Tuesday, November 29th 2011

AMD To Give Up Competing With Intel On x86? CPU Prices Already Shooting Up

It looks like the Bulldozer disaster might have been too much of a setback for AMD to recover from. After 30 years of competing with Intel in the x86 processor market, AMD is about to give up, even with the 2009 1.25bn antitrust settlement they extracted from them. Mike Silverman, AMD company spokesman said, "We're at an inflection point. We will all need to let go of the old 'AMD versus Intel' mind-set, because it won't be about that anymore." He was vague on the exact strategy that AMD intends to pursue from now on, though. However, the company is widely expected to make a concerted effort to break into the smartphones and tablets market. The big problem with this strategy unfortunately, is that this arena is currently dominated by many other competitors. On top of that, their arch enemy Intel is also trying to muscle in on this space, hence AMD could find themselves back at square one, or likely even further back. AMD's graphics cards are doing well at the moment though and are quite competitive, so it looks like their expensive purchase of ATI back in 2006, might yet save the company from extinction. If they become primarily a graphics card company, they will inevitably end up a lot smaller than they are now though and that's a lot of lost jobs and personal hardship, along with a monopoly x86 market remaining and all of its negative effects on the market.
The current predicament that AMD find themselves in can only be due to bad management, especially with that massive injection of over a billion dollars. Surely they must have seen the way Bulldozer performance was going years ago? Ultimately, it doesn't matter if they would have scrapped Bulldozer as a bad job and tweaked up the reasonable Phenom 2 instead and called it Phenom 3. It doesn't matter a jot what's actually under the hood, what clock speed it runs at and what you call it. Ultimately, it's comparative real-world performance and price that matters, nothing else. Nothing at all. Back in October, we reported on AMD's projection of a 50% CPU performance improvement by 2014. It was clear as day that this was a non-starter against the high performance competition from Intel, who's products are already 50% faster and more right now, so today's announcement that AMD is giving up isn't really all that surprising, although depressing.

AMD's move is bad news for PC enthusiasts everywhere as Intel will now be left with no competition in the x86 market and be an effective monopoly. We're already seeing the effects of this with Intel processors trending upwards in price and Intel's Sandy Bridge replacements, Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge, which essentially give the same per core performance as SB, with just a few tweaks to make them "new" products. With more and more computing power being crammed into an ever smaller space, could it be that high powered PCs will become a very small niche market, having been replaced by laptops, very small form factor, low power computers - and games consoles? And what will happen to AMD and NVIDIA when they can't sell high-powered graphics cards in sufficient quantities to be profitable any more? Doesn't bear thinking about, does it?

There's more info, analysis and quotes on this grim situation over at Mercury News.
Add your own comment

156 Comments on AMD To Give Up Competing With Intel On x86? CPU Prices Already Shooting Up

#126
chron
this pisses me off to no end
Posted on Reply
#127
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
I will rant when I get back outa Wisconsin :pimp:
Posted on Reply
#128
Red_Machine
pantherx12
BT is shite. :laugh:

Those 3 things are run by several different companies not one by it's self.


Royal mail is expensive as HELL lol ( fine for anything under a kilo and not expensive though I guess)


I'm shipping a tv soon, royal mail it would of cost me £30 and I'd have to go to the post office, to get a courier it costs me £10 including £500 insurance and they pick it up from my house, I don't even need to write the address on the parcel as they come with stickers! :D
I'm talking about back when they WERE monopolies. They were all owned and operated by the government. Royal Mail still is a monopoly to some extent, but it really has gone to hell in the last decade.
Posted on Reply
#129
pantherx12
Red_Machine
I'm talking about back when they WERE monopolies. They were all owned and operated by the government. Royal Mail still is a monopoly to some extent, but it really has gone to hell in the last decade.
Owned and operated by the government isn't quite the same as a true monopoly as in theory* if it's government owned it's owned by the public and so people can kick up a fuss about it/protest etc etc.

Can't really do that against a business.



