The Rise, Fall and Revival of AMD

[Julio Franco]

AMD is one of the oldest designers of large scale microprocessors and has been the subject of polarizing debate among technology enthusiasts for nearly 50 years. Its story makes for a thrilling tale. We'll revisit the company's past, examine the twists and turns in the path to the present, and wonder at what lies ahead.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/article/2043-amd-rise-fall-revival-history/

 

[Jerry in WA]

Reading this on an AMD 3800x / AMD 5700 xt. Last time I had an AMD was 2006 (X2 4400+). Last time I had an ATi was 2005. (many builds between)

Just saying, they must be doing something right.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

While I'm not interested in buying their CPU or GPU for my own self, I must say that at $50 (currently) their stock is still a strong buy and I see considerable growth in the future for them.

 

[grumblguts]

Look at me sitting with only 8 cores 16 threads with the option to upgrade latter to a 16 core 32 thread using existing board. AMD look after their customers unlike some.
ask them guys who went with intel.

 

[Uncle Al]

GREAT ARTICLE! This one not only has historical value, it's also very interesting as well. AMD is the best part of "competition" and their sheer existence keeps the field not only competitive, but just plain interesting. Frankly, I'd love to see another competitor arise and be successful. This keeps the giants like Intel on their toes and in the long run it is we, the buying public, that benefits most.

 

[Vulcanproject]

The ATi acquisition was the biggest mistake in the short term. Long term it made sense, but they ridiculously overpaid for the company as the article states.

All that cash swallowed up just before Intel finally launched a modern architecture and that limited AMD's response in the CPU sector for ten entire years. Hindsight is 20/20 but they seriously overreached.

I remember seeing the reviews of Core 2 in 2006 comparing it to AMD's best and realised then AMD were in serious trouble and would be for a long time. Not least because you saw how easily Core 2 overclocked and hit the kind of speeds AMD wasn't going to be competitive at.

A $200 bottom binned E6300 would easily bust past 3GHz on a good board and trounce the revised X2 6000+, a $450 CPU which had no OC headroom.

 

[Ozmiz]

Reading the article made me go back in time.

I remember my 1st PC, an 8088, 10MB hard drive, 2MB of Ram.

I remember a friend asking, "what are you going to do with that much memory?!".
Others came over just to see that "NASA capable computer".

Now even my calculator has more computing power.... we've came a long ways baby.

 

[Tom Yum]

Great article.

 

[DZillaXx]

While my first computer was a handed down 486. My First real PC was a 800mhz Athlon. Running Windows 98, and a VIA Savage video card. Good times. 20GB HDD, have times sure changed.

Glad to see AMD back on top. AMD's CPU Lineup is nearly a 100% Slamdunk on Intel, I'm sure Zen3 will finally make it 100%.

For AMD their next big challenge is in the graphics area. Lets Hope RDNA2 is as good as it sounds.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Look at me sitting with only 8 cores 16 threads with the option to upgrade latter to a 16 core 32 thread using existing board. AMD look after their customers unlike some.
ask them guys who went with intel.

You ever try to put a new engine in an old car? There's plenty of bottlenecks.

Same thing applies to PC. If I buy a new PC, I want a new motherboard that is designed to handle it.

 

[UncleMikeRetro]

Just like to say, real nice reading on a one-more-coffee Monday morning!

 

[Morphine Child]

You ever try to put a new engine in an old car?

There's plenty of bottlenecks.

Same thing applies to PC. If I buy a new PC, I want a new motherboard that is designed to handle it.

Plenty of boards support new CPUs just fine. I'll give you that *sometimes* you need new Motherboard, but with Intel is 90% greed, 10% reason.

I don't really have to upgrade my CPU, but the option is there, and that choice is what I like.

 

[Aryassen]

This was a great read, thank you! Used most of the products mentioned (starting with a 12Mhz 286), but my all time favourites from AMD side would have to be the K6-2 350, and the HD7850. Not that I am disappointed with my trusty 3600 (I love it, actually), but back then it was just different.

