What do you want from AMD?

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Gary Key

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I just want Phenom released so that this hype all comes to an end . One way or the other.

About 45 days away from that, and the 770/790X/790FX chipsets, plus RV670.....and then it gets interesting in Q1.....

I don't see how it gets interesting. AMD matches Intels performance per clock . But Intel still wins in the enthusist market because the Penryn scales higher . Please don't even say that Phenoms will O/C to 4ghz or higher . When intel has a chip that already does 4.2 on air and that was't even on retail later steppings. I for one could careless about what HP/Dell and the others put in their boxes. I could careless about who has market share .

It gets a little old all this talk about later steppings improving for AMD . When it is intel who just started producing High K and metal gate on a new process.

If one uses simple logic . Who is more likely to improve more with time. A 40 year old tech that AMD is using or the brandnew never befor used tech intel will be offering .

I don't care who has the fastes clock for clock CPU. I only care about who can produce the fastest performance cpu. That isn't going to change in Jan. of 08. Fact is nothing is going to change until the 2H of 08 when intel releases NEHALEM . When one starts talking about 08 than the revelation in the oem market won't be the Clock for clock performance of Penryn / Phenom. But will be $80 c2d's @ 3.0ghz and Qc2Dd's @ $120 @ 2.66 ghz .
No matter how you look at this Intel has AMD by the balls. Gary you know this.

One could argue that AMD has 45nm coming in 08. I would have to step back and think on this tho.

1) Will AMD try SOI @ 45nm. As Viditor has said not even the AMD engineers know this yet. IF thats true THan NO way do we see AMD 45nm in 08.

2) If AMD switches to Bulk strained 0n the 45nm process . Than AMD struggles tring to go threw the learning curve of Using Bulk strained . If AMD /IBM go High K and FinFEt metal gates @ 45 nm . Its more than likely Intel will be On 32nm befor AMD gets the 45nm process down to wear they can use it for retail .
If AMD tries to use either SOI or just Bulk strained @ 45nm it will be disaster for them.

So in reality land it doesn't matter if Phenom is = or > in performance to Penryn . As Penryn will out scale Phenom . ANd Intel will flood the market with cheap 65nm c2d's and Qc2D's. Why wouldn't they its the same tactic that AMD is using with K8 .

But than you will have AMD screaming unfair business practices.

No matter how one looks at this. Even if Phenom is = or > than Penryn . Pricing will be the factor. Intel will make hugh profits on its 45nm. CPU's and cut prices much deeper on the 65nm cpu's . OEMs will by the cheapest processor period . Because the performance differance is't going to be that much . At least not as much as the differance between that of K8 and Conroe. AS has already been pointed out by the AMD enthusist the differances between K8 and C2D aren't THAT MUCH . SO the differances between Phenom / Penryn will be even less. Plus the fact Penryn will outscale Phenom to remain the absolut performance king.

Paint it anyway ya want Intel has AMD by the balls. Intel sells super cheap 65nm. cpu's
Intel ramps speeds up on 45nm process. Intel comes out ontop.

Now what would be great for the market is if K10 is 25%+ faster than Penryn @=clocks.
Than its a new ball game . But Phenom has to do this in more than A few apps. Gaming being the biggest factor. Video editing . You get the picture. GAMING we know thats not going to happen at high res. Unless the reviewers once again change how they do reviews and revert back to low res testing which we all know isn't real world results.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Killrose
What do I want from AMD? Basically some sort of performance parity.

It wasn't very long ago that an AMD/ATI combo would destroy anything else on the market. Now you put them together and get second-best performance on both accounts (and really there are only 2 major companies making each type of product anyway).

It's almost as though they don't care anymore. They miss deadline after deadline with products that don't compete well anyways. Their PR/marketing departments repeatedly lie.

Really AMD is a company with enormous potential. I was pretty excited when they purchased ATI and I thought that they would be a force to reckoned with. So much for that idea...

If AMD sold off ATI, they would be gone in two years. They "needed" to buy ATI. They may have learned that Intel was going into CPU/GPU/IMC all in one chip and needed to act. Or they may have been ahead of everyone else and anticipated this is where the market would go.
They can't sell their ATI division (if that's what it's called). Nehalem, let alone Larrabee, will have integrated graphics as per Intels IDF four core Nehalem preview.

