AMD - Bankruptcy Or A Turnaround?

[Quix]

The AMD products actually perform quite well, I am not sure where you get you information. Also, why do I care if it competes against a 6700k when there is little day to day difference with that except that it cost significantly more. (No, dual cores are not viable for me.) I game at 4k most of the time which means there is almost no difference at those resolutions.

Look at that the other way around, why would anyone upgrade to a new AMD FX processor that is slower than the i5-2500k they bought 5 years ago. AMD is more than 5 years behind Intel in CPU performance. GPU-wise AMD was only a little behind Nvidia before the GTX 1080/1070 launch and they have an opportunity to catch up if Vega can compete with the GTX 1080, sure Nvidia's new HBM Pascal chip will be faster, but it will also be massively expensive. I honestly believe AMD would be better off breaking into 2 divisions CPU and GPU and having the GPU division sell graphics IP designs to anyone who wants to pay for it as well as high-end GPUs. Yes, the CPU division might go out of business, but at least it's not the whole thing.

Also, Intel doesn't really seem to consider AMD to be a big threat anymore, they're much more worried about ARM up-sizing their cores for desktop computers and servers.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

The AMD products actually perform quite well, I am not sure where you get you information. Also, why do I care if it competes against a 6700k when there is little day to day difference with that except that it cost significantly more. (No, dual cores are not viable for me.) I game at 4k most of the time which means there is almost no difference at those resolutions.

For most things you are right. The user is likely to not notice any difference at all, and honestly, for most of what anyone does a dual core Intel will be faster than a eight core AMD FX chip, due tot he fact that a lot of code just doesn't lend itself very well to multi-threading.

I agree though, I'd feel the need to go for at least a quad core, and when I do I'd take an i5-4430 or 4460 ($184.99 and 189.99 respectively) over anything in AMD's lineup, including an FX 9590 or FX 8370, which both cost more.

The times when I'm actually going to notice the performance difference are admittedly going to be rare, but when it does happen, I'd rather have the chip that works.

The reason I originally went with the i7-3930k in 2011 after having previously been a huge AMD fan was that there simply was not a single CPU in the AMD lineup which could keep up with the CPU load of 64 player maps on Red Orchestra 2 on a Crossfire system (crossfire seemed to significantly increase CPU load in that title) sufficiently to guarantee minimum frame rates at at least 60fps. I had been on an overclocked Phenom II x6 1090T while waiting for Bulldozer. The Phenom II wasn't fast enough where it counted (single threaded performance) and according to the Bulldozer reviews it wasn't going to be either, so while it greatly disappointed me, I decided to go Intel that round, and I still have the CPU and it is plenty fast.

So there are definitely cases (usually on very specific titles) where AMD simply has nothing that can perform well enough, and while those cases may be few and far between, if I'm buying a new chip, I'm going to buy the one that is least likely to give me trouble, and that is Intel right now.

I don't expect Zen to overtake Intel in performance, but I am hoping it gets close enough that I can justify going back to AMD next round. As long as they make it fast enough that it is at least a SLIGHT performance upgrade over my 5 year old i7-3930k, I'm on board. I don't want to buy a brand new CPU that is a side grade or downgrade compared to my 5 year old chip.

God knows they could certainly use the business!

 

[Mong00se]

I bought $3000 in AMD shares about a year ago for 1.50ish a share. No matter where they go from here its all coming up Milhouse!

 

[thesmokingman]

Problem is the cross license from Intel for x86 doesn't transfer if an entity acquires 51% or managing control of AMD. Intel has a right to pull out and keep AMD x64 tech.

For AMD to keep x86 they can't be bought out without Intel's blessing. Influx of capital maybe but AMD needs to remain AMD.

What will Intel do w/o AMD64? They're at a stalemate, a catch 22. If Intel yanks x86, they stand lose AMD64 as well. And that's not to mention that they need AMD around, just as MS needed Apple and even bailing them out. An apple a day keeps the monopoly police away as they say...

 

[westrock2000]

I don't know about a magic deal with Intel for GPU tech, but I WAS under the impression that Intel licensed tech from AMD for their 64 bit cpu's.

My argument has always been that AMD64 is absolutely the only thing that kept them alive. Without that, they would have been toast shortly after Core was designed.