That ATI requisition didn't make any sense to me, even though I was using ATI products happily before (8500LE, anybody?), and sporting a X800GT at the time of the transaction...I just couldn't understand why, and especially why at that price?? Till date I'm not sure if it was a clean deal, or somebody "benefited" from it tremendously (apart from ATI itself, of course).

Very happy to see AMD coming back swinging, at can only hopy that Ms Su would keep driving it as firmly as she had in the past few years...(healthy) competition is good!

 

[HardReset]

@Julio Franco

Good article, thank you. However it comes with some small mistakes:

AMD continued revising the Bulldozer design over the years -- Piledriver came first and gave us the FX-9550 (a 220 W, 5 GHz monstrosity), but Steamroller and the final version, Excavator (launched in 2011), were more focused on reducing the power consumption, rather than offering anything particularly new.

Excavator introduced 2011, launched 2015. Also worth mentioning we never saw "final" Bulldozer design as AMD switched focus Zen. That's why Steamroller and Excavator were so small updates.

A year later, the architecture was updated to Zen+, which consisted of tweaks in the cache system and switching from Samsung's 14nm process to a denser 12LP system. The CPU dies remained the same size, but the new fabrication method allowed the processors to run at higher clock speeds.

14LPP process is GlobalFoundries one while licenced from Samsung. But then 12LP has nothing to do with Samsung, it is GlobalFoundries' own process.

The input/output structure was made by GlobalFoundries, with desktop Ryzen models using a 14nm chip, and Threadripper & EPYC sporting larger 12LP versions.

Other way around: Epyc and Threadripper are 14LPP, Ryzen is 12LP.

 

[neeyik]

Excavator introduced 2011, launched 2015. Also worth mentioning we never saw "final" Bulldozer design as AMD switched focus Zen. That's why Steamroller and Excavator were so small updates.

One could argue that the architecture was still launched in 2011 - the fact that products using didn't appear for another 4 years is a different matter.

14LPP process was GlobalFoundries one while licenced from Samsung. But then 12LP had nothing to do with Samsung, it was totally GlobalFoundries' own process.

12LP is a modification of Samsung's older process, not something GloFo have made entirely by themselves. However, the article should state that it's not a full Samsung-licensed process, though.

Other way around: Epyc and Threadripper are 14LPP, Ryzen is 12LP.

You're right - my mistake. Thanks for the feedback; I'll amend the article to clarify the above points.

 

[Arbie]

I bought an 1800X at launch. It was time for an upgrade but even more importantly it was time to support AMD. I (finally) realized what a miracle it was for them to have returned AND what Intel had been doing to us. If AMD failed then we would be milked *forever*.

So buying Ryzen was a no-brainer, and it still is. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the "gamers" who still crow about a few FPS more from their Intel chip (at +50W...) with no thought of what's going to happen if we return to the bad old days. Did they learn nothing?

I won't be buying Intel for many years even if their products compete, because that way lies disaster. We need two big players.

And BTW thanks for a great article on a worthy subject.

 

[Deshi]

Great article, Enjoyed that read. One small correction/suggestion though:

"switching from Samsung's 14nm process to a denser 12LP system from GF."

Should probably say "Global Foundries 14nm node" , or maybe better "Samsung's 14nm (licensed by GF) process". Although the 14nm process itself was licensed from Samsung, the way its stated may make someone think AMD used samsung to manufacture the chips when it was at global foundries using the samsung process under license. Just for clarity sake.

 

[JimboJoneson]

You ever try to put a new engine in an old car? There's plenty of bottlenecks.

Same thing applies to PC. If I buy a new PC, I want a new motherboard that is designed to handle it.

Can you give us a few examples of these bottlenecks that you see running, say, a 3rd gen Ryzen on a X470 board?

There's a lot of reviews on this exact topic and performance of the CPU is not inhibited in any way with Ryzen 3xxx on an older board. http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/..._7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_x470_vs_x570_review/23

I think perhaps you have just become used to "it will bottleneck" as the "reasoning" why Intel doesn't allow this choice with its customers.