AMD has a substantial amount of growing pains to deal with. They obviously need more time to iron things out.

And lastly, what the heck is Nvidia going to do when all this comes to town? Of course they will have a customer base for their discrete graphics GPU's, but for how long? I know it will take years, but discrete graphics might actually go away, depending on how "Fusion-like" and "Larrabee-like" the market is. Nvidia needs to follow suit. Anyway, I'm not trying to go OT on ya, just thinking about the repercussions of AMD selling ATI in light of Intels roadmap, and also thinking about what Nvidia might do.

QFAT (Quoted For Absolute Truth)
And here I was, despairing that nobody else was really understanding this very simple fact...thanks keys!
AMD didn't spend all of that money on ATI because they wanted to, they well knew what financial straits lay ahead of them and how hard it was going to hit them in the short term.
AMD bought ATI because the absolutely HAD to, or risk being permanantely buried in another 3-4 years.

Just as muti-core was the obvious "next thing" (as leakage claimed more and more efficiency from any and all advances), now CPU/GPU is the obvious "next thing" going forward...it enhances design at almost every level and decreases system cost and power.
Both Intel and AMD have known this and have been making acquisitions in order to get to a level of execution.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Heres something good for AMD .

http://news.moneycentral.msn.c...&ID=7573302&Symbol=AMD

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: Viditor
I want to make another $2 Million when the shares go back up...

+1

I am waiting patiently.

 

[HannibalX]

Where's the : (6) - introduce a competitive product for the desktop marketplace?

95% of us do not buy 'OMG THE FASTEST PROCESSOR THAT EXISTS!' on the market.. Okay, so AMD does not have 'the fastest'.. but, that does not mean Intel has better performance for the money across the board.

The problem with this logic is buyer perception...

Right now Intel's best CPU beats AMD's best CPU and by a good percent. Everyone in the computer industry/hobby/world knows this right now. So even though Joe blow consumer isn't going to buy the $1000 CPU he still perceives Intel to be the best and therefore buy a $200 Intel CPU over a $200 AMD CPU.

Flagship products are the key to marketing and their success will trickle down to the ENTIRE product line.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Killrose
What do I want from AMD? Basically some sort of performance parity.

It wasn't very long ago that an AMD/ATI combo would destroy anything else on the market. Now you put them together and get second-best performance on both accounts (and really there are only 2 major companies making each type of product anyway).

It's almost as though they don't care anymore. They miss deadline after deadline with products that don't compete well anyways. Their PR/marketing departments repeatedly lie.

Really AMD is a company with enormous potential. I was pretty excited when they purchased ATI and I thought that they would be a force to reckoned with. So much for that idea...

If AMD sold off ATI, they would be gone in two years. They "needed" to buy ATI. They may have learned that Intel was going into CPU/GPU/IMC all in one chip and needed to act. Or they may have been ahead of everyone else and anticipated this is where the market would go.
They can't sell their ATI division (if that's what it's called). Nehalem, let alone Larrabee, will have integrated graphics as per Intels IDF four core Nehalem preview.

AMD has a substantial amount of growing pains to deal with. They obviously need more time to iron things out.

And lastly, what the heck is Nvidia going to do when all this comes to town? Of course they will have a customer base for their discrete graphics GPU's, but for how long? I know it will take years, but discrete graphics might actually go away, depending on how "Fusion-like" and "Larrabee-like" the market is. Nvidia needs to follow suit. Anyway, I'm not trying to go OT on ya, just thinking about the repercussions of AMD selling ATI in light of Intels roadmap, and also thinking about what Nvidia might do.

QFAT (Quoted For Absolute Truth)
And here I was, despairing that nobody else was really understanding this very simple fact...thanks keys!
AMD didn't spend all of that money on ATI because they wanted to, they well knew what financial straits lay ahead of them and how hard it was going to hit them in the short term.
AMD bought ATI because the absolutely HAD to, or risk being permanantely buried in another 3-4 years.

