A thought

[Frakk]

Would AMD be wise to pull out of the mainstream CPU market? Right now they are loosing skip loads of money 'mainly' because of the Bulldozer debacle.

AMD are capable of making some awesome stuff given the chance, so why not pull out for a few years and take there time working on something big, if they pull out they are not expected to produce anything, they don't have the revenue to keep knocking good stuff out in quick succession especially if they keep loosing it on failed CPU's.

So scale it right down, have the few of there best working on it with no pressure ect....
Make sure its actually complete and good and then throw that back on the market at as lower price as they can, if not just to get the reputation back after being away for a while, this instead of going on with it already in the deepest, darkest recesses of a cesspit.

 

[RGone]

They will not pull back as you suggest. Most of these big money-managers are egomaniacs and logic, if it were possible, will not enter into the equation at all. Not hardly.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

Bad idea. Intel would have no competition. Prices would skyrocket. Probably forward CPU progress would all but halt because Intel is ahead right now, and if they're the only ones around, no need to improve.

 

[RGone]

Bad idea. Intel would have no competition. Prices would skyrocket. Probably forward CPU progress would all but halt because Intel is ahead right now, and if they're the only ones around, no need to improve.

Actually you are only referring to what we might feel is good for us, not what might me good for AMD as a company. It is entirely possible that their trying to hang tuff results in them going down the tubes anyway and then it has the same result in that they are gone and Intel is still in the drivers seat which they are anyway.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

Actually you are only referring to what we might feel is good for us, not what might me good for AMD as a company. It is entirely possible that their trying to hang tuff results in them going down the tubes anyway and then it has the same result in that they are gone and Intel is still in the drivers seat which they are anyway.

Very true. I don't see the benefit in dropping back though, because it seems they could easily fold that way too.

 

[Frakk]

Bad idea. Intel would have no competition. Prices would skyrocket. Probably forward CPU progress would all but halt because Intel is ahead right now, and if they're the only ones around, no need to improve.

Well yes exactly, and that's going to happen anyway as AMD are now so far behind with 0 revenue, how much longer can they keep going on spending money on development in a sector that's already worse than dead for them and only going to get even worse?

Might as well take that pill for a while if its inevitable anyway.

I just don't think they can recover even if PD is an improvement they are still 3 steps behind and you only have to Google AMD to see that, they had might as well be on some sort of avoid / fail register. you think PD will change that? no...

@ RGone, you may be right. i just hope they stop and think before they commit suicide.

 

[EarthDog]

Terrible idea... they are already strapped for revenue. Take that away and then what? Start like apple in people's garage? That couple with Rgone(sters!) take and you can see why that would be a terrible idea.

Suicide is in their marketing with no results to back it up. It takes people cherry picking results and searching for compile bias to keep the chatter going. I love AMD's GPUs, and their CPU's are not terrible at their pricepoint, but they have to step up and show results that match their marketing. Otherwise, you can just rename AMD to FUD.

Public Enemy said it best: "Dont believe the hype"

 

[Frakk]

Terrible idea... they are already strapped for revenue. Take that away and then what? Start like apple in people's garage? That couple with Rgone(sters!) take and you can see why that would be a terrible idea.

Suicide is in their marketing with no results to back it up. It takes people cherry picking results and searching for compile bias to keep the chatter going. I love AMD's GPUs, and their CPU's are not terrible at their pricepoint, but they have to step up and show results that match their marketing. Otherwise, you can just rename AMD to FUD.

Public Enemy said it best: "Dont believe the hype"

Can you give me an example of this marketing you speak of? i have not seem AMD do that for a while.

Its spending money on mainstream CPU development that's the problem, drop out, scale it right back and take there time with no pressure.

There GPU's and APU's are doing fine, cut out the cancer, don't let it grow and spread.

 

[EarthDog]

Again, no mainstream CPU's, no money for dev. You pull from GPU's and APU's and you risk them suffering as well...

I sincerely think a significant part of the problem is marketing and posturing when the performance just isnt there. If you call it a Honda instead of an Acura, I think expectations are properly set and disappointment wouldnt be as rampant.

 

[Frakk]

Again, no mainstream CPU's, no money for dev. You pull from GPU's and APU's and you risk them suffering as well...

I sincerely think a significant part of the problem is marketing and posturing when the performance just isnt there. If you call it a Honda instead of an Acura, I think expectations are properly set and disappointment wouldnt be as rampant.

That's where we disagree i guess, GPU's and APU's are the profitable part of AMD, mainstream CPU's is the disaster. i think that's pretty well known in fact.

On your marketing accusation, AMD are not currently doing anything of the sort. please give examples of this.

 

[wagex]

That's where we disagree i guess, GPU's and APU's are the profitable part of AMD, mainstream CPU's is the disaster. i think that's pretty well known in fact.

On your marketing accusation, AMD are not currently doing anything of the sort. please give examples of this.

i think one thing hes talking about is the "8" core bulldozers and little things like that

 

[Frakk]

i think one thing hes talking about is the "8" core bulldozers and little things like that

I don't see why AMD calling an 8 core chip anything other than an 8 core chip as anything sinister, what should they call a chip with 8 cores?

 

[MattNo5ss]

For CPUs before BD, a typical "core" is made up of and integer unit and a floating point unit. BD has 8 integer units and 4 floating point units, so it's like it has 4 typical "cores" with 4 extra integer units. That's why it performs like a quad rather than what the 8-core hype made many people believe before the release.

