Why doesn't AMD create a better CPU architecture to compete with Intel again?

[FordGT90Concept]

Ford, I remember how long it took them to develop this architecture - 4 years or something? Development hell for certain and likely the reason it came out the way it did, especially with poor managers at the top leading the company. A flawed design that they couldn't let go of and it cost them dear.

While I agree that AMD is probably less likely to catch up with Intel in the real world than winning the national lottery at 13 million to 1, I still think that in principle they could make something competitive in performance with Intel, if they had the right leadership in place. That's why I said about taking a leaf from Intel's book to keep development costs down while being careful to avoid a patent lawsuit. Probably just getting rid of that stupid siamese core would do it. I seem to remember that their old Phenom processors still offer good performance today and that they even beat Bulldozer in certain benchmarks. I imagine that refining the Phenom design could really help them put out a decent processor.

Note that by "competitive", I don't mean that it necessarily has to beat Intel, just offer really good performance, coming close to their products in each price range and put the hurt on Intel. Just look at what they did with their latest graphics cards: slap a decent cooler on them and they're an absolute corker! It's certainly not a one horse race in the graphics market which is as it should be.

Intel is now at 22nm fabs with an excellent architecture and tons of cash; AMD is now at 32nm (starting to release 28nm products) fabs with a poor architecture and in debt up to their eye balls. You can always tell when a processor manufacturer is desperate because they'll release processors with ridiculous power requirements to bridge the performance gap to the competition.

AMD could have a revolution like they did with Athlon and again with Athlon 64 but it is extremely doubtful. Even if they did, they still have that expensive fabrication gap to bridge. As long as Intel has the best fabs, AMD can't compete in performance.

AMD and Intel settled their x86-related patents a while back and it is not likely to resurface. AMD doesn't have the funds to wage an extended legal battle with Intel and Intel has no intention of running AMD out of town otherwise the anti-trust lawyers are going to be hounding them again.

AMD can't afford the rapid R&D schedules Intel adapted. That's largely why it split off Global Foundaries so AMD only has to focus on architectural R&D. Even then, AMD still can't compete with Intel's many architecture design firms around the world.

Phenom was an incremental update to the K10 architecture. It's been completely abandoned for the Bulldozer architecture because it hit many design walls.


The reason why graphics cards are pretty even field is because TMSC manufacturers AMD and NVIDIA GPUs. Neither have a fab advantage. The Intel head hanchos haven't been convinced to give Larrabee Intel's best fabs either so they're not using their capital to get an advantage. That could change in the future but seeing as graphics cards sales in general have been in decline, Intel is likely to stay out of the DX/OGL discreet market.

 

[HammerON]

They've created faster architectures than Intel in the past with less resources before.

They did however that was a while ago (10 years).

 

[FordGT90Concept]

2nd place, but not distant. They had their moments of catch up. The Athlon X2 architecture speicficially the "Kuma" revision and the original Phenom I almost closed the gap. The gap widened again when Intel moved to 45nm Wolfdale, with time AMD closed the gap again with their Deneb, Callisto and Regor. (Phenom II/Athlon II)

Between 2006-2009, IPC wise and was only 1 step behind, but always caught up briefly. Since Intel's I-series they've been 2-3 steps behind with no IPC catch up.

Compare Athlon 64 FX-62 to Core 2 Extreme X6800. There was no competition. When Core 2 Quad debuted, AMD had no answer. Phenom (AMD's first quad-cores) debuted November 19, 2007. Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (Penryn-based Yorkfield at 45nm) debuted November 11, 2007, 8 days before Phenom and easily trounced it. FX-62, prior to the Core 2 launch, was the last time AMD came close to holding the performance crown.

They won't have to. In a decade IPC will be less important, multi threading support will increase and AMD's multi core or multi module approach should pay off.

Power consumption is what is becoming most important. AMD isn't doing so well in that department because of their fab disadvantage.

 

[qubit]

That's an excellent post Ford, thanks.