Just as muti-core was the obvious "next thing" (as leakage claimed more and more efficiency from any and all advances), now CPU/GPU is the obvious "next thing" going forward...it enhances design at almost every level and decreases system cost and power.
Both Intel and AMD have known this and have been making acquisitions in order to get to a level of execution.

Your logic is ludicrous. AMD has made chipsets before, and AMD could have made their own video products. AMD could have bought a *much* less expensive graphics company. There were so many alternatives, and still are. *MUST* buy ATI? Please. CPU+GPU in one package is also overrated, when a decent video-integrated chipset is dirt-cheap anyway. GPU performance changes too quickly to think that a gpu/cpu combo will be relevant for more than 6-12 months at a time in the BEST scenario.

If AMD is still kicking in 12-18 months, I'd be surprised. It's looking like they will go the way of 3dfx/Cyrix.

 

[Gary Key]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Gary Key

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I just want Phenom released so that this hype all comes to an end . One way or the other.

About 45 days away from that, and the 770/790X/790FX chipsets, plus RV670.....and then it gets interesting in Q1.....

I don't see how it gets interesting. AMD matches Intels performance per clock . But Intel still wins in the enthusist market because the Penryn scales higher . Please don't even say that Phenoms will O/C to 4ghz or higher . When intel has a chip that already does 4.2 on air and that was't even on retail later steppings. I for one could careless about what HP/Dell and the others put in their boxes. I could careless about who has market share .

Let me rephrase this, it will get really interesting on the chipset and GPU side of the equation in Q1 if AMD executes to their schedules. Phenom will keep AMD "close enough" to Intel on the desktop in most instances on a clock for clock basis, but as I have said many times, they have to scale the clock speeds quickly or risk losing being "close enough" so the consumer might think twice about the purchase.

I think that is about the best AMD can hope for at this time and yes, Intel has them by the &@!!s in the CPU sector currently, especially at the enthusiast level. I have no idea what the Phenom will truly overclock to at this time, I just know it is a little above 3GHz at this time on early silicon. What that means in regards to performance when compared to the Core 2 series is something we will find out about shortly. I do know from a platform viewpoint that AMD will be very aggressive on pricing.

It is not until Bulldozer launches that will we see what AMD really is capable of in their "quest" to return to parity or above that in the CPU sector. The upcoming chipset and GPU releases will show why AMD wanted/needed/required ATI in my opinion. Hopefully, they will market their products better and open up with product information that will quell a lot of the second guessing going on with their products. We pounded that message home to them last week. In the end, we need a healthy AMD and Intel, so that the consumers win. A death blow to either company is not in anyone's best interest in this market.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Gary Key

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Gary Key

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I just want Phenom released so that this hype all comes to an end . One way or the other.

About 45 days away from that, and the 770/790X/790FX chipsets, plus RV670.....and then it gets interesting in Q1.....

I don't see how it gets interesting. AMD matches Intels performance per clock . But Intel still wins in the enthusist market because the Penryn scales higher . Please don't even say that Phenoms will O/C to 4ghz or higher . When intel has a chip that already does 4.2 on air and that was't even on retail later steppings. I for one could careless about what HP/Dell and the others put in their boxes. I could careless about who has market share .

Let me rephrase this, it will get really interesting on the chipset and GPU side of the equation in Q1 if AMD executes to their schedules. Phenom will keep AMD "close enough" to Intel on the desktop in most instances on a clock for clock basis, but as I have said many times, they have to scale the clock speeds quickly or risk losing being "close enough" so the consumer might think twice about the purchase.

I think that is about the best AMD can hope for at this time and yes, Intel has them by the &@!!s in the CPU sector currently, especially at the enthusiast level. I have no idea what the Phenom will truly overclock to at this time, I just know it is a little above 3GHz at this time on early silicon. What that means in regards to performance when compared to the Core 2 series is something we will find out about shortly. I do know from a platform viewpoint that AMD will be very aggressive on pricing.

It is not until Bulldozer launches that will we see what AMD really is capable of in their "quest" to return to parity or above that in the CPU sector. The upcoming chipset and GPU releases will show why AMD wanted/needed/required ATI in my opinion. Hopefully, they will market their products better and open up with product information that will quell a lot of the second guessing going on with their products. We pounded that message home to them last week. In the end, we need a healthy AMD and Intel, so that the consumers win. A death blow to either company is not in anyone's best interest in this market.