Consider that Intel has for decades produced their own chipsets and if they can guarantee a new mobo sale with every new CPU sale, they increase their revenue.

Its not that a company can't properly support a socket across multiple generations, AMD did with AM4: bulldozer APUs, Ryzen, Ryzen+, Ryzen 3xxx and Ryzen 4xxx, and even Athlon.

So are we to believe that Intel, being the bigger company can't do this without inducing crippling bottlnecks? Is that too hard for them?

Or is it more reasonable to believe that they force you into their model to pull more money from you? Which explanation is more reasonable to believe?

Intel has always shown they are all about doing whatever it takes (even if illegal) to make more money ... so I'm pretty sure that shoe fits as to the real reasoning why Intel wants you to buy a new mobo with every single CPU.

They could care less about your view on "bottlenecks". They just want your money

But then again you said "Just want a motherboard designed to handle it ...", well AM4 was purposefully designed to handle multiple generations from its inception ... Intel isn't capable of this?

Either incompetence and lack of ability to do what AMD has done, or they just want to gouge more money from their customers ... take a pick. It has to be one of those two, or at least some combo of the two.

 

[neeyik]

Great article, Enjoyed that read. One small correction/suggestion though:

"switching from Samsung's 14nm process to a denser 12LP system from GF."

Should probably say "Global Foundries 14nm node" , or maybe better "Samsung's 14nm (licensed by GF) process". Although the 14nm process itself was licensed from Samsung, the way its stated may make someone think AMD used samsung to manufacture the chips when it was at global foundries using the samsung process under license. Just for clarity sake.

Fair point. Let me see what I can with one last edit.

 

[meric]

I owned a K6-II and then a K7 TB and then an Athlon64. Those were the glorious days for AMD. My favorite AMD Gpu was the HD 7970 (ghz edition), because that GPU aged so well. Impressed by the value and performance of Ryzen 5 3600. I find it strange that, in their glory days, AMD's CPUs didn't get enough attention and sales even though they performed much better than Intel offerings.

 

[ruddevil]

I owned a K6-II and then a K7 TB and then an Athlon64. Those were the glorious days for AMD. My favorite AMD Gpu was the HD 7970 (ghz edition), because that GPU aged so well. Impressed by the value and performance of Ryzen 5 3600. I find it strange that, in their glory days, AMD's CPUs didn't get enough attention and sales even though they performed much better than Intel offerings.

It's not strange. Intel paid OEMs to NOT sell AMD-based units. It's told in the article too.

 

[pencea]

I see considerable growth in the future for them.

For the first time ever I agree with you.

You ever try to put a new engine in an old car? There's plenty of bottlenecks.

Same thing applies to PC. If I buy a new PC, I want a new motherboard that is designed to handle it.

*Sigh*

But statements like this....

 

[pencea]

Intel has always shown they are all about doing whatever it takes (even if illegal) to make more money ... so I'm pretty sure that shoe fits as to the real reasoning why Intel wants you to buy a new mobo with every single CPU.

They could care less about your view on "bottlenecks". They just want your money

But then again you said "Just want a motherboard designed to handle it ...", well AM4 was purposefully designed to handle multiple generations from its inception ... Intel isn't capable of this?

Yup exactly! Very well said.

 

[Zidentia]

My first true PC was a Tandy running a 8088 @4.7mhz. I upgraded to a 80286 @8mhz and it was amazing. When I started building my own, then selling and designing systems I went primarily with AMD chipsets but some customers insisted on Intel. I was a loyal fan until they started having heat transfer issues and even my Win 7 phenom fried its gpu. I went back to Intel for the cooler chips but now as the article shares Intel is having issues. I no longer design systems having went into software full time but I may look at AMD for the next system I get personally.

 

[JimboJoneson]

Hahah! I had a TRS-80 as my first computer, then a Sanyo 08086 and it ran at 4.7 but could also run at 8 mhz. 64 colour evga graphics at 800x600 -- top end stuff at the time, lol. 20 mb HD. 256kb RAM I think.

Ahhh ... the olden days ...