* In theory because the government never listens to people :laugh:


Also as they were government owned they would of been seen as a necessary service I.E they can't over charge for it because people required it. (Governments supposed to provide after all, supposed to distrubute the money we give them in a sensible way and invest in things that are good, again obviously doesn't actually happen lol but it's how it should be)
Posted on Reply
#130
Recus
lukcic
  • I use Sony vegas for rendering and it truly uses all cores on the AMD platform to the max, while Intel....that's just sad story behind....

Everyone know that tasks like this runs faster on GPU.
Posted on Reply
#131
yogurt_21
Easy Rhino
you really think the existence of AMD is what's driving intel's incredible innovation rate :confused:
yes but not for the reasons the guy you quoted mentions. Simply put if AMD exits the x86 market, Intel get's chopped up like a cow on the butchers block.

All you guys worrying about amd should worry about what the U.S. govt will do to intel if it has a monopoly. Case and point. At&t had a nice monopoly on the phone markets years and years ago. They had excellent service, phone costs were low, and advancements were happening right and left.

Sombody cries to the govt. "At&t has a monopoly and we can't enter the market"

At&t gets chopped up. Phone service goes down the tube, customer service goes down the tube, and phone costs tripled.

Years later we now all pay hundreds a month for our mobile phone bills because some asshat in the U.S. govt thought their monopoly was bad. They created a dark age of phone advancement and service by breaking up a monopoly.

That's exactly what will happen to intel if amd leaves pc market.



That said. AMD isn't leaving the pc market. They're merely focusing more on mobile (ie laptops, tablets, phones) and less on desktops/workstations/servers. Looking at the market it makes sense to shift to mobile. This is especially true with the all on one chip apu style that seems to be decently successful for amd.
Posted on Reply
#132
cadaveca
My name is Dave
qubit
@cadaveca

So Intel own the market because they own the fabs to meet the demand, regardless of what happens? Yeah, I'll go with that. :toast:
Yeah, I mean, there is still TONNE of consumer demand, so someone needs to make chips, whatever form they take. Frankly, I see it possible that Intel could produce chips for AMD, once AMD is not producing x86 designs. of course, like I said earlier, AMD needs the small revenue they get from CPU sales to pay their bills, so it's not like they are really gonna stop making CPUs...they simply need to change people's mindsets about what they expect.
I don't agree that more computing power isn't needed though. It's one of those things that's classically "never enough" and there's always an application to soak it all up. Even though it might just be the same thing done 100 times faster, this can still be enough to bring about a paradigm shift. To give you an example, take voice recognition. It's a notoriously difficult thing for a computer to do accurately and with little training, since computers don't have the awareness and the "smarts" that humans do, to implement a proper artificial intelligence. However, the speed of today's processors allow for this functionality to a passable extent.

Another one is weather prediction. It can be pretty accurate up to about three days in advance now and that's simply because of the huge amount of processing power available on today's supercomputers.
Supercomputers, as you kinda hint at, have the power needed for super-heavy compute tasks. The one problem with such infrastructure is that the cost is highly prohibitive. Making such things MORE AFFORDABLE is the real answer to such needs.

AMD can meet that market segmanet, and they already do. It's worth noting that AMD did ship Bulldozer as a server chip first, so there's no question, really, where the priorities are. Marketing simply goofed hardcore with Bulldozer, and that is all. To me, Bulldozer is exciting, contrary to the opinion of most reviewers.
Posted on Reply
#133
Baam
FreedomEclipse
When BEASTS get cornered they get 180% more vicious and become super agressive as they are fighting for their life/survival.

When AMD gets cornered, they lay down and prepare to get rick-rolled without a fight.

-------

you could say that AMD has been fighting for a long time - If you can class rolling over as as fighting then yeah, they the best at it.

Bulldozer is not the first monumental fuck up AMD have made.... Remember the days when AMD staff said their new CPU's were 'PHENOM-INAL'?? Then Intel came out with a game changer - the Core 2 Duo and slapped AMD's new phenom around like a cheap worthless whore.