A lot of what you said I "knew" from half remembered facts, especially about the huge debts and lack of resources, but I didn't have a clear overall picture of the situation, unlike now. I guess given all this, the newish management have made the right strategic choices given the resources they have. newtekie said above that they're big in datacentres with a price advantage and more cores for a similar price to make up the performance deficit (not quite the same words, but similar overall meaning) so that architecture must be good enough to make them money.

It wouldn't surpise me that if AMD really were about to go under of their own doing, Intel would prop them up to avoid antitrust. Maybe they already have, but we just don't know it? Perhaps they did it by not being "too competitive" which wouldn't show in any financial transactions between the two companies. How do we know there isn't a gentleman's agreement between them that they'll compete, but each company keep to particular product niches? Carrying on the speculation, Intel's top Iris graphics core is not appearing on any 4000-series CPU you can buy. (Has it even been released yet in any form?) Could this be a deliberate attempt not to compete too strongly with AMD's APUs, helping AMD to maintain an "advantage" and thus maintain sales?

It's a shame AMD can't continue with a better Phenom (just lose the name though, it's awful lol). I've seen several TPU members with Phenom 6 core CPUs say that they're still happy with their gaming performance despite the age of the CPU.

 

[Dent1]

They did however that was a while ago (10 years).

I know but it proves it can be done.

Compare Athlon 64 FX-62 to Core 2 Extreme X6800. There was no competition. When Core 2 Quad debuted, AMD had no answer. Phenom (AMD's first quad-cores) debuted November 19, 2007. Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (Penryn-based Yorkfield at 45nm) debuted November 11, 2007, 8 days before Phenom and easily trounced it. FX-62, prior to the Core 2 launch, was the last time AMD came close to holding the performance crown.)

Putting the extreme editions to the side. I wouldn't say AMD hasn't be close at times, in 2006-2009 AMD had its moments.

The Athlon Kuma could compete respectably with the Core 2 Duo Conroe.
The Phenom I Quad (Agena) could compete respectably with the Core 2 Quad Kentfield.
The Phenom II (Callisto) and Athlon II X2 (Regor) was very similar to the Core 2 Duo Wolfdale clock for clock, and sometimes outperforming it.
The Phenom II X4 (Deneb) was similar to the Core 2 Quad Yorkfield clock for clock, and sometimes outperforming it.

Power consumption is what is becoming most important. AMD isn't doing so well in that department because of their fab disadvantage.

Perhaps.

It wouldn't surpise me that if AMD really were about to go under of their own doing, Intel would prop them up to avoid antitrust. Maybe they already have, but we just don't know it? Perhaps they did it by not being "too competitive" which wouldn't show in any financial transactions between the two companies.

Go under? This is the best AMD have done financially in many years since buying ATI. They've finally managed to balance their books.

 

[Dent1]

Random question:

Does anybody know if there will be a 6 core or 8 core Steamroller based on the Kaveri APU? Maybe with the gpu disabled?

 

[Melvis]

They did however that was a while ago (10 years).

less actually, 7.5yrs ago.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

A lot of what you said I "knew" from half remembered facts, especially about the huge debts and lack of resources, but I didn't have a clear overall picture of the situation, unlike now. I guess given all this, the newish management have made the right strategic choices given the resources they have. newtekie said above that they're big in datacentres with a price advantage and more cores for a similar price to make up the performance deficit (not quite the same words, but similar overall meaning) so that architecture must be good enough to make them money.

Even when AMD made their entire business out of reverse engineering Intel processors and producing replicas, AMD was able to stick around because they could undercut Intel's prices. The work Microsoft, Sony, and virtualization has given them will likely keep them solvent and I never said it wouldn't. Just don't expect AMD to compete with Intel's best any time soon because they won't.

Perhaps they did it by not being "too competitive" which wouldn't show in any financial transactions between the two companies.

