• 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.

sigh good bye cheap processors

It is MOSTLY true, I'm sure there are new uses for consumer level processing power lurking at order of magnitude level of performance improvements. Of course the other components would probably need to increase as well. In order to leverage a 2500K x 10 you'd probably want something a lot faster than the fastest current SSD along with a much faster interconnect than SATA 6Gb/s.
 
AMD has been losing the race for a while. I'm not really suprised by this. Like others though with the official announcement I feel Intel is now free to do anything they want with not even a hint of competition to keep their prices competitive or their product top notch. In short, the consumer loses.
 
It is sometimes ok to not be faster if you are more efficient (think HD4870, HD5870, etc.). But Bulldozer was neither faster nor more efficient. Perhaps they can do better in the future.
 
x86 CPUs are priced based on demand, prices will not go up. Both intel and AMD are stuggling with increased demand for ARM CPUs and decreased demand for their own CPUs.
 
blastingcap said:
It is sometimes ok to not be faster if you are more efficient (think HD4870, HD5870, etc.). But Bulldozer was neither faster nor more efficient. Perhaps they can do better in the future.
Click to expand...

There is some hope, Trinity looks to be just as efficient as SB/IVB. Here's to hope. :/
 
so just not in it to win any more,

guess the days of having a powerful PC are also going to be gone, everyone will have oversized laptops which never leave the desk..... long term this is really going to hurt the industry as a whole.
 
jpiniero said:
More like 17. AMD can let Intel monopolize the high end; mobile and tablets is where the growth is.
Click to expand...

obviously mobile is where the market is headed.

but there will still be battles to be fought in the ~70w range.

amd just won't have an answer to ivy bridge e and the likes.
 
Read already said nearly the exact same thing when he took over. I would be surprised if he had changed his mind rather than reiterate that he was prioritizing smaller and less powerhungry chips.
 
The amount of CPU power we get for the money these days is already fantastic. Just look at the 2500k. Overclocked, it's more performance than most people need or will need for years.

I doubt we'll see super high prices for future CPU's but will likely see a slower transition to process levels than we have been accustomed to.
 
Martimus said:
Read already said nearly the exact same thing when he took over. I would be surprised if he had changed his mind rather than reiterate that he was prioritizing smaller and less powerhungry chips.
Click to expand...

I agree, this is pretty much old news. The question is if AMD has the resources and expertise to move rapidly into a new field with low margins and heavy competition and still make a profit. And Intel is going to be moving into that field as well, so AMD is going to face competition from intel as well as the established ARM makers. The improvements made to Trinity on the CPU side seem to show that they have some skilled engineers left, but I wonder why these improvements were not incorporated into the original BD chip, considering how long it took to come out.

I also dont think that CPU prices will go through the roof. As someone else said, there is a trade-off between high prices and volume. Intel has extensive fab capacity and needs to keep the volume up. I do believe the lack of high end competition will keep the extreme high end market more expensive, but not so much the mainstream. For instance, I bet if the "8 core" bulldozer had not been such a disappointment, we would have seen mainstream 6 core chips from Intel.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
And hello over priced crap like the last batch of P4's

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-cpu-apu-processors,15741.html
Click to expand...

If Intel made their 2013 CPU's overpriced and underperforming compared to what the world bought from them in 2009-2012 then the total sales and revenue for Intel in 2013 would crater.

Cray Inc died trying to live on selling a handful of super-high priced systems per year. It just doesn't work when the entire business is setup around volumes, and low prices are required to drive volumes.

AMD is not the reason my 3770k cost basically the same as my 2600k. The reason the price is similar is because Intel wants people who didn't buy a 2600k last year to go ahead and jump on the wagon of buying a 3770k this year. That won't happen if they priced the 3770k at 2x the price of a 2600k.

Haswell will be looking to do the same, the entire industry is built on people upgrading and replacing their existing hardware and that requires motivating the consumer to have less reasons than ever before to replace their CPU's.

The LCD market is struggling to figure out how to do this. I'm still using my same old DELL 2407's from 2006. I hate it, I wish they'd die so I can get some nice 3D 120Hz capable screens. But at $600 a pop in 2006 prices I can justify just pitching these screens because I am tired of them.

Intel's biggest enemy is not ARM, nor AMD, nor Samsung. Their biggest enemy is the consumer who doesn't feel a need or desire to upgrade their current system. That consumer has zero market opportunity to Intel, too many of those consumers means a shrinking TAM.

I know why I bought a 3770k, but I don't personally know another soul in real life who needs one or would know what to do with it if I gave them one for free. That is a problem for Intel, IMO that is their biggest problem period.

Server market is not like that, they'll eat the cpu cycles, but they aren't the volume driver for chip sales and Intel needs volume drivers to subsidize the R&D cost for new nodes and capex. They aren't like IBM where their hardware division can be completely subsidized by the sales and software gross margins. (they could be if they buy HP though...)
 
Skott said:
AMD has been losing the race for a while. I'm not really suprised by this. Like others though with the official announcement I feel Intel is now free to do anything they want with not even a hint of competition to keep their prices competitive or their product top notch. In short, the consumer loses.
Click to expand...

Unless that is AMD's plan - let intel get complacent, then sneak in with another Hammer.

Maybe.
 
It is so uncommon to find an APU based laptop even with Llano being released such a long time ago. Not many are getting them either from what I can tell, I have yet to see someone using a Llano based laptop. Not quite sure what Rory has planned but I'm not getting a positive response from that article.
 
I call bluff. There's no way AMD can't be at least somewhat competitive with Intel CPUs in order to sell their own. This is a comparative process, right? Choice laptop #1 is Intel, while choice laptop #2 is AMD. If AMD's CPU performance is so behind Intel's, regardless of their graphics performance, no one with any right mind is going to go with AMD if it's slower and uses more power (speaking laptops here).

So I'm afraid I have to call bluff on this one. I bet internally AMD is still fiercely competitive with Intel in the CPU department. I think it's nothing more than AMD trying to get Intel to get lazy.
 
Ventanni said:
I call bluff. There's no way AMD can't be at least somewhat competitive with Intel CPUs in order to sell their own. This is a comparative process, right? Choice laptop #1 is Intel, while choice laptop #2 is AMD. If AMD's CPU performance is so behind Intel's, regardless of their graphics performance, no one with any right mind is going to go with AMD if it's slower and uses more power (speaking laptops here).

So I'm afraid I have to call bluff on this one. I bet internally AMD is still fiercely competitive with Intel in the CPU department. I think it's nothing more than AMD trying to get Intel to get lazy.
Click to expand...

It's all a conspiracy!!!

(Even though this greatly hurts AMD's image to the average consumer and shareholders alike).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top