Is AMD Still Relevant?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
There is an editorial at C|Net today titled "Is AMD still relevant?" that I just had to post because I know you guys will definitely want to comment on it.

Any real Intel-AMD rivalry ended long ago. Not only has AMD lost the PC war, but as the world shifts to tablets, hybrids, and smartphones, AMD is a virtual no-show.
Click to expand...
 
Relevant... Yes, from the point of view that they are a direct competitor to Intel and nVidia, and as such prevents Intel and nVidia from price gouging due to a lack of competition.
 
Its sad to see. AMD just doesn't want to do the hard work to beat Intel in IPC. They've done it before, it's not impossible.
 
I'd say at this particular point and time they aren't but they still can be. If Piledriver flops, they'll be too far behind to catch up but if it can out up some decent numbers then they can be back in the game again. They don't have to be better than Intel, just close enough so that along with cheaper prices, they're a viable alternative.
 
Considering they have the best overall budget chips for laptops (which are hot items), yes AMD is relevant.
 
AMD seems to keep the prices reasonable in the markets they are in. They are not competitive in CPUs, and barely with gpus because of their abysmal driver & software support.

But they are needed else prices would skyrocket as seen in the past.
 
Really? Bulldozer killed them that fast?! I still see them as very relevant. Sure, I'm on Intel right now (with an AMD/ATI video card), but AMD was considered when making my decision. I don't expect them to be top of the line anymore, though. Intel holds the crown for that right now. That may change (it has before). But, if I were to build a new PC built with low cost in mind, but still a very powerful PC, I'd be checking out AMD as a CPU starting point.

So they aren't in the smartphone segment. Whoopdiedoo. C|Net seems to believe the PC is dead and anything related to the PC is not relevant or is dead. Yes, portability is a big thing right now, but look at any PC shop, Best Buy or PC magazine - AMD is in a LOT of machines. Low end, for sure. Mid-range there are a few.
 
(I'm assuming he's talking strictly about CPUs, as AMD is still unarguably relevant in the graphics card world)

For enthusiast desktops? No, and they don't need to be.

For laptops and devices? Yes, they CAN be, depending on where they are going with mobile Trinity and Bobcat. Those product lines seem to have a good future ahead of them, but I have no idea how well they are being adopted by OEMs. One thing's for sure, they need to ditch the idea of Bobcat for netbooks. Netbooks in general are out, I think they need to just focus on getting it ready for a tablet.
 
Yes they are still relevant, Cnet... Lol.

Also im going to go on record and say i don't see all this bad drives/software everyone talks about, And have never had any problems.
 
Amd's making the next gen consoles? Apus raised the bar for graphics in low end netbooks and laptops.
15w power draw for the masses, who just surf the web , email , play videos and play casual games.

I don't really care if , amd , doesn't perform well compared to intel or nviida as long as the price
is right. They've shown they can compete with inferior products in the past.
 
Not as a standalone entity, but as a driving force to keep Intel motivated. The last good thing they did was the Athlon 64, and considering how radical that was, I still believe that was Ruiz saying "I want to go out with a bang, so make sure everything in the pipeline comes out while I'm still here." It cost the company dearly, and they still haven't been able to recover from it.
 
OFaceSIG said:
Its sad to see. AMD just doesn't want to do the hard work to beat Intel in IPC. They've done it before, it's not impossible.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

The only reason they were competitive in the K7 to K8 era was because Intel screwed up big time with Pentium 4.

They were only able to compete because Intel allowed them to, by failing so miserably themselves.

This was the only short time in the companies history they were able to truly compete with Intel. The k6's were lackluster across the board compared to Pentium II. Their "586" models were unimpressive compared to Intel's Pentiums. Their 486's were not even particularly impressive (though they were closer than today), and before that, they were mostly a contract manufacturer for Intel and others, with little in the way of designs as their own.

IMHO, it's not that AMD was always this strong competitor to Intel and they have gone downhill. It's the opposite. They were never really competitive, except for a short period of time from 1999 to ~2006, which we now know was an exception.

It was a good run, and I was a huge fan at the time.