 

[thesmokingman]

^^Intel did not renew with Nvidia and iirc they instead licensed with AMD.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

What will Intel do w/o AMD64? They're at a stalemate, a catch 22. If Intel yanks x86, they stand lose AMD64 as well. And that's not to mention that they need AMD around, just as MS needed Apple and even bailing them out. An apple a day keeps the monopoly police away as they say...

Intel's x64 license from AMD is perpetual. AMD's x86 licence goes *poof* if they are acquired, but Intel still keeps the x64 license.

Yes, it was a terrible deal for AMD.

 

[Cr4ckm0nk3y]

Edit: Zarathustra[H] and I made the identical responses at the same time.

 

[drescherjm]

That is not how the agreement reads and is why Zarathustra[H] mentioned the barrel.

If AMD violates the agreement by being bought out they lose all rights to x86 but Intel retains x64. Its a win win for Intel if AMD is purchased.

I would expect the US government and the EU will both take Intel to court if that happens. Although the battle could drag out for years.

 

[Cr4ckm0nk3y]

^^Intel did not renew with Nvidia and iirc they instead licensed with AMD.

Really? When? The NV/Intel agreement doesn't end until Q1 2017 and only rumors have popped up saying Intel and AMD are in talks. In fact, I read it from a person on this board who is "in the know" that the conversations are "TOP SECRET."

Can you point to an article saying AMD/RTG made a deal with Intel. I would love to read it.

I would expect the US government and the EU will both take Intel to court if that happens. Although the battle could drag out for years.

For what?

 

[thesmokingman]

Really? When? The NV/Intel agreement doesn't end until Q1 2017 and only rumors have popped up saying Intel and AMD are in talks. In fact, I read it from a person on this board who is "in the know" that the conversations are "TOP SECRET."

Can you point to an article saying AMD/RTG made a deal with Intel. I would love to read it.

The interesting part is Intel's support for freesync and open standards. This made the rounds a few months ago. Also, in my post I made it sound like fact but obviously its not, excuse the memory failing. The contract end date is nearing though.

Report claims Intel, AMD discussing GPU patent licensing | ExtremeTech

 

[Khaelec]

Few things to consider, specially when it comes to GPU.

1. Many of the titles currently reviewed are gameworks titles, because of tesalation issues AMD does lose out on those GPU reviews at times, and although AMD was first to adopt, they failed to develop. That said, the 1080 and the 1070 are not currently rendering all items as it should, but rather render incorrectly and it does lead to a bit of skewed numbers. Until both cards have had driver revisions, I expect neither the 1070/1080 or the RX 480 will show it's true colors just yet.

2. Comparing the 1070 to the rx 480 is similar to comparing apples to oranges. 1070 is a not a mid/entry card, it's currently at the price of the 980 which makes it a highend card of it's middle tier. The RX 480 is an entry level card for all intents, it's a replacement for the 280/380 that just happens to perform like it's higher end bretheren 390/390x. I find it funny that people will Praise Nvidia for 1070 outpacing the titan x, but crap on AMD For making the RX do the same against it's own line up.

3. AMD CPU's being compared to a 5 year old I5 or I7 depending on what you chose, is pretty poor comparison. Compare and 2nd and 3rd gen to a skylake, you don't get a huge gap to consider an upgrade either, My brother has a 3rd gen, and I have a 6th gen I7, and both game well enough that no one notices any performance issues and sits there comparing. CPUs simply don't advance that quickly, it's not an easy tech to advance.

4. AMD's actual budget for R&D budget is less than Intel by quite a bit and in part this is due to foreign markets, where advertising reigned supreme especially in 3rd world countries.

I'm not a fan of AMD's CPUs, but I do accept for the price they do perform relatively well, when it comes to GPU I have owned GTX 970 from Asus, it died, got a GTX 980, had driver issues up the ying yang, finally gave up pulled my 290x from my brothers machine and went nuts with watercooling and OC, it's performance was great, AMD Drivers made it faster, and I never had any problems with it. My brother is very happy with the 980 which gave me trouble. So it's all subjective.

I think if AMD's plan works and they own that entry market as they expect to, then the revenue they need to R&D will be the push they need. I doubt they are any where near a bankrupt.

 

[waderunner]

I'm kind of surprised that someone didn't buy them out earlier this year, when AMD was trading at $1.50 / share. Seems like the IP that AMD is sitting on would have been worth it, along with their developers and engineers.

