AMD..."Oh crap", Intel

M

Mackintire

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,984
http://news.softpedia.com/news/K7-K8-Inventor-Back-at-AMD-Prepares-Excavator-for-2015-441617.shtml

He also brought 17 senior level engineers back with him.

His job is multifaceted as follows:

Patch up the current processor line up for 20nm, tweak and make the proper and necessary improvements but to not allow the schedule to slide

Ensure the correct high level design decisions are made in regards to the ARM/x86 architecture, aka that the current engineering teams are staying on the right path

Design or redesign a competitive x86 CPU by 2016 on 14mn for the desktop and server markets that will be competitive with Intel's release schedule

He has been empowered to make major road map changes if needed
 
Last edited:
My expectations are:

Milestones will start to actually be met.

2016 will be very interesting.
 
AMD #1! (soon).

frankly, i'd be more worried for intel, since they are so heavily x86 and most the things I use now are ARM.
 
I honestly doubt they will be #1 in x86 but it is possible they could have 30%+ market share by 2020
 
thank the lord sweet jesus hallelujah! while i am not a fan of intel/amd, i am a fan of them competing against each other.
 
silk186 said:
the sector needs some competition, innovation has died.
Click to expand...
If you're not seeing innovation, you aren't looking in the right places.

How about x86 perf in line with Core 2 at a seventh or eighth the power profile? With an on-die GPU that actually runs games, no less? For $60? With a motherboard? Yeah, that exists. Or an x86 reference tablet that's thinner than an iPad Air? Not quite here yet, but relatively soon.

You really don't see all that much when you're looking at it from a perspective of only high-end Sandy Bridge to high-end Haswell. Even within that narrow window, though, there are some pretty useful innovations.
 
meh

The Bulldozer Line of Cpu's are done for. Now what they plan to do next with x86 and arm may be interesting in 2016. Will they compete with Intel then? maybe


I'm still waiting for a gameable laptop computer with out the need for a discrete card in a ultra book profile. I'd also be in the market for a consumer desktop machine that is 4-5 times faster than what I currently have. Don't really care if AMD or Intel deliverers first that's what I want.
 
As long as they drop faildozer cpu architecture they always have chance to bring good product
 
ssnyder28 said:
Great news, hopefully he can work some magic and AMD can get back on top
Click to expand...

I don't care as much about top or bottom as long as the performance is good enough ;)

Of course the best thing that could happen is that AMD becomes performance competitive again across a wider range of product and it forces Intel to re-align their pricing structure to something a tad more affordable...
 
This is REALLY good news for AMD! I'm sure this is not an inexpensive deal, but very much needed!
 
I'd like to see the next Surface Pro 4 run an AMD APU+ARM hybrid on 14nm GloFo so it's gaming capable and run Android natively at full speed instead of via BlueStacks emulation.
 
wonderfield said:
If you're not seeing innovation, you aren't looking in the right places.

How about x86 perf in line with Core 2 at a seventh or eighth the power profile? With an on-die GPU that actually runs games, no less? For $60? With a motherboard? Yeah, that exists. Or an x86 reference tablet that's thinner than an iPad Air? Not quite here yet, but relatively soon.

You really don't see all that much when you're looking at it from a perspective of only high-end Sandy Bridge to high-end Haswell. Even within that narrow window, though, there are some pretty useful innovations.
Click to expand...

Never fear, contrarian wonderfield is here.

Intel is dribbling out "innovation" at a glacial pace when it comes to high-end desktop performance. You know this. We know this. You don't have to go through yet another pedantic exercise in mental masturbation to demonstrate how you know so much better than everybody else.

I, for one, would be delighted with strong competition from AMD. Intel has been muddling along since Nehalem. That's not a coincidence. Nehalem, the architecture following Core, was already far along in development when Core hit. When it became clear that AMD wouldn't be able to answer Core, Intel throttled back.

Nowdays they're rapidly re-prioritizing towards mobility, power efficiency, etc. Great things! The only reason Intel is bothering is because of ARM.
 
mi7chy said:
I'd like to see the next Surface Pro 4 run an AMD APU+ARM hybrid on 14nm GloFo so it's gaming capable and run Android natively at full speed instead of via BlueStacks emulation.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the next Surface Pro 4 run an AMD quantum on 1nm also with ARM+x86+IA+Caicos GPU so it's enterprise gaming capable and run anything and everything on full speed 0ms jitter-free latency at instant processing response times for any and every kind of work and potentially capable of collapsing the very fabric of physical dimensions and time

:D
 
Cerulean said:
I'd like to see the next Surface Pro 4 run an AMD quantum on 1nm also with ARM+x86+IA+Caicos GPU so it's enterprise gaming capable and run anything and everything on full speed 0ms jitter-free latency at instant processing response times for any and every kind of work and potentially capable of collapsing the very fabric of physical dimensions and time

:D
Click to expand...

I know you're trying to be cute like wonderfield but there's no excuse for ignorance with a little bit of Google search:

http://globalfoundries.com/newsroom/press-releases/2014/04/17/samsung-and-globalfoundries-forge-strategic-collaboration-to-deliver-multi-sourced-offering-of-14nm-finfet-semiconductor-technology

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7989/amd-announces-project-skybridge-pincompatible-arm-and-x86-socs-in-2015
 
i still hope this brings great things to amd. i want more competition from them, i want to see intel actually compete as opposed to monopolize.
 
mi7chy said:
Intel iGPU that actually run games? Is that some kind of joke? You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

my brother and I both played Company of Heroes 2 on Intel GPUs last night. Joke's on you, I guess. :D
 
wabbitseason said:
I, for one, would be delighted with strong competition from AMD. Intel has been muddling along since Nehalem. That's not a coincidence. Nehalem, the architecture following Core, was already far along in development when Core hit. When it became clear that AMD wouldn't be able to answer Core, Intel throttled back.
Click to expand...

