking a substantial difference in performance, AMD should certainly be the CPU of choice for the rational consumer.

I, for one, intend to support AMD at every turn to help insure their survival.
 
AMD Athlon chips are much better designed then P4s. I wouldn't use a P4 if it was the only chip, its just pure clockspeed, nothing more. I prefer PPC chips..and the mac platform but they are having worse troubles then AMD right now. I currently own an 800mhz PPC G4 and a 1.5ghz AMD XP. I hope AMD continues to do well. They arent THAT far behind AMD...no where near as bad as macs are right now. 2.2, 2.4ghz is still damn fast..and intel just now has a 3.0. The main thing will be when intels 64bit CPU (mind went blank on the name lol) starts to take off...and how its clockspeed is much lower, thats when they will be shooting themselves in the foot. "well...uhh clockspeed did matter..when ours was the highest..now it doesnt".

Hammer will pwn everything.
 
According to this article, the flash memory market makes up to 30% of AMD's business, and it finally looks like the flash memory market is finally crawling out of the toilet. Intel is anticipating as much as a 40% price increase starting Jan. 1st, so this should help AMD out through the rough time until it gets hammer on the market... and hopefully hammer will turn things around for AMD like the Athlon did. link to article.

Dave
 
all intel has todo right now is release low speed (1.5A) hyperthread cpus for $100 each and you can say bye bye to AMD
Click to expand...

No that easy. AMD could release a cheaper and faster cpu than 1.5A HT, they still can get some customers from Intel.
For other pc components, there are always some manufacturers making cheaper and lower quality stuff.
Why? Because cheaper stuff always have a market, there are always system builders/integrators and end-users need to buy cheaper stuff to cut corner on their systems.


 
The problem is, with microprocessors, you can't really make money by selling $60 processors. R&D, not to mention the fab plants, sum up quite a bit of change to be compensated for with processor sales. And there is no profit to be made if your processor is selling for $60 or $70 on average. There's a reason Intel's processors are all above $100, they make money that way.....
 
AMD already has <$100 chips that could easily beat a "1.5A HT" Intel chip. HyperThreading is certainly an impressive technology, but its not the huge boon that many were expecting.
 
AMD has been in this situation before. Remember the K6-2? It was a crap compared to the Pentium II/III When the Athlon released and changed the board AMD went from last place to fastest chip. Problem with the Athlon debut in 1999 was that it didn't have good OEM support. There weren't too many motherboard makers who made Athlon platforms and they were very expensive.

Now even though the Athlon XP is still very competitive to the Pentium 4. The Athlon 64 has MUCH better support than the Athlon did. (I've heard that IBM was going to make some Hammer setups and Dell was considering it) There are about 20 motherboards ready for the Hammer and they won't be expensive either because there's no need for a northbridge( take the nForce Crush K8 for example, there's only a southbridge on it.) Not only that but unlike the Athlon/XP the Hammer will be very attractive to the server market. It will most likely beat the Xeon CPU's and will be a low cost 64bit colution compared to the insanely priced Itanium chips. Combine that with Intel's latest SSE2 and I think AMD has a pretty good chance. Also unlike the K6-2/3, the Athlon XP will continue to live on (Barton)
 
Well IMO one of the big x-factors in the survival of AMD's desktop/workstation/server/mobile processor division will be if they can indeed procure a contract to provide Dell with a Opteron Hammer MP solution based server product or not. Dell says it will make a decision by year's end but some analyst believe it's simply being used as leverage in it's pricing negotiations with Intel. Should they choose AMD it will prove far more valuble than the monetary revenues from the deal will produce, it would break a long entrenched Intel monopoly, a huge morale boosting victory that would bolster investor confidence, and perhaps provide inroads to previously unreceptive OEMS. However, Intel has a great deal of leverage and though Dell may be big enough to defy Intel most other OEMs will be in a far less tenantable position should Intel choose to play "hardball" and why wouldn't they? What I'm trying to point out is even if Hammer proves to be a better value in the price/performance area, The financial might and extensive resources of a company like Intel can be heavily influential on the decisions most OEM's are likely to make.
 
I don't think it matters if theres no money to be made in the <$100 cpu market. The point is getting your cpu in the consumers hand and taking a loss on it and having your competitor sitting on this years production still.. all the while your getting cheaper and faster stuff to sell out.

When this type of aggressive marketing happens the guy with the most money wins. Something that wealthy companies like Intel and Microsoft could do anyday. Such as what Microsoft is doing now on the Xbox (but that is a practice traditional to the console market but you get the point).

I use AMD but am still disappointed by their chipset situation, I dislike VIA, SIS and the nforce just doesnt do it for me.
 
Originally posted by: BlueEyedBeezlebub
I don't think it matters if theres no money to be made in the <$100 cpu market. The point is getting your cpu in the consumers hand and taking a loss on it and having your competitor sitting on this years production still.. all the while your getting cheaper and faster stuff to sell out.

When this type of aggressive marketing happens the guy with the most money wins. Something that wealthy companies like Intel and Microsoft could do anyday. Such as what Microsoft is doing now on the Xbox (but that is a practice traditional to the console market but you get the point).

I use AMD but am still disappointed by their chipset situation, I dislike VIA, SIS and the nforce just doesnt do it for me.
Click to expand...
I agree in principal about Intel winning any war of attrition but could not disagree more about Via's chipsets for sktA! the KT266a and KT333ce have been excellent solutions for me, offering stability, performance, and for the most part reliability. The only reliability issues I've had have been with my personal boards only and primarily because of my torturing of them with extreme overclocking and constant physical handling to change hardware components and move to different cases, ect... The ones in my Clients systems (most in a work enviroment) have been rock solid as attested to by the lack of service calls concerning them.
 
Originally posted by: jperun
The fact remains that AMD is all that stands between us and Intel's price gouging policies, a perfect example of which is the $799 Newegg price for the Intel 3.06GHz HT processor.

I, for one, intend to support AMD at every turn to help insure their survival.
Click to expand...
You do realize that AMD's 1ghz cpu sold for $1299 ea (in quantities of 1000), not too long ago?

While it's very true that competition is very, VERY good for the consumer in the way of pricing and technology advancements... Economic conditions have a more direct impact on pricing. If Intel and AMD could sell their processors for $1300 again, they'd be doing it.


As for the initial question... I don't think AMD is going anywhere. (But then again, I said that about 3dfx. So, what do i know? 😉 )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top