 

[disemboweler]

Well, I hope they turn it around because I simply prefer AMD hardware to all others.

Why, pray tell? Pure nostalgic brand loyalty? Irrational preference for the underdog, even at the cost of competition and benefit to the consumer? Honestly, I'm not trying to insult you - I honestly want to know why there are so many people still in love with AMD given the last 15 years of performance of the company and products.

I hope they DO go under, so that a more competent company buys their assets (their tech and probably existing products will not go away, even if they go bankrupt or close down entirely, because someone will buy their patents, products, etc). That way, maybe in the future we'll actually have a decent competitor to Intel, and even more importantly, NVIDIA. Right now, Intel and NVIDIA have a pseudo-monopoly in most market segments because of AMD's lackluster products, and their ridiculously low R&D budget compared to both Intel and NVIDIA.

AMD failing and being bought out might just be the best thing that could happen for the consumer (in the long run, at least)!

 

[DooKey]

Well, I hope they turn it around because I simply prefer AMD hardware to all others.

You're in to S@M it appears. Kinky bro.

With that said I'll never understand lemmings.

 

[tetris42]

Why, pray tell? Pure nostalgic brand loyalty? Irrational preference for the underdog, even at the cost of competition and benefit to the consumer? Honestly, I'm not trying to insult you - I honestly want to know why there are so many people still in love with AMD given the last 15 years of performance of the company and products.

I hope they DO go under, so that a more competent company buys their assets (their tech and probably existing products will not go away, even if they go bankrupt or close down entirely, because someone will buy their patents, products, etc). That way, maybe in the future we'll actually have a decent competitor to Intel, and even more importantly, NVIDIA. Right now, Intel and NVIDIA have a pseudo-monopoly in most market segments because of AMD's lackluster products, and their ridiculously low R&D budget compared to both Intel and NVIDIA.

AMD failing and being bought out might just be the best thing that could happen for the consumer (in the long run, at least)!

I can't speak for him, but I've basically been boycotting Intel ever since they broke a lot of laws globally against predatory business practices back in the early 00s, which is part of the reason we don't have more of a two horse race today. That said, AMD's performance is making it harder to stick with them, if they don't really pull a rabbit out of the hat with Zen, I'll probably have to switch.

 

[Dr. Righteous]

Regardless of all the yack yack,
Looks like the RX-480 is a hit. Looking at New egg most most brands are OUT OF STOCK.

 

[ManofGod]

For most things you are right. The user is likely to not notice any difference at all, and honestly, for most of what anyone does a dual core Intel will be faster than a eight core AMD FX chip, due tot he fact that a lot of code just doesn't lend itself very well to multi-threading.

I agree though, I'd feel the need to go for at least a quad core, and when I do I'd take an i5-4430 or 4460 ($184.99 and 189.99 respectively) over anything in AMD's lineup, including an FX 9590 or FX 8370, which both cost more.

The times when I'm actually going to notice the performance difference are admittedly going to be rare, but when it does happen, I'd rather have the chip that works.

The reason I originally went with the i7-3930k in 2011 after having previously been a huge AMD fan was that there simply was not a single CPU in the AMD lineup which could keep up with the CPU load of 64 player maps on Red Orchestra 2 on a Crossfire system (crossfire seemed to significantly increase CPU load in that title) sufficiently to guarantee minimum frame rates at at least 60fps. I had been on an overclocked Phenom II x6 1090T while waiting for Bulldozer. The Phenom II wasn't fast enough where it counted (single threaded performance) and according to the Bulldozer reviews it wasn't going to be either, so while it greatly disappointed me, I decided to go Intel that round, and I still have the CPU and it is plenty fast.

So there are definitely cases (usually on very specific titles) where AMD simply has nothing that can perform well enough, and while those cases may be few and far between, if I'm buying a new chip, I'm going to buy the one that is least likely to give me trouble, and that is Intel right now.

I don't expect Zen to overtake Intel in performance, but I am hoping it gets close enough that I can justify going back to AMD next round. As long as they make it fast enough that it is at least a SLIGHT performance upgrade over my 5 year old i7-3930k, I'm on board. I don't want to buy a brand new CPU that is a side grade or downgrade compared to my 5 year old chip.

