AMD Desktop CPUs Most Disappointing Product of 2007

[malware]

ZDNet blog calls AMD's desktop processors as one of the most disappointing products of 2007:

For the entirety of 2007 I’ve held the belief that AMD would come out with something worth buying, but that hope is now gone. I’m not sure what’s going on at AMD but progress seems to have slowed down drastically and I’m wondering whether my last Athlon 64 X2 processor will have eroded to dust before I buy another AMD branded processor.

Next to AMD according to the writer Adrian Kingsley-Hughes are NVIDIA's graphics card drivers which I think can be hardly defined as product as well as Blu-ray and HD DVD. Continue reading the full story here.

Source: ZDNet

[smartphone]

no vista?

[JC316]

Sadly, I agree with them. AMD really dropped the ball on Phenom and Barcelona, not even matching hardware thats much older.

[eidairaman1]

better off making a Quad K8 Unit and just racking the speed up until they can fix Phenom

[Darknova]

Originally Posted by JC316

Sadly, I agree with them. AMD really dropped the ball on Phenom and Barcelona, not even matching hardware thats much older.

Unfortunately I agree as well...

I'm really disappointed in AMD, but I also don't want them to crumble. So I'll buy ATi, and Intel Processors :P

[btarunr]

Same here. 2x HD 3870. Job well done.


BTW malware, AMD is one of the most disappointing products of 2007. It does not top the list. The Apple TV does (on page 2 of the article).

[malware]

Originally Posted by btarunr

BTW malware, AMD is one of the most disappointing products of 2007. It does not top the list. The Apple TV does (on page 2 of the article).

Title changed, thanks.

[VulkanBros]

Look what he says under the "nVIDIA graphics card drivers" section....ATI rules...

[das müffin mann]

ati really did drop the ball on processors, although ati has released some phenominal cards 2900 and 3800 series and there drivers are awesome so im gunna do what darknova said keep my 2900 and buy an intel processor

[ryboto]

Not sure why everyone is soooo dissapointed...it took Intel, what, 4 years to combat the K8? It's only been 1.5 years for AMD, and they manage to release a product that outperforms their old k8 by a decent amount in a majority of benchmarks. It's a decent upgrade for current AM2 users who don't want to invest in a new motherboard for an Intel system. Sure it isn't the best, but so what. The only real annoyance is the lame execution, errata, low availability, that's disappointing, but the product is only disappointing if you really expected it to demolish the competition, which is pretty unrealistic considering we knew ahead of time K10 wasn't going to be a revolutionary new arch, but rather an amendment to K8.

[3991vhtes]

AMD is slowly on their way out of business

[Scrizz]

apple tv sucks

[panchoman]

phenoms are disappointing. barcelonas completely kicked ass and the black editions were good, but phenom was a huge let down

[newbielives]

*AMD Desktop CPUs One of the Most Disappointing Product of 2007 *
Although true, now it's starting to feel like we are beating a dead horse

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

Originally Posted by newbielives

*AMD Desktop CPUs One of the Most Disappointing Product of 2007 *
Although true, now it's starting to feel like we are beating a dead horse

your quite right about that

[erocker]

As far as thier new processors go, my Opty 170 was made in 07 and I couln't be happier with it.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by ryboto

Not sure why everyone is soooo dissapointed...it took Intel, what, 4 years to combat the K8? It's only been 1.5 years for AMD, and they manage to release a product that outperforms their old k8 by a decent amount in a majority of benchmarks. It's a decent upgrade for current AM2 users who don't want to invest in a new motherboard for an Intel system. Sure it isn't the best, but so what. The only real annoyance is the lame execution, errata, low availability, that's disappointing, but the product is only disappointing if you really expected it to demolish the competition, which is pretty unrealistic considering we knew ahead of time K10 wasn't going to be a revolutionary new arch, but rather an amendment to K8.

People are disappointed for several reasons.

1.) AMD was in the lead for 4 years, and in that 4 years what did they do? Apparently nothing. They just sat back and enjoyed being on top, when they really should have used that time to improve themselves. Yeah they made small tweaks to K8, but nothing major was done.

