What do you want from AMD?

[Phynaz]

As the title says, what do YOU want from AMD?

I'll start:
I want Hector Ruiz fired, along with his market share at all costs strategy. He has consistently over reached and failed i.e.:

Multiple cancelled cpu projects that couldn't be built.
Fab expansion not supported by sales.
The ATI purchase.

I want somebody in charge of AMD that can execute on product delivery and marketing.

As far as Barcelona, a fix can't come fast enough. I want AMD to get to 45nm yesterday, or else they are dead.

 

[Keysplayr]

Follow these instructions:

1. Sit Back
2. Relax
3. Enjoy the show
4.

All I want is actually happening right now. A fierce price war that only I (a consumer) can benefit from. It's good to be a consumer at the moment. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Keys

 

[AmberClad]

They need to either cut ATI loose, or stop letting them fall by the wayside:
- ATI was a no show at IDF (they were there last Sept, so I'm not convinced that Intel simply banned them)
- little effort to generate press coverage about the newly released 2900 Pro and the 2900 GT
- lack of a competitive video card market = Nvidia card prices staying about the same over half a year (where's our GPU price war :| ?)

 

[Viditor]

I want to make another $2 Million when the shares go back up...

 

[AlabamaCajun]

1) Phenom and Workstation Opterons.
2) 45nm with 4 to 12M L3 cache!

*) Not from AMD but all the magazines and websites to stop gloating over C2 whatevers and show something about AMD CPUs and Mobos for a change. How many SKUs is intel going to release next yearm they already have what looks like 40!

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Follow these instructions:

1. Sit Back
2. Relax
3. Enjoy the show
4.

All I want is actually happening right now. A fierce price war that only I (a consumer) can benefit from. It's good to be a consumer at the moment. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Keys

I would like that + a more competitive product line from AMD.

I would also like to hear some realistic goals and honesty from AMD. Right now AMD has made no solid statement that wasn't a flat out lye, misconception, or cop-out. Their execution has been poor. Ruiz is hinting now that AMD will turn into an IBM where they focus their product lines where they can compete (x86-64 doesn't seem to be working anymore for them). Maybe like Fusion, a more modular approach where they can effectively reach every markets needs.

Problem is that's a long term goal. Which I guess why AMD is planning the continuation boosting performance in the Barc, releasing 45nm shanghai, and the Sledgehammer. They need to do this in a cost effective manner and they need to be more competitive! No more die shrinks with no advancements other than power consumption.

They need to be more geared towards software developers! Looks like they are attempting this by offering their own SEE instruction set (though we know little about it yet). They need to get the software engineers on their side to level the playing field. They are the ones that tell them what the need, not the customers!

 

[bryanW1995]

I think that we all had better pony up and buy a cheap quad core soon since in 12-18 mos we will probably have either no amd or an amd that focuses on WS, servers, and ati.

 

[imported_jX]

Why exactly was buying ATI a bad move? Not defending (nor criticizing) but I'd like to hear your reasoning.

 

[Zenoth]

I would like AMD to focus on server CPU's and Graphics Card and abandon the Desktop CPU market. Or do I ... hmmm, not sure.

Hmmm, yeah why not.

AMD focuses on hyper speed server CPU's.
Money from that partially goes to better conception of GPU's.
AMD finally creates his "G80", beating nVidia to a humiliating point.
AMD buys nVidia.
AMD grows significantly.
AMD comes back to the Desktop market (CPU's).
AMD takes a couple of years but finally manages to beat Intel (once more).
Intel tries and fails.
AMD buys Intel.
AMD has monopoly.
Consumers boycot AMD.
The World is without new server CPU's, new Desktop CPU's and new GPU's for decades to come.

Yup !

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: jX
Why exactly was buying ATI a bad move? Not defending (nor criticizing) but I'd like to hear your reasoning.

Maybe another time,a reply to that question would end up taking this thread off-topic.

 

[imported_jX]

Not really. Conversations work that way. This isn't Slashdot with nazi-mods. And really, it's on topic because you seem to think it was a bad move, something you wish you had NOT seen from ATI.

Or do you just not like ATI and wish they bought nVidia?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: jX
Not really. Conversations work that way. This isn't Slashdot with nazi-mods. And really, it's on topic because you seem to think it was a bad move, something you wish you had NOT seen from ATI.