Absolute truth! I'm hoping that maybe that new midrange ATI card, with DX 10.1, and top-tier performance w/o psycho power usage/heat output, could possibly be a huge seller and help get AMD back into the black. It's looking pretty dismal overall, but that's a bright spot if they can make it happen.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Gary Key

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Gary Key

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I just want Phenom released so that this hype all comes to an end . One way or the other.

About 45 days away from that, and the 770/790X/790FX chipsets, plus RV670.....and then it gets interesting in Q1.....

I don't see how it gets interesting. AMD matches Intels performance per clock . But Intel still wins in the enthusist market because the Penryn scales higher . Please don't even say that Phenoms will O/C to 4ghz or higher . When intel has a chip that already does 4.2 on air and that was't even on retail later steppings. I for one could careless about what HP/Dell and the others put in their boxes. I could careless about who has market share .

Let me rephrase this, it will get really interesting on the chipset and GPU side of the equation in Q1 if AMD executes to their schedules. Phenom will keep AMD "close enough" to Intel on the desktop in most instances on a clock for clock basis, but as I have said many times, they have to scale the clock speeds quickly or risk losing being "close enough" so the consumer might think twice about the purchase.

I think that is about the best AMD can hope for at this time and yes, Intel has them by the &@!!s in the CPU sector currently, especially at the enthusiast level. I have no idea what the Phenom will truly overclock to at this time, I just know it is a little above 3GHz at this time on early silicon. What that means in regards to performance when compared to the Core 2 series is something we will find out about shortly. I do know from a platform viewpoint that AMD will be very aggressive on pricing.

It is not until Bulldozer launches that will we see what AMD really is capable of in their "quest" to return to parity or above that in the CPU sector. The upcoming chipset and GPU releases will show why AMD wanted/needed/required ATI in my opinion. Hopefully, they will market their products better and open up with product information that will quell a lot of the second guessing going on with their products. We pounded that message home to them last week. In the end, we need a healthy AMD and Intel, so that the consumers win. A death blow to either company is not in anyone's best interest in this market.

I agree with this update to first statement.

What concerns me is this little nagging question. When did AMD start working On Bulldozer and fusion? When will bulldozer be released?

At the same time the other part of that question would be when did Intel Start working on Nehalem which is already been shown at IDF. 4cores 8 threads. Intel has stated that they can add a larabbe type core to Nehalems modular design . Larabbe is intels first tera scale design to be released sometime in 08 I believe.

So we get Bulldozer sometime in 09 . I would assume late 09 even if AMD says early 09. Which will be followed by . Intels Israeli teams Geshner in 2010. The Israeli team is already hard at work on Geshner. I look for Nehalem to be good . But Geshner will be something very special .

I will post this now but need to add to the Larrabe as I can't recall the names of the 2 other projects Intel dropped over the Larrabe project. This is just to show Intel has been working on these projects a lot longer than AMD has been on Bulldozer ot fusion . Back in a bit.


The other 2 projects Intel dropped in favor of Larrabee were Keifer/Kevet, Many believed Keiferwould win but intel sees something they liked in the tera-scale Larrabee project. I believe 100% this is the reason AMD had to buy ATI . So intel is alot further advanced in its research than AMD . But not sure that would apply to IBM . Now if Sun had an X86 license things could heat up fast. AMD should have bought Sun and not ATI.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Now if Sun had an X86 license things could heat up fast. AMD should have bought Sun and not ATI.

You got that backwards...SUN should have bought AMD.

SUN market cap = $20B

AMD market cap = $7B (including ATi's contribution)

3:1 market cap ratio would not even be considered a merger, that would be an outright acquistion.

SUN could also use the access to advanced CMOS fabs for their own SPARC processor line now that TI has committed business suicide in the CMOS arena and will cease to be SUN's foundry at 45nm and beyond.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
4. For AMD to get rid of the ridiculous employee stock program (oh good.. already done)
-- Giving your employees an opportunity to buy your own stock at a 15% discount artificially reduces the value of your stock, duh.

