AMD will focus less on desktop CPUs, more on mobile APUs

By Matthew · 27 replies
Feb 3, 2012
Post New Reply
  1. During its annual Financial Analyst Day last evening, AMD shared its products and initiatives for the next two years. Along with pledging to better execute its ideas, the company said…

    Read the whole story
  2. ddg4005

    ddg4005 TS Guru Posts: 384   +54

    I sure getting spanked recently by Intel in the processor department contributed to their deicision as well.
  3. yeah but if there is no competition for intel they dont need to release new processors so now its boring and + they can up the prices ....... monopoly they will release ivy bridge after that i doubt they will release a new processor in 1 1/2 years ......
  4. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,728   +3,701

    So be it!! The software world needs to catch up with the processing power of today anyway. Honestly what percentage of consumers need more processing power than we currently have today? I will welcome the wait if it allows AMD a chance at a second wind.
  5. First slide, "Skating to where the puck is going". Nice to see a great Canadian's influence. ;)
  6. princeton

    princeton TS Addict Posts: 1,676

    Unfortunately your hypothesis was debunked when the Ivy Bridge price sheet was leaked.
  7. Princeton +1

    Intel well not stop or slow down because they're trying to enter the smartphone/tablet market. They can't have some weird price/performance rift between their chips for phones and desktops.

    Furthermore, ARM is entering the desktop and mobile market; so Intel definitely can't rest.
  8. why do they feel they need to do this? i mean, its great to expand your business, but why would shift from what has been the focus of your business for years.
    AMD processors aren't bad, don't know why they are doing this. FX was first time on a brand new architecture that even Microsoft wasn't prepared for. Piledriver will be better, especially when paired with windows 8. But whatever AMD. hopefully you will realize the tablet/slimbook market isn't as big as you think.
  9. Vrmithrax

    Vrmithrax TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,352   +293

    If they take that tact, then Intel will be out of business in 2 years... As others have commented, the fact is that Intel has more competition than it likes, but it's not the same as the old "AMD vs Intel" x86 war days. Intel might get to beam as top dog while AMD concentrates on other areas, but that is actually more bad news than good for Intel. ARM is becoming the biggest threat to Intel's business model right now, and AMD's new direction will have more in common with ARM's strengths and models.

    We're in the midst of a big swing, coming back down from the "brute force" processing days and getting back to focusing on efficiency (both power and processing). Intel (and AMD) reached heady heights by throwing so much raw power into processors that it became easy to do tasks sloppily - even if it was not the best way to do something, there was always enough power to shove the square peg into the round hole in a program. Decreasing sizes, increasing interest in mobility and portability, and pushes towards more "green" in general are threatening the old x86 "more power, Scotty!" approach to things. Intel needs to stay relevant, by constantly improving and refining their products so that they are still desirable. A "monopoly" does no good, if you are the sole provider of a product nobody wants or needs anymore.
  10. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,264

    • Time to market slippage
    • <5.5% market share in server (Orochi/Piledriver might look to retain parity in comparison with Intel's previous gen...unfortunately for AMD, time, tide and Intel wait for no man)
    • Lack of R&D funds
    • A management that lacked market direction
    • A company that bet the farm on Globalfoundries process execution/ramping abilities. Too late at 28nm, Too late at 20nm, Too late realizing that gate-first was an evolutionary dead end.
    Nice fairy story.
    Bulldozer's development pre-dates Windows 7's. All AMD had to do was work with MS during the OS's development in the same way that MS and Intel already co-operate to have hyperthreading viable. The fact that AMD saw no need to involve MS during Bulldozers gestation points to either shortsighted management, a basic change in BD's architecture during the design phase, or AMD not knowing exactly how their product would behave.
    It certainly better be. A more mature architecture on a more mature process. You'd have to be the Keystone Kops to screw that up. Do you think that Intels next offerings might also be better ?
  11. ikesmasher

    ikesmasher TS Evangelist Posts: 3,000   +1,319

    Intels offerings have almost always been better, just not for bang to buck wise.
    I see your point of the AMD/microsoft development stage

    and what does market share have to do with the performance of a processor? LOL.
  12. princeton

    princeton TS Addict Posts: 1,676

    Because the market votes on what is the superior product? If AMD CPUs were faster then they would have a large market share, because people would buy them. That's basic economics.
  13. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,264

    Small market share -> low revenue -> decreased R&D funding.

    The latter constitutes employee layoffs, time to market/ timetable slippage (see my earlier post), and contraction of product lines. For example, this is the difference between what AMD hoped for with BD, and what the reality is (and no, just because AMD have added a few new names -Abu Dhabi/Seoul/Delhi- it still amounts to putting lipstick on a pig. No socket change, no chipset change, and no Steamroller in CPU for client or server)

    Timing is everything. If Bulldozer had entered production when it was supposed to (i.e. two years ago when AMD were targeting Core 2 Quad and Nehalem) they'd have a sure-fire winner. Now, not so much.
    So, basically, that's what market share has to do with the performance of a processor

    EDIT: what princeton said
  14. wizardB

    wizardB TS Booster Posts: 121   +23

    It's really quite simple if you want Intel to have competition in the X86 market you need to purchase AMD processors just giving lip service to the competition mantra is not enough.For many years I have purchased and used AMD products in almost all the builds I do whether for myself or customers and have never had a complaint about performance even on top of the line gaming rigs,so set up people put your business where your mouths are for once!!
  15. wizardB

    wizardB TS Booster Posts: 121   +23

    Bull the sheeple follow the best advertising else do you explain Apple same machines for twice the price.
  16. So.. if that were the case alone GM would still be king and not Toyota.. etc etc...

