Did AMD "kill" their enthusiast crowd...???

I want AMD to succeed. I still buy Athlon II procs and OC them. I am an enthusiast. I am not looking for the fastest processors though. I do not fault anyone that is into folding, video encoding or such that buys Intel because they are faster. AMD has ripped my heart out with lackluster performance and the string of delays.
 
0bzeek said:
That's not true at all. Infact we NEED AMD to succeed. If they don't we're all screwed. If they don't start competing there will be only one source at all for processors. Not good for us. We need the competition. We all need AMD to succeed.

That being said... You're right. They don't compete. You're right. At this point they're continuing to call behind. But we're not talking about a difference in performance which is beyond unreasonable. Yet. IMO they're still a viable option for people who want bang for their buck. We can't get in the mentality that they're not even an option or we're all screwed.
Click to expand...

Dude in most of the applications that most of the people here use their computers for AMD is on par clock for clock with a more than four year old core 2. Yes, the difference is unreasonable. Then to top it off you've got AMD representatives coming here and telling us that our market doesn't matter to them anyways. I'm not going to pay more for less performance. AMD doesn't deserve to be rewarded for their recent decisions unlike with their gpu division. Thats how capitalism works.

I would consider a llano based laptop if I needed a new laptop but there is no way in hell that I would put any of AMD's current offerings in my desktop.
 
ZodaEX said:
And my point was that my atom is even older (and less powerful) than his Athlon II and can still do all these things.
Click to expand...

I am glad for you. If i had an Atom, i would have probably used an Atom as example. Unfortunately i had an Athlon. But we can replace Athlon with Atom, i have no problem with that. I used an example to make a point. The point wasn't the Athlon. Or the Atom.
 
Faethon said:
I am glad for you. If i had an Atom, i would have probably used an Atom as example. Unfortunately i had an Athlon. But we can replace Athlon with Atom, i have no problem with that. I used an example to make a point. The point wasn't the Athlon. Or the Atom.
Click to expand...

What was your point then, I'm not really sure what you were getting at?
Those tasks you listed are pretty easy for any modern processor in the last 3 years to handle simultaneously.

Infact we NEED AMD to succeed. If they don't we're all screwed.
Click to expand...
No, ARM will pick up the lost market share, believe me, Intel won't sit on top for long.
Once they jack prices to outrageous amounts, people will be looking for alternatives, and ARM will be there, along with their many manufacturers, to kill off x86 once and for all.
 
Red Falcon said:
What was your point then, I'm not really sure what you were getting at?
Those tasks you listed are pretty easy for any modern processor in the last 3 years to handle simultaneously.
Click to expand...

At first i thought that the problem was with me, english not being my native language. But since i saw that some other person understood my point, the problem mustn't be with me... I can't help any more. I 've explained enough i think. Unless you missed the original post:

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1038256455&postcount=104

I am afraid that if i try to explain more, i may get yet another misunderstanding.
 
EuphoricRage470 said:
The affordable range is where it's at. I build PCs professionally (out of my dorm...but I get paid to do it!) and I've not once used a high end CPU for a build I've done (highest end thus far is an Intel Core i5 2400). I generally shove as much budget as possible into the GPU.
Click to expand...

When I did this for a living, I built only mid-range to ultra-high end and everything in between. If someone came to me with a small budget, I'd tell them to buy a Dell and then if they wanted, I'd get rid of the bloated crap software for a price. There isn't enough margin in low end hardware to even bother competing with them. There wasn't five to seven years ago when I did this a lot and there is even less reason to do it now professionally. Even so, I'd generally agree. Low-medium range is where all the money is. Even if the margins are crap and you have to make up for it in volume.
 
Red Falcon said:
What was your point then, I'm not really sure what you were getting at?
Those tasks you listed are pretty easy for any modern processor in the last 3 years to handle simultaneously.
Click to expand...

That actually was his point. For most people any modern processor will do. Hell, for general usage I'm having a hard time justifying replacing my old laptop with an ancient 2ghz Yonah core. If they want to release a good server chip like bulldozer then thats fine but why even release it as a desktop cpu if it doesn't even do that well in what most of their most profitable consumers in the desktop segment will use them for?
 
Not really related but the way Bulldozer was hyped by AMD it was akin to how George Lucas hyped the Phantom Menace. In trailers it looked awesome and we all couldn't wait yet when we actually saw it (or in this case saw how it performed) we were quite let down.