2.) Intel might have been behind in performance for 4 years, but they still dominated the market share. AMD doesn't have the luxury. They have to find a way to stay competitive with Intel when they don't have the performance crown.

3.) Now that they don't have the performance crown they aren't competing in price. They need to fall back to their roots and start under-cutting Intel's prices. That is what made their older Socket A processor so appealing, they were cheaper than Intel's offering. They might not have performed at the top, but they were close, and cheaper. This is what they need to do with their current processors. Intel can get away with selling slower processors for more money, but unfortunately AMD can't.

4.) They have wasted so many resources on developing othing things. The spider platform is just insane. The money the wasted on that should have been put into researching a better performing processor. Here is a hint AMD: No one wants to spend crap loads of money on 4 graphics cards, just to slap them in a machine with a processor that bottlenecks 1.

[Mandown]

I think we were better off with 939 forever. it worked like a charm.

[KennyT772]

Well for one AMD can't make a dual die quad cpu like intel can. Due to the IMC design, they would have to tie the two memory controllers together, which wouldn't work. Phenom doesn't perform bad, and for the price its a good chip. AMD needs to ramp up 45nm to get power under control, and start raising clock speeds.

[robodude666]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

3.) Now that they don't have the performance crown they aren't competing in price. They need to fall back to their roots and start under-cutting Intel's prices. That is what made their older Socket A processor so appealing, they were cheaper than Intel's offering. They might not have performed at the top, but they were close, and cheaper. This is what they need to do with their current processors. Intel can get away with selling slower processors for more money, but unfortunately AMD can't.

I think that AMD was doing rather well with their K8 processors. Hell, the X2 was nothing compared to the C2D but it was hella cheap. Now you can get a X2 for sub $65. For $65 on intel you can get a Celeron D or a Pentium 4 processor. Hell, the budget market is MUCH MUCH larger than the mid or high-end market. Because not everyone can afford to spend $1500+ or even $600 on a new computer. I upgraded my entire system from a P4 3.2 to a X2 3800+ system for under $700. A similar system from Intel would of cost me an easy $100-200 more.

Yes, I agree.. Phenom is sad and very expensive. But so was Core 2 Quad $500+ when it first came out. Being AMD's first processor, first true-quad processor, the sub $300 price tag on these Phenoms is nice. AMD didn't rush into the market like Intel did, stick two dual-cores together and say its a quad. They researched and made a true-quad core. For the price and what it offers its pretty good. It will give an AMD X2 3800 - 5000+ user about a 25-50% boost in application performance and for games it will add a fair 1-10FPS.

I've been known to be a pretty big AMD/ATI fan. Am I disappointed with Phenom? Yes, to be simply honest. I was expecting it to overtake at least the X2 6400+ and Q6600. I also expected the price to be a bit lower... But, would I still get one? Yup! Will I get it now? Nope, I'll wait for BLACK and the L3 bug to be fixed. I might be a budget or mid-end user, but I don't want to drop $250+ on a processor and want it to have a bug.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

4.) They have wasted so many resources on developing othing things. The spider platform is just insane. The money the wasted on that should have been put into researching a better performing processor. Here is a hint AMD: No one wants to spend crap loads of money on 4 graphics cards, just to slap them in a machine with a processor that bottlenecks 1.

You'd be surprised how many people would actually be willing to spend one or two grand on video cards. You think Alienware and others offer $4-5k desktops and $2-4k laptops for no reason? Nope, sorry to disappoint. They offer these machines because people are actually WILLING to drop that many grand on a "top of the line" computer. Sure you and I who build our own systems might not drop that much on a system as we know things. But a 100% novice who knows nothing except the general rule of $ = better would be willing to go on alienware.com and configure what he or she thinks is the best computer out there. Currently, Dell is the biggest buy of AMD stuff.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by robodude666

I think that AMD was doing rather well with their K8 processors. Hell, the X2 was nothing compared to the C2D but it was hella cheap. Now you can get a X2 for sub $65. For $65 on intel you can get a Celeron D or a Pentium 4 processor. Hell, the budget market is MUCH MUCH larger than the mid or high-end market. Because not everyone can afford to spend $1500+ or even $600 on a new computer. I upgraded my entire system from a P4 3.2 to a X2 3800+ system for under $700. A similar system from Intel would of cost me an easy $100-200 more.