God knows they could certainly use the business!

The problem is, I had spent over $700 for a board, processor and ram. Went from an FX 8350 to an I7 6700k and although it felt snappy, it made ZERO real world difference and absolutely no difference in my games at 4k. Then I realized, 8 months later, I have gamed on my computer maybe 4 hours since the upgrade which made it a waste of money. Therefore, I sold it off, bought an FX 8300, 16GB of HyperX DDR3 1866 ram, an Asus 970 Pro Aura and could not be happier. (Also was able to put about $400 back into savings, thankfully.)

Now, I gamed at 3.3 GHz, the stock clock of the cpu, and it gamed the same at 4k as the 6700k. Now, I have overclocked the CPU to 4.5 GHz because I wanted too, I enjoy it very well and now give little to no thought to did I waste my money or not. Honestly, if I were gaming heavily and wanted an Intel, the hyper threading is nearly worthless for it and a 6600k, on sale, would be the best option. Then overclocking could occur and it would still be fast at stock clocks.

Basically, upgrading for gaming on the cpu nowadays is totally worthless.

 

[ManofGod]

You're in to S@M it appears. Kinky bro.

With that said I'll never understand lemmings.

Why, when you appear to be an Intel lemming.

 

[heatlesssun]

Basically, upgrading for gaming on the cpu nowadays is totally worthless.

I was pleasantly surprised by how well a GTX 1080 FE performed in my six year old i7-980x @ 4 Ghz x58 system. I'm building a new rig this weekend but if all I wanted was solid gaming performance this old system with the 1080 looks like it would be able to handle that fine at 1080P and 3x 1080P surround. But the x58 is holding back the 1080 at least some and would probably constrain SLI scaling a good bit.

 

[Nytegard]

So, this is what's screwed up about business. With AMD's stock rising, Lisa Su's salary increased $75k to $950,000 per year. That just seems reckless to me with a company that's still not making money.

 

[heatlesssun]

So, this is what's screwed up about business. With AMD's stock rising, Lisa Su's salary increased $75k to $950,000 per year. That just seems reckless to me with a company that's still not making money.

It's tricky. Sure you want the captain of the ship to be rewarded based on performance but a CEO for a major tech firm has to be compensated because there is a lot of demand for these types.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

The problem is, I had spent over $700 for a board, processor and ram. Went from an FX 8350 to an I7 6700k and although it felt snappy, it made ZERO real world difference and absolutely no difference in my games at 4k. Then I realized, 8 months later, I have gamed on my computer maybe 4 hours since the upgrade which made it a waste of money. Therefore, I sold it off, bought an FX 8300, 16GB of HyperX DDR3 1866 ram, an Asus 970 Pro Aura and could not be happier. (Also was able to put about $400 back into savings, thankfully.)

Now, I gamed at 3.3 GHz, the stock clock of the cpu, and it gamed the same at 4k as the 6700k. Now, I have overclocked the CPU to 4.5 GHz because I wanted too, I enjoy it very well and now give little to no thought to did I waste my money or not. Honestly, if I were gaming heavily and wanted an Intel, the hyper threading is nearly worthless for it and a 6600k, on sale, would be the best option. Then overclocking could occur and it would still be fast at stock clocks.

Basically, upgrading for gaming on the cpu nowadays is totally worthless.

I'd argue that it is not TOTALLY worthless.

You still - once in a blue moon - run into a title that is unusually CPU dependent. I've never played it, but I understand Starcraft 2 is one of these, which simply does not play well on AMD systems.

I'm with you, I don't play much in the way of games any more either. Well, I go in fits and starts. I'll get really into a game, and put a lot of time into it for a period of a few months, and then not play a game for a year while I am into other stuff, and then maybe get inspired by a game again for a few months, etc. etc.

The way I see it, the Intel systems are an insurance policy in a way.

Most of the time you may not need the higher per-core performance they offer, but when you run into a circumstance where you do, and you don't have it, it can be tremendously annoying.


My feeling is, I have so little time for games these days, that when I do sit down and fire it up, I want to have ample power to not have to mess around with performance tweaks, and just be able to get the most out of the experience.

 

[buhbuhfet]

the dumb shiz they do tells me that they want to make it go bankrupt, hello rx480, brilliant move amd, what's next?