Or do you just not like ATI and wish they bought nVidia?

I agree with Phynaz on this one (I think that's twice now...). Poor keys is already overworked...
However it is a worthy question, maybe if you started a seperate thread?

 

[Roy2001]

1. Ruiz Hector to step down.
2. Stop crying over media for Intel monopoly.
3. Improve 65nm process and yield.
4. Stop circulating simulated hyped data and provide Barcy/Phenom to public, not seleted few reviewers.

 

[piasabird]

AMD cant possibly catch up with Intel the current managemet. At the IDF Intel Developer Forum Intel had a working CPU next generation running Windows XP with their new design for Quad Core Processors with a completely new Memory Controller. Wont be long till Intel has that working 80 CPU Core and wiz-bang super memory controller. They have to work on it because IBM is working on it too.

My biggest complaint against AMD is they quit making the XP processors too early.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=758

I know you guys are nuts for links!

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: piasabird
AMD cant possibly catch up with Intel the current managemet. At the IDF Intel Developer Forum Intel had a working CPU next generation running Windows XP with their new design for Quad Core Processors with a completely new Memory Controller. Wont be long till Intel has that working 80 CPU Core and wiz-bang super memory controller. They have to work on it because IBM is working on it too.

My biggest complaint against AMD is they quit making the XP processors too early.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=758

I know you guys are nuts for links!

^^^ Truth. Remember when AMD fanboys went on and on about how they stuck with a processor interface for a long time? Those days are long gone. Let's look at both sides in brief (only focusing on sockets that see at least moderate usage on desktop units, with recent/current gen bolded)

Intel :

Socket 7
Slot 1
Socket 370
Socket 423
Socket 478
Socket 775

AMD :

Socket 7
Slot A
Socket A
Socket 940
Socket 754
Socket 939
Socket AM2

It seems almost like the achilles heel of AMD is the IMC, because they keep changing sockets on us for differing ram compatibility. Also, I know Socket 940 wasn't a common desktop socket, but I included it because it was common enough amongst enthusiasts jumping on the early Opterons/FXes. I didn't include the QuadFX because it's just an utter failure, I doubt there are more than a few hundred worldwide.

As to why buying ATI was stupid :

(1)- Hugely expensive.
(2)- Came at a time when profits were through the floor.
(3)- AMD could have bought something like S3, or maybe even Matrox, for a fraction of the cost, and then developed into a respectable competitor with adequate R&D/Managerial decisions and resources.
(4)- The $$ could have been spent on marketing/development. AMD should have stayed in the chipset mfg game themselves, rather than remaining dependent on Nvidia/ATI/VIA/SiS. Buying ATI stinks of insider profiting for the few, at the sacrifice of the customer and ordinary employee.

 

[Killrose]

What do I want from AMD? Basically some sort of performance parity. I don't care if they win every benchmark. Just get back into the performance game and not wear the budget crown. Bothers me we are not hearing much at all about consumer desktop parts.

Where's the beef?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Killrose
What do I want from AMD? Basically some sort of performance parity. I don't care if they win every benchmark. Just get back into the performance game and not wear the budget crown. Bothers me we are not hearing much at all about consumer desktop parts.

Where's the beef?

That's true. It would really help even if they got to where a Q6600 was met on equal terms by a $200 or less AMD Phenom.

People also forget that P4 won 1/3 to 1/2 the benchmarks vs. AMD64 Socket 754, it wasn't until X2 that AMD really started to run away with a huge majority of benchmark wins. IIRC, comparing a P4 3.4Ghz vs a S754 3400+ was a dead heat (literally for the P4, lol), though of course the split was encoding vs. gaming for Intel v AMD. Now it's just a repetitive beatdown of everything on the desktop for AMD.

I still recommend AMD for budget boxes, primarily because integrated Nvidia video is >>>>>> integrated Intel video. But for anyone with a video card and at least $80 to spend on a proc, it's Intel all the way to the bank, sadly.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I just want Phenom released so that this hype all comes to an end . One way or the other.