For $65 you are looking at Celeron 440, which is a Core 2 Solo essentially. However, come January, Intels Dual-Core Celerons will be out for the $65 price point to compete with AMDs lowest end dual core. Though the E2140 is the next step up and only $9 more. Funny how you talk about the budget market being the most important part, then try to defend AMD's massively expensive spyder platform a few lines down.

Originally Posted by robodude666

Yes, I agree.. Phenom is sad and very expensive. But so was Core 2 Quad $500+ when it first came out. Being AMD's first processor, first true-quad processor, the sub $300 price tag on these Phenoms is nice. AMD didn't rush into the market like Intel did, stick two dual-cores together and say its a quad. They researched and made a true-quad core. For the price and what it offers its pretty good. It will give an AMD X2 3800 - 5000+ user about a 25-50% boost in application performance and for games it will add a fair 1-10FPS.

Intel has been using strapping two dies to gether for years, they did it in the dual-core days too. Why? Because it works, and appearently works better. It isn't like AMD's offering at the time was much better, they strapped two sockets together on a motherboard and called it a quad. AMD fanboys always pull out the "well it isn't a true-quad" argument. I really don't care how I get 4 cores, if it has 4 cores then it is a quad-core. This "true quad-core" BS is exactly that, BS.

Originally Posted by robodude666

I've been known to be a pretty big AMD/ATI fan. Am I disappointed with Phenom? Yes, to be simply honest. I was expecting it to overtake at least the X2 6400+ and Q6600. I also expected the price to be a bit lower... But, would I still get one? Yup! Will I get it now? Nope, I'll wait for BLACK and the L3 bug to be fixed. I might be a budget or mid-end user, but I don't want to drop $250+ on a processor and want it to have a bug.

That is my point. Everyone hyped over Phenom, and it bombed because AMD didn't spend enough time on it. They wasted time doing essentially nothing when K8 was in the lead, and once K8 fell from the top AMD struggled to throw together something better. Yes, it is better than K8, but it isn't what people expected. AMD could have done a lot better, but the waited too long and stumbled out of the block. I hope 2008 is better for them, but 2007 was a failure.

Originally Posted by robodude666

You'd be surprised how many people would actually be willing to spend one or two grand on video cards. You think Alienware and others offer $4-5k desktops and $2-4k laptops for no reason? Nope, sorry to disappoint. They offer these machines because people are actually WILLING to drop that many grand on a "top of the line" computer. Sure you and I who build our own systems might not drop that much on a system as we know things. But a 100% novice who knows nothing except the general rule of $ = better would be willing to go on alienware.com and configure what he or she thinks is the best computer out there. Currently, Dell is the biggest buy of AMD stuff.

You said it yourself, the budget market is where the money is, so if the company is stuggling, why are they wasting time on this crap?

[robodude666]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

For $65 you are looking at Celeron 440, which is a Core 2 Solo essentially. However, come January, Intels Dual-Core Celerons will be out for the $65 price point to compete with AMDs lowest end dual core. Though the E2140 is the next step up and only $9 more. Funny how you talk about the budget market being the most important part, then try to defend AMD's massively expensive spyder platform a few lines down.

What? Took Intel 4 years to come out with a budget processor to compete price wise with AMD?

@ budget v spyder: see end.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Intel has been using strapping two dies to gether for years, they did it in the dual-core days too. Why? Because it works, and appearently works better. It isn't like AMD's offering at the time was much better, they strapped two sockets together on a motherboard and called it a quad. AMD fanboys always pull out the "well it isn't a true-quad" argument. I really don't care how I get 4 cores, if it has 4 cores then it is a quad-core. This "true quad-core" BS is exactly that, BS.