My Duron 650Mhz (OC to 950) was my first non intel CPUand I had several after it, culminating in my Athlon 64 in 2005, but after that it went back down hill again.

I would like AMD to catch back up and be competitive again, but I just don't see it happening.

Unless Intel messes up big time again, I doubt AMD will be able to catch back up
 
Not really much of an article there, but at least he does mention that the GPU business is a totally different story.
It seems like only yesterday when the Athlon was kicking ass and taking names, but that was 13 years ago :p
 
from the comments here i can see most of you didnt bother to take the 5 mintues and read the article.


author specially states that AMD is going to be fine, because of low power notebooks and that its GPU and server bussiness are ok.

But as far as the idea that AMD could ever again challenge intel chip supremency ie, athalon and opteron- those days are probably dead.

which is fair point as it seems after each cycle amd gets farther and farther intel.
 
AMD is relevant in the graphics department. Being the GPU of choice for the next gen consoles will help. But I think bulldozer was just the nail in the coffin for them when it came to CPUs. I don't think they'll really challenge intel when it comes to CPUs. But they'll be a good low cost alternative at the very least.
 
Of course they are still relevant. When was the last time anyone was in a big box store and looked at what laptops/desktops were being sold? Sure they are all gateway/dell/emachine/acer computers but at least HALF of them are AMD.

AMD Processors still do a good job for their price point. And their graphics cards are able to fight with the best of Nvidia (their lowest cards make Intel's design look like a joke).

A better question would have been "Is AMD relevant in todays high end CPU market" which would have been a resounding no. However for 95% of the people out there AMD works just as well as Intel at a cheaper price. I know that I'm the only Intel owner in my family because all everyone else does is browse the web. So yea....
 
Cnet, get a clue. AMD will still be putting a sizeable gouge in the Ultrabook/Netbook segment market share. That's their primary development focus right now: APU's with low power draw and excellent IGP performance.
 
"that we just had to post cause we're big Nvidia fanboys"

Anyways since the 7970 full overclocked is faster than Nvidias fastest GPU overclocked, yeah I'd say still pretty relevant.
 
OFaceSIG said:
Its sad to see. AMD just doesn't want to do the hard work to beat Intel in IPC. They've done it before, it's not impossible.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but from what I can make a recent very technical Anand article on Bulldozer, BD's shortcomings may not be that hard to fix. Here's hoping.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but right now, Intel doesn't have a tablet/smartphone processor either. It's all NVIDIA + ARM in that department. AMD is definitely not relevant on the desktop market anymore, but I think their APUs are pretty awesome for laptops and if they can translate that technology into a package small enough for netbooks, tablets and smartphones, they would do well. I wouldn't rule them out yet.
 
I should have said "on the enthusiast" desktop market. They have decent budget processors and the APU series is a great buy for OEM budget systems.
 
The 2500k owned Bulldozer and teabagged it's rotting corpse. I waited the longest for AMD to come out with BD and it arrives a complete and utter failure. 210usd and I was set with a cpu that'll power through games for years to come w/o bottlenecking other components.
 
Shark974 said:
"that we just had to post cause we're big Nvidia fanboys"

Anyways since the 7970 full overclocked is faster than Nvidias fastest GPU overclocked, yeah I'd say still pretty relevant.
Click to expand...

But they are selling at a far worse pace, even with the limited 680 availablity

If you look at the steam hardware survey, 0.5% of users have a 7970, 0.56% have a 680 gtx.

While that is a small difference, factor in the fact that the 680 has been in the market for a far shorter period of time and supposedly had supply problems, it really paints a picture of who the market prefers for high end cards.
 
Yes they're absolutely relevant seeing how the average consumer won't care if it's Intel or AMD when they're buying computers on a budget from Best Buy. As long as AMD produces a comparable computer that's more than "fast enough" for the average Farmville, Facebook, email, and Internet browsing users, consumer will always give AMD a fair shake as with Intel's offerings.

Because of this, Intel knows they'll need to keep their prices competitive despite having the better processors.
 