 

[xander89]

I don't see why AMD calling an 8 core chip anything other than an 8 core chip as anything sinister, what should they call a chip with 8 cores?

technically it isnt actually an 8 core chip, or at least that what i've been lead to believe. I think they have 4 modules with 2 integer cores in each, these share 1 floating point core and resources . So its not really a true 8 core in the traditional sense.

I could be wrong but thats the gist of what i got.

Also a 4 core intel with HT bashes the crap out of an "8 core" amd.

DAM YOU MATT you beat me to it.

 

[Frakk]

For CPUs before BD, a typical "core" is made up of and integer unit and a floating point unit. BD has 8 integer units and 4 floating point units, so it's like it has 4 typical "cores" with 4 extra integer units. That's why it performs like a quad rather than what the 8-core hype made many people believe before the release.

Wait, 1 integer unit is 1 core, 1 floating point unit is 1 floating point unit, its not the two put together that make up the core, the core is the core, the L2 cache is the L2 cache the floating point unit is the floating point unit and together they make up the module.

technically it isnt actually an 8 core chip, or at least that what i've been lead to believe. I think they have 4 modules with 2 integer cores in each, these share 1 floating point core and resources . So its not really a true 8 core in the traditional sense.

I could be wrong but thats the gist of what i got.

Also a 4 core intel with HT bashes the crap out of an "8 core" amd.

DAM YOU MATT you beat me to it.

@ xander89, Yes we all know Intel bash the crap out of AMD, thats my point here, you don't need to keep enfforcing that, i don't think there is anyone left who does not already know it.

 

[bmwbaxter]

On your marketing accusation, AMD are not currently doing anything of the sort. please give examples of this.

- That comic which showed intel getting the smack down.

- marketing a semi 8 core CPU with the performance of a quad core as an 8 core.
Edit: a four module CPU as an 8 core. Intel doesn't market a quad with HT as an 8 core.


- large misinformation on the transistor count on the fx-8150.

Just to name a few poor marketing.

 

[Frakk]

- That comic which showed intel getting the smack down.

- marketing a semi 8 core CPU with the performance of a quad core as an 8 core.
Edit: a four module CPU as an 8 core. Intel doesn't market a quad with HT as an 8 core.


- large misinformation on the transistor count on the fx-8150.

Just to name a few poor marketing.

That was a year ago with Bulldozer, how long should we hold AMD's past against them? do you think we should ever let them move on?

Intel has 4 integer units and 8 threads, again i don't agree that threads are cores, integer units are cores, threads are 1 part of the module

 

[MattNo5ss]

Wait, 1 integer unit is 1 core, 1 floating point unit is 1 floating point unit, its not the two put together that make up the core, the core is the core, the L2 cache is the L2 cache the floating point unit is the floating point unit and together they make up the module.

Yeah, that's AMD's BD terminology and where they changed the traditional definition of a core. Like I mentioned, in the CPUs before BD the integer+floating point made a core. So, when the majority of people heard "core" they think integer+floating point since that's how it had been for so long and were expecting eight integer+floating point cores and performance to match that. That's how the "8-core" hype went so overboard, people were expecting something that they weren't getting.

 

[Frakk]

Yeah, that's AMD's BD terminology and where they changed the traditional definition of a core. Like I mentioned, in the CPUs before BD the integer+floating point made a core. So, when the majority of people heard "core" they think integer+floating point since that's how it had been for so long and were expecting eight integer+floating point cores and performance to match that. That's how the "8-core" hype went so overboard, people were expecting something that they weren't getting.

So what would you have AMD call them? you would have them call it a 4 core? and isn't it just silly semantics either way? at what point is a core a core and the module around it a module? is the core made up of 1 part? 2 parts? 3 parts? when i think of a core unit i think of 1 part at the heart of everything else, the workhorse, the engine, to use a metaphor.

Why would i for example want buy a 4 core when i have a 6 core, or a 4 core to 3 core... and what would anyone want with a dual core? The FX-8 acting as an 8 core beats my 6 core, so whats wrong with that?

I don't think AMD could have won no mater what they called it, maybe they should add another thread to each integer unit instead of enlarging it, then they would have what everyone can agree on, an 8 core Phenom.

 

[MattNo5ss]

Calling them a 8-core was fine, BUT I think they should have made it more clear to the masses that BD wasn't an 8-core in the traditional sense, and that, in the traditional sense, it was a quad core with 4 additional integer units. Instead they turned "8-core" into a huge buzzword for BD, which inflated the hype surrounding the CPU. So, people that use their CPUs for mainly floating point operations were greeted with a CPU that wasn't really an upgrade or better than existing quads, which brought about a huge disappointment for many people hoping to upgrade their CPUs.

I just think being more clear would have made people expect performance around current quad or a little better for FP, instead of people expecting performance close to twice that of current quads in multi-threaded FP loads.

Also, advertising the wrong transistor count (2B vs 1.2B) didn't help the either. That's advertising 66% more transistors than were actually on the CPU, which built hype up as well.

I agree they probably wouldn't have won either way, but maybe the hype wouldn't have been near as high if people were expecting a small upgrade from the complete architecture re-design. Basically, they should have tried to mitigate the hype rather than feed off of the false hype, in my opinion.