 

[brxndxn]

I want (as an AMD shareholder):

1. AMD needs to make it's #1 priority to increase shareholder value
2. AMD should aggresively pursue the Intel monopoly lawsuit
-- AMD has a VERY strong case. It's not often that you can mathematically prove that the near-monopoly competitor reduced the incremental value of it's nearest competitor to below zero value by offering outside incentives and price reductions based on percentage of market share. Also, Intel has been found guilty or is being investigated for monopolistic behavior in Japan, Europe, South Korea.
3. AMD should pursue business pc and workstation wins - It is still ridiculously hard to find business pc's made with AMD processors.. which doesn't make sense because most businesses just need pc's that work well, use low power, and are inexpensive - an area AMD is still very competitive in
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.
5. AMD needs more 'vs Intel' advertisements. There is still a large amount of idiots that completely do not know a competitor to Intel even exists. So, to show that a competitor exists to a brand that makes products that few people understand, AMD needs to show that competitor also in its advertisements.. Counter-intuitive at first, but I believe it is the only way. Just show a $100 AMD processor beating a $100 Intel processor in a race.

Looks like AMD is doing a decent job.. And it looks like there's future upside potential. So, I will continue to be an AMD shareholder. I'll just buy more if the price goes down.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I want (as an AMD shareholder):

1. AMD needs to make it's #1 priority to increase shareholder value
2. AMD should aggresively pursue the Intel monopoly lawsuit
-- AMD has a VERY strong case. It's not often that you can mathematically prove that the near-monopoly competitor reduced the incremental value of it's nearest competitor to below zero value by offering outside incentives and price reductions based on percentage of market share. Also, Intel has been found guilty or is being investigated for monopolistic behavior in Japan, Europe, South Korea.
3. AMD should pursue business pc and workstation wins - It is still ridiculously hard to find business pc's made with AMD processors.. which doesn't make sense because most businesses just need pc's that work well, use low power, and are inexpensive - an area AMD is still very competitive in
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.
5. AMD needs more 'vs Intel' advertisements. There is still a large amount of idiots that completely do not know a competitor to Intel even exists. So, to show that a competitor exists to a brand that makes products that few people understand, AMD needs to show that competitor also in its advertisements.. Counter-intuitive at first, but I believe it is the only way. Just show a $100 AMD processor beating a $100 Intel processor in a race.

Looks like AMD is doing a decent job.. And it looks like there's future upside potential. So, I will continue to be an AMD shareholder. I'll just buy more if the price goes down.

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

 

[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.....

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I want (as an AMD shareholder):

1. AMD needs to make it's #1 priority to increase shareholder value
2. AMD should aggresively pursue the Intel monopoly lawsuit
-- AMD has a VERY strong case. It's not often that you can mathematically prove that the near-monopoly competitor reduced the incremental value of it's nearest competitor to below zero value by offering outside incentives and price reductions based on percentage of market share. Also, Intel has been found guilty or is being investigated for monopolistic behavior in Japan, Europe, South Korea.
3. AMD should pursue business pc and workstation wins - It is still ridiculously hard to find business pc's made with AMD processors.. which doesn't make sense because most businesses just need pc's that work well, use low power, and are inexpensive - an area AMD is still very competitive in
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.
5. AMD needs more 'vs Intel' advertisements. There is still a large amount of idiots that completely do not know a competitor to Intel even exists. So, to show that a competitor exists to a brand that makes products that few people understand, AMD needs to show that competitor also in its advertisements.. Counter-intuitive at first, but I believe it is the only way. Just show a $100 AMD processor beating a $100 Intel processor in a race.

Looks like AMD is doing a decent job.. And it looks like there's future upside potential. So, I will continue to be an AMD shareholder. I'll just buy more if the price goes down.

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.

 

[SickBeast]

Ok I'll bite:

1. Fire Hector Ruiz.

2. Somehow sell off the ATI graphics division, the ATI chipset division, and the flash memory division.

3. Focus development on a *good* multi-core CPU that can clock high and perform extrememly well in single-threaded applications.

4. Use the money from selling ATI to create a viable production system for their CPUs so they don't need to rely on IBM/TSMC anymore.

5. Create their *own* chipsets,without relying on hacks like ATI who didn't create the CPUs to begin with. :light:

 

[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...

 

[Keysplayr]

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.