Even if you remove all the hyperbole by fans and the marketing factor , AMD's CPU sector just doesn't seem to understand the market place when it comes to the enthusiast audience. AMD's GPU sector seem to be right on the ball (well the driver team could use a cold shower..) when it comes to competing with Nvidia. The APU is a wonderful little chip and frankly you would be hard pressed not to be impressed by it but why is it when it comes to performance from AMD's CPU group its like they always spend way too much time developing what is ultimately going to be a second rate solution by the time it goes from the drawing board to taping out?

I hope that Windows 8 will provide the proper set of support for the Bulldozer CPU and allow it to shine in the way we all hoped it would because having less competition out of a 2 party system when it comes to enthusiast solutions is a loss for all consumers.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
That actually was his point. For most people any modern processor will do. Hell, for general usage I'm having a hard time justifying replacing my old laptop with an ancient 2ghz Yonah core. If they want to release a good server chip like bulldozer then thats fine but why even release it as a desktop cpu if it doesn't even do that well in what most of their most profitable consumers in the desktop segment will use them for?
Click to expand...

And moreover, it's a mistake to regard gamers or in general PC enthusiasts simply as "individual consumers that upgrade often". They usually act like "sales multipliers", because relatives and friends, as well as "non techies" in internet fora, trust them and often will ask them on what to buy for themselves or will just give them the money to buy the parts and assemble the PC for them. So keeping the "tech geeks" happy is like having free pubblicity to many more potential clients. If AMD doesn't excel in performance and doesn't excel in price either, what do you expect the "tech geek" to tell his "non tech" uncle or friend that wants to build a new PC from scratch? "Buy Bulldozer"? I don't think so, unless the intended use is one of the very select sectors where Bulldozer outshines the Sandybridge. In the past you could say "Buy it because it's cheaper and your money isn't enough for Intel". But Bulldozer isn't cheaper either. And there is this horrible overlapping with the non extinct yet high end Phenoms making things worse. Why get a 6 core Bulldozer, when you can still grab a Thuban for the same price? Or if you have even less cash a 960T and try your luck unlocking the cores?
 
Red Falcon said:
What was your point then, I'm not really sure what you were getting at?
Those tasks you listed are pretty easy for any modern processor in the last 3 years to handle simultaneously.


No, ARM will pick up the lost market share, believe me, Intel won't sit on top for long.
Once they jack prices to outrageous amounts, people will be looking for alternatives, and ARM will be there, along with their many manufacturers, to kill off x86 once and for all.
Click to expand...
x86-64 is not still fully used and you already speaking about x86 being replaced, ARM is not really a desktop architecture and I don't see any reason the x86 should be replaced
Faethon said:
And moreover, it's a mistake to regard gamers or in general PC enthusiasts simply as "individual consumers that upgrade often". They usually act like "sales multipliers", because relatives and friends, as well as "non techies" in internet fora, trust them and often will ask them on what to buy for themselves or will just give them the money to buy the parts and assemble the PC for them. So keeping the "tech geeks" happy is like having free pubblicity to many more potential clients. If AMD doesn't excel in performance and doesn't excel in price either, what do you expect the "tech geek" to tell his "non tech" uncle or friend that wants to build a new PC from scratch? "Buy Bulldozer"? I don't think so, unless the intended use is one of the very select sectors where Bulldozer outshines the Sandybridge. In the past you could say "Buy it because it's cheaper and your money isn't enough for Intel". But Bulldozer isn't cheaper either. And there is this horrible overlapping with the non extinct yet high end Phenoms making things worse. Why get a 6 core Bulldozer, when you can still grab a Thuban for the same price? Or if you have even less cash a 960T and try your luck unlocking the cores?
Click to expand...
FXs are enthusiast CPUs,and as enthusiast or technical professional when asked advice from non involved person, you wont be recommending them i7-2600 for reading facebook because it was better than FX-8150 in benchmarks.
The non tech people although they may play games, they also wont be setting up multiple monitor setups and running multiple GPUs or overclocking the CPUs, so for basic needs and lighter gaming I don't see any reason why not recommend some low end Phenom/Athlon II for no tech savvy users just because FX-8150 failed against intel.
So the point of enthusiasts being just larger crowd of individual customers is in place.
 
