AMD's desktop Kabini APUs to sell for as low as $31

By Scorpus
Apr 4, 2014
Post New Reply
  1. AMD are starting to roll out their socketed Kabini APUs for desktop platforms, and it turns out you'll be able to grab one for as low as $31. Based on the Jaguar microarchitecture - the same architecture used in the...

    Read more
    misor likes this.
  2. AMD Is making their way and advertising with their old on design and computing minds. They are getting to their old....

    Rory Read is putting AMD to their old on realistic strategy with Mantle that causes the components to work at underperforming speeds. Mantle is not good, it makes their innovations work at old on design speeds.

    Rory Read is full of making API's that kills real innovation. Fire him now.....

    Rory Read is in big trouble, I will get seat at AMD and fire him because he is putting their old on design strategy. They are done because they are full at redesigning their company towards old and gold by design.
    Jose_Vasconc and wastedkill like this.
  3. wastedkill

    wastedkill TS Evangelist Posts: 1,373   +310

    This sounds good but to be honest AMD needs to step up its game, yes its budget is low but its doing amazing with just that budget imagine what they could accomplish with the budget of Intel or Nvidia!

    If I had money I would invest it all in AMD as with enough money they could really push amd and nvidia out of the bar.
  4. GhostRyder

    GhostRyder You know, that one guy with the PC Posts: 2,189   +589

    I don't know where you think your getting your information from, but that sounds like a load if I ever read one. Rory Read has been pushing AMD towards gaming and has made the company more focused than ever at gaming and otherwise working together with other developers.

    Thats not the point, where Intel has a better CPU they lack the GPU for anything reasonable on the baytrail which have only recently gotten enough power to handle something along the lines of HD video playback. Nvidia Tegra is great on the GPU side, but is the lowest of the 3 on CPU and on a new architecture which is still taking time to become part of the game.

    Jaguar is aimed at low voltage, inexpensive, with decent media capabilities on a micro platform. They do more than enough for anyone wanting something at that price range which is the point. Consider it this way, there is a reason that AMD was chosen for all next gen GPU's and most CPU's (Or APU's if you will) on the Console market.
    Jad Chaar likes this.
  5. wastedkill

    wastedkill TS Evangelist Posts: 1,373   +310

    I already know I am just stating that if AMD had the kind of budget intel/nvidia has then they could really deal some killing blows to intel/nvidia.
    Jose_Vasconc likes this.
  6. Jose_Vasconc

    Jose_Vasconc TS Rookie

    Agree. Believe me, if I could I would have fired him long ago. AMD needs a CEO, someone that knows what he/she is doing.

    I don´t like the new AMD and I see killing off all the big cores as a huge strategic mistake by Read, at one point AMD will be so behind Intel they won´t be able to recover. It would be a disaster.

    Read, EVEN if you diversify to getting 50% of your sales from embedded and semi-custom, how are you going to compensate for the other half if you have nothing but rubbish to sell in the core PC market, you´re going to kill off any chances AMD ever had on the PC.

    The famous A10-7850k flagship APU is between core i3 - core i5 level , mediocre at best. How are sales and margins going to improve for AMD when its selling underperforming products???. AMD would sell a WHOLE LOT MORE SILICON if it had an APU that were a TRUE MATCH for an Intel Core i7 4770k, which for AMD is way overdue, but since Read is so afraid of Intel (not to mention his own shadow), he won´t even try. Poor AMD. He should be replaced.

    How about Collette LaForce as interim CEO of AMD until they find a suitable replacement?

    AMD learn,
    Mediocre products = low margins (done long enough, a disaster waiting to happen)

    Abuse of mediocrity in the long run = eventually out of business.

    On the other hand (This is what Intel and Nvidia are so good at) ,
    Top performing products = Very high margins, Brand recognition (halo effect), Market dominance.

    We need someone who can get some of the last to AMD, so it can compete again like in the good old Athlon XP days. It doesn´t take deep pockets to design a competitive product like AMD proved itself back then, even with its humble budget it was giving Intel a hell of a fight, now they don´t even try, now they are just hiding in the corners professing their ¨CPU performance is not important any more¨ load of horse ****. IT IS AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE IMPORTANT, and not preparing or even trying to stay relevant on what defined the company throughout its history is a mistake that could cost AMD way more than it could afford. Killing off Big Cores completely is just stupid.