Intel is clearly holding back. Virtually all the chips they launch are good for at least another 0.5 GHz overclock whereas good luck getting much out of an FX-9590's already ridiculous 4.7 GHz and 220w TDP. Put bluntly, this means Intel has an oversupply of chips that could run much higher stock clocks. Intel also charges $50-100 more for processors in the same price bracket to curb demand. The two combined have the effect of driving customers to AMD. If Intel really wanted to put AMD out of business, all they would have to do is reduce the price on processors across the board and turn the clockspeeds up. But they don't, again, because of anti-trust risk. Instead, they redirect their capital towards efforts that benefit the entire industry like ultrabook standards, Thunderbolt, and high-performance computing with Larrabee (NVIDIA gets a lot more business in this area than AMD with their Tesla cards). Intel's policy, since the 1980s, is to do-no-evil towards AMD.

Carrying on the speculation, Intel's top Iris graphics core is not appearing on any 4000-series CPU you can buy. (Has it even been released yet in any form?) Could this be a deliberate attempt not to compete too strongly with AMD's APUs, helping AMD to maintain an "advantage" and thus maintain sales?

In a way, yes. Intel only packages Iris Pro 5200 with high end processors because they rightfully assume that most computers those processors go into have discreet graphics. It's effectively a mid-range GPU for a platform that anticipates having high-range GPUs installed.

 

[Dent1]

Intel is clearly holding back. Virtually all the chips they launch are good for at least another 0.5 GHz overclock whereas good luck getting much out of an FX-9590's already ridiculous 4.7 GHz and 220w TDP. Put bluntly, this means Intel has an oversupply of chips that could run much higher stock clocks. Intel also charges $50-100 more for processors in the same price bracket to curb demand. The two combined have the effect of driving customers to AMD. If Intel really wanted to put AMD out of business, all they would have to do is reduce the price on processors across the board and turn the clockspeeds up.

Intel lowering prices and turning clock speeds up won't put AMD out of business in today's climate. That would have worked in the 1990s and early-mid 2000s, when AMD's bread and butter was enthusiast desktop segment. But now the market has changed to mobile processors, AMD have diversified to APUs where they're becoming the market leader with the more superior product. Even if Intel lowered their i7/i5 APU prices by $5-100 with increase the clock speed 500Mhz it would still be an inefficient APU with a slow GPU. Yes they'll slow the momentum of the FX series (which is already RIP) but wouldn't touch the Trinity and Kaveri in its CPU/GPU/Price for its humble overall performance. Even if Intel got its claws in AMD desktop market AMD is already be making headway in the mobile and console market which means AMD would struggle but not be put out of business.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Putting the extreme editions to the side. I wouldn't say AMD hasn't be close at times, in 2006-2009 AMD had its moments.

The Athlon Kuma could compete respectably with the Core 2 Duo Conroe.
The Phenom I Quad (Agena) could compete respectably with the Core 2 Quad Kentfield.
The Phenom II (Callisto) and Athlon II X2 (Regor) was very similar to the Core 2 Duo Wolfdale clock for clock, and sometimes outperforming it.
The Phenom II X4 (Deneb) was similar to the Core 2 Quad Yorkfield clock for clock, and sometimes outperforming it.

Kuma debuted December 15, 2008; Conroe debuted July 27, 2006.
Agena debuted November 19, 2007; Kentsfield debuted November 2, 2006.
Callisto debuted 9 February 2009, Regor debuted January 2011; Wolfdale debuted January 2008.
Deneb debuted January 8, 2009; Yorkfield debuted March 2008.
Intel was to the market 1-2 years before AMD in every case. Considering the number of transistors is said to double every 18 months, Intel was consistently ahead a generation during that period.

Intel lowering prices and turning clock speeds up won't put AMD out of business in today's climate. That would have worked in the 1990s and early-mid 2000s, when AMD's bread and butter was enthusiast desktop segment. But now the market has changed to mobile processors, AMD have diversified to APUs where they're becoming the market leader with the more superior product. Even if AMD

If you could get an Intel 22nm processor quad-core for the price of an AMD 32nm dual-care, would you buy the AMD? That's about quadruple the performance for half the power consumption.

