Something to consider in your Intel vs AMD discussions

[zsdersw]

Given the disparity between R&D spending (and overall company size) between Intel and AMD, some people are critical of Intel for not being a lot further ahead of AMD than they are. The point I'm making is that using those characteristics to set expectations for how much better or worse the products should be relative to each other is foolish.

 

[smakme7757]

If you go with whatever processor performs best regardless of price AND USEFULNESS OF IT, that makes you look selfish. We live in a world where wasting is no more encouraged.
Does that make you stupid? I don't know because I don't where you live, what you do to earn your living, what your hobby is...

I don't agree. Why is it selfish if someone spoils themself with computer hardware? It's their money and if it wasn't spent on computer hardware it would most likely be sitting in the bank. If he spends his money he keeps both himself happy and keeps shopkeepers, factory workers, companies ect... in business/in a job.

So why is spending money selfish?

 

[Idontcare]

Company size and R&D expenditures are not realistic ways to set performance expectations.

Given the disparity between R&D spending (and overall company size) between Intel and AMD, some people are critical of Intel for not being a lot further ahead of AMD than they are.
The point I'm making is that using those characteristics to set expectations for how much better or worse the products should be relative to each other is foolish.

I hope you can see the difference between your opinion, which you have well stated here, and that of how the business world actually operates.

The terms is "entitlement" and "efficiency" are used to evaluate R&D investments and to set expectations by virtually every project manager in every industry I have had the pleasure of interacting with.

What you are posting here is that the entire world of business is wrong, and that you are right, and yet you offer no viable alternative to the existing method of assessing R&D efficacy.

Are you a professional in any particular industry? Employed in the private sector? Are you a project manager of any sort?

When AMD is evaluated against Intel, and vice-versa - be they internally for project evaluations or priorities or externally by investors and professional portfolio reviewers, without question they are evaluated on the "they spent $XYZ to acquire the ability to implement ABC features in their products" normalization scale.

HKMG is an example. Intel spent money to acquire the capability of implementing HKMG into HVM. As such they were entitled to reap the benefits from that investment. AMD did not make that investment, they were not entitled to have the same benefits, and as one would expect they did not expect to have the same xtor performance as Intel...they spent less and they got less in return (as expected).

There is no great mystery here.

Doing great things with little resources is unexpected. Doing great things with great resources is expected.

This is life, sorry to be the one to break it to you. We expect more from an MIT graduate than a Ohio State grad, and that is reflected in their starting salaries for the same position at the same company. At TI we routinely offered 5-10% higher starting salary for MIT grads versus your "second tier" grads. They (the graduates) got what they paid for in terms of tuition expenses, and in turn we expected to get what we paid for in terms of their salary.

You spend more, you are entitled to expect to get more.

If you spend $1000 on your rig do you expect it to perform better than your neighbor who only spent $400 on his rig at the same time?

Should we be surprised to find out that your rig outperforms his rig?

What is the appropriate expectation of your $1000 rig's performance compared to your neighbor's $400 rig?

 

[Edrick]

That doesn't change the fact that if money is no object that Intel wins in performance, most users wont be buying the most expensive CPU out there but that doesn't matter. All I'm saying is that Intel has the best processors available. I agree that for most people price IS a factor. For me and many others who want the best performance... not so much. I agree that Intel is not the best choice for everyone at every price point but if you want the best performance regardless of price, Intel is your only option.

Technically, if money is no object, then I think IBM holds the crown (Power7 and z196). Granted we are speaking about hundred thousand dollar machines, but hey, money is no object.

 

[zsdersw]

I hope you can see the difference between your opinion, which you have well stated here, and that of how the business world actually operates.

The terms is "entitlement" and "efficiency" are used to evaluate R&D investments and to set expectations by virtually every project manager in every industry I have had the pleasure of interacting with.

What you are posting here is that the entire world of business is wrong, and that you are right, and yet you offer no viable alternative to the existing method of assessing R&D efficacy.

Actually, no, I'm referring to us outsiders.. not company bean counters and stockholders/investors.