Acer_Sheep said:
FXs are enthusiast CPUs,and as enthusiast or technical professional when asked advice from non involved person, you wont be recommending them i7-2600 for reading facebook because it was better than FX-8150 in benchmarks.
The non tech people although they may play games, they also wont be setting up multiple monitor setups and running multiple GPUs or overclocking the CPUs, so for basic needs and lighter gaming I don't see any reason why not recommend some low end Phenom/Athlon II for no tech savvy users just because FX-8150 failed against intel.
So the point of enthusiasts being just larger crowd of individual customers is in place.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle and in the Phenom days, the reply was very easy (the one you propose). However, at least here, the lowest Athlon currently in commerce is the 640. Which comes about 10 euros cheaper than the i3-2100. It wouldn't make much of a difference for someone that doesn't want to push it hard, but, i would get the intel, just because i am of the opinion that it's always good to get the best CPU you can get. And what in a few months from now that all the Athlons and Phenoms will be out of commerce...
 
Xeth said:
Historically AMD has never been able to compete with Intel on the high end. The only reason they were beating Intel in the early 00's was because they acquired fantastic technology and talent from the DEC Alpha implosion.
Click to expand...

Didn't AMD trounce the Pentium III with their high end Athlons in the late 90s?
 
ZodaEX said:
Didn't AMD trounce the Pentium III with their high end Athlons in the late 90s?
Click to expand...
Yes, but he said "historically." You need to factor in the 37 years that AMD has been competing with Intel in the x86 cpu market, not just a small 5-6 year segment where they were better.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Yes, but he said "historically." You need to factor in the 37 years that AMD has been competing with Intel in the x86 cpu market, not just a small 5-6 year segment where they were better.
Click to expand...

Yes he said Amd "Historically" has never been able to compete with intel's high end. The word "historically" literally means in the past, so to make the claim that in the past AMD had never been able to compete with intel's high end is a lie. It happened at least three times just off the top of my head that I can remember and even if it had only happened once it would still be a lie to make the claim that it had never happened because it did. Questions?
 
The k6-3 was a fast little sucker as well. In certain a apps it smoked the P3 pretty badly. I remember playing quake with the 3dnow patch and it flew. The the AMD 286 was faster than Intels and the 386 486 parts were so close no one could tell.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
Dude in most of the applications that most of the people here use their computers for AMD is on par clock for clock with a more than four year old core 2.
Click to expand...

Past Simple would probably be better ;)
AMD were on par with core duos when they produced Phenom II now they are below core 2 in IPC with Bulldozer :D
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
Thats how capitalism works.
Click to expand...

Right, capitalism rewards those who provide better services for better prices. It rewards innovation. Neither better prices nor innovation occurs when there're no competitors. Hence my absolutely truthful comment that we ALL need AMD to succeed. ....That being said I still bought an Intel....:eek:
 
The only reason most of my posts that deal with AMD on the cpu side are harsh is because, in some weird way, in my fantasy world I secretly hope that people from AMD actually read what I post, people that matter that is and that they just, because of my posting, along with others, the bad reviews, etc, that they just try harder. I know, silly. But, I am being honest.

Of course I want AMD to have all the success they deserve. I still hope they release something that makes it worth my time to upgrade.

I would love to see them come out with a refresh of the Bulldozer along with support for dual cpu support for the consumer market. I would love to have 16 or 24 cores, fake or otherwise that ran at something comparable to Intels 2600k, etc. I think us enthusiasts would be all over that. I know I would.

Ok, so, maybe not super fast like a 2600k OC'd to 4.9Ghz, but, I more could live with a system that had 2 cpu's and lots of cores. I think many of us could. Not too bad of a thought at all.

Certainly, there is something AMD could do in this regard. To address the BDs performance issue. Something we could use to justify a purchase for the "lack of performance"

And yes, back in the day, I had an Abit BP6 dually board and thought I was bad ass shit for owning one. This was 2000 or 2001. Seems like yesterday to me.
 
Last edited:
Acer_Sheep said:
x86-64 is not still fully used and you already speaking about x86 being replaced, ARM is not really a desktop architecture and I don't see any reason the x86 should be replaced
FXs are enthusiast CPUs,and as enthusiast or technical professional when asked advice from non involved person, you wont be recommending them i7-2600 for reading facebook because it was better than FX-8150 in benchmarks.
The non tech people although they may play games, they also wont be setting up multiple monitor setups and running multiple GPUs or overclocking the CPUs, so for basic needs and lighter gaming I don't see any reason why not recommend some low end Phenom/Athlon II for no tech savvy users just because FX-8150 failed against intel.
So the point of enthusiasts being just larger crowd of individual customers is in place.
Click to expand...