 

[Dent1]

Kuma debuted December 15, 2008; Conroe debuted July 27, 2006.
Agena debuted November 19, 2007; Kentsfield debuted November 2, 2006.
Callisto debuted 9 February 2009, Regor debuted January 2011; Wolfdale debuted January 2008.
Deneb debuted January 8, 2009; Yorkfield debuted March 2008.
Intel was to the market 1-2 years before AMD in every case. Considering the number of transistors is said to double every 18 months, Intel was consistently ahead a generation during that period.

But that is precisely my point. Between 2006-2009, AMD have been only 0-1 step behind Intel. With periods of brief catch ups. yes their counter came year late but they caught up IPC each time. This is why I disagree with you saying "distant second place since 2006". Catching up a year late isn't distant. I would say they were a short-distance away from Intel 2006-2009 and sometimes no-distance away from Intel.

But I would agree they're in a distance place since the i-series as AMD have been 2-3 steps behind in IPC. AMD is content to stay on par Intel's first generation of I-series IPC with their multithreading gamble.

If you could get an Intel 22nm processor quad-core for the price of an AMD 32nm dual-core, would you buy the AMD? That's about quadruple the performance for half the power consumption.

I would most likely buy Intel. But that decision won't put them out of business if AMD have diversified well to other markets (which they are doing).

Doing that would likely hurt Intel too, not financially, but its brands credibility. They are supposed a premium brand. You won't see a Ferrari lowering the price to kill off Ford. Because even if Ford go bankrupt Ferrari brand is now worthless.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

A generation (~18 months) behind in computer technology is distant. Prior to the launch of Core 2, AMD (Athlon 64 X2) and Intel (Pentium D) were in the same generation. I'd guesstimate Intel is about two generations ahead of AMD now.

AMD was behind in IPC back then and they still are now. A 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo E6600 beat the snot out of the 2.8 GHz FX-62 (Windsor). A 3.9 GHz Core i7-4770K beats the snot ouf the 4.7 GHz FX-9590. AMD processors require more clocks to accomplish the same amount of work compared to Intel processors.

AMD isn't doing well in smartphones nor tablets which are the only market that is really expanding. When AMD bought out ATI, AMD was worth 10:1 what ATI was worth. That likely hasn't changed. Profit margins are larger for processors than GPUs. AMD did well to get the Microsoft and Sony contracts which may turn into repeat business down the road but even so, AMD's position is frail and has been since 2006.

Intel is not a "premium brand." "Extreme Edition" is premium brand held by Intel just as "Black Edition" was a premium brand held by AMD.

 

[Mussels]

AMD's design of 'more, slower cores' is paying off in video encoding, DX11, and even moreso with mantle.


they made designs for a future need, and that need is coming out now.

 

[Vario]

They want to cater to the server market. They destroy intel on cpu per $ in that market. The FXs are just server modules. All parallel tasking! The prices for opteron vs xeon make AMD a very powerful competitor for servers and scientific computing. Just check newegg for a simple example, you can run 24 cores for only 2 grand or so for complete setup (granted a server size of ram would probably add even more)

Wish they kept the K series stuff. They were closer to intel's performance at the time.

 

[Dent1]

A generation (~18 months) behind in computer technology is distant. Prior to the launch of Core 2, AMD (Athlon 64 X2) and Intel (Pentium D) were in the same generation. I'd guesstimate Intel is about two generations ahead of AMD now.

In real terms it isn't that distant. We were trained for AMD/ Intel and ATI/Nvidia to release counters performing products immediate and we were spoilt. Those days are done. The business plan on both sides have changed. The real world doesn't update their computer every 18months to care.

AMD was behind in IPC back then and they still are now. A 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo E6600 beat the snot out of the 2.8 GHz FX-62 (Windsor). A 3.9 GHz Core i7-4770K beats the snot ouf the 4.7 GHz FX-9590. AMD processors require more clocks to accomplish the same amount of work compared to Intel processors.

With respect to the 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo E6600 we know it outperformed the 2.8 GHz FX-62. My argument is AMD had a suitable counter about year later. Which I don't think is too distant. IMO.

With respect to the 3.9 GHz Core i7-4770K beating out the 4.7 GHz FX-9590, I agree with you as I said I think since the i-series the IPC distance is at its widest as AMD have not once caught up momentarily not even 2 years later. Its clear their intentions are not to catch up IPC but beat Intel long term with better multi threading performance.

