Who thinks AMD will be out of desktop CPU market by 2014?

[lifeblood]

As long as AMD can stay relevent in the server market they will survive in the desktop market. The server market is where the big bucks are, and I think BD will do well in that market. Desktop BD is just a modified server BD (which is part of the problem). If they no longer produce a competitive server CPU then it really is lights out for AMD.

I don't think AMD deserves ALL the blame. Once again, Intel's superior Fabs take the day. If BD had hit the clocks AMD had hoped for the benchmarks would be singing a different tune. Now whether the fault is AMDs for not designing BD correctly for the process, or GloFlo's fault for not delivering to the advertised specs is still up in the air. Given their yield problems I suspect its GloFlos fault, but that's just guessing.

For me, a gamer, BD is a steaming pile of Poo. I better grab a 2500k before Intel raises the price.

 

[Blitzvogel]

For me, a gamer, BD is a steaming pile of Poo. I better grab a 2500k before Intel raises the price.

Pretty much, unless devs aim specifically at running on 8 full cores of the BD kind. At least it's a good chip for content creators assuming they are using properly multi-threaded applications.

I find myself wondering how an 8-core Bobcat would compete against BD on a clock-per-clock IPC basis, because BD is pretty pathetic. AMD really did take a step backwards here. It's as if AMD thought they could interpolate the idea of "massive parallelism" from graphics to CPUs. General computing really isn't ready for this.

So yep, AMD still has servers, Llano, Bobcat (AMD's saving grace as far as CPUs go), and of course Radeon graphics. BD will probably sell enough to keep AMD from drowning, but AMD really needs to go back to the drawing board and fix the IPC problems.

 

[bryanW1995]

Yeah but the thing with Phenom was the die size was not out of this world so they could lower the price to fit it into where it belonged performance wise and still make money.

With the die size of BD being this large i dont believe they can cut prices by $100 per SKU which is what they need to do to sell any, and still make a profit.

This is significantly worse than Phenom, PLUS bulldozer was supposed to be the answer to the barcelona fiasco (and come out in 2009 according to the roadmaps floating around in those days). To paraphrase our buddy JHH: "When you don't have anything to talk about you talk about the future." AMD did that 4 years ago, then missed "the future" by 2 years. Now they are throwing out another incredibly optimistic "future" that is likely more of a best-case scenario fantasy than anything remotely resembling real life.

As Anand said in his article: "The good news is AMD has a very aggressive roadmap ahead of itself". When the best news to come out of your new product rollout is your future roadmap, you are absolutely screwed.


By the way, I voted that they would be out by 2014 b/c they already left the market. In 2006.

Dont get me wrong either, i didnt start this thread because i WANT amd to die, i started it because after this BD disaster i think they are either going to go under or get bought out.

The Ideal situation would have been for BD to get a home run and force Intel to actually push for a while and we would end up with better CPU's and everyone would be happy.

That's the real problem for AMD: their ideal situation still wouldn't have put them ahead of intel b/c they were so late to the party. AMD's ideal scenario was to actually get BD out in 2009, before they had a ph II x6 or 2500k to compete against. This cpu wouldn't have looked nearly as bad back then. Now, in the end it didn't really matter WHAT they came out with because intel has them beaten by 40% + in IPC. Even in a best-case scenario, who would have expected BD to be released at 5 ghz? How many SB cpus can clock to at least 3.5? 90%? 95%? AMD had no chance here, it looks like they must have put the A team on gpus, llano, bobcat, or something else like knitting sweaters. Hopefully they end up finding a niche in which they can be competitive soon, otherwise all of that gloom and doom that we're hearing today really will come to pass.

 

[bryanW1995]

This will not force AMD out of the desktop CPU market, I'd imagine it's a relatively small portion of their business these days. There just aren't that many people using desktop computers these days and the trend away from desktops is destined to continue as most people just don't need that much computing power. Whether or not they see any benefit in continuing to produce desktop chips is another matter.

How do you classify "that many people"? I just read an article that stated that Q2 cpu sales were higher in 2011 than in they were in 2010, though it didn't show a breakdown by type (desktop/mobile/netbook/etc). Are things really that dire, or is this just unsubstantiated hyperbole backed up by your personal experience of not needing a desktop?

The biggest joke of all . The EU saying intel was slowing CPU innovation . Weres the 1 billion dollar fine for AMDS contribution for slowing innovation with this CPU.

LOL. I wonder if the Q6600 that my mom's had for nearly 4 years can outperform an 8150? I'll bet it's pretty close.