    Sorry but things do NOT always remain the same.
  17. Above comment @ princeton

    damn "reply" system
  18. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,264

    Why ? You think that somehow a few people buying a few CPU's makes a difference? AMD has damn near 50% of the discrete craphics market -in the last year they count sales of HD 5000, HD 6000 and HD 7000 (the latter shipped for revenue in Q4 2011)- THREE successful and class leading series of cards...and what was AMD's operating income last year? $51m...a 67% decrease from 2010.

    Just a note. If you could convince 10,000 TechSpot members to go out and buy an AMD processor right now, AMD still wouldn't recoup enough profit to recoup the $250,000 they gave Rory Read in relocation expenses.

    BTW: AMD's main failing isn't in the client markets, it's in the OEM and server area's -as well as debt servicing and the GF millstone around their necks-. Your "good enough" mantra cuts little ice with people who measure productivity by performance-per-watt and performance-per-core (where a lot of software is licensed on a per-core basis).
  19. tonylukac

    tonylukac TS Evangelist Posts: 1,374   +69

    @Guest GM is once again the #1 car maker due to China sales and Toyota is #3. On the not quite so high end, I found my newly built AMD X2 computer to start up much faster than my 3 year old Intel Dual Core, almost as if it had an sdd, which it doesn't. Is this AMD magic, or just ddr3 memory? The Intel was never this fast.
  20. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,264

    The guest's analogy probably stands, even if the example doesn't.
    Assuming that greater competition should be the rationale for buying a vehicle, shouldn't wizardB be pleading with everyone to buy Chrysler, or Saab, or Alfa Romeo ?
    A new Athlon build POST's faster than a four-and-a-half year old G31 powered by a old Pentium that pre-dates even that ? wouldn't be pulling our collective legs would you? Next thing you'll be telling us that the Athlon's discrete graphics are better than the Intel GMA 3100.
  21. Great1122

    Great1122 TS Enthusiast Posts: 109

    No, AMD don't give up... we don't need another monopoly here, I mean it's a known fact that Intel is faster than AMD, but come on, if there is no competition of prices what will happen to the processor market (just look at the 3930K vs the 3960K, Intel charges over $600 extra to get just a relatively little performance boost). Ivybridge will be way to overpriced compared to the pricing of the i7 2000 series processors if there is no competition (and I wonder if they'll even change the prices for the 2000 series).
  22. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,264

    AMD aren't going anywhere. They are however looking at the high volume entry- mainstream markets
    That's a joke right ? You realise the last time AMD footed it with Intel at the same (or greater) level of performance they were charging $700 to $800 to $1000.

    Now, if AMD are such an altruistic company- who by their very existance, supposedly ensure lower prices, why are they recommending a $549 MSRP for the HD 7970 ? Surely, if Rory Read is the epitome of the modern humanitarian, wouldn't AMD have priced the card at say $399 (or even price at GTX 580 MSRP) and ensured the same level of supposed competition ?

    Nah! You know what's going to happen ? Exactly the same as what happens every other time with every other IHV: Wallet-rape the early adopters and lower prices when you're forced to. AMD have adopted cheap pricing (CPU) simply because they lag in every performance metric. Years of tinkering with an old architecture and offering it for cheap -banging the value-for-money drum, and setting themselves as some kind of tech moral compass -which in all actuality is more a product of management's deficiencies in strategic planning.
    Whoops. There goes another poorly researched comment. So who do you like in Superbowl XLVI...Cleveland ?
  23. AMD has mostly delivered the better product contrary to "reviews" and BS benchmarks.
  24. I fully support AMD and have done so ever since the Athlon CPU (Slot A) came to the market. They beat Intel to 1 GHz when Intel was at the Pentium III stage. The Pentium IV was a joke and during that time AMD excelled with the Athlon XP series. I must have built over a dozen computers since 2000 and each and every one runs with an AMD CPU. Why? Because Intel is a corrupt company that uses illegal marketing practices both here and in other countries. I hope I never have to resort to building a computer with an Intel CPU. My latest Bulldozer machine is using the FX8150 and I am very pleased with it's performance. I hope AMD continues to be a major player in the desktop market.
  25. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,728   +3,701

    I can say the same thing about Intel but that doesn't mean I am going to downgrade the other player. If you like AMD fine, I'm happy for you but shut up about Intel, especially when you say you haven't used their CPU's at all the last 12 years.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

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