    AMD having a huge budget would definitely help but as the company itself proved many years ago, even at its size, it can fight back Intel with something competitive (Core i7 level) if it wanted to, the problem here is a leadership one, from the moment Read became CEO he gave up the whole market to Intel without a fight. The only thing he has said since he got to AMD is that CPU performance is not important anymore and he invested very little on improving AMD CPU technology since then. Read is only focused on low power at the total expense of the AMD big cores, would it not be smarter to keep a chunk of the big core market (with an i7) and expand into the low power (embedded, dense server) market at the same time?, instead of killing one to get another, which is just *****ic.

    On the graphics side, AMD is trading blows with Nvidia so on that they´re doing good, just about and with a smaller budget than Nvidia has. The problem here is not the quality of the products the company can put out to market or its engineers, the problem lies on the people taking decisions at AMD, that is it.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2014
  7. wastedkill

    wastedkill TS Evangelist Posts: 1,373   +310

    If I owned or was CEO of AMD that company would be miles better then what it is today, the CEO has no idea what he is doing in some areas like the CPU area its pretty terrible but GPU is "OK" at best due to the fact that they are either too nosiy or require 500W alone!

    Jose please dont post 10 different posts one-on-top of each other just edit your post...
  8. Jose_Vasconc

    Jose_Vasconc TS Rookie

    Completely agree, he is lost. Time overdue for a replacement.
  9. GhostRyder

    GhostRyder You know, that one guy with the PC Posts: 2,189   +589

    You might wanna check your facts on the power consumption aspect... The difference on average is about 40 watts which is not much.

    Stop spam posting, its getting really annoying dude.

    Second, you have no idea what your talking about which is clear from the way your expressing your "Views". Rory Read has put more of a focus on balance, mobile, and the general GPU line than their CPU's which has become apparent. The fact is that with Mantle they proved that CPU's were only being held back by an inefficient API that has been dated for years. They do lack some of the CPU performance that Intel has, but their not as bad as people label them. On top of that, theres the fact Intel pushed people into using their compiler which forces AMD CPU's to work in the most inefficient way when working on tasks causing the performance to look horrible (Compare for instance the past versions of Cinebench as a good example of this, there is plenty of talk of this so I am not the only one who knows this). Whether or not hes right, he has recently brought profit back to the company and his focus has made their mobile division very strong while also securing a very easy console market chip in EVERY next gen console including the Wii U (At least on the graphics side).

    I would love for AMD to go back to making more AMX Platform chips again for some healthy competition. But right now they have focus on the APU's and GPU side of things and improving power consumption.
    Jad Chaar likes this.
  10. Jose_Vasconc

    Jose_Vasconc TS Rookie

    GhostRyder, there´s a BIG difference between a Core i7 and the best AMD has to offer today in raw performance, power consumption, and heat dissipation, not to mention that Intel makes a high profit out of every chip it sells, Nvidia does too. AMD does NONE of this today, should I remind you the purpose of a business is to make profits in order for it to survive in the long run. Intel profit margins are FAT as are NVIDIAs, AMDs are razor thin and that is adding all semi-custom, embedded, console and everything else AMD has right now, how is that a sound strategy in the long run?, any major thing that could happen like a natural disaster hitting a fab or something changing in the markets its in, could put AMD on red ink again instantly and on the verge of closing it doors or being sold in pieces, which for competition purposes is not good news for the end customer. AMDs current strategy is on low margin products and without any plans for anything better than that, thats not a good place to be in.
  11. Jose_Vasconc

    Jose_Vasconc TS Rookie

    Dude I know my stuff, you drink too much PR coolaid. The bottom line is, all that focus Read has on things other than CPU innovation are just excuses not to compete. And all things AMD is selling right now make the company very little money, again their margins are razor thin, that was not the case in the past. I remember AMD used to sell $600 Athlon processors back in the day because they were the best.
  12. wastedkill

    wastedkill TS Evangelist Posts: 1,373   +310

    No I mean the 500W for the new dual AMD GPU and the 5Ghz cpu's are power hungry! AMD GPU's arent exactly as tuned as Nvidias in terms of power usage and noise, heat output Nvidia has clearly owned it in that aspect but if AMD had bigger budgets to work with I am sure they could do miles better.

