AMD's take on benchmarks.

PURPOSE: change the current benchmark landscape.
EFFECT: showcase what he believes is a more accurate depiction of his products.
POSSIBLE RESULTS OF EFFECT: Increased sales and general knowledge of said product.

An AMD sales rep wanting a more accurate depiction of his products... That's not a sales pitch because...? Your purpose, effect, and result has been the backbone of my stance on the article... You basically just said the same thing. I don't think you and I have a debate anymore...
 
hCLXAp9.jpg
 
Michaelius said:
There's nothing difficult here to understand - if AMD chips were topping performance benchmarks this article wouldn't exist.

It's simple damage control PR

Texts likes this are a reason why we have hundreds of webpages dedicated to testing pc hardware product instead of relying on company marketoids.
Click to expand...

a company such amd will never let let its engineer speak to the buyers. instead, they ask marketing guys to do it. in this case, "The marketing guy" !

*David Bennett is corporate vice president and head of worldwide commercial sales
Click to expand...
 
xTrident said:
It's easy - David Bennett is Corporate Vice President, Worldwide Commercial Sales at AMD.

If that's true I'd think it's rather obvious it's a marketing ploy.

I agree with David's thoughts, but I don't think that's his point... I really don't know why that doesn't make sense...?
Click to expand...

So because you infer something he doesn't say... that means what. I mean I get it if he was stretching to make a point, but again seems most of us here don't think so. If, as I said earlier, it was someone else, anyone not associated with AMD then would the response be different? Seems like most of you are saying yes. That is quite sad. Seems honor is in fact dead.
 
xTrident said:
PURPOSE: change the current benchmark landscape.
EFFECT: showcase what he believes is a more accurate depiction of his products.
POSSIBLE RESULTS OF EFFECT: Increased sales and general knowledge of said product.

An AMD sales rep wanting a more accurate depiction of his products... That's not a sales pitch because...? Your purpose, effect, and result has been the backbone of my stance on the article... You basically just said the same thing. I don't think you and I have a debate anymore...
Click to expand...

Actually no. See changing the Benchmarks is the primary. If that doesn't happen then sales never change hence sales being secondary. In business that is how it works. You guys keep jumping to the secondary and bypassing completely the primary which all hinges on.
 
durquavian said:
Actually no. See changing the Benchmarks is the primary. If that doesn't happen then sales never change hence sales being secondary. In business that is how it works. You guys keep jumping to the secondary and bypassing completely the primary which all hinges on.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to happen. David Bennett just stating that the benchmarks are bias and do not give a true indication of what AMD products are capable of will do some of the same. Sure, I'd prefer numbers rather someone's opinion but that doesn't mean I'd write what David says off. People just need to take David's word.... and considering who he is and what company he represents is why I'm skeptical to say the least.

Anyway, you're still saying David or rather AMD wants a change in benchmarks in an effort to prove AMD is better than current benchmarks suggest... for a bottom line of increasing sales, correct? What does it matter if I think it's David's main reason for the article while you think it's his secondary? The conclusion is still the same.

I see it as more of a sales pitch for AMD, plain and simple. You don't, fair enough.
 
durquavian said:
So because you infer something he doesn't say... that means what. I mean I get it if he was stretching to make a point, but again seems most of us here don't think so. If, as I said earlier, it was someone else, anyone not associated with AMD then would the response be different? Seems like most of you are saying yes. That is quite sad. Seems honor is in fact dead.
Click to expand...

Are you the type of person that only believes what is actually said? You don't ever read between the lines? No one ever says one thing, but is actually passively talking about something else? That kind of shit happens all the time. Excuse me for not completely believing a global sales rep only has the best intentions for the consumer rather than the company he represents.

Honor/integrity isn't dead. It all depends on who it is. But I'm guessing you believe everything politicians say as well? Same difference.
 
Last edited:
I'm still amazed at the number of AMD enthusiasts that don't feel AMD needs to bother with marketing to Average Joe User.

Like somehow when Joe User walks into a Best Buy with $600 in his wallet he'll magically gravitate to the single AMD laptop on the shelves amongst the 50 Intel ones.

Joe User - "AMD? Hmmm do they make air filters for cars?"
 
daglesj said:
I'm still amazed at the number of AMD enthusiasts that don't feel AMD needs to bother with marketing to Average Joe User.