Yes agree, FXs are enthusiast chips. There are tons of options provided by AMD but also by the motherboard makers to allow very dramatic configurations to suit one's needs.

Also AMD helping hoist HardOCP FX GameExperience is support of the enthusiat community here. Killing the enthusiast crowd? Hell no, AMD is growing it.
 
well. I don't know about growing. I'm an AMD fanboi at heart but Intel is more bang for my buck. so it's painful but it had to be done basically. Sucks because I was really about supporting the underdog for the best of the market but... I Just don't know about saying "growing" in regards to the enthusiast community. That being said, however. If there was an offering from AMD which was even slightly competitive I'd jump ship in a second for them.
 
Acer_Sheep said:
x86-64 is not still fully used and you already speaking about x86 being replaced, ARM is not really a desktop architecture and I don't see any reason the x86 should be replaced
Click to expand...

That was theoretical if AMD were to be killed off and Intel sat with the x86 crown.
I didn't mean x86 would actually be replaced.
 
I made the change to Intel a few months ago after using exclusively AMD since my first builds with the K6 chip. I gotta say I am extremely impressed with what Intel is offering. I was seriously considering AMD until I started juggling the prices. I was looking at the 1090t and it was 180 at Microcenter with a crappy ass board. But then I started looking at the Intel 2500K prices and it just didn't make sense to get the 1090t anymore, that would be just like buying 2 more cores to my existing 955BE. I got my 2500K with board for $240 and easily got it to 4ghz with no problem. But even at stock speeds I was extremely surprised how much faster the 2500k was mhz for mhz against the 955. I really hope AMD can turn this around like they did with the Phenom II. Whether you hate AMD or love them you gotta realize that they are pivotal to keeping Intel in check with their pricing. I definitely would like to return to them once they have something a bit more matured.
 
SixFootDuo said:
Certainly, there is something AMD could do in this regard. To address the BDs performance issue. Something we could use to justify a purchase for the "lack of performance"
Click to expand...

What are some architectural improvements can AMD make to improve their performance similar to that or greater than Intel current offerings? This has been on my mind for a while. I've also read the software world is lagging behind in several facets (excluding the Windows 7 patch) that need to be optimized. So is it AMD new approach to CPU architecture? Software? GloFlos' issue?

I personally don't their new approach is completely bad at all, IMO. Maybe AMD is proofing for a potential parallel computing future? :confused:
 
I have only one FX setup but I also have several Intel i7's as I've been running Intel since AMD's socket 939. I would not like to see AMD gone from the marketplace. I hope that AMD will further improve the uArch with possible revisions and with the release of PD.
 
Maybe 4 years ago when they started the BD design, they assumed by now we would have mostly multi-threaded apps, plus all of the delays didn't help. It was for sure pushed out prematurely to compete with SB. AMD does have a good architecture to work with, it just needs to be tweaked/modified in future iterations. Once they get the IPC on par with SB while still offering 8 cores @ ~ $200 I think they could have a decent product.
 
Last edited:
I bought a Phenom 965 right before bulldozer was announced, and it seems it will still last a while. Hopefully AMD will have something more competitive when it's time for me to upgrade again.
 
cjhatesu said:
it just didn't make sense to get the 1090t anymore, that would be just like buying 2 more cores to my existing 955BE.
Click to expand...

And this is where you couldn't be more wrong. As you should know, being an AMD fanboy and all, that the Thuban cores have a GREATLY improved memory controller. Not only can you run higher frequencies with tighter timings, you can also OC the CPU-NB like mad. Well over 3000MHz. Now being the self-proclaimed AMD fanboy you are, you should know that this is EXACTLY where AMD's pick A LOT of performance.

PS: Denebs =/= Thubans. Especially if you actually know how to OC both.

cjhatesu said:
I got my 2500K with board for $240 and easily got it to 4ghz with no problem. But even at stock speeds I was extremely surprised how much faster the 2500k was mhz for mhz against the 955.
Click to expand...

See you can't compare Thubans to the core i series. They're different architectures so of course they're not going to compete clock for clock.

However, what really sickened me about the so called enthusiast crowd is that when BD didn't stomp the Core i series into the ground, yet matched it in quite a bit of stuff, it was called a total failure. Seriously?
How is that NOT an improvement?