Are you a professional in any particular industry? Employed in the private sector? Are you a project manager of any sort?

Yes, no, no.

When AMD is evaluated against Intel, and vice-versa - be they internally for project evaluations or priorities or externally by investors and professional portfolio reviewers, without question they are evaluated on the "they spent $XYZ to acquire the ability to implement ABC features in their products" normalization scale.

Refer to first response in this reply.

Doing great things with little resources is unexpected. Doing great things with great resources is expected.

Yes, but that's not really what I'm saying. Let's say, for example, that the ratio of Intel's R&D expenditures and company size to AMD's is 5:1. Is it reasonable for us as consumers to expect Intel's products to be 5x faster, cooler, and consume 5x less power than AMD's? No... because that's not possible with CPUs/chipsets.

This is life, sorry to be the one to break it to you.

Save your condescending attitude for the precious few for whom it is deserved.

We expect more from an MIT graduate than a Ohio State grad, and that is reflected in their starting salaries for the same position at the same company. At TI we routinely offered 5-10% higher starting salary for MIT grads versus your "second tier" grads. They (the graduates) got what they paid for in terms of tuition expenses, and in turn we expected to get what we paid for in terms of their salary.

Human resources have different limits and conditions than microprocessor design/manufacturing.

You spend more, you are entitled to expect to get more.

Yes, but should you expect to get proportionally more, no matter what? Should a $30k car be twice as fast, cost half as much to maintain, get twice the gas mileage, and look twice as good as a $15k car, for example?

If you spend $1000 on your rig do you expect it to perform better than your neighbor who only spent $400 on his rig at the same time?

Should we be surprised to find out that your rig outperforms his rig?

What is the appropriate expectation of your $1000 rig's performance compared to your neighbor's $400 rig?

See previous section of reply.

 

[zsdersw]

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and the more ways you test out, the better chance you will find one that is faster/more efficient/cheaper/whatever other attribute you are looking for. Also, finding that method first allows you to patent it; meaning you can force your competitors to pay you for that method, or make them find a completely different way to skin that cat.

So of course R&D funding makes a difference. Thinking otherwise is asinine. However I would expect the gains from additional resources to be nowhere near linear.

That is the problem I was referring to; the expectation that it should be linear.

 

[SlitheryDee]

That is the problem I was referring to; the expectation that it should be linear.

I wasn't aware that anyone thought that. Diminishing returns as you approach the upper bounds of what is physically possible is such a given that hardly anyone mentions it anymore. When establishing leadership in a given market, perhaps that extra 5-10% increase in performance is worth the additional 50% of the R&D budget that went into creating it when you know that such an expenditure is very difficult or even impossible for your competition to match.

Also, don't forget about the rare instances when someone thinks up a completely new way of doing things and sidesteps previous impediments in a big way. Really the processor industry has been the constant and endless refining of previous techniques to the absolute upper limits of their capabilities. However, at some time or other the techniques which have now been honed to razor sharpness didn't exist, and their advent represented major breakthroughs of the times. Someone in R&D discovered something no one had previously discovered, and impassible walls collapsed as a result. There are likely such discoveries that are yet to be made, and throwing money at R&D to pursue them could potentially pay off in unforeseeable ways. A large enough R&D department has the resources to chase down red herrings until they stumble across something special, while a smaller department that is playing catch up will be tempted to throw all of its resources into incremental refinements rather than potentially wasting money on lost causes.

 

[zsdersw]

I wasn't aware that anyone thought that. Diminishing returns as you approach the upper bounds of what is physically possible is such a given that hardly anyone mentions it anymore.

Maybe not explicitly, but it's often found in the tone of their criticisms/praise.

 

[Wreckage]

lots of recent speculation that the real reason dirk left is that the board wants to make the company look better to a potential buyer.

What is AMD really worth? Any chance that it could get cheap enough for NV to take it over? What would we call the new company, Daamd NV?

The problem with buying AMD is that they have something like $2 billion+ in debt. NVIDIA may have had interest in the past, but with "Project Denver" I believe they have zero interest in AMD.

AFAIK, Oracle seems to be the top prospect at the moment.