AMD isn't doing well in smartphones nor tablets which are the only market that is really expanding. When AMD bought out ATI, AMD was worth 10:1 what ATI was worth. That likely hasn't changed. Profit margins are larger for processors than GPUs. AMD did well to get the Microsoft and Sony contracts which may turn into repeat business down the road but even so, AMD's position is frail and has been since 2006.

Agreed, but takes time. But they've expanded enough to concentrate all their efforts 100% in a new arena if they hypothetically lose the desktop market.

Intel is not a "premium brand." "Extreme Edition" is premium brand held by Intel just as "Black Edition" was a premium brand held by AMD.

Intel is a premium brand. Pentium is a premium brand to cater for mainstream to enthusiast audience. The Extreme Edition is a sub-brand to cater for a more prestigious subset of premium products.

AMD is perceived as a economy to cater for both mainstream and enthusiast market on a budget. The FX-62 was a premium-subset of a economy brand a bit like Ford Mustang being a premium subset of the economy Ford brand.

Like the Mercedes brand is premium, even their lower end C-class would hold more prestige than the Ford name. It's the same with Intel, the name holds a certain reputation and quality and perceived luxury amongst most people. When everyday people think of AMD they think "cheap" or "Ford" or "second best" regardless of benchmark ranking. Go to any PC shop and the first thing people say is "No it has to be Intel I don't care if the FX X6 is faster than the i3".

 

[Vario]

In real terms it isn't that distant. We were trained for AMD/ Intel and ATI/Nvidia to release counters performing products immediate and we were spoilt. Those days are done. The business plan on both sides have changed. The real world doesn't update their computer every 18months to care.



With respect to the 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo E6600 we know it outperformed the 2.8 GHz FX-62. My argument is AMD had a suitable counter about year later. Which I don't think is too distant. IMO.

With respect to the 3.9 GHz Core i7-4770K beating out the 4.7 GHz FX-9590, I agree with you as I said I think since the i-series the IPC distance is at its widest as AMD have not once caught up momentarily not even 2 years later.



Agreed, but takes time. But they've expanded enough to concentrate all their efforts 100% in a new arena if they hypothetically lose the desktop market.



Intel is a premium brand. Pentium is a premium brand to cater for mainstream to enthusiast audience. The Extreme Edition is a sub-brand to cater for a more prestigious subset of premium products.

Like the Mercedes brand is premium, even their lower end C-class would hold more prestige than the Ford name. It's the same with Intel, the name holds a certain reputation and quality and perceived luxury amongst most people. When everyday people think of AMD they think "cheap" or "Ford" or "second best" regardless of benchmark ranking. Go to any PC shop and the first thing people say is "No it has to be Intel I don't care if the FX X6 is faster than the i3".

They are unlikely to remake that IPC advantage because their current architecture is more for parallelization for servers. I think the FX x6 is a great chip though and I'd buy it for anything under an i5. The 8320 is an amazing value as well. The biggest thing is the current AMD chips don't really bottleneck graphics cards so for gaming, and you like AMD, buy AMD. They are also great for crunching. I bought intel to replace my phenomII because I wanted smoother starcraft 2 performance. I went with an i7 because I want it to last 5 years minimum and that seems more future proof. I had the money for the premium product. If I didn't, I'd have gotten an 8320.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

In real terms it isn't that distant. We were trained for AMD/ Intel and ATI/Nvidia to release counters performing products immediate and we were spoilt. Those days are done. The business plan on both sides have changed. The real world doesn't update their computer every 18months to care.

In "real terms," that's approximately double the performance. Case in point: Intel had quad-cores out while AMD had dual cores.

With respect to the 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo E6600 we know it outperformed the 2.8 GHz FX-62. My argument is AMD had a suitable counter about year later. Which I don't think is too distant. IMO

And Intel had a product that was about 120% faster when that debuted. People don't wait a year for AMD to catch up; they buy what fits their needs now.

