Why is AMD so inferior to Intel?

[Zorkorist]

The real question is why doesn't someone come out with a chip and an OS that beat Bill and Intel?

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Its called running a business with top rated employees

I'm not going to fault Intel... they are a great American success story.

-John

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Bill Gates retired long ago

-Lui Kang

 

[Zorkorist]

Yet his company, Microsoft. gets 25% or so of every sale I make.

-John

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

No the company belongs to the Stock holders now

-Lui Kang

 

[BD231]

AMD is between architectures now. Once Bulldozer comes out the gap will most likely be narrowed or even possibly reversed. It wouldn't be the first time AMD surprised Intel. Regardless, Intel's newest architecture, which is based on an already good architecture, is competing against AMD's K10 architecture which has been around since 2007.

The core series has been around since 2006.

 

[Zorkorist]

The biggest stockholders are actualy at Microsoft.

What is your problem?

I'm telling you that Microsoft is raping people, and you are saying it is only the board of directors that are raping people?

-John

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Microsoft could be worse. Apple is the one raping people.

 

[jibberegg]

People don't seem to have a firm handle on the exact R&D expenditure stats so I did a spot of digging...

Intel's R&D budget for FY2009 was $5.7bn whereas AMD's came in at $1.7bn. A factor of 3.4x larger. AMD even calls out this gap as a material risk to investors in their relations documentation.

During the same period however, Microsoft spent $9.0bn; more than both combined. That's why a licence costs so much then!

Sources:
Intel: http://www.intc.com/intelAR2009/introduction/financial/
AMD; http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MzI2ODh8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1 (Part 1 page 15)
Micro$oft: http://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar09/10k_fr_bus_03.html

 

[SlowSpyder]

Current benches are between AMD's aging Phenom 2 and Intel's brand spanking new Sandy Bridge. Sandy Bridge is on 32nm, has better IPC, and clocks higher. Hopefully for AMD Bulldozer will be competitive. But when comparing Intel's brand new architecture to AMD's aging architecture I would expect Intel to have the faster part.

 

[Edrick]

Don't forget that AMD was also the first to integrate the memory controller on the CPU, so they are not without their own innovations.

DEC Alpha CPUs did this a decade before AMD. I would not call that innovation.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Intel uses Alien Technology.

Indeed. Hi-K Metal Gates.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Wasn't it AMD that first cloned IBM's BIOS?

They've never been much of a leader. (tongue firmly in cheek)

-John

It was actually Compaq.

 

[blckgrffn]

This. Instead of asking "Why is AMD so inferior to Intel?" I'd ask "Given that Intel's market cap is more than 20 times greater than AMD's, why is Intel ahead by such a narrow margin?"

This.

AMD's lead when it comes to graphics is still pretty large. Granted that is based on an acquisition, but that was years ago now and Intel is only just now beginning to close the gap with a CPU that launched this year and is basically unusable until March.

Hopefully we'll see native USB3 on AMD platforms soon to make their platform that much more compelling and to get Intel to follow suit.

 

[Meghan54]

EDIT: Damnit! My well thought out and well worded replies are always late to the party.

But they are worth the wait.

 

[Sinanju]

Microsoft could be worse. Apple is the one raping people.

lol love this line.

 

[jsedlak]

But they are worth the wait.

Why? Not only was his point about pricing wrong (or at least biased), but he completely side stepped the question of why AMD isn't competing with Intel. You may get more cores per dollar with AMD, but what is the use if the CPUs as a whole can't compete? It is the same old line, but adjusted since Intel now has bargain bin CPUs that perform well.

Furthermore, the notion that the AMD platform (as a whole) is better is silly since AMD/ATI cards will run side-by-side with an Intel CPU. The CPU integration may have received a boost due to the acquisition, but this is only important in certain scenarios. And in such cases, the efficiency (ironic?) of the Intel CPUs usually win.

 

[Maximilian]

I've been skimming through Anandtechs CPU benchmarks and Intel really just BLOWS away AMD.

Intel has low-end dual core processors that can outperform AMD's high end quad (and even hex) cores in a variety of tests; why is this?

Short answer because intel's current CPU's are better, its not always been that way and it may change again in the future but for now they are better.

Long answer... i dunno ask an intel engineer or someone who knows about CPU design.

 

[Mopetar]

The core series has been around since 2006.