Like somehow when Joe User walks into a Best Buy with $600 in his wallet he'll magically gravitate to the single AMD laptop on the shelves amongst the 50 Intel ones.

Joe User - "AMD? Hmmm do they make air filters for cars?"
Click to expand...

Synaptics doesn't have much of a marketing budget either you know. Somehow they're everywhere.
 
Darakian said:
Synaptics doesn't have much of a marketing budget either you know. Somehow they're everywhere.
Click to expand...
1. Unlike AMD, they are financially solvent already. No need to heavily advertise when OEM's are already buying your stuff.
2. A touchpad isn't something average Joe even thinks about on his laptop. It's the equivalent of choosing the steering wheel on your car. Thanks to Intel's strong advertising presence already, average Joe may equate the CPU to the choice of engine on their car.
3. I mentioned this before. The OEM's can do most of your advertising for you when they use your product due to a design win. AMD isn't getting too many design wins over Intel.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
1. Unlike AMD, they are financially solvent already. No need to heavily advertise when OEM's are already buying your stuff.
2. A touchpad isn't something average Joe even thinks about on his laptop. It's the equivalent of choosing the steering wheel on your car. Thanks to Intel's strong advertising presence already, average Joe may equate the CPU to the choice of engine on their car.
3. I mentioned this before. The OEM's can do most of your advertising for you when they use your product due to a design win. AMD isn't getting too many design wins over Intel.
Click to expand...

That does not really explain Android market it took of , no "catchy" jingle on tv ads when you buying something with a Qualcomm cpu ...

But if you feel like arguing this where you pretend you need brand recognition to be able to sell there plenty of other examples which show that the market is not driven by this at all.

Don't get me wrong it "may" help AMD sales but the cost prolly won't justify the increase....
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
1. Unlike AMD, they are financially solvent already. No need to heavily advertise when OEM's are already buying your stuff.
2. A touchpad isn't something average Joe even thinks about on his laptop. It's the equivalent of choosing the steering wheel on your car. Thanks to Intel's strong advertising presence already, average Joe may equate the CPU to the choice of engine on their car.
3. I mentioned this before. The OEM's can do most of your advertising for you when they use your product due to a design win. AMD isn't getting too many design wins over Intel.
Click to expand...

1. So because AMD doesn't have money they need to spend more of it?
2. Yes it is. Apple advertises the crap out of their touchpads.
3. This is the point. AMD needs design wins not marketing.
 
Darakian said:
1. So because AMD doesn't have money they need to spend more of it?
2. Yes it is. Apple advertises the crap out of their touchpads.
3. This is the point. AMD needs design wins not marketing.
Click to expand...

1. Old business slogan, "You have to spend money to make money." Fortunately, I'm not saying they have to go all out Intel when marketing, I'm saying hypothetically when that next kickass HP laptop with an AMD chip comes out and HP does the commercial, AMD needs to be a buzzword in the commercial and their logo showing prominently. They will have to spend some money for that, not necessarily as much as if they mimic Intel.
They don't need to spend money because of point #3. You let the OEM's spend a majority of that money for you.
2. Your counterpoint ties directly into my point #3.
3. They need both. Let's say that new HP laptop commercial comes on TV and AMD got the design win but AMD is not mentioned once in the commercial. Suddenly everyone is going nutty over that new laptop but its one of their more expensive models. They still want something similar. Fortunately HP has cheaper models with Intel and AMD chips in them. How do you guarantee they will still choose the ones with AMD in it? If the commercial at least mentioned AMD somehow, the Halo Effect kicks in and the likelihood of average joe purchasing the AMD laptop is much higher now.

Pieter3dnow said:
That does not really explain Android market it took of , no "catchy" jingle on tv ads when you buying something with a Qualcomm cpu ...

But if you feel like arguing this where you pretend you need brand recognition to be able to sell there plenty of other examples which show that the market is not driven by this at all.

Don't get me wrong it "may" help AMD sales but the cost prolly won't justify the increase....
Click to expand...
What do you mean there wasn't tv ADs for Android devices? They were all over the place. Google didn't advertise, they let the OEM's (LG, HTC, Motorola, Samsung) do that for them.

If the market isn't driven by brand recognition, then how does that explain people continuing to buy same product each time. Plenty of people here buying AMD time and again. All I've been saying is they need just a little more of that which exists in the enthusiast market to carry over to average joe.
 