Intel is a premium brand. Pentium is a premium brand to cater for mainstream to enthusiast audience. The Extreme Edition is a sub-brand to cater for a more prestigious subset of premium products.

Like the Mercedes brand is premium, even their lower end C-class would hold more prestige than the Ford name. It's the same with Intel, the name holds a certain reputation and quality and perceived luxury amongst most people. When everyday people think of AMD they think "cheap" or "Ford" or "second best" regardless of benchmark ranking. Go to any PC shop and the first thing people say is "No it has to be Intel I don't care if the FX X6 is faster than the i3".

Intel is a manufacturer; Core i7 is the premium brand of Intel. Daimler AG is a manufacturer; Mercedes-Benz is the premium brand of Daimler AG. Ford Motor Company is a manufacturer; Lincoln is the premium brand of Ford Motor Company. AMD is a manufacturer; FX is the premium brand of AMD.

Your last sentence refers to "brand awareness." AMD doesn't have any because they don't advertise to the general population. Intel does.

 

[LightningJR]

AMD's design of 'more, slower cores' is paying off in video encoding, DX11, and even moreso with mantle.


they made designs for a future need, and that need is coming out now.

Video encoding? Maybe equal to Intel but nothing amazing. DX11? Link? Mantle.. we'll see..

Give me a 15% more efficient Phenom II in 32nm and 8 cores and get rid of everything after and including bulldozer.

Designing for the future, great for many things, for CPUs, BAD.

AMD: "Bulldozer, designing for the future, amazing new architecture. Will be GREAT in 3 years."

Consumer: "Great..."

 

[Vario]

Video encoding? Maybe equal to Intel but nothing amazing. DX11? Link? Mantle.. we'll see..

Give me a 15% more efficient Phenom II in 32nm and 8 cores and get rid of everything after and including bulldozer.

Designing for the future, great for many things, for CPUs, BAD.

AMD: "Bulldozer, designing for the future, amazing new architecture. Will be GREAT in 3 years."

Consumer: "Great..."

Sadly won't ever happen. The bulldozer is just an overhyped inexpensive server design. IPC wasn't the priority, just lots of cores in task manager. It would have been better if they revised the phenom a bit longer and released the 8350 instead of the 8150 at all. The 8150 really hurt their reputation.

 

[Dent1]

In "real terms," that's approximately double the performance. Case in point: Intel had quad-cores out while AMD had dual cores. And Intel had a product that was about 120% faster when that debuted. People don't wait a year for AMD to catch up; they buy what fits their needs now.

But everyday people are buying Intel regardless whether its 120% faster or 120% slower. Its Intel, its the brand people know and recognises.

Back in 2005-2006 as an enthusiast I actually went from a Sempron to an Athlon 64 X2. Because it was the cheapest solution. I didn't have to change my motherboard and the Athlon 64 X2 was literally 40-50% cheaper than Intel. Maybe 100% cheaper as I kept my board.

Same thing in 2009, I really wanted an Intel rig, but already had a compatible board and Intel had nothing cheaper than the Athlon II X4 that could match its performance.

So I'm a enthusiast on an economy budget. This is what AMD specialise in. But I understand for everyday people are going to buy Intel and don't care to do my cost analysis.

Intel is a manufacturer; Core i7 is the premium brand of Intel. Daimler AG is a manufacturer; Mercedes-Benz is the premium brand of Daimler AG. Ford Motor Company is a manufacturer; Lincoln is the premium brand of Ford Motor Company. AMD is a manufacturer; FX is the premium brand of AMD.

Regardless. You get my point.

Normal people don't know what Daimler AG is. They know Mercedes.

Ford Mustang is still a premium brand compared to a Ford KA or Ford Fiesta or Ford Focus Brand so its relative.

Lets go with Ford Lincoln, the Lincoln would be equivalent to FX-62, a premium brand within an overall economy brand. This is what AMD is Ford, the Lincoln is the FX-62

But lets be honest globally overall even the most luxurious Lincoln would have a lesser prestigious perceived reputation than any Mercedes class - (in the UK Lincoln and Mustang are not even too commercially available. Never even seen one in real life as with 99% of the people here.)