I still remember reading a article in customPC magazine about AMD talking about their phenom and their thoughts on Intels new C2D chips. Aparently, AMD knew about the new C2D chips way before the phenom was due for release but refused to delay it while they tweaked the performance some more.

And the same thing happed with Bulldozer except Bulldozer was a 'victim' of clever marketting. AMD had ample time to come up with a superior CPU since the C2D's, C2Q's and even SB chips as they were out long before AMD's BD. And what happends??? they fail to grasp victory again. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

AMD's move does not suprise me. Obviously I want them to carry on competing just like everyone else does but it comes to a point in the road where flogging a horse no longer makes the horse run faster.
Unfortunately AMD's fight left them when Jerry Sanders left. :mad:
Posted on Reply
#134
dir_d
Updated Article to the one Softpedia released yesterday.
here
Posted on Reply
#135
Inceptor
de.das.dude
well it just doesnt make any sense. why would they even put BD into production if they knew it was such a fail and they would quit??
I don't think they knew it would be 'such a fail' until after they were pumping out ES and seeing the performance in benchmarks, tweaking the steppings, pumping out more ES. At that point, it was too late, all they could do was delay and hope to fix a few problems. But they had no choice but to release BD eventually, at that point, in order to recoup some of their capital expenditures on R&D.

They fired the old marketing people.
The new CEO comes in a month before BD release and realizes 'heads need to roll' and 'plans need to change', but still has to release BD in order to create some cash flow and recoup expenses.
Voila, hints of restructuring. Re-jigging of roadmaps.
No surprises really.
Had to be done by someone eventually.
So now they've come out and said it officially,
"hey stop hoping for the old days of the original FX processors, we don't give a shit about that anymore"
"we're selling to our core market, and you ain't it Mr/Ms High End Enthusiast"

So much whining, unnecessary garbage, overreaction, trolling, and ego stroking going on; there's a few dozen useless posts in this thread. :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#136
erocker
*
If we're talking about "the fastest CPU on the market" I don't get it? AMD hasn't competed with Intel on this front for about five years.
Posted on Reply
#137
tigger
I'm the only one
pantherx12
Owned and operated by the government isn't quite the same as a true monopoly as in theory* if it's government owned it's owned by the public and so people can kick up a fuss about it/protest etc etc.

Can't really do that against a business.



* In theory because the government never listens to people :laugh:


Also as they were government owned they would of been seen as a necessary service I.E they can't over charge for it because people required it. (Governments supposed to provide after all, supposed to distrubute the money we give them in a sensible way and invest in things that are good, again obviously doesn't actually happen lol but it's how it should be)
I'm working for the Royal Mail:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#138
Llunker
CrAsHnBuRnXp
What I dont understand is how the AMD engineers find it so damn difficult to make a solid chip that is competitive with Intel's offerings. Especially after all these years.
Because as you have seen with many AMD ex-employees--AMD likes to take shortcuts. And shortcuts in this business means your product will suffer because of them. Thats why...

Some os the best minds in the world have come from AMD and they will tell you straight up that they would still be there if upper management would fix the shortcomings of their company.

Plain and simple--fix it from the top down and you might have a better company
Posted on Reply
#140
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
AMD not leaving x86 Market.
Among other we have a quote from an AMD employee about the stories that says AMD will abandon x86:

"A new definition of absurdity: interpreting this week's statements from AMD to believe that the company is leaving the x86 market. Get real."
Posted on Reply
#141
Damn_Smooth
Blah. That sums up my opinion about the whole situation. Even if AMD stays in the x86 market, they are so far behind that they will never be competitive again. So what does it matter?
Posted on Reply
#142
erocker
*
Damn_Smooth
Even if AMD stays in the x86 market, they are so far behind that they will never be competitive again.
There's more to competition than having the fastest CPU.
Posted on Reply
#143
Damn_Smooth
erocker
There's more to competition than having the fastest CPU.
Can you name me an area of that competition that Intel isn't handing AMD it's ass in? Besides overclocking and winning fail polls?
Posted on Reply
#144
erocker
*
Damn_Smooth
Can you name me an area of that competition that Intel isn't handing AMD it's ass in? Besides overclocking and winning fail polls?
Intel is making more money on all of their products. AMD still competes with them by selling CPU's. You also don't have to outcompete the competition in order to compete. AMD's current offerings aren't attractive to people like us on tech forums. It doesn't matter we are in the minority. OEM's, prebuilts, etc. are all using more AMD chips than ever before.
Posted on Reply
#145
OneCool
Cant blame AMD if this move happens.They have to go where the money is at. Tablets,phones,TVs etc.