Well, the thing to remember is we can't compare a wounded 3-legged dog v a 4-legged dog in a race. Its possible, and the outcome might be surprising, but it isn't fair most of the time. There is a L3 bug that cripples Phenom's performance. After all, the Phenom 9500 came within 65-99% of the Q6600's performance. Who knows, maybe it has the potential to be better than intel's quad? We won't know for a few more months.

It takes more time and money to research a new processor that isn't simply two old ones sticked together. Thats all the "true quad" argument is, in my eyes.

Originally Posted by newtekie1

That is my point. Everyone hyped over Phenom, and it bombed because AMD didn't spend enough time on it. They wasted time doing essentially nothing when K8 was in the lead, and once K8 fell from the top AMD struggled to throw together something better. Yes, it is better than K8, but it isn't what people expected. AMD could have done a lot better, but the waited too long and stumbled out of the block. I hope 2008 is better for them, but 2007 was a failure.

Yes, some of the changes in the K8 processors were a little useless, but the research was worth it. AMD created 45w and 65w processors that still performed the same, or better as their 89w older brothers and sisters. AMD Black was a surprise to me, but it seems to be an okay move. Some of the extreme-AMD OC'rs would love a AMD Black, especially a 5000+ @ 99$.

I do hope 2008 is better for them to. I hope that
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=46869
that comes true and AMD delivers in a timely manner. I wasn't expecting the 45nm chips until late 2008!

Originally Posted by newtekie1

You said it yourself, the budget market is where the money is, so if the company is stuggling, why are they wasting time on this crap?

Alright, I may of worded it poorly... All three markets are important. There are people in every single market: budget/low, mid and high-end. Every group of people should be served. However, in the united states the lower class and upper class are growing much faster than the middle class is. In theory, if you surved those expanding markets better than your profits will be better. You can sell a $100 chip to 10 people... Or you can sell a $50 chip to 100 people. Sell cheap and sell a lot is a very simple business method that works pretty well.

Now, generally speaking, in business you should try to sell a product for 2-3x the production cost. Therefore, it is easier to milk money from a more expensive item than a cheap item. Would you pay for a X2 3800+ if it were $200? I probably wouldn't myself. Would I pay for it if it was $99? Yup, I bought mine at $99!

Now, the 8800ULTRA is a pretty fast card, eh? Think it actually costs around $600+ to make these cards? Probably not. It probably makes around the same as an 8800GTX. However, since this product is higher-end, nVidia is able to milk it more and get more out of it.

So what I was saying is, if AMD didn't introduce the AMD Spider w/ quad-fire then they'd lose a lot of money as the high-end market isn't being served.

Dell/Alienware would buy the HD 3870 and HD 2900XT cards from AMD in large bulk, giving a savings to Dell/Alienware, and AMD selling more (remember, sell low and sell a lot makes more money and sell high, sell few. Think mass production and assembly line!). Both companies are happy and have money so Dell/Alienware and AMD keep doing business and more money goes into AMD. While a novice computer user orders a $600 dell with AMD Athlon X2 64 processor!

And then of course my argument from before that there are people who don't know about building their own computer and what not. They just know that if they spend $500,000 on a Mclaren SLR they'll get a better car than a $15,000-20,000 KIA. So they go ahead and buy a $5,000 gaming rig from Alienware w/ AMD Phenom 9600 + Quad-Fire HD 3870.

I hope I explained it better this time.

-robodude666

[ryboto]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

People are disappointed for several reasons.

So what, they can be disappointed about the company, but this is about the PRODUCT, right? Most disappointing product, not company/company history. The product isn't the extreme end of performance, but it is an improvement. If they wanted to rate AMD for their handling of the production issues, do so, but you can't call it a "product".

[das müffin mann]

Originally Posted by robodude666

What? Took Intel 4 years to come out with a budget processor to compete price wise with AMD?

@ budget v spyder: see end.