Wow, that's real genius right there. We definitely don't want AMD attracting the kind of talent that is smart enough to know they can go elsewhere and receive more compensation.

The smart money is on hiring those engineers who dumb and stupid enough to not realize they can work for an employer who will value them more by offering competitive compensation package.

Yeah shareholders! We will beat Intel with our inferior workforce or else!

 

[Bradtechonline]

I just want AMD to be competitive, and challenge Intel with performance, and competitive pricing. It's great for the consumer. I think their 90nm technology is outdated, and the power consumption is an issue right now. I'd like to see 65nm parts that rival the Core 2 Duo's performance, and pricing. Only thing holding me back from buying a 6000+ is the power consumption.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: brxndxn
4. For AMD to get rid of the ridiculous employee stock program (oh good.. already done)
-- Giving your employees an opportunity to buy your own stock at a 15% discount artificially reduces the value of your stock, duh.

Wow, that's real genius right there. We definitely don't want AMD attracting the kind of talent that is smart enough to know they can go elsewhere and receive more compensation.

The smart money is on hiring those engineers who dumb and stupid enough to not realize they can work for an employer who will value them more by offering competitive compensation package.

Yeah shareholders! We will beat Intel with our inferior workforce or else!

Agreed I worked for a company that gave stock options it truely is a moral buster + it draws talent. (lol at that Buster . Booster is what I meant)

Actually I was thinking Sun should buy AMD but was to temid to say so. But it would be a far better company.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Killrose
What do I want from AMD? Basically some sort of performance parity.

It wasn't very long ago that an AMD/ATI combo would destroy anything else on the market. Now you put them together and get second-best performance on both accounts (and really there are only 2 major companies making each type of product anyway).

It's almost as though they don't care anymore. They miss deadline after deadline with products that don't compete well anyways. Their PR/marketing departments repeatedly lie.

Really AMD is a company with enormous potential. I was pretty excited when they purchased ATI and I thought that they would be a force to reckoned with. So much for that idea...

If AMD sold off ATI, they would be gone in two years. They "needed" to buy ATI. They may have learned that Intel was going into CPU/GPU/IMC all in one chip and needed to act. Or they may have been ahead of everyone else and anticipated this is where the market would go.
They can't sell their ATI division (if that's what it's called). Nehalem, let alone Larrabee, will have integrated graphics as per Intels IDF four core Nehalem preview.

AMD has a substantial amount of growing pains to deal with. They obviously need more time to iron things out.

And lastly, what the heck is Nvidia going to do when all this comes to town? Of course they will have a customer base for their discrete graphics GPU's, but for how long? I know it will take years, but discrete graphics might actually go away, depending on how "Fusion-like" and "Larrabee-like" the market is. Nvidia needs to follow suit. Anyway, I'm not trying to go OT on ya, just thinking about the repercussions of AMD selling ATI in light of Intels roadmap, and also thinking about what Nvidia might do.

QFAT (Quoted For Absolute Truth)
And here I was, despairing that nobody else was really understanding this very simple fact...thanks keys!
AMD didn't spend all of that money on ATI because they wanted to, they well knew what financial straits lay ahead of them and how hard it was going to hit them in the short term.
AMD bought ATI because the absolutely HAD to, or risk being permanantely buried in another 3-4 years.

Just as muti-core was the obvious "next thing" (as leakage claimed more and more efficiency from any and all advances), now CPU/GPU is the obvious "next thing" going forward...it enhances design at almost every level and decreases system cost and power.
Both Intel and AMD have known this and have been making acquisitions in order to get to a level of execution.

Your logic is ludicrous. AMD has made chipsets before, and AMD could have made their own video products. AMD could have bought a *much* less expensive graphics company. There were so many alternatives, and still are. *MUST* buy ATI? Please. CPU+GPU in one package is also overrated, when a decent video-integrated chipset is dirt-cheap anyway. GPU performance changes too quickly to think that a gpu/cpu combo will be relevant for more than 6-12 months at a time in the BEST scenario.

If AMD is still kicking in 12-18 months, I'd be surprised. It's looking like they will go the way of 3dfx/Cyrix.

Ahhh...the good old "let's use magic instead of science" argument.

