Why is AMD backing off of x86-64 ??

[lookin4dlz]

They were touting this as "the" big reason to go with an AMD-based platform over Intel since this would tie together corporate and personal use of a 64-bit platform. However, at Computex Anand was talking to Intel's GM of their Desktop Platforms Group who said that the technology doesn't make sense for the desktop in the near future, but would at a later time. Anand stated that:

We're getting a similar vibe from AMD about the Hammer's release at the end of this year, stating that x86-64 support will definitely not be a compelling feature for desktop Hammer ownership anytime soon.

Furthermore, both Intel and Anand seem to feel that AMD won't be the company to carry the banner for 64-bit desktop computing

Mr. Siu (from Intel) also shared our concerns for AMD's ability to drive compiler and driver development for x86-64, it seems like it will be a while after Hammer's launch in Q4 before we see x86-64 spread its wings.

 

[BarMan]

they're not backing off of the x86-64, it's just believed that for basic home users it won't be a big hit, yet! with the XP and the Northwood basic home users are content as are Major PC branding companies with sales. The x86-64 will hit it off with servers though just not with desktop owers.

Although I'm getting one! lol 😉

 

[lookin4dlz]

I misled you in using the terms "personal use" and "corporate use" when I really meant desktop use and server use. I find it unlikely that AMD will make much headway in the server arena. Speaking from the point of view of an employee working in Procurement for a very large company, I can tell you that the decision-making is such that AMD will almost never be chosen. Server reliability is too critical, which is why Intel takes such pains to validate that everything works so well with their chips. Additionally, Itanium has the speed advantage and as far as I know the ability to incorporate more on-die cache (helpful in database applications). For those and lots of other reasons I just don't see AMD establishing a toe-hold in the market.

AMD strategically positioned themselves as a chip that could run both desktop and server applications. I thought this was a great move in that it differentiated them from Intel. Now they're going head-to-head with what Intel is offering. If as I've stated, that corporations won't go with AMD, and as it appears AMD is moving away from positioning themselve as a supplier for the desktop 64-bit platform, what is left? If 64-bit isn't incorporated into desktop systems, then there's no way AMD will be able to compete with the speed increases that Intel will get with the P4. Being that the P4 is so dependent on memory and that dual-channel DDR and Rambus solutions are coming out (which provide no benefit to AMD as I understand since it doesn't even tax the current available memory) this speed lead will only widen.

Aside from any AMD vs Intel who's better than whom arguement, I'm fascinated by the strategic decision-making going on here. Is AMD dropping the ball in a big way? It certainly looks like it in that they've delayed the T-bred & now that it looks like it's finally coming out it doesn't really offer anything new. Score one for Intel as they take the high-end processor crown. They're dropping the Duron, virtually conceding the low-end to Intel (hello McFly that's how you got into the game in the first place).

 

[DukeChestnut]

if this hammer/opteron (wut-the-f***-ever-its-called-now) flops i see it as a serious blow that might be unrecoverable. so much hype, credability, resources went into it that if it doesn't perform as was hyped (real possibility of this) then it will turn off ALOT of amd loyalists. consider how they F***ed up the T-BRED product. alot of ppl were expecting this as a viable product but AMD left all those potential buyers out hangin with their D!CKS in the wind. personally i was amd until recently, my last amd was an 1800+ xp chip. i, like others, were waiting for the t-bred but since amd thinks its a crappy afterthought product (i.e. putting little effort/manpower in the development for a timely release) why the hell should i give a crap about it either? i have recently purchased a p4 2.4 "A" chip and couldn't be happier with a superior product. amd = Ain't Mine Dude

 

[BarMan]

Personally, I'm more an AMD fan, but I like GREAT processors.

I see what you guys are talking about, and yes the P4 (Northwood ONLY) is a great chip, but I don't see me paying double the price for a slightly better chip to go with my DDR solution. If I had any rambus it would be in the bag for the P4.

consider how they F***ed up the T-BRED product. alot of ppl were expecting this as a viable product but AMD left all those potential buyers out hangin with their D!CKS in the wind. personally i was amd until recently, my last amd was an 1800+ xp chip. i, like others, were waiting for the t-bred but since amd thinks its a crappy afterthought product (i.e. putting little effort/manpower in the development for a timely release) why the hell should i give a crap about it either?

The release of the T-Bred is just around the corner, what is it July 14 or omething. I don't see d!cks hanging in the wind on that one mate.

AMD strategically positioned themselves as a chip that could run both desktop and server applications. I thought this was a great move in that it differentiated them from Intel. Now they're going head-to-head with what Intel is offering. If as I've stated, that corporations won't go with AMD, and as it appears AMD is moving away from positioning themselve as a supplier for the desktop 64-bit platform, what is left?

Who said that AMD is moving away from the desktop solution? The only prediction is that the average desktop user won't "JUMP" on this 64-bit proccesor. Also about corporations not going with AMD, it's all about performance, stability, price, and service. Just because Intel leads the market in server processing at the moment, who's to say that AMD will never make it in? They made it into everyday user markets (i.e. pre-built solutions, desktops, notebooks, etc.) like us, and all things take time. Can you not remember 6-7 years ago when there where more CPU companies to offer desktop processing solutions? Yeah Intel was on top then also, but who survived that race? AMD did!

If 64-bit isn't incorporated into desktop systems, then there's no way AMD will be able to compete with the speed increases that Intel will get with the P4.

Is it more about speed to you or performance? That clock number is nothing. If a 1.6Ghz chip can perform at the speed of a 1.9Ghz chip for a lower cost then what's the problem? Why do you think Intel has made so many damn P4's? What is it now 3 different chips? The first P4 was just total crap, AMD crushed them and Intel went back to the lab. Then Intel had no choice but to release the Northwood, there 3rd best processor since the first pentium to me. I admit, the Northwood is banging yes, but the performance isn't so astounding for the price I'm sorry. Now the only thing that will actually HURT AMD is if there T-Bred flops till the Opteron (Hammer) is released. Which WILL catch the PC enthusiast no doubt. Especially when the MB chipsets and MB's are produced, it will be a great day in the processor industry. I'd like to see what Intel will offer in it's place (Granite Bay?). It's all about cost effecient processing man.