It's had some overhauls during that time. Nehalem came after it and made significant improvements and now Sandy Bridge has made even more improvements over Nehalem. AMD hasn't done nearly as much with K10.

 

[Lorne]

Troll!!

 

[blckgrffn]

Why? Not only was his point about pricing wrong (or at least biased), but he completely side stepped the question of why AMD isn't competing with Intel. You may get more cores per dollar with AMD, but what is the use if the CPUs as a whole can't compete? It is the same old line, but adjusted since Intel now has bargain bin CPUs that perform well.

Furthermore, the notion that the AMD platform (as a whole) is better is silly since AMD/ATI cards will run side-by-side with an Intel CPU. The CPU integration may have received a boost due to the acquisition, but this is only important in certain scenarios. And in such cases, the efficiency (ironic?) of the Intel CPUs usually win.

I think his post was on target.

AMD makes fast enough processors for the right price. Most people would be set for years with a Propus Quad at under $100... most people don't need i7s. AMD has nice, full featured solutions. At this point my recommendation to people is to save on the CPU and invest in an SSD where the returns are much more tangible.

The issue that I think Intel really needs to overcome is how they can sell that much horsepower. I paid $200 some three years ago for my Core2Quad and I haven't seen any compelling reasons to upgrade yet. Current AMD solutions are in the same performance ball park so I wouldn't be compelled if I had a Phenom II, either. It was a bit of an issue with Atom a couple years ago, which for many people is "fast enough". The AMD chips in the desktop sector are epically faster than Atom, why pay more for Intel?

More FPS? Crunching bigger spreadsheets? Really?

Remember we are in a CPU subsection of a tech forum. We are far from mainstream

 

[wuliheron]

I think his post was on target.

AMD makes fast enough processors for the right price. Most people would be set for years with a Propus Quad at under $100... most people don't need i7s. AMD has nice, full featured solutions. At this point my recommendation to people is to save on the CPU and invest in an SSD where the returns are much more tangible.

The issue that I think Intel really needs to overcome is how they can sell that much horsepower.

More FPS? Crunching bigger spreadsheets? Really?

Remember we are in a CPU subsection of a tech forum. We are far from mainstream

There are two directions I can think of for the technology.

One is the push for portable devices which appears to be dominating the market. To put this into perspective, India is already working on producing their own $35.oo tablet pc. Within five to ten years I'd expect a cheap portable device that, like calculators, eventually does more then the consumer really cares for.

For such devices faster processors mean higher bandwidth for producing things like graphics. Intel already has a prototype ivy bridge chip that combines a cpu, gpu, and 1gb vram all on one chip. Essentially everything but the system ram and storage are moving on the cpu to reduce cost, size, and power requirements.

The second reason for more speed is to expand the market into new territories. People want instant gratification and that means faster processors with more cores for things like video transcoding. For gaming, it means better physics and AI and smoother frame rates.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Intel already has a prototype ivy bridge chip that combines a cpu, gpu, and 1gb vram all on one chip.

I wouldn't call a rampant speculation by a random site a definitive statement that they'll do it. Did you see the other rumor that says Ivy Bridge's graphics will be only 30% faster than Sandy Bridge? Well for a 33% EU increase and on-package memory, I'd say that sucks.

 

[Phynaz]

Don't forget that AMD was also the first to integrate the memory controller on the CPU, so they are not without their own innovations.

Nope. Intel actually had one way back in the 386 days.

I still like AMD chip designs especially since with their multi core designs they don't just stick 2 dies together.

You mean the design that AMD's CEO said that in hindsight was a better decision?

I think Bulldozer is going to have a number of new features that make AMD compelling again.

What benefits will these features bring?

 

[wuliheron]

I wouldn't call a rampant speculation by a random site a definitive statement that they'll do it. Did you see the other rumor that says Ivy Bridge's graphics will be only 30% faster than Sandy Bridge? Well for a 33% EU increase and on-package memory, I'd say that sucks.

I would say calling it "rampant speculation" without knowing their sources is "rampant speculation". Intel tends to hold their cards close their vest, so having little information on the subject is par for the course.

At any rate, the trend for many years now has been to move everything but system ram and storage onto a single chip (Duh!) Vram merely represents the last big hurdle for seriously reducing costs and energy requirements for portable systems. If Intel doesn't do it, others will.