It wont stop me from wanting a big desktop pc for doing REAL work on. ;)
Posted on Reply
#146
Damn_Smooth
erocker
Intel is making more money on all of their products. AMD still competes with them by selling CPU's. You also don't have to outcompete the competition in order to compete. AMD's current offerings aren't attractive to people like us on tech forums. It doesn't matter we are in the minority. OEM's, prebuilts, etc. are all using more AMD chips than ever before.
True, but I'm a selfish fucker. I want them to compete in the areas that matter to me.
Posted on Reply
#147
dorsetknob
"YOUR RMA REQUEST IS CON-REFUSED"
Anyone considered that the future market is not x86 32bit (its dead apart from legacy stuff)
64bit Processing is now and 128bit or more is the future
Chips that handle 128 bit or higher processing on multiple cores are no doubt in development ( with or without onboard gpu) and as such will be as far in advance of current 32bit chips as the x86 is over the ancient 8bit processors

"" Progress marches on (in the developers fabs ) and SKYNET grows nearer to reality""
Posted on Reply
#148
Temujin
Hmm, AMD couldn't improve upon the integrated memory architecture (which conveniently showed up out of the blue)? Couldn't improve inter-core and controller efficiencies? Without these basic concepts, the large FX-8150 is nothing more than a larger 965BE. If AMD puts more effort in to revising Bulldozer's efficiency, it would perform quite a bit better. (i.e. Poor memory efficiency at 1866MHz).

There's money in processors. It is AMD's fault it went this badly. Cutting ties and running off to the waves of money created by mobile devices is the mother of all epic fails. In fact, I would argue that band wagon companies, while cleverly greedy, are their own worst enemies. It's band wagon thinking and planning that all be ensures their existence is limited.

I noticed a comment on whether or not power consumption was important. It is more important to enterprise than it is to consumers. Consumers would quickly accept a small 10 watt increase just to get the performance.
Posted on Reply
#149
ensabrenoir
Bd= delorean. I applaud amd for not trying to be intel and moving in the. Dsirection they've choosen.
Posted on Reply
#150
Makaveli
Super XP
IBM will never let AMD go under, absolutely no way. Who on earth want's Intel dictating what CPU technologies will be chosen? I don't so.

AMD will only change there strategy and compete on Price/Performance until they can get something competative out that blows Intel out of the water :D
Maybe if this was 1990 you may have been onto something but IBM gave up on the Consumer market ages ago.

lukcic
I support AMD because:
  • tried Intel, and for my use AMD was and still is a better choice (example: try to use dism with all patches for windows; Intel based PC will die and will be unusable for a few hours, while AMD finishes 1 hour before an Intel and during the task the PC is usable)
  • I don't care for the quantity of game framerates; I play games 2x in a month
  • I use Sony vegas for rendering and it truly uses all cores on the AMD platform to the max, while Intel....that's just sad story behind....
  • I was thinking buying a laptop, a cheap laptop with the CPU virtualization and I wanted an Intel (I was recommended by I friend who I trust about these things), the problem was that the Pentium mobiles don't have virtualization, while even the cheapest model of any AMD CPU has it. This rises a question "Why would I buy an Intel???" :laugh:
So here you have my opinion and logical reasons why I support AMD. Now I own a 8-core AMD beast and it does the job damn good!
de.das.dude
this is also the reasons i use an AMD. fuck i5 :D
AMD just feels a lot faster somehow.
Whatever you two are smoking can I buy some?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment