![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Has AMD busted itself trying to beat Intel?
- Thread starter Pocatello
- Start date
Put it on a Video card since my Processor is still worth more than $200, E6600
I have 3 Intel rigs and two AMD based rigs. X1800XT isn't doing its share.coldpower27
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
I mean overall, there will likely be enough quantities that performance enthusiasts will be able to get them assuming it is all that.
2007 is basically the year Core2 gets to shine as it will have existed the whole year rather then since Late July.
The improvement from X6800/E6800 to E6850 isn't too much.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=605&p=5
The main improvement is that the Conroe are improving in terms of their heat disspation now the E6850 is "only" a 65W TDP part compare to the X6800 which is a 75W part. Impressive considering higher FSB is higher TDP. Remember Intel is stressing perf/watt.
There isn't much of a choice for AMD, this is already as fast as they could muster.
Anything that keeps AMD from becoming the perf leader in something, will basically hurt them all things equal.
Yup, I know you're right. I'll read that review and come back if I got time.
goodcooper
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 9,771
some of the most amazing microarchitecture advances in recent years have been in graphics platforms...
GPUs have been coming out a LOT more frequently than CPUs, and literally doubling performance each time...
the ATi buy should catapault AMD... but it might be after barcelona
GPUs have been coming out a LOT more frequently than CPUs, and literally doubling performance each time...
the ATi buy should catapault AMD... but it might be after barcelona
It'd be neat if they measured TDP like AMD does...
LegendKiller
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2000
- Messages
- 4,267
^^ wow I have no idea what most of that means but it sounds really bad....
I cant believe there was some guy on [h] claiming that the ATi purchase only cost AMD like $150 Million or some garbage...turns out it was way to big of a bite for AMD to swallow and now theyre choking on it
I cant believe there was some guy on [h] claiming that the ATi purchase only cost AMD like $150 Million or some garbage...turns out it was way to big of a bite for AMD to swallow and now theyre choking on it
Tetrahedron
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,579
3DFX strikes again!! lol, i kid i kid, but hey the voodoo reference is wonderful.. nvidia is using it power of voodoo against ATi err AMD now
LegendKiller
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2000
- Messages
- 4,267
Essentially they are taking 1.8Bn, repaying a $500M facility a bank gave them to bridge the funds needed to buy ATI. A large chunk of whats left over is going to pay for instruments that will cap the amount of debt somebody can convert to stock.
In other words, they are borrowing a crap-ton of money not to fund the company, but to reduce the affect of future funding.
That'd be like me borrowing money from you, then paying you some of that money to make sure you don't own too much of me. I am not even utilizing the money to finance my company.
It's a last-ditch effort to get cash to the company since that Morgan Stanley facility needs to be repaid ASAP. Whoever the doof is that think that this only cost $150M, why did they issue billions in debt AND still owe 500M?
coldpower27
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2-qx6800/index.x?pg=13
They look pretty alright to me.QX6700 & QX6800 are 130W TDP parts with the 6000+ being a 125W TDP part and the 5000+ 90nm a 89W part.
I am going to be generous to AMD and say that the chipset used is consuming 20W more then Intel's.
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/index.x?pg=15
The above results show the power consumption of using an IGP 6150 vs the NForce 590 SLI at about 20W disparity.
That would place the 6000+ at slightly below the QX6800 which is right given their 125W vs 130W TDP.
That would also place the E6400 and X2 3600+ about even as well.
I would say regarding Core 2 Duo and Athlon 64x2 TDP they are about normalized.
Also remember that the 5000+ 65nm AMD is supposed to be 65W TDP.
As well since the Pentium XE 965 with it's C0 Stepping, Intel's TDP are inline with AMD's before that however, AMD and Intel's had a decent disparity.
But nevertheless, it doesn't really matter because it is in comparison to Intel's own processors. So the TDP improvement has to hold against CPU's like the E6700.
SpoogeMonkey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,934
It amuses me how so many people say "AMD needs to come up with something quick" or "Intel needs a response to AMD's new cpu". Do these guys think that every other month Hector and Paul get 5 or 6 engineers to come in Friday night, grab a couple 12 packs and sit at a round table for 8 hours and *POOF!! here's our new cpu?
Of course, but don't forget the buffalo wings. Without that bbq sauce spilled across a northwood's lithograph plate we never would have gotten the prescott.
wow, good stuff man. I guess you're right that the difference isn't nearly what it used to be. I wish there were an easier way of measuring between the two systems to try and isolate only the CPU....perhaps if they release an RD600 variant (If I remember correctly though they've scrapped RD600 for their next iteration) for AM2 we'd have similar platforms....
EDIT: I just saw this picture on Tom's Hardware (I hate Toms, but I'm bored so I went...), and I think it epitomizes what has happened with AMD finally having shown Intel that it's a serious player:
Hopefully that little penguin has the ingenuity to get the fuck out of there.
Ouch!
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
If anything were to happen I could see IBM doing a large cash infusion to AMD. Don't forget IBM is profiting from AMD's R&D and AMD is profiting (well should be) from IBM's R&D. A few years back they entered into a co R&D and fab sharing agreement.
Now wethere that agreement still stands or not I don't know. And if AMD burnt there bridges with IBM well that could be a big problem for AMD.
IBM is known for buying floundering companies. Turning them around. And selling them off.
They've done it what.. twice with Lotus alone?
Josh
Now wethere that agreement still stands or not I don't know. And if AMD burnt there bridges with IBM well that could be a big problem for AMD.
IBM is known for buying floundering companies. Turning them around. And selling them off.
They've done it what.. twice with Lotus alone?
Josh
LegendKiller
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2000
- Messages
- 4,267
If anything were to happen I could see IBM doing a large cash infusion to AMD. Don't forget IBM is profiting from AMD's R&D and AMD is profiting (well should be) from IBM's R&D. A few years back they entered into a co R&D and fab sharing agreement.
Now wethere that agreement still stands or not I don't know. And if AMD burnt there bridges with IBM well that could be a big problem for AMD.
IBM is known for buying floundering companies. Turning them around. And selling them off.
They've done it what.. twice with Lotus alone?
Josh
At this point, AMD has proven it can squander a good lead and a lot of cash. Ruiz needs to go, as does his henchmen. THey need to streamline and get moving. I think IBM and others would be wary of a infusion if the above doesn't happen, because they'd be throwing good money after bad with those idiots at the helm. I think it's more likely that they take a Seagate approach. Go private, clean house, slim down manufacturing, increase R&D, come back out with some kick-arse products, go public, cash out, keep rolling.
Thank you for the translation
Unfortunately now I see that it's even worse than I thought If anything were to happen I could see IBM doing a large cash infusion to AMD. Don't forget IBM is profiting from AMD's R&D and AMD is profiting (well should be) from IBM's R&D. A few years back they entered into a co R&D and fab sharing agreement.
Now wethere that agreement still stands or not I don't know. And if AMD burnt there bridges with IBM well that could be a big problem for AMD.
IBM is known for buying floundering companies. Turning them around. And selling them off.
They've done it what.. twice with Lotus alone?
Josh
instead of paying however many billions to save AMD,,, they could just put that money into their own R&D.. now when you buy AMD you have to buy ATi as well... which I dont think anybody would want to do
SpoogeMonkey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,934
If anything were to happen I could see IBM doing a large cash infusion to AMD. Don't forget IBM is profiting from AMD's R&D and AMD is profiting (well should be) from IBM's R&D. A few years back they entered into a co R&D and fab sharing agreement.
Now wethere that agreement still stands or not I don't know. And if AMD burnt there bridges with IBM well that could be a big problem for AMD.
IBM is known for buying floundering companies. Turning them around. And selling them off.
They've done it what.. twice with Lotus alone?
Josh
AMD pays IBM to do R&D at its East Fishkill FAB.The deal needs to be renewed by sept 30 2007 by IBMs board otherwise any part can quit without liability.
Secondly , IBM won't buy AMD no matter what : the company is turning into a services oriented behemoth.
IBM retreated in the last decade from printers , PCs , hard drives ,peripherals.Next step would be to slowly get out of semi manufacturing , like TI.
If TI , the 3rd largest IC maker in the world decided it isn't worth spending money on new FAB process , how can IBM semi business , a 1/4 the size of TI , be profitable ?
Yaouch!
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on this one. There are countless CTO's and VPs out there who still think of AMD as having buggy, incompatible, and hot processors -- which hasn't been true since the K5.
This is because of marketing.
Well, I saw this article this morning: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/47251/Intel-wint-marktaandeel-op-alle-fronten.html
Perhaps you can't read Dutch, but the graph should be self-explanatory.
AMD's marketshare is going down faster than ever.
Interesting to see how it went up around 2000/2001, with the K7, then down again with P4 (especially Northwood).
Then it picks up again with Athlon64, and starts growing quite quickly in 2006...
But then C2D arrives (just when AMD was getting up to speed), and it goes back down at least as quickly, and where is it going to end? Intels prices are lower now than they were back then.
They're nearly back to where they were in 2003, in only a few months time, so Intel has dealt out a tremendous blow.
Sales are going down way faster now than they did when the P4 was outperforming K7 across the board. Also, I don't think AMD's Barcelona will be as good an answer to Core2 as K8 was to P4. Adding to that the financial situation that AMD is in...
I think this chart answers the question in the topic with a 'yes'.
Perhaps you can't read Dutch, but the graph should be self-explanatory.
AMD's marketshare is going down faster than ever.
Interesting to see how it went up around 2000/2001, with the K7, then down again with P4 (especially Northwood).
Then it picks up again with Athlon64, and starts growing quite quickly in 2006...
But then C2D arrives (just when AMD was getting up to speed), and it goes back down at least as quickly, and where is it going to end? Intels prices are lower now than they were back then.
They're nearly back to where they were in 2003, in only a few months time, so Intel has dealt out a tremendous blow.
Sales are going down way faster now than they did when the P4 was outperforming K7 across the board. Also, I don't think AMD's Barcelona will be as good an answer to Core2 as K8 was to P4. Adding to that the financial situation that AMD is in...
I think this chart answers the question in the topic with a 'yes'.
duby229 said:
I think it's just a matter of perspective.
Some people seem to only look at the immediate term, about 3 months back to 3 months forward. Relatively, this is such a tiny slice of time that it doesn't really show a whole lot. Duby is quite justified in desagreeing with the majority of the latest round of doom sayers that popped up after AMD's rough first quarter, as most of these people fit into the immediate term category. Remeber that simply reporting AMD's current position, which is already all over the web, doesn't add anything insightful, and does't imply anything usefull about the future. IMHO, it seems like there are quite a few near term parrots on the forums here.
Second, many people readily look into the future and forget the past quickly. Even if one were to think that Intel's mid/long term future (3-10yrs) looked better than AMD's, this fact really doesn't change the past any. The fact remains that AMD used to be in an abysmal market position. Not so long ago, AMD did not make any of their own chipsets and relied 100% on the "goodness" of third parties. For K8, AMD made some solid chipsets, but they were not very feature-rich. I don't think people realize how much of a dangerous position AMD has been in for years in this respect. I don't know if there is simply a lot of new youth on the forums (quite possibly), but many people seem to forget the past 10 years of AMD history as if it never happened. IMHO, dubby is doing the forums a favor by reminding people of AMD's troubled past.
I posit that one's opinion of AMD's performance or market position will change dramatically given the time window used. Further, I think that a wider window than most use should be adopted. If one looks 5 years back and 5 years forward, AMD is currently in a pretty good position for future progress and advancement.
visaris said:
I don't agree.
AMD is already over its peak in terms of marketshare...
In the past, AMD was trying to work itself up, and cleverly planned out its strategy to get where it was at its peak.
However, then they went crazy. First mistake was to splash out a LOT of money on ATi... Second mistake was to assume that Intel would just do nothing while AMD was working on Barcelona.
AMD now finds itself with a rapidly declining marketshare, no good strategy or products to turn that around, and a HUGE debt.
That's what the difference is... AMD seems to have become overly confident and totally misjudged its future. Something they've never done until now. They've always made good decisions, maximizing their limited resources, and steadily gaining on Intel.
Looks like they thought they had it made when they finally beat Intels P4.
What first party chipset did AMD make for K8? The last widespread chipset they made was 750/760, for K7 & K7 MP. They have continued to rely on nVidia and VIA for chipset support for the K8 platform.
I think that the doomsayers have very valid points considering the absence of innovative and compelling products that has lasted much longer than it should have. Core 2 came out June 2006, and AMD should have had something out no later than 6 months after that. They lost me as a customer... I've had 3 consecutive AMD computers prior to my Core 2 purchase of April 2007. They've doubtless lost a lot more.
I speak from a little bit of a different perspective than just this particular thread. Do a search on some of his posts and you'll see what I mean.
This company was in a much better position whenever Jerry Sanders was the CEO. He needs to come back and rescue AMD.
Most folks wanted AMD to get a Chipset Dept. simply because they got chipsets as an Afterthought and it showed. No matter how great their processors were, many times the platforms sucked or stunk up the place. Some of those CTO's complained about not only VIA and SIS, but the first nForce boards as well.
Even as AMD guys said otherwise, AMD didn't catch Intel or take real market share until their platforms caught up. I saw some of these folks posts at Real World Tech, Ars and etc... AMD should have purchased someone to make them Chipsets and ATI might be but so far that's the case.
Don't forget about the lawsuit filed in June which shows that Intel used price pressure to keep PC makers from including AMD processors in their products.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that settled out of court with a big influx of cash from intel to amd.
I'd put that at 10 years back and 5 years forward. I don't think AMD is that bad off and I've never said I see them going under. I did say there were rumors of a Buy-Out and that's strong in Germany where the Germans and the EU isn't about to sit there and watch Hector Screw it up for them. AMD USA is just a Figurehead IMHO for AMD Saxonia. They bailed AMD out 10 years ago. Sure man I might be wrong as hell. I still don't want to see AMD hurt or weakened.
I also think they pissed a bunch of folks off with high X2 prices after commenting on things Intel did to keep prices high. Big contradiction!
Is that against the law?
As one of the Techweb reporters put it, its nothing more than AMD trying to get free marketing. I'd be shocked if AMD doesn't end up being sued for bringing up all of this crap for court costs. Not to mention it's not just a rough 1st Quarter, AMD lost $570 Million the 4th Quarter of 2006 as well, that after losses for the 2 and 3 after small gains in 4th 05and 1st 06 before that.
Not being Duby229 I know AMD lost money for almost 4 years straight. Not just on stock options LOL!
We will certainly find out, won't we? I'm pro-AMD but not enough to stop me from getting a C2D system.
I disagree with your first "mistake." While I agree that obviously AMD was slowing down while they should have kept on their toes preparing for when Intel inevitably struck back, the purchase of ATi was a great decision from the perspective of their future progression. I don't think they could have anticipated that this "perfect storm" (as AMD puts it) of problems would occur so soon after the acquisition.
They now have the engineers and capacity working on their own chipsets, with their own integrated video subsystems and discrete graphics cards. That means speed and stability, all from the same company in one package. It's one reason why I believe Intel has been so successful with their products (regardless of which processor type): they control the entire platform, and therefore can maintain the quality and stability that various consumers demand. When AMD pulls itself back onto its feet (call it blind faith or whatever you'd like) I think that the control this will give them could be whats needed to make AMD stronger than ever.
We will certainly find out, won't we? I'm pro-AMD but not enough to stop me from getting a C2D system.
Main rig E6600
Rig #2 AMD 3500+ soon to be 3800+
A bud asked, "Why waste money on a 3800+?". Because I've become a addicted Dual core and i still like that computer
I'm a *!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*! of my wallet over Intel or AMD. Then my little girl will get the 3500+ in here next rig.
w1retap
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 13,713
Skimming over this thread, it was like watching 30 seconds of The View.
zzz
zzz
Main rig E6600
Rig #2 AMD 3500+ soon to be 3800+
A bud asked, "Why waste money on a 3800+?". Because I've become a addicted Dual core and i still like that computer
I've got a 3000+ in the secondary rig. No sense in upgrading it unless I can get a 939 x2 for around 50 or less.
I've got 3 kids (5, 1, and 2 months) so nobody gets their own pc for a GOOD while... and probably not until I get a bigger house.
That's not the part where I think they went wrong.
The part that's wrong in my opinion is that they bought too much, too soon. They weren't quite ready for ATi yet, financially. The step was just too big.
They should perhaps have tried to buy a smaller player, or waited until they had enough financial means. Right now it was too risky, and they're now taking the fall for it.
Dude, you should stop while your ahead.... Why the hell do you think I said AMD is in the best position they have ever been in? Do you deny it?