    AMD Revenue: $5billion
    AMD Profit to utilize: $100mill
    Intel Revenue: $52billion
    Intel Profit to utilize: $9.6billion
    Nvidia Revenue: $4.2billion
    Nvidia Profit to utilize: $642million
    Intel+Nvidia to simulate it like AMD-
    Invidia Revenue: $56.2billion
    Invidia Profit to utilize: $4.8billion

    As you can see intel and Nvidia have a combined profit to utilize of $4.8billion compared to AMD's meager $100million.... thats a MASSIVE gap in terms of innovation and progressing to higher GPU+CPU yields.
  13. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,258

    Wouldn't happen.
    Eight years ago, AMD had sizeable cash reserves and were worth ~40% more than Nvidia. AMD have an unenviable trait of throwing money away needlessly. Overpaying by 100% for ATI assured AMD of carrying a debt burden that directly caused them to offload their mobile and set-top IP to Qualcomm and Broadcom respectively, slash R&D expenditure, accept a lowball $1bn settlement from Intel over the price fixing suit, and hastened the loss of their foundry business.

    It isn't an isolated case by any means. How late were AMD in moving to ARM architecture? Even when it became apparent to outsiders that AMD's server business was withering away to virtually nothing they still sat on their hands with no plan B. If Intel had snapped up SeaMicro for small change when they had the opportunity, AMD's HSA initiative would be basically stalled on the launch pad.

    IF you could channel cash directly to AMD's engineers, you'd have a chance, since engineering and chip architecture prowess aren't in dispute. What is lacking, and has always been lacking, is strategic insight and clearly defined long term goals - not bad considering the AMD have more board directors (12) than either Intel or Nvidia (10 apiece). Look at any historical AMD product roadmap and note how the product and segment focus change radically over short periods of time. Shifting product priority is confusing enough for the spectators, imagine how it plays out internally within the company.
    Jad Chaar likes this.
  14. GhostRyder

    GhostRyder You know, that one guy with the PC Posts: 2,189   +589

    Not going to respond to nonsense anymore, facts are facts and ive proven my points where as yours are just based off nothing and are completely off subject for this thread. Not to mention the fact you keep multi-spam posting and the OP's have to edit your posts for you to fix that.
    But thats a dual GPU card. Titan-Z is also going to run in those realms unless theres some serious under-clocking. I mean most dual GPU's run in excess amount of watts because of what they are. The only area they normally save power in is the area of 2 individual cards versus 1 dual GPU card. The CPU's use alot of power yes, but in comparison so do the E Series i7's which have 130watt TDP's. If were talking power to performance, that is high, but in terms of power to core its a different story. Plus the 5ghz chips are heavily overclocked chips, thats a very high threashold for any processor and will get wattage on those levels for those speeds.

    Kabini and Kaveri alike are aimed at improving clock per clock, power consumption, and GPU performance on the platforms which they have all achieved. People who are buying something like these chips (Kabini) are looking for something cheap that can do the basic needs, not a gamer. So the on-board GPU is going to matter even more since its not replaceable.
    Jad Chaar likes this.
  15. Jad Chaar

    Jad Chaar TS Evangelist Posts: 6,477   +965

    Quite impressive that they got the price that low. Good to see that AMD is doing what they are good at: making budget oriented components.
    wastedkill likes this.
  16. Jose_Vasconc

    Jose_Vasconc TS Rookie

    Dude look at AMDs earnings reports, more than enough facts for you right there, read about how much money they make on every deal they have made lately, like the consoles. There are my facts and your stuff, you are just parroting back what AMD PR says.
  17. Jose_Vasconc

    Jose_Vasconc TS Rookie


    AMDs profit per unit sold, after you deduce the cost of manufacturing each part is very low for the company if you compare it to any of its competitors, on any of their deals including the console deals, check more on the internet.
  18. wastedkill

    wastedkill TS Evangelist Posts: 1,373   +310

    Who actually read and understood my post about invidia? would like your opinions on it, would be interesting to see what you guys think of invidia and what would happen if AMD had the budget intel or nvidia has :)
  19. theBest11778

    theBest11778 TS Addict Posts: 218   +64

    Every AMD post I see people thinking AMD is still in the same market as Intel. They're not. They cannot overtake, match, or even be close to Intel ever again. It will NEVER happen. If you're concerned/considering buying a high-end PC you will be buying Intel. End of story. Not going to change unless a $100+ Billion company decides to try and take Intel on (They won't,) or a drastically new CPU is designed. Instead AMD has learned from ARM to circumvent Intel. Do not compete head to head. It's like guerilla warfare. AMD kills Intel's GPUs, so slap on a decent CPU with them and you have a product Intel cannot directly match.

    Intel vs AMD reviews are no longer relevant as it's like comparing a race car to a Toyota Camry. Are they the same thing, yes, but they have two completely different functions. One is built to do everything the average person wants/needs at a price they're ok with. The other is designed for people that want/need the fastest thing available. This is how things are and will be. AMD will not directly compete with Intel, probably ever again. Time to move on.
  20. Jose_Vasconc

    Jose_Vasconc TS Rookie

    I think even with the budget AMD has now and the fact that AMD is on all 3 consoles, if they fixed their drivers to be as good as Nvidia, AMD could overtake them and claim the top spot in graphics. That could happen because at least there they are not very far from Nvidia and because of the console wins everybody must be optimizing for GCN, leaving Nvidia a distant second. Now if AMD had a crap load of money like Nvidia has to spend, I think they would surpass NV without a doubt, they have a legitimate shot as they are now, imagine if they had a crap load of resources.
    As for beating Intel, that one sounds highly improbable the way things are, even if they had all the money in the world, AMD simply doesn´t want to fight in that arena now, Why not when it always did? Ask Rory Read. If someone else took over and put AMD back in the fight, they could probably come up with a good architecture that could trade blows or even beat Intel for some time and then claim at least the market share they lost while AMD was lost in the other dimensión but I don´t think trading places with Intel is even a posibility, being realistic, Intel is just too dominant in that market.
    wastedkill likes this.
  21. Jose_Vasconc

    Jose_Vasconc TS Rookie

    If AMD wanted to compete with Intel again, they could, they have the engineering talent and they have done it before. They could still engineer a new architecture that could trade blows with Intel and maybe reclaim the 20% market share they once owned in the PC business, but there is no will to do so by the current leadership at AMD, which considering the companys long history in x86 is dissapointing and I think a mistake. There´s higher margins on high performance x86 chips and it would raise the companys overall profile with customers allowing it to charge more per processor, any processor AMD sells, that is how they did it during the Athlon days, they did not have problems with low margins on their products in those days, even a small share of the PC market and higher margins would make a positive impact in the companys revenue, it sure did back then. That is why I think it is a mistake to just give up to Intel because it overall reduces the value of the brand AMD, it makes it look like it is worth much less now because it is not competitive any more. It is like if all of a sudden AMD gave up Radeon and handed Nvidia the whole market for themselves and stopped producing anything competitive in graphics against Nvidia, do you think many people would buy as much Radeon cards as they do today if that were the case?. It is all about perception, and the perception AMD has today on the CPU camp is weak, you just lost a sale right there.
  22. Jose_Vasconc

    Jose_Vasconc TS Rookie

    AMD needs a new CEO, the right CEO.
  23. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,258