 

[bkzed]

No Man, It should not happen, because we need Competition No matter how bad BD looks right now...its good than the speculations...now those who were waiting for it can now go for i.

 

[frozentundra123456]

They won't be out at all. BD isn't the smash hit we hoped for, but it's still competitive just like Phenom II and the X6 line. The game hasn't changed, AMD lags slightly behind Intel, so essentially, unless Intel releases CPUs that smash both the high end and low end AMD processors by a massive margin while being competitive on price AMD will always be in the game.

I dont think AMD will be out of the CPU business, but mainly because the government would be all over intel if AMD went out of business. With the cash on hand and the engineering resources avaliable, Intel could crush AMD if they wanted and were not afraid of government intervention.

I also strongly disagree with you that AMD lags "slightly" behind Intel. AMD is at least 2 generations behind intel in pure CPU performance, and they use more power also. And even worse, Bulldozer is a huge chip and they will have to cut prices almost immediately, so... an expensive chip that they have to cut prices on, that is a recipe for profit.

All that AMD has left to offer is its discrete GPU business, and Llano, which is somewhat competitive, but only at the low end. The bigger question is when AMD will turn a profit and how much. But they have operated at a loss or with minimal profit for a long time now, and I think they will continue that way.

 

[bryanW1995]

Intel will do almost anything to satisfy Apple. Not because of volumes, but because of image. If for example AMD somehow became an exclusive supplier of processors for Apple, the optics of that would be very hurtful to Intel. Love it or hate it, Apple is seen by many as god-like.

Yeah, it was a really big feather in intel's cap when they got the Apple account back a few years ago. However, fair or not, Apple just lost the coolest thing going for it. I'm sure that the current team is awesome, but Jobs to a certain extent was bigger than company. And the "new" iphone isn't really new at all. Apple needs to leverage their dominant position now because they are likely going to start losing some of their luster over the coming months/years.

 

[videopho]

Hell NO.
I buy both (Intel & AMD) as trying to keep the competition in check.

 

[dingleberrydorkbutt]

Hell NO.
I buy both (Intel & AMD) as trying to keep the competition in check.

Exactly.

Both Intel and Intel fanboyz need AMD a heckuva lot more than they know or are willing to admit.

I am certainly disappointed by BD and ordered my first intel parts a few days ago (2500K), but most of my pc's are still AMD and I'll keep supporting them when I can because we need them to keep the 800 pound gorilla from becoming the 5 ton monster.

If BD had been released on time, it would have fared a lot better, but it is what it is. Let's hope that AMD stays in the market.

 

[Stuka87]

A lot of people seem to be thinking this is the first time a new CPU architecture has been same/slower than the previous.

Need anybody mention the Netburst fiasco? The P4 had MUCH lower IPC than the P3 did. And was at first, slower. But later down the road once they started clocking up, they were much faster than P3's. Not on a clock for clock basis, but over all.

AMD is going to be just fine. Intel does not want AMD to go away. Because then they end up with the government looking at them pretty closely which could end up in having lots of little Intels. One for SSD's, one for CPU's, one for Chipsets, etc etc.

 

[Rezist]

A lot of people seem to be thinking this is the first time a new CPU architecture has been same/slower than the previous.

Need anybody mention the Netburst fiasco? The P4 had MUCH lower IPC than the P3 did. And was at first, slower. But later down the road once they started clocking up, they were much faster than P3's. Not on a clock for clock basis, but over all.

AMD is going to be just fine. Intel does not want AMD to go away. Because then they end up with the government looking at them pretty closely which could end up in having lots of little Intels. One for SSD's, one for CPU's, one for Chipsets, etc etc.

Yeah but really isn't this only the second time this has happened?

 

[nenforcer]

How do you classify "that many people"? I just read an article that stated that Q2 cpu sales were higher in 2011 than in they were in 2010, though it didn't show a breakdown by type (desktop/mobile/netbook/etc). Are things really that dire, or is this just unsubstantiated hyperbole backed up by your personal experience of not needing a desktop?




LOL. I wonder if the Q6600 that my mom's had for nearly 4 years can outperform an 8150? I'll bet it's pretty close.

Wrong.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=53

AMD FX may not be entirely competitive with current generation Core i7 SB's but it wipes the floor with your moms Q6600.

 

[bononos]

For me, a gamer, BD is a steaming pile of Poo. I better grab a 2500k before Intel raises the price.

Yes its a disaster for the consumer, instead of BD creating an incentive to lower prices, Intel could actually raise them at this point.

A lot of people seem to be thinking this is the first time a new CPU architecture has been same/slower than the previous.