Rizen said:
Correct me if I am wrong but right now, Intel doesn't have a tablet/smartphone processor either. It's all NVIDIA + ARM in that department. AMD is definitely not relevant on the desktop market anymore, but I think their APUs are pretty awesome for laptops and if they can translate that technology into a package small enough for netbooks, tablets and smartphones, they would do well. I wouldn't rule them out yet.
Click to expand...

Point your favorite search engine at "Medfield Lava Xolo X900" :) Intel is competing, but it's not a serious contender just yet.
 
Shark974 said:
I could be wrong but from what I can make a recent very technical Anand article on Bulldozer, BD's shortcomings may not be that hard to fix. Here's hoping.
Click to expand...

The fixes in no way will make up for the 40% to 60% deficit versus Intel. Although to be honest they do not have to.
 
need......better......GPU.......driver software......:eek:

but CNet, have you heard of EyeFinity? Thats pretty relevant (and pretty cool too)
Who was first out of the gate with that?

Intel has no GPUs......are they irrelevant?

AMD is more than relevant......but they need to giddy-up a bit.:D
 
I look at AMD now as a failing company. Even their GPU business is starting to falter. (on the driver level, as well as failing to see just how much more performance nVidia were going to bring with the 680 series etc.)

On the CPU front the Piledriver core is just not good enough to compete with Intel. They need the Steamroller core NOW! Before Haswell shows up! AMD's excavator core looks like it will potentially offer equal performance with the current Ivy Bridge, but this core is not due until AFTER Intel releases Haswell. CPU wise, AMD are out of the game for gamers, and performance freaks.

Nobody knows where AMD stands on the GPU front. AMD are back to the pre-Radeon days driver wise, due to firing half of the driver team late last year. Driver issues have been building up from just before last Christmas, they admit that they lack the resources to keep to a monthly driver release schedule, as well as admitting that the GPU transcode engine in the HD7xxx series is lacking support due to insufficient driver developers being available for the task.

Couple all this with the crazy decision to not go after the smartphone/tablet market, and you really have to wonder if AMD will be here in 5 years time.
 
demingo said:
But they are selling at a far worse pace, even with the limited 680 availablity

If you look at the steam hardware survey, 0.5% of users have a 7970, 0.56% have a 680 gtx.

While that is a small difference, factor in the fact that the 680 has been in the market for a far shorter period of time and supposedly had supply problems, it really paints a picture of who the market prefers for high end cards.
Click to expand...
I think its the tried and true problem with AMD's GPU line of drivers. Also if I was a new buyer I wouldn't give two shits about overclocking. I know this is [H], but not everyone is into OC'ing their video cards.
With that said, I would pay more for a card that consumes less power, I'm skipping this gen and see what comes after kepler.
 
Stimpy88 said:
Couple all this with the crazy decision to not go after the smartphone/tablet market, and you really have to wonder if AMD will be here in 5 years time.
Click to expand...

I hope they're around, but it's hard to predict what the market will look like in 5 years. We all know that an Intel without the pressure of competition is bad for everyone. The difference in CPU power between Ivy and Sandy is a demonstration that Intel isn't feeling pressure and hasn't since at least the time when Ivy design began. They're only pushing advancement where they know it's necessary, in their GPU and in lowering power consumption. Meh... :(
 
While the HD 7900 and 7800 series are not so hot anymore for the price they're at compared to the GTX 600 series; they still offer very good performance and people still buy the cards. Its not like it was a complete bust, its just less popular than their competitor's cards which was going to happen for either one of them. If they improved their driver development team, I'm sure they'd capture even more of the market.

Also, if rumors are true, AMD is apparently making the GPUs for all the next generation consoles. That will make them VERY relevant if true.
 
Imagine if AMD was defunct....

Intels base processors would cost how much then? 400, 500 dollars. That doesnt bother Cnet cause thats chump change to them I suppose.
 
I think a big problem is how you define "relevant".

Does AMD still move a large amount of units in lower end markets? Of course.

Does AMD drive innovation in the computing world? In my opinion... no.

Intel/Nvidia are leaders in the CPU/GPU world. Tech they put forward becomes industry standard quite often. They also work very closely with software developers on implimenting their standards. I can't think of the last time AMD introduced something that has become a widely used standard.