    It would take a lot more than that. The fact that you're talking about Nvidia as competition implies discrete graphics, therefore you have to consider how both these companies came to be in their relative situations.
    Nvidia enjoys a higher market share not because of their hardware, but in spite of it.
    Graphics markets are defined by OEMs (bulk contracts) first, professional graphics, and the add-in consumer boards.
    Nvidia enjoys for the most part a better relationship with OEMs where delivery, consistent support and feature set often trump unit price -especially as most sales are at the entry level price point.
    Nvidia owns ~80% of the professional GPU market (workstation, math co-processor, prosumer) in part because their early recognition of the importance of margins in the pro sector (boosted by their relationship with SGI - note this is fifteen years ago), and a conscious decision to provide a complete software/hardware ecosystem (CUDA) where each half of the equation leverages not just current hardware, but lays the foundation for future sales.
    AMD, never being a software company, has always left implementation to third parties- thus you get piecemeal adoption with little large scale integration. In the pro space, AMD is not likely to displace Nvidia simply because they can't provide the full package. If Nvidia (and AMD for that matter) is under threat from anywhere it will likely be from Intel's Knights Landing MIC architecture.
    Nope. GCN graphics arch represents a fraction of the cards in use and being sold. It isn't even the largest proportion of AMD's own cards. Their latest release still uses VLIW5. Game developers aren't going to optimize for a niche architecture at the expense of every other. GCN might see nice gains as a result of development based on the hardware, but it doesn't automatically follow that other architectures are disadvantaged. Take BF4 for example. AMD paid $5-8 million to EA/DICE for exclusivity (inc Mantle), but Nvidia's arch isn't unduly disadvantaged.
    Nope. They will likely achieve gains thanks in large part to the GPU numbers added from APUs, but there are significant areas where AMD is lacking. Professional graphics and notebook GPUs. Seen any new Volcanic Islands mobile MXM's yet?
    The only time AMD achieved a high profile (and it never approached Intel's market share, profit, or revenue), was a perfect culmination of a great AMD architecture (K6) allied with a rubbish one from Intel (NetBurst). To achieve the same result again, AMD would not only have to beat Intel at the design stage, it would also have to rely on Intel's architecture tanking, and likely even that wouldn't be enough since Intel has a considerable fabrication process lead.
    Quite simply no. Rory is a bean counter and is probably the right man to steer the ship. AMD have been historically run by salesmen and engineers. Both had little regard for the bottom line before their grand visions. Intel became a great company because they realized from the outset that engineers should run the designs, but it takes business acumen to run the company. Intel's growth owes more to Andy Grove's administration as it does to the engineering of Moore, Noyce, Faggin et al
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
    cliffordcooley likes this.
  24. Jose_Vasconc

    Jose_Vasconc TS Rookie

    I don´t think Read is the right guy, yes I agree they need a business person as CEO but they need someone better I believe. I think AMD could still produce a great architecture that could trade blows with Intel if it dedicated the talent and resources needed and it could still increase its sales somehow in the PC market, at least they would be making more money for the company and the perception of the AMD Brand would improve from were it is today which influences a lot when a possible customer decides to buy something. I never said AMD had a chance to trade places with Intel, thats practically impossible as Intel is just too dominant but a competitive AMD would benefit the end customer, very few people want to pay $1K for a processor these days.
    As far as graphics go, AMD has won a few deals like the new cilindrical MacPro that would see it increase its market share in profesional graphics to around 30% by the end of the year and they appear to have more stuff coming, theres a possibility their share could grow more. On discrete graphics I believe they are at about 40% of the market. I wouldnt write AMD off just yet, their hardware is competitive with NV, if they fixed the drivers and AMDs sales dept somehow matched NVs efforts with OEMs and others, there could still be a possibility in the long run and dont forget every GPU in those consoles also count.
  25. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,258

    It took AMD six months of well qualified applicants turning down the position of CEO before the board settled on Read. AMD could undoubtedly use someone with a better grasp of the technical aspects of the job (something he seems to very much lack), but the difficulty is that AMD isn't attractive to the better qualified execs.
    I actually posted on the D700 a little while ago. At the margins it is being sold at, it looks like AMD are basically giving the cards away considering the QA (runtime validation) that goes into professional grade GPUs and memory ICs. No doubt AMD will pick up market share in professional graphics, but that is predicated upon better OpenCL support, so I wouldn't be counting too many chickens just yet.
    It's actually 35%, and has been gradually falling for the last few quarters, largely due to a decreasing presence in the mobile markets. The more worrying aspect is that this decrease has happened in spite of AMD's Gaming Evolved game bundles, Mantle, and release of a new architecture
    That's a lot of variables that AMD have to surmount. AMD burned more than a few bridges with OEMs over delays and obfuscation with features and drivers in the mobile and desktop segments (Enduro, VCE missing in action etc). With regards software, AMD have just added a considerable workload for their driver team - Mantle (including getting GCN 1.0 and 1.1 working with it), DX12, and finding some extra performance for Nvidia's inbound low CPU overhead driver -which won't be limited to a handful of graphics card models.

    There always seems to be an air of unbridled optimism by those that follow AMD, and yet if they've proved one thing it's that any technical edge they possess is never exploited fully, nor is it marketed particularly well. In the past AMD also had console contracts, also had technological leads (AMD64, GPU lossless audio, tessellation), also had first-to-market on new processes and architectures. Shouldn't those have translated into a better graph than the one above? and believe me, the CPU, x86 server, and overall graphics market share graphs look a lot less flattering.
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...