1. Please list for me the number of experienced integrated graphics companies that "AMD could have bought"...you can't just wave a magic wand and have a graphics product, nor can you just hire Moe, Larry, and Curly and have them do it for you! There's a very good reason companies like ATI and Nvidia have 1000s of engineers on the payroll...

2. Developing the original chipsets cost AMD more than developing the CPUs because they had to hire a whole new division to do it. Their chipset division was still very, very small when they bought ATI, and it didn't develop anything like integrated chipsets (you DO know that there are many different kinds of chipsets, yes?).

3. CPU+GPU allows for a significant reduction in power usage on both mobile and server platforms (systems that don't require high end graphics), and once a new graphics ISA is developed (which is what the CTM project has been doing) it should allow for higher end graphics as well. Note that this graphics solution will look nothing like what is currently in use...they will probably be more of a GPU cluster on-die with direct access to "graphics-tagged" threads from the cache (this is a guess as the ISA hasn't yet been developed).

4. As cheap as an integrated graphics chip is, building it into the CPU is FAR cheaper (and as I said, uses much less power).

5. The only solutions for delivering a CPU based GPU (and remember that Intel is going this way as well, so there's probably a very good reason for it!) that AMD had were either ATI or nVidia...and nVidia was much more expensive. A company like S3 (who doesn't have any experience in higher end graphics and is owned by Via already) or developing a solution from scratch would take years longer and end up being far more expensive due to the delays, higher development costs, and loss of sales...

 

[Nemesis 1]

Viditor AMD could have easily used Intels method of tera-scale using multi simple X86 processor combined with the use of a Vector unit. And hired the enginneers for a lot less than 5 billion dollars. If Intel is pushing towards Real time raytracing and they succed. AMD will still be left out in the cold. After all Intel will be using SSE4 and SSE4.1 in their approach. Which means AMD could do as they have for the most part done in the past. Copied Intel and the industry would stay on the same path.

By going in a differant direction than Intel they brought higher cost to themselves. Let Intel do the research. If intel succeeds in their endeavor at RtRt. The industry will probabaly follow the company that has 80% market share. I can see clearly the advantages of tera scaling with simple x86 cores . I can also see the disadvantages of AMD/ATI and NV's method of Gcpu. Witness the Itanic . they should have stayed with X86 as this is were applications are. Now if AMD's method works Intels expertise in VLIL will be its saving grace. IF Intel succeeds AMD has committed suicide.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Arkaign


Your logic is ludicrous. AMD has made chipsets before, and AMD could have made their own video products. AMD could have bought a *much* less expensive graphics company. There were so many alternatives, and still are. *MUST* buy ATI? Please. CPU+GPU in one package is also overrated, when a decent video-integrated chipset is dirt-cheap anyway. GPU performance changes too quickly to think that a gpu/cpu combo will be relevant for more than 6-12 months at a time in the BEST scenario.

If AMD is still kicking in 12-18 months, I'd be surprised. It's looking like they will go the way of 3dfx/Cyrix.

And what portion of AMD's staff could have designed video products? Don't you think that pre ATI Advanced Micro Devices had their hands full just developing CPU's?

With pressure from Intel, namely Nehalem and Larabee projects and development which I am sure AMD was well aware of, do you really think there was enough time to start from scratch, hire as many 2nd rate graphics hardware engineers (most of the first rate ones are already employed by Nvidia/ATI, I mean, where else would you want to be if you were a graphics engineering guru?) to design 2nd rate graphics cores, or integrated solutions?

No time. ATI was AMD's ONLY option and it HAD to be done WHEN it was done. Almost overnight, all of ATI's intellectual property accumulated since ATI was born, now belongs to AMD and can put that to work instantly instead of 5 years from now starting from scratch. Which would be FAR too late.

Who else would AMD buy? Matrox? S3? What for? to be mediocre?

The only thing "ludicrous" is you stating that it's ludicrous that these are the reasons for AMD's purchase of ATI.