So while they are a viable competitor and do sell well overall, I don't see them being relevant in the sense of directing the market. Hell, as much as I hate to admit it, Apple has taken over as the largest market force in tech. Apple does, others follow.
 
celeron300 said:
Imagine if AMD was defunct....

Intels base processors would cost how much then? 400, 500 dollars. That doesnt bother Cnet cause thats chump change to them I suppose.
Click to expand...

Doubtful.

Intel still has to play by supply and demand. They can try to charge $500 for what is a $200 chip now, doesn't mean anyone will buy. Also, I see ARM as a bigger competior to Intel than AMD at this point. If Intel hiked prices and a $400 laptop became an $800 laptop, that $500 ARM tablet is looking mighty fine.....
 
AMD is relevant. So they don't have the fastest CPU, they still have a good set of products in the correct location. If you look at AMD in the past, they have struggled to keep the business profitable. Part of that was remedied after the purchased ATI.( lack of a true platform. ). I think they are trying to maximize their business/profits by not playing Intel's game of fastest CPU. I think it is good AMD is focusing on the mid and lower end markets for desktop PC, this puts them in a good spot with OEMs. Also the desktop PC has been loosing ground to Laptop and other mobile computing. AMD knows this, and has adjusted itself to cater more to Laptops. AMD has also let it's server business slide a bit. It looks like they are also focusing on a data center/super computer parts.

AMD is just doing what it needs to do to stay relevant. Maybe one day when AMD has stabilized it's business, It again will return to the "fastest CPU" ring to do battle with Intel.
 
I stopped thinking CNet was relavant when I read an article by Mary Jo something or another. Worst tech writer ever. Accidently clicked on a few links since she joined, with inflammatory headlines, and every single one was written by her. These days, I won't even click on a CNet link. And since they started wrapping their downloads in spam, I won't visit their site for that either.

Since this article has such an inflammatory headline, I'm guessing it's by her. Have not clicked the link, though, and will not.
 
I haven't owned an AMD product for at least 6 years. So they aren't relevant for me anymore. I'd like them to be relevant though.
 
AMD is a terrific company... sure the "BEST Performance" Cpu is INTEL and many times Nvidia is the "Best Performance GPU". That being said , and that being the case might had mattered during the 90s early 2000s. But now if you can run your os quickly and adequately get games (most being Console Ports) or games Programmed for the largest audience (very low requirements Blizzard and almost any ONLINE game) then why not going with the Cheaper , Good enough chip because Other than bragging rights if my Game Runs at consistant 60fps or 30fps depending on gametype what difference does it make that your rig can run the same game at 90fps but you paid nearly double.

I love AMD , I have no hate for Intel, but I rather spend 300 ~ 600 dollars to have a system that screams through my games and development needs, rather than 1000 to 2000 for a system that I have use "benchmarks" to show the difference. But I still applaud people who want the ABSOLUTE best and buy INTEL I don't think they are wasting money if that is what they want and desire. There is a market for everyone hence why Porsch/Lambo/Bugatti automobiles exist....while I drive Nissan.

I hope AMD's "not competing with Intel anymore" stance that by the way helped them to profit with LLANO keeps going. and rumored and or true powering all next gen consoles.. if all stands true, I can see my next upgrade being a variation of Trinity FM2 Generation with lots of memory instead of Next Piledriver upgraded Bulldozer generation or Intels best.... because my Phenom 2 is still easily powering through Visual Studio 2010 and Civ 5.... I am just a boring old man gamer now LOL....;)

In short my quickly poorly written spill is Be happy with what makes you happy not what can make "them" envious.... part of America's overall societal problems in the last decade or so is the need to be better than the Jones because they are there...
 
Rizen said:
Correct me if I am wrong but right now, Intel doesn't have a tablet/smartphone processor either. It's all NVIDIA + ARM in that department. AMD is definitely not relevant on the desktop market anymore, but I think their APUs are pretty awesome for laptops and if they can translate that technology into a package small enough for netbooks, tablets and smartphones, they would do well. I wouldn't rule them out yet.
Click to expand...

Intel Medfield SoC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top