Need anybody mention the Netburst fiasco? The P4 had MUCH lower IPC than the P3 did. And was at first, slower. But later down the road once they started clocking up, they were much faster than P3's. Not on a clock for clock basis, but over all.

AMD is going to be just fine. Intel does not want AMD to go away. Because then they end up with the government looking at them pretty closely which could end up in having lots of little Intels. One for SSD's, one for CPU's, one for Chipsets, etc etc.

I disagree, the trend for decades is towards deregulation and allowing market forces to consolidate enterprises into larger and larger corps.
AMD prolly can't survive a P4 debacle as well as Intel did which had a low power line for its notebook business and the branding to tide over the rocky period.

 

[sm625]

AMD FX may not be entirely competitive with current generation Core i7 SB's but it wipes the floor with your moms Q6600.

In related news my sempron wipes the floor with my old Pentium 2 266.

 

[Hypertag]

In related news my sempron wipes the floor with my old Pentium 2 266.

I think the E-350 is better than a 100MHz 486, too

 

[grkM3]

Lets fast forward a year.

We have ivys out that are 22nm and consume 50% less power at same clocks as sandys.

AMD tries to respin bd and improves power draw by 15%(still way behind 32nm sandy)but clocks them up to compete with 2600-2700ks.

another years goes by and nothing but pildriver delays,intel puts out high end ivys Es and kills the top end market.

6 months later we get haswell and its 20% faster than ivy with even better power consumtion.

What happens to AMD next?Do they give up or try to compete with 22nm haswell knowing that intel will have a shrink of that 8-14 months after launch.

 

[IntelUser2000]

We have ivys out that are 22nm and consume 50% less power at same clocks as sandys.

You seem to be misunderstanding what Intel said at 22nm. Here's variations of what the process guys claim and what they mean.

Them: 20% better performance and 50% lower power.

Translation: the and really means two are seperate things. It doesn't mean the next CPU will have 20% better performance at 0.5x the watts. It means you can have a CPU with 20% better performance(at the same power) and one with 50% lower power(at the same frequency).

I've seen something like this from the IBM camp(that includes the other companies working with IBM): "Our SOI process allows 50% improvement over bulk."

Translation: "Our SOI process with the latest advancements allow 50% improvement over our own bulk with no strain at the previous generation."

In here, IBM et al, are advertising that if you are using the cheapest, and/or simplest bulk process, by going to the latest SOI with all the fancy abbreviations, you'll get 50% gains.

 

[Dresdenboy]

A lot of people seem to be thinking this is the first time a new CPU architecture has been same/slower than the previous.

Need anybody mention the Netburst fiasco? The P4 had MUCH lower IPC than the P3 did. And was at first, slower. But later down the road once they started clocking up, they were much faster than P3's. Not on a clock for clock basis, but over all.

Good point. Add to that the improvements by using recompiled software.

 

[Arkadrel]

No. Why? Llano and Bobcat.

Bulldozer is as bad as the original Phenom, though.

^ this.

AMD has a future because of Bobcat and Llano.
Bulldozer is a turd though... no way around it.

Im hopefull of next gen Bobcats ^-^

Tiny and extremly efficient pr mm^2 design, they shoulda done a 4 core, version of that instead of bulldozer lmao. And just taken the laptop markets instead.

 

[Olikan]

The biggest joke of all . The EU saying intel was slowing CPU innovation . Weres the 1 billion dollar fine for AMDS contribution for slowing innovation with this CPU.

but, bulldozer is really a very inovative cpu. shared disign remeber?
the problem is that it sucks... but still very inovative

 

[lifeblood]

AMD has a future because of Bobcat and Llano.
Bulldozer is a turd though... no way around it.

BD on the desktop is a turd. It may actually rock in a server. I hope so for AMDs sake, they need all the wins they can get.

 

[Red Storm]

Not even Intel would want AMD out of the CPU market. I don't think they are going anywhere. They will more than likely never beat Intel in the desktop CPU market (for any long period of time) because Intel has an astronomically huge advantage when it comes to R&D, manufacturing and money (something a lot people seem to forget). Intel needs AMD to stick around so they have some sort of competition.

 

[s44]

Intel needs AMD to stick around so they have some sort of competition.

Not just competition (for the regulators' sake), but also somebody to service the low-profit segments of the CPU market.

 

[mxnerd]

No.

But I'm starting to move to Intel platform for desktop, the only AMD I will buy now is E-350.

 

[Tsavo]

but, bulldozer is really a very inovative cpu. shared disign remeber?
the problem is that it sucks... but still very inovative

You can't take two steps backwards without taking one step forward.