Now AMD has only to get through the initial large pains of making everything work smoothly together. Two very large size companies have to now work as one (albeit divisional) and make things happen. Now AMD has the ability to make it's own VERY good chipsets, and graphics processors, AND now can easily weasle into the handheld graphics and chipsets market which is HUGE. Has been for a while now and is only getting more insane every day.
Handhelds, Cell phones, ultra portable multimedia devices similar to iphone, archos, Creative. Jeez, the possibilites are endless.

It may not have been the very best time for AMD to buy ATI, and it did put a severe hurting on both companies, but it HAD to be done. Yes indeed, it was do, or die for AMD. make no mistake about that.

Intel has watched and witnessed Nvida and ATI's GPU's getting closer and closer to becoming CPU replacements. GPGPU's. Unified architectures. Encroaching on grid computing functions and far outpacing the current best CPU's by FAR. Intel saw that and probably freaked out way back when. Probably a week before Nehalem and Larabee projects came into being.

Nothing ludicrous about it. Makes perfect logical sense the way things are developing.
AMD's Fusion. Intel's Nehalem and Larabee. All answers to the GPGPU.

I will also assume that Nvidia is sweating the most these days, unless of course they are secretly working on something of their own to stay in the game down the road.

In 5 years, the way computers operate will be completely alien to what we have today. But 5 years ago, things weren't that much different than they are today. Aside from GPGPU's that is.

Think about it. I mean really think about it. I hope you don't skim through this post, but really see the logic in it.

 

[dflynchimp]

as of status quo I don't "want" anything from AMD (perfectly happy with my system insofar)

IMO I thought the ATI acquisition was a smart move, albeit at an inconvenient time. If AMD had done this in the days before conroe then I'm sure no one would've been whining about how they made a dumb move. But it's hard enough to lose the performance leadership, then have to divy your funding up further because of horizontal integration. In terms of business AMD was always the underdog, and had less resources/funds to work with. The ATI purchase was a long term investment that looks bad on paper in the short term, but will inevitably yield new technological advances in the future.

My outlook on Phenom is still quite positive. Even if it only reaches clockspeed performance parity, AMD will have least have taken a step in the right direction. Remember, Intel only came up with conroe after several architectural overhauls stemming from their mobile line Pentium 4-M -> Pentium M (Dothan)-> Core Duo (Yonah) -> Core 2 Duo (Conroe). The K8 architecture is to Conroe what Netburst was to K8, AKA an aging design. Intel got lazy after gaining the performance crown (via Gigahertz war) with netburst, and subsequently was given a good thrashing from AMD's K8. AMD got too comfortable with K8, and now is getting it's ass kicked with Conroe. Phenom might only get performance parity, but it is only a stepping stone off which better designs and evolutions could be made. At least in 2008 we won't be seeing a 45nm K8 clocked at 3.6GHz (which would really make the netburst/K8 and K8/Conroe comparison more uncannily similar)

 

[Arkaign]

I've thought about it, but it still doesn't make much sense to me. People have tried the cpu/video combo before, remember Cyrix MediaGX? And what of the ever-improving performance of cheap integrated video chipsets? Until we reach a point where we are streaming unlimited computer power from a unified source, dedicated video solutions will always be higher end than an integrated cpu/gpu. To make matters more difficult for this kind of project, even today's cheap integrated video is more than enough for the 80+% of pc users that don't care about gaming outside of solitaire. With newer integrated video chipsets, h264 / 720p / 1080p is even feasible. So where's the huge market for a cpu/gpu? Gaming will still be faster on dedicated video products, so that's what they'll buy.

In 5 years, computers will still work much the same as today, but probably most non-gaming/special-use boxes will be much smaller and more integrated. But processors will still need motherboards, and some form of ram will still be needed to run apps. Following this logic, there's nothing to say that an integrated chipset video won't offer anything much different from a cpu/gpu combo. Video is already becoming an irrelevant stat to pretty much everyone BUT gamers, as even the cheap crap is fine for most users.

When I think of Cpu+Gpu combo, all I think is : extra power requirement, extra heat, larger die (lower yield), and so on. It just doesn't make much business sense to me. Of course the major players are messing with the idea, but it seems asinine to me, and not a place to pull profits from a market that doesn't really exist.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Here's how AMD is going to handle thier money crunch problems.

http://news.softpedia.com/news...ar-Looming-67659.shtml


This is great In jan. of 08 we should beable to buy Qc2ds 2.66ghz for $120. I hope Amd doesn't think they can beat Intel at this game.