Regardless, it's easy to side with a company that has a MONTHLY budget the size of the other company's YEARLY budget. <---This is what I think most people are forgetting.
 
OmegaSupreme said:
Regardless, it's easy to side with a company that has a MONTHLY budget the size of the other company's YEARLY budget. <---This is what I think most people are forgetting.
Click to expand...

Whether AMD dropped the ball with BD or not, your statement is a very important and good one. It's never been a secret that Intel is gigantic compared to AMD, from personnel to resources. I wish BD had better benchmarks than Intel and that they were top dog, but it's unrealistic to expect them to go toe to toe with the Goliath that is Intel. Intel's so big it's been competing against itself the past few years with it's CPU's.

I am happy that AMD at least competes with Intel, and it's not like they aren't doing some good things on the GPU side.
 
Last edited:
It just seems like there's a market for OC'ing chips cheaper than the i5-2500K that aren't filled by AMD chips. The 960T seems like it has potential though. Maybe the motherboards offered aren't interesting me.
 
xTrident said:
Whether AMD dropped the ball with BD or not, your statement is a very important and good one. It's never been a secret that Intel is gigantic compared to AMD, from personnel to resources. I wish BD had better benchmarks than Intel and that they were top dog, but it's unrealistic to expect them to go toe to toe with the Goliath that is Intel. Intel's so big it's been competing against itself the past few years with it's CPU's.

I am happy that AMD at least competes with Intel, and it's not like they aren't doing some good things on the GPU side.
Click to expand...

I do too, however, I don't think that BD got the credit it deserves. It consistently matches the i5 2500k, and then bests even the 2600k in multi-threaded apps. While sure it's a power hog, it's still a very good CPU IMO. I think that over the next few years when they get the bugs worked out, and later revisions, will prove that it is in fact a good CPU. And now that they dropped Global Foundries and went with TSMC, perhaps their yields will improve and get more efficient.

I'm rootin for ya AMD!!!!!
 
The funny part about all this, if AMD dropped the prices on 8150 and 8120's by $50, these chips would be called the "The second coming of jeebus" and so on... I believe if AMD did that, they'd sell a whole bunch more of them, and make more money in the end. Why they won't do it: GloFo yields are still SHIT!!!! Even if PD tapes out this year, and brings speed improvements in 10~15% range over BD, they still won't be able to make enough of them at an attractive price, to compete with well established Ivy Bridge by then...
 
mzs_biteme said:
The funny part about all this, if AMD dropped the prices on 8150 and 8120's by $50, these chips would be called the "The second coming of jeebus" and so on... I believe if AMD did that, they'd sell a whole bunch more of them, and make more money in the end. Why they won't do it: GloFo yields are still SHIT!!!! Even if PD tapes out this year, and brings speed improvements in 10~15% range over BD, they still won't be able to make enough of them at an attractive price, to compete with well established Ivy Bridge by then...
Click to expand...

I think you're right. If they had put it at the right price point from the get go, they would've sold a ton of these.
That's probably why they fired their marketing team. :p

And I surely hope that PD performs better than 10-15% over BD. It'll just fuel more AMD hate if the improvement is that low.
 
The price. That's the biggest issue with the BD chips. It performs the way it does and there's no addressing that now, but if they were priced slightly under the 2500K (the 8150 that is) then they'd actually sell a lot more and would make sense for recommendation. If you need 8 threads and 8 integer cores that would be a fantastic bargain.

I'm guessing they aren't priced that low because of the cost it takes to make them. That's a lot of cache and cache tends to be very very dense in transistors, most dense outside of the GPU portion, so a chip with 8MB L2 and 8MB L3 will cost a pretty penny to manufacture. But that also means if they cut down the amount of cache for Piledriver then we'll likely get cheaper chips that perform better as well ;) outside of the server space, throwing cache at a CPU just doesn't make as much sense.
 
mzs_biteme said:
The funny part about all this, if AMD dropped the prices on 8150 and 8120's by $50, these chips would be called the "The second coming of jeebus" and so on... I believe if AMD did that, they'd sell a whole bunch more of them, and make more money in the end. Why they won't do it: GloFo yields are still SHIT!!!! Even if PD tapes out this year, and brings speed improvements in 10~15% range over BD, they still won't be able to make enough of them at an attractive price, to compete with well established Ivy Bridge by then...
Click to expand...

This, so much this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top