Answer core? Core 2 and Phenom 2 were pretty much equals.

AMD tried something new with bulldozer, it didn't work out perfectly, but the knowledge will help the company in the future. At least they innovate, and try ballsy stuff.
 
mi7chy said:
Intel iGPU that actually run games? Is that some kind of joke? You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

I would never use it myself but I did build my fiancee a new system since the one I built her years ago was starting to hamper her photography work. The new build utilizes the Intel 4770K CPU. She's a very lite gamer with most of her time being spent playing games like Tropico, The Sims & TellTale games. I, like yourself, tend to shit on Intel graphics a majority of the time. I considered throwing in an Nvidia 750Ti to cover her gaming needs but once I saw her play Tropico 5 maxed out @ 1080P without a single hiccup, I decided to hold off. Being curious, I tested the CPU with some of the more intensive GPU games that I own such as Battlefield 4, Farcry 3, & TESO. The games didn't look great but all three were playable. I was quite impressed with how far Intel's integrated GPU has come. I still wouldn't use it myself though :).
 
Last edited:
AMD is going to be epic starting in 2016. I love them right now though... They have the future in their sights. HSA is the future.
 
stealthy123 said:
Answer core? Core 2 and Phenom 2 were pretty much equals.

AMD tried something new with bulldozer, it didn't work out perfectly, but the knowledge will help the company in the future. At least they innovate, and try ballsy stuff.
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be an argument?

Phenom 2 came out nearly three years after Core. December 2008 vs early 2006. FYI: Nehalem was released in November 2008, before Phenom 2.

AMD has been playing catch-up, and failing, since Core. This is common knowledge.

I think you're taking my post as an attack on AMD, which couldn't be further from the truth.
 
mi7chy said:
Intel iGPU that actually run games? Is that some kind of joke? You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Somebody hasn't used an intel iGPU lately.......

the 4000 was ~good~. It could run GTA4. Which is quite a feat for how badly coded it was.

the 4600 is actually passably decent and ~nearly~ goes toe to toe with APU. It can run BF4, and anything older than that tends to do just great on it, give or take their crappy drivers..

The 5200 is still faster than kaveri in some regards.
 
Good thing I didn't buy the i5/4400 for gaming because it's a slide show.
 
And Core iX was leagues ahead of phenom 2. An overclocked 6-core phenom2 barely keeps up with a basic i7 8xx

Trust me, I've owned both.
 
Back in the day (a whole 5 years ago) "integrated graphics" meant you would struggle to run full screen videos. Now they can play directx10+ games at medium.

Seriously, progress personified.
 
wabbitseason said:
Is that supposed to be an argument?

Phenom 2 came out nearly three years after Core. December 2008 vs early 2006. FYI: Nehalem was released in November 2008, before Phenom 2.

AMD has been playing catch-up, and failing, since Core. This is common knowledge.

I think you're taking my post as an attack on AMD, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

I am not sure on the dates, and no it's not an argument, it's the internet.

I was pretty sure core 2 and phenom 2 were direct competitors. They traded blows, as i get older the dates seem to all melt together.

Core was based on the pentium m, which was based off tualatan, which I was running @ 1.9ghz for a long time. Memory may have failed me.
 
Last edited:
This is news? Just more of the same. Hot air. AMD fan boys are so desperate to see AMD perhaps compete with Intel that they buy into this guy some how turning around Bulldozer.

The article also points out he is focusing on ARM but may "look at" x86. Not too much news there IMO.
 
Yes, we must all root for the 800 pound gorilla to win the fight. How dare we pull for the little guy.
 
I'm an AMD CPU fan simply because Intel is sitting idle, and has what could legally be considered a monopoly, and they played dirty to get there.

I want to see a competitive market. If Intel and AMD sat in equal footing, CPUs today would be a lot faster.
 
stealthy123 said:
Yes, we must all root for the 800 pound gorilla to win the fight. How dare we pull for the little guy.
Click to expand...

I think there's a difference between rooting for Intel and being realistic. AMD is in a bad situation these days CPU wise. They are quite behind the curve, and Intel spends a lot of money to stay where they are. For all the things you can say about Intel, they are one of the few companies that makes serious R&D investments, about $10 billion per year and rising. That is why they tend to be a node ahead of everyone, and usually have some pretty good design.

I, and I imagine others in the thread, would like to see AMD compete with or beat Intel. However that is not realistically very likely.
 
Meh it wasn't likely they would knock the gorilla out in the first round like they did in the netburst days, but they did.

Intel has since adopted a number of their innovations. Don't fool yourself, Intel has the money to throw at foundries, that isn't innovation.


Everyone should be pulling for AMD, it's the only reason Intel does anything other than tick tick ticking along.
 
Multi-core silicon? AMD did it first.
64 bit CPUs? AMD did it first.
Integrated memory controller? AMD did it first.

Using stacks of cash to pay clients NOT to use your competitor's products? Intel did it first.

Intel really does show a firm belief in R&D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top