Last edited:
Darakian said:
In AMDs hayday they did just as little marketing.
Click to expand...

Doesn't necessarily mean that strategy should be replicated today. Resting on your laurels is the main reason why AMD is not in great shape these days.

With that said, I still remember seeing full page ads in various computer magazines for AMD CPUs. Then again, computer magazines are dying out so...
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
What do you mean there wasn't tv ADs for Android devices? They were all over the place. Google didn't advertise, they let the OEM's (LG, HTC, Motorola, Samsung) do that for them.

If the market isn't driven by brand recognition, then how does that explain people continuing to buy same product each time. Plenty of people here buying AMD time and again. All I've been saying is they need just a little more of that which exists in the enthusiast market to carry over to average joe.
Click to expand...

I clearly wrote Qualcomm cpu not android devices. As people pretend that the Intel jingle on TV adds spurs them to buy Intel ...
http://semiaccurate.com/2014/12/01/can-intels-sofia-actually-end-contra-revenue-funding/
http://semiaccurate.com/2014/12/29/intel-funnel-contra-revenue-funds/

But if you put an AMD cpu in those devices 95% would not notice it anyway ....

But explain why the mobile market took of without any cpu ads as you claim the reason why Intel sells more then AMD...
 
Last edited:
Skimming this thread reminds me why I stopped reading so many threads in these various "tech" communities, lol.
 
durquavian said:
Read more. 1st vishera is piledriver, we now have excavator Carrizo that has SB on die so there have been updates. Second there are no real multi thread benchmarks, well maybe a scarce few, but rather a plethora of single thread duplicated on multiple threads. Besides that the article was written by a member of AMD so there is a slight slant. But it doesn't change the message. Read it again and this time with an open mind and devoid of you apparent disdain.
Click to expand...

Try encoding...unless you don't consider that "real-world"...
 
Pieter3dnow said:
I clearly wrote Qualcomm cpu not android devices. As people pretend that the Intel jingle on TV adds spurs them to buy Intel ...
http://semiaccurate.com/2014/12/01/can-intels-sofia-actually-end-contra-revenue-funding/
http://semiaccurate.com/2014/12/29/intel-funnel-contra-revenue-funds/

But if you put an AMD cpu in those devices 95% would not notice it anyway ....

But explain why the mobile market took of without any cpu ads as you claim the reason why Intel sells more then AMD...
Click to expand...
*sigh*
I already explained this... I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't understand for some other reason since you didn't fly off the deep end and call me ignorant like durquavian did.

Mobile market took off due to demand for mobile products. People bought specific mobile products due to advertising from the OEM's such as Apple, Samsung, LG, etc. etc. No one cared what CPU was in them because whoever got the design win was in their product of choice. In this case Samsung or Qualcomm were the big ones.

Let me translate this to the desktop/laptop market...

As I mentioned several times already... AMD needs to advertise regardless because of how desperate things are starting to become. They need something to win over hearts and minds since they don't have many design wins at the moment. Advertising can't hurt at this point, so why do they insist on not doing it at all? I'm referring specifically to mainstream advertising, not advertising on tech websites or tech magazines which you and I see already. I'm suggesting they get the AMD logo on the next HP or Lenovo commercial that everyone will see on TV.

I also stated that design wins with the OEM's and subsequent advertising by the OEM's will help them. This is a direct correlation to the mobile market example you were stating. In a way, we are in agreement even if you and I aren't quite understanding eachother. What I have been suggesting all along is that in addition to these design wins they desperately need, they are in such a position that they need to also piggyback on the OEM's successful advertising.

Will it help? As you stated... maybe. It can't hurt.
 
The market where AMD can do good is where Intel does not want to spend money.

The branding process usually takes several years and that is something where AMD might not have deep enough pockets. Going head to head in markets where Intel is at is not going to matter even if they had the money to do it.

What the problem is that the brand and the effect of sales from OEM are different that is why Qualcomm makes a good example.

The idea of AMD logo on tv advertisements are somewhat weird because usually sales are made on design/colour rather then knowledge of the central processing unit.

Check AMD presence at E3 they are doing something where they can have a targeted audience not the broad approach you are hoping for.
Seeing the E3 press conference it was good Lisa Su did very well presenting the new top end cards. This approach makes sense for the lack of funds AMD has.
 
