Wednesday, November 30th 2011
AMD Still Committed To x86 - But Not In High End Desktop
Further to our article yesterday, that AMD was to give up competing with Intel, they have now made a statement which semi-clarifies their future strategy. AMD told The Verge, that they are still committed to x86, but have decided to concentrate on low power, emerging markets and the cloud:
AMD is a leader in x86 microprocessor design, and we remain committed to the x86 market. Our strategy is to accelerate our growth by taking advantage of our design capabilities to deliver a breadth of products that best align with broader industry shifts toward low power, emerging markets and the cloud.This sounds very much like they are giving up competing with Intel in the high-end x86 CPU market, but will instead compete with the likes of ARM, NVIDIA, TI and Intel in the low power market. It doesn't seem like a good strategy however, not least because getting the power use levels of an x86 CPU right down to ARM levels and still have some semblance of performance seems to be an unachievable aim, as Intel has already found out. The problem is that the ancient and complex x86 instruction set dating from the late 1970s, requires complex decode logic and a bigger chip (more transistors) to implement. It also isn't very fast, which is why all the various "turbocharging" technologies and enhancements have had to be applied to it over the years to bring us the fast CPUs we see today. These are all very expensive on transistor budget, power and require a high clock speed. The fact that all modern x86 CPUs are actually hybrid x86 (32-bit) & x64 (64-bit) machines adds an order of magnitude to the problem, as they're almost two CPUs in one. Time will tell whether AMD were right to go down this road.
87 Comments on AMD Still Committed To x86 - But Not In High End Desktop
As if they will drop out now when they have only just finally released bulldozer.
They will at least refine that architecture and release some competing products in the future, so they can't exactly be dropping out of the high end market.
When/if that is a success they will be showboating and gloating about their fastest cpus and all that typical stuff every company does when they're back on top.
here comes a massive improvement
if not then crap for all of us.
Also, AMD isn't going to be manufacturing DRAM. They are simply arranging Radeon branded DRAM. Google the difference if you're still unsure.
Cheers,
Therefore they wish for Intel to increase prices, so that they can maintain a profitable business in Tier 2.FIXED
I'm a fairly optimistic guy and I really doubt AMD is in the verge of making their turd architecture into a serious performer.
We'll see, but as of now I can't help but feel that my next system will be Intel based.
As for the peole bemoaning the potential lack of competition... there already is no competition at the high end of the CPU spectrum. The only people buying "high-end" AMD CPUs are fanboys, cheapskates, or people who have been conned into doing so.
so were the bulldozer's leaked slides.Shh! this ploy has never been used before and AMD could never have something up their sleeve in the "oh shit" position.Not really...As of right now their are tons of people buying netbooks and ipads. That is an emerging huge market. Low power K10 chips are cheap and readily available. It's not hard for AMD to bin some dual cores with no L3 to be good netbook chips, throw in an IGP based off of...oh wait its called FUSION.
To put things in perspective
I might aim for the 76% buying >$700 PC's as well.
Oh SNAP!
EDIT: So when's Virgo/Volan coming exactly, so that I can buy it? :D
How ever stock clock speeds ( and perhaps max over-clocks) seem to be on the cards as well.
Judging from the quite varied stock VIDs on bulldozer there was fab issue ( not enough to make the cpus unsellable apparently, but enough for bulldozer to come out at 3.6 when 4ghz was on the cards)
I think pile-driver top end will be 4ghz stock.
All speculation but based on things that I know.
I think there are many enthusiast just like me, who feel like they want to test everything, and run out of reasonable options in between platform launches.
AMD cannot stop making CPUs. They need the revenue to pay their loans. They just don't need to be taking Intel head-on in a performance war.
SandyBridge is a killer chip. I really think they are worth much more than they are sold for now. Why are they cheap?
So Intel can sell as many as is possible. The more units they move, the more they profit. And it's much harder to make profit by increasing prices. Heck, SandyBridge is so affordable based on performance, that I bought two chips, with one sitting on a shelf, collecting dust.
A couple of years ago, I bought a brand new BFG 8800 Ultra off eBay for £100 for my graphics card collection. It now sits proudly in its box on a shelf, all gleaming and new, having never been used for more than an hour so for testing. I can't remember the last time I even looked at it, but I don't regret it for a moment. :D
it does worry me that with amd not producing "competitive" chips anymore that intel will become another nvidia(as if their prices weren't high enough already).
as long as they are still in the gpu business ill be happy bc nvidia is aweful.
Likewise, this sentiment seems to fit within AMD's goals..to forget the high-end space completely, and work on affordable products that are easy on the wallet. Rather than making designs to compete with Intel, it seems it's more prudent to create designs that meet customer needs instead. Enthusiasts have screamed loud enough that Bulldozer doesn't meet their needs, after all.