Your last sentence refers to "brand awareness." AMD doesn't have any because they don't advertise to the general population. Intel does.

Agreed.

Sadly won't ever happen. The bulldozer is just an overhyped inexpensive server design. IPC wasn't the priority, just lots of cores in task manager. It would have been better if they revised the phenom a bit longer and released the 8350 instead of the 8150 at all. The 8150 really hurt their reputation.

I agree with the tweaking of the Phenom architecture could have brought AMD to the performance level to compete with the first iteration of the i-series, whilst they refined the Bulldozer design. But I'm guessing their business model changed.

Video encoding? Maybe equal to Intel but nothing amazing.

There are a few situations like rendering and transcoding where a cheap FX 8350 can hang with a i7 Extreme Edition @ £1000+. In those scenarios it is amazing.

 

[Blue-Knight]

their power consumption.

And that's one of the (many) reasons I bought an Intel for my new build. And I couldn't find any AMD that would fit my needs for that price.

If AMD comes up with something that worth I will surely buy it. But now it's too late, they have 4 more years until I build a new one...

Happy New Year!

 

[Dent1]

I really want a 8 core Steamroller..if the price is right. I know they've dropped the FX brand but I still want my 8 cores!

My board doesn't support the FX Piledriver, so if I change boards I'm likely to go Intel if I can't get a cheap 8 core Steamroller and a cheap FM2+ board.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Normal people don't know what Daimler AG is. They know Mercedes.

Because Daimler AG pumps millions into marketing and advertising to raise Mercedes-Benz brand awareness.

Ford Mustang is still a premium brand compared to a Ford KA or Ford Fiesta or Ford Focus Brand so its relative.

Mustang, Ka, Fiesta, and Focus are all different models by the brand/make "Ford."

Lets go with Ford Lincoln, the Lincoln would be equivalent to FX-62, a premium brand within an overall economy brand. This is what AMD is Ford, the Lincoln is the FX-62

Ford Motor Company owns Lincoln and Ford makes/brands. "Ford Lincoln" does not exist.

Lincoln MKT
Manufacture: Ford Motor Company
Brand/Make: Lincoln
Model: MKT

AMD FX-6300
Manufacturer: AMD
Brand/Series: FX
Model: 6300

But lets be honest globally overall even the most luxurious Lincoln would have a lesser prestigious perceived reputation than any Mercedes class - (in the UK Lincoln and Mustang are not even too commercially available. Never even seen one in real life as with 99% of the people here.)

A lot of people would disagree with you when it comes to the Lincoln Blackwood.


This is getting way OT. To respond to the question in the title: AMD would "create a better CPU architecture to compete with Intel" if they could. AMD's K6, K7, and K8 architectures made Intel scramble because they were revolutionary (namely, high IPC compared to Intel and beating Intel to the x86-64 punch). AMD could hit on another brilliant idea and have one of those moments again but the odds are slim. The only thing I can think of is AMD making a hybrid x86/ARM processor that's better than what Intel came up with. Good luck with that though.

And that's one of the (many) reasons I bought an Intel for my new build. And I couldn't find any AMD that would fit my needs for that price.

That's what made me cringe buying AMD on the last build I made. The AMD platform cost less but the power consumption is double what Intel offers for $50-100 more. I went with AMD though because the client likely wouldn't spend that extra $50-100 so I looked for power savings elsewhere (read: the GPU).

 

[Blue-Knight]

extra $50-100

Ah, no. My CPUs are low-end, $50 or less (no space for extra $50 or $100).

And that's more than enough. And single core performance is crucial for me.

 

[Dent1]

FordGT90Concept,

The thing is Europe Lincoln virtually doesn't exist. Lincoln Blackwood might be more prestigious than a a Mercedes only in the USA, but travel anywhere outside of USA and Canada they will say "what is a Lincoln? ". I actually only know what is because we watch American TV. Never seen one on the road before.

Blue-Knight,

You seem to be on a more shoe string budget than me lol