If Intel didn't think their jingle was worth paying to put at the end of every Electronics store TV ad then they wouldn't do it.

It obviously has paid off for them as they have most of the domestic market (and most of the corporate) at least.

Everyone knows Intel makes 'super high tech fast' CPUS in laptops due to those ads and jingles. Customers ask me about Intel...they never mention AMD.

Nobody outside of tech forums knows what AMD does and that's why the AMD CPU lives in the single runty laptop gathering dust in the corner of the store with the "Reduced...again" sticker on it.
 
daglesj said:
If Intel didn't think their jingle was worth paying to put at the end of every Electronics store TV ad then they wouldn't do it.

It obviously has paid off for them as they have most of the domestic market (and most of the corporate) at least.

Everyone knows Intel makes 'super high tech fast' CPUS in laptops due to those ads and jingles. Customers ask me about Intel...they never mention AMD.

Nobody outside of tech forums knows what AMD does and that's why the AMD CPU lives in the single runty laptop gathering dust in the corner of the store with the "Reduced...again" sticker on it.
Click to expand...

And yet Android devices without any shape or form of a jingle representing whichever cpu still sold. Even so much that Intel is trying to get in on the action. And yet you will never get customer asking if that Android device has Intel. And if they do that just shows you what indoctrination does, it makes people stupid rather then knowledgeable.
 
I don't think regular consumers think about a smartphone having a cpu, or individual parts, the way they do with a PC or laptop for some reason. Maybe because it's small, because the branding on it, the screen being the centerpiece, or just having been marketed that way. Maybe it's because they never hear "you should upgrade x" about the phone, just that it's slow and replace it as a whole item. Not sure about all that but there is a definite difference in perception there somehow.

Nvidia seems to be doing well too and I don't think the general public knows that name anymore than AMD. Not sure how that works exactly either but I'm fairly sure it's the case.
 
Some years ago I gave one of my 13 year old nephews my old ATI X1800 card.
He wasnt very pleased because he wanted NVidia.
A few years later I gave him an 8800GT and he was so happy.

NVidia has clout at school as well it seems.
 
I'm sure they do among folks that game.

Wish someone was giving me GPU's at 13.
They would have had to have been from the future though lol..
 
Ramses said:
I don't think regular consumers think about a smartphone having a cpu, or individual parts, the way they do with a PC or laptop for some reason. Maybe because it's small, because the branding on it, the screen being the centerpiece, or just having been marketed that way. Maybe it's because they never hear "you should upgrade x" about the phone, just that it's slow and replace it as a whole item. Not sure about all that but there is a definite difference in perception there somehow.

Nvidia seems to be doing well too and I don't think the general public knows that name anymore than AMD. Not sure how that works exactly either but I'm fairly sure it's the case.
Click to expand...

As a PC enthusiast and someone who tries to keep up pretty well on technology in general I can attest to your statement. I do not look at phones in the same sense that I do the individual parts of a PC. And you're right, I get a cell phone the last thing I ever think about is, "How do I upgrade parts of this?" I don't, I use it until I decide it's time for a new one.

So Android's marketing, or lack thereof is working out great for them. Awesome. Doesn't mean the way they do it is going to work for every company out there. Why not just look at the numbers, or what has happened over time? Intel goes strong with marketing, offers the best CPU's - not talking bang for the buck, just top of line, and they're dominating the PC world. Have been for a while. Why?

For those that think AMD isn't doing it wrong, or have a solid business model in place how do you explain Intel's domination over AMD? Or AMD's struggles in general? No, I personally don't believe it's just one thing or another. As in their struggles wouldn't exist if they marketed a lot more. Or if they dominated the high end cpu's over Intel. I think it's a balance of everything.
 
I agree AMD has more than one set of problems on the CPU front for sure. Maybe if they were really on point in one area it could make up for deficiency in others. Or maybe not. I hope they figure it out though.
 
Android is more of a concept/standard than a singular tangible product.

Oh and even 'they' advertise Android as a concept on TV...fancy that! The adverts with the funny android people. I've seen them many times here in the UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnVuqfXohxc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRmgMe2STL0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rsYXxva76k

So the excuse for AMD not bothering with specific 'consumer' products seems even more flimsy.