 

[Phynaz]

Guys, we're wandering off topic a bit .

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here's how AMD is going to handle thier money crunch problems.

http://news.softpedia.com/news...ar-Looming-67659.shtml


This is great In jan. of 08 we should beable to buy Qc2ds 2.66ghz for $120. I hope Amd doesn't think they can beat Intel at this game.

Basically, I want Phenom to kick Penryn's buttocks all over the place.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here's how AMD is going to handle thier money crunch problems.

http://news.softpedia.com/news...ar-Looming-67659.shtml


This is great In jan. of 08 we should beable to buy Qc2ds 2.66ghz for $120. I hope Amd doesn't think they can beat Intel at this game.

Basically, I want Phenom to kick Penryn's buttocks all over the place.

Looking at Barcy benchmarks, do you think this is even possible? At what clock speed? To make matters worse, what of the cost/yield constraints of putting a 65nm core against a 45nm one?

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here's how AMD is going to handle thier money crunch problems.

http://news.softpedia.com/news...ar-Looming-67659.shtml


This is great In jan. of 08 we should beable to buy Qc2ds 2.66ghz for $120. I hope Amd doesn't think they can beat Intel at this game.

Basically, I want Phenom to kick Penryn's buttocks all over the place.

Looking at Barcy benchmarks, do you think this is even possible? At what clock speed? To make matters worse, what of the cost/yield constraints of putting a 65nm core against a 45nm one?

I've asked politly once that my thread be kept on-topic. Please start a thread to discuss the Barcelona vs. Penryn debate.

Thanks.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here's how AMD is going to handle thier money crunch problems.

http://news.softpedia.com/news...ar-Looming-67659.shtml


This is great In jan. of 08 we should beable to buy Qc2ds 2.66ghz for $120. I hope Amd doesn't think they can beat Intel at this game.

Basically, I want Phenom to kick Penryn's buttocks all over the place.

Looking at Barcy benchmarks, do you think this is even possible? At what clock speed? To make matters worse, what of the cost/yield constraints of putting a 65nm core against a 45nm one?

I've asked politly once that my thread be kept on-topic. Please start a thread to discuss the Barcelona vs. Penryn debate.

Thanks.

It's your thread, but "Basically, I want Phenom to kick Penryn's buttocks all over the place", is pretty much what Keys (and I, though I doubt it's possible), want from AMD. It's pretty on-topic. It's not like we're talking about cars, politics, or whatever.

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: brxndxn
4. For AMD to get rid of the ridiculous employee stock program (oh good.. already done)
-- Giving your employees an opportunity to buy your own stock at a 15% discount artificially reduces the value of your stock, duh.

Wow, that's real genius right there. We definitely don't want AMD attracting the kind of talent that is smart enough to know they can go elsewhere and receive more compensation.

The smart money is on hiring those engineers who dumb and stupid enough to not realize they can work for an employer who will value them more by offering competitive compensation package.

Yeah shareholders! We will beat Intel with our inferior workforce or else!

Agreed I worked for a company that gave stock options it truely is a moral buster + it draws talent. (lol at that Buster . Booster is what I meant)

Actually I was thinking Sun should buy AMD but was to temid to say so. But it would be a far better company.

Both of you are missing what I am saying. I am NOT against employee stock options. I AM against specifically the ridiculous way AMD allowed for stock options. Basically, an employee could purchase stock at 85% of the cost and turn around and sell it right away instead of taking the employee bonus. It would end up meaning the employee would get about 3% more money by buying the AMD stock.

However, AMD employees, since they could purchase the stock at 85% of the value and turn around and sell it right away, would be willing to sell for any profit since anything higher than 85% of the share price at the time is profit to them. So.. if a share was priced at $100, and an employee gets to buy it at $85, that employee could undersell the rest of the REAL market and still make a profit, shus driving AMD's share price down artificially. You're basically using your own employees against you with a stock option plan like that..

Stock options for employees = good.. they don't make much money unless the price goes up. Buying stock at a discount = bad.