Well, the thing to remember is we can't compare a wounded 3-legged dog v a 4-legged dog in a race. Its possible, and the outcome might be surprising, but it isn't fair most of the time. There is a L3 bug that cripples Phenom's performance. After all, the Phenom 9500 came within 65-99% of the Q6600's performance. Who knows, maybe it has the potential to be better than intel's quad? We won't know for a few more months.

It takes more time and money to research a new processor that isn't simply two old ones sticked together. Thats all the "true quad" argument is, in my eyes.




Yes, some of the changes in the K8 processors were a little useless, but the research was worth it. AMD created 45w and 65w processors that still performed the same, or better as their 89w older brothers and sisters. AMD Black was a surprise to me, but it seems to be an okay move. Some of the extreme-AMD OC'rs would love a AMD Black, especially a 5000+ @ 99$.

I do hope 2008 is better for them to. I hope that
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=46869
that comes true and AMD delivers in a timely manner. I wasn't expecting the 45nm chips until late 2008!




Alright, I may of worded it poorly... All three markets are important. There are people in every single market: budget/low, mid and high-end. Every group of people should be served. However, in the united states the lower class and upper class are growing much faster than the middle class is. In theory, if you surved those expanding markets better than your profits will be better. You can sell a $100 chip to 10 people... Or you can sell a $50 chip to 100 people. Sell cheap and sell a lot is a very simple business method that works pretty well.

Now, generally speaking, in business you should try to sell a product for 2-3x the production cost. Therefore, it is easier to milk money from a more expensive item than a cheap item. Would you pay for a X2 3800+ if it were $200? I probably wouldn't myself. Would I pay for it if it was $99? Yup, I bought mine at $99!

Now, the 8800ULTRA is a pretty fast card, eh? Think it actually costs around $600+ to make these cards? Probably not. It probably makes around the same as an 8800GTX. However, since this product is higher-end, nVidia is able to milk it more and get more out of it.

So what I was saying is, if AMD didn't introduce the AMD Spider w/ quad-fire then they'd lose a lot of money as the high-end market isn't being served.

Dell/Alienware would buy the HD 3870 and HD 2900XT cards from AMD in large bulk, giving a savings to Dell/Alienware, and AMD selling more (remember, sell low and sell a lot makes more money and sell high, sell few. Think mass production and assembly line!). Both companies are happy and have money so Dell/Alienware and AMD keep doing business and more money goes into AMD. While a novice computer user orders a $600 dell with AMD Athlon X2 64 processor!

And then of course my argument from before that there are people who don't know about building their own computer and what not. They just know that if they spend $500,000 on a Mclaren SLR they'll get a better car than a $15,000-20,000 KIA. So they go ahead and buy a $5,000 gaming rig from Alienware w/ AMD Phenom 9600 + Quad-Fire HD 3870.

I hope I explained it better this time.

-robodude666

you explained it quite well actually

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by robodude666

I hope I explained it better this time.

Yes you did, and while I might not agree with some of your ideas, I'm not going to keep restating mine. I'll just pick out a few things you got wrong.

Originally Posted by robodude666

What? Took Intel 4 years to come out with a budget processor to compete price wise with AMD?

Intel did have a budget processor to compete with AMD, they are called Celeron Ds, and they performed very nicely compared to the Sempron line. They weren't great, but they did the job nicely.

Originally Posted by robodude666

Yes, some of the changes in the K8 processors were a little useless, but the research was worth it. AMD created 45w and 65w processors that still performed the same, or better as their 89w older brothers and sisters. AMD Black was a surprise to me, but it seems to be an okay move. Some of the extreme-AMD OC'rs would love a AMD Black, especially a 5000+ @ 99$.

The 45/65w processors were nothing special, and there was no research done, they just binned chips that were stable at lower voltage and made that the default voltage, no special research done there. Same thing with their Black Edition processors, they are just better binned processors, with unlocked multipliers(renamed FX series). No special research there. AMD sat on their ass for 4 years while they were in the lead instead of using that time to better themselves. That is why people are disappointed. They could be a lot further than they alreay are.