This is the only TV advert I could find for AMD - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk-2ic2BoZw

Nearly 10 years old and...oh boy.
 
Last edited:
They seem to have done something with drivers or directx 11 on Windows 10 so I would expect dx11 games to benefit somewhat.
 
I don't think enough of the tech buying brand aware public watch regular TV anymore to justify add costs for a CPU. Cell phone? Sure.
Banners on tech blogs, search result ranking and maybe something from streaming services, something like that maybe. Don't we all run addblockers anyway? I never see any of that crap from anyone, if I do I've been trained by twenty years of the internet to just look past it.
Not that they might not ought to be doing something, but I don't believe in 2015 it's as simple as a catchy jingle tacked on the end of a Dell commercial or some goofy dancing dudes during the Cosby Show.

I think if AMD got their CPU's into quality, well priced machines that were as available as Intels are, they would sell better. I don't know how to make that happen, not my line of work and I don't envy those whose it is. Can't be easy. I like AMD plenty, and even I have an i7 laptop. It isn't at all because of a lack of CPU/APU performance, it was a lack of availability of a quality product in the venue I intended to purchase from. I actually bought an AMD laptop, it was more than fast enough for what I wanted, but it was a POS in all other areas, so were the other two or three AMD models available. So back it went and I spent some money with Intel.

Some dude accused me of being an AMD "fanboy" the other day despite my not owning anything with an AMD CPU in over a year so it's possible I'm not to be trusted. :)
 
Ramses said:
I think if AMD got their CPU's into quality, well priced machines that were as available as Intels are, they would sell better. I don't know how to make that happen, not my line of work and I don't envy those whose it is.
Click to expand...

Well for AMD they would either have to give them away, pay the OEMs to put them into machines or...advertise to create brand awareness so people started asking for them.

It's not just 'going to happen'.

However, when your main competitor has 98% of the market share and has for many years (and more efficient product) that's pretty much impossible.

It's not going to end well.
 
If there is a way to advertise without it costing money to a wide audience then AMD would do it but you can not spend when you do not have the money.
 
Might be. I still think the majority of computer buyers see Windows and the container when they look at computers, and ask how much ram it has cause they want to store lots of pictures and watch netflix. :)
And the price.

After dealing with the buying public (even for a pretty specific niche market) for a decade, I have a very low opinion of the masses willingness or ability to ask the right questions about any given product. My opinion may very well be colored by such. I don't see it ending well either on the consumer CPU front fwiw.
But, even IDT (remember the winchip?) is still around, big companies don't usually completely go away, just change focus/hands and/or shrink.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
If there is a way to advertise without it costing money to a wide audience then AMD would do it but you can not spend when you do not have the money.
Click to expand...

Well no, they left that 15 years too late. Dead man walking.
 
Do they advertise for GPU's any or is that market just too different? They seem to be doing better with them than CPUs but I haven't seen anything specific other than the giant flashing "not making money" sign over the whole business.. The couple of reviews I skimmed through it looks like the 390x is a pretty mild refresh of the 290x and everyone says they are "back in the game" now. Seems odd but whatever I guess.
 
Ramses said:
Do they advertise for GPU's any or is that market just too different? They seem to be doing better with them than CPUs but I haven't seen anything specific other than the giant flashing "not making money" sign over the whole business..
Click to expand...
They're different. With GPUs, there's multiple manufacturers releasing different variations of the same base card throughout the market lifetime of that platform. Those manufacturers are going to want to promote/push those cards out. With CPUs, you generally only see CPU reviews whenever a new CPU or CPU refresh is released. Not to mention that when new AAA games are released, there's going to be a review of that game showing how multiple video cards perform with that game.

As such, there's going to be a lot more reviews and indirect marketing of GPUs than CPUs. In addition, there's usually an awareness that GPU performance can get better over time due to better/more up-to-date driver releases. Not quite the case with CPUs.

As a result, if early reviews of certain video card platforms show relatively slow performance or some other performance related issue, it isn't exactly the end of the world for that platform since there will be more opportunities and willingness to see how later versions of a card can do. With CPUs, it's basically a first impression kind of thing: If the early reviews shows that your CPUs are crap at certain tasks, that's going to pretty much stick around in the Internet's collective consciousness until you release a new CPU or a CPU refresh. Which could be half a year to a few years away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top