What's the AMD stratagy for i5?

[diogo]

What are you talking about? There would always be different CPUs for different markets, despite AMD's survival or death.

Certain people can only afford certain things. Intel, even without an AMD competing, would be still producing high end CPUS, mid range, CPUs and low end CPUs.

Again, competition brings down prices, but, there is a topend to what the market will pay. You act as if AMD is actually a serious competitor to Intel. I've got news for you, they aren't and they haven't been quite some time.

Again, so much fanboyism trying to disguise itself as actual market analysis.

So you think intel has a number of loss leader products because they want to be nice? Not to mention dumping so many processors below cost in the market that it was fined both in Korea and the EU for violation of "competitive practices." And all of this in a scenario where AMD marketshare both domestically and internationally in Q1 2009. Want it or not, it is still a significant player in the OEM cpu business, and as small as it might be, I guarantee that intel has an interest in it's 1.2 billion quarterly revenue.

Now, personally I couldn't care less if AMD does well or does poorly, if it is replaced by VIA or whatever. I do like competition, though. And I am by the lengths that people will go to prop up intel as a "nice" company, ignoring all common sense and even basic market logics. The topend to what a market will pay is directly related to the prices of the competitors.

 

[crackbone]

Again, so much fanboyism trying to disguise itself as actual market analysis.

So you think intel has a number of loss leader products because they want to be nice? Not to mention dumping so many processors below cost in the market that it was fined both in Korea and the EU for violation of "competitive practices." And all of this in a scenario where AMD marketshare both domestically and internationally in Q1 2009. Want it or not, it is still a significant player in the OEM cpu business, and as small as it might be, I guarantee that intel has an interest in it's 1.2 billion quarterly revenue.

Now, personally I couldn't care less if AMD does well or does poorly, if it is replaced by VIA or whatever. I do like competition, though. And I am by the lengths that people will go to prop up intel as a "nice" company, ignoring all common sense and even basic market logics. The topend to what a market will pay is directly related to the prices of the competitors.

Again, where did I say I wasn't for competition?

And I really dislike the "fanboy" description, as I've owned top end AMD and Intel products over the last 30 years of being in the PC world.

But this doesn't change the fact that AMD is not a serious competitor to Intel. AMD disappearing would have little or no price impact on current Intel offerings. I'm not saying Intel is nice, and based on your description and tone of your arguments to suggest they aren't, I'd say there's a hint of negative bias in yours.

My problem is, you act as if AMD is a serious competitor. They aren't. They aren't even competition. If Intel wanted that business, believe me, they could have it @ a snap of a finger. Of course, what's really happening here is, Intel is allowing AMD to fight over the scrap, you know, the low margin business.

Personally, I don't care who produces what, AMD or Intel. What I do know is that AMD hasn't had a compelling product offering in quite some time. I also know that the i5 is going to put more pressure on AMD to lower prices, again, and cut into their share.

AMD isn't going to get back on the map until they come out with a compelling product line. Nehalem kills them on the top end, and now, it's going to kill them again in the mid range. AMD's ability to maneuver in the market is going to become quite a bit more limited when i5 launches.

 

[Mark Larson]

My problem is, you act as if AMD is a serious competitor. They aren't. They aren't even competition. If Intel wanted that business, believe me, they could have it @ a snap of a finger. Of course, what's really happening here is, Intel is allowing AMD to fight over the scrap, you know, the low margin business.

LOL.

 

[Yossarian22]

My problem is, you act as if AMD is a serious competitor. They aren't. They aren't even competition. If Intel wanted that business, believe me, they could have it @ a snap of a finger. Of course, what's really happening here is, Intel is allowing AMD to fight over the scrap, you know, the low margin business.

Yeah. Instead of Intel "having that business at the snap of a finger" they're going to be the benevolent rulers of CPU design and "let them have the scraps" just because they're really nice guys. That totally makes sense and Intel are such nice guys!

I just love it when my favorite CPU manufacturer is like a benevolent God, don't you?

Besides mundane speculation about the business portion (which pretty much everyone is talking out of their ass), again, what about the technical side of things, desktop side? AMD is very quiet about their desktop plans (or perhaps they don't have one) yet Intel's roadmaps are and have always been public knowledge.

 

[doxology]

Again, where did I say I wasn't for competition?

And I really dislike the "fanboy" description, as I've owned top end AMD and Intel products over the last 30 years of being in the PC world.

But this doesn't change the fact that AMD is not a serious competitor to Intel. AMD disappearing would have little or no price impact on current Intel offerings. I'm not saying Intel is nice, and based on your description and tone of your arguments to suggest they aren't, I'd say there's a hint of negative bias in yours.

My problem is, you act as if AMD is a serious competitor. They aren't. They aren't even competition. If Intel wanted that business, believe me, they could have it @ a snap of a finger. Of course, what's really happening here is, Intel is allowing AMD to fight over the scrap, you know, the low margin business.

Personally, I don't care who produces what, AMD or Intel. What I do know is that AMD hasn't had a compelling product offering in quite some time. I also know that the i5 is going to put more pressure on AMD to lower prices, again, and cut into their share.

AMD isn't going to get back on the map until they come out with a compelling product line. Nehalem kills them on the top end, and now, it's going to kill them again in the mid range. AMD's ability to maneuver in the market is going to become quite a bit more limited when i5 launches.

i put this link up earlier but no one seemed to pay attention. core i7 against the Phenom II line is very comparable for gaming. And lets be honest most people buying desktop processors are going to be using them for gaming or a media pc. If they need something on more of a professional level they aren't going to be looking at desktop cpu's. I would much rather buy a decent Phenom II and save the money and buy an extra video card to go crossfire or sli. and because of the reduced threads in the core i5 cpu's I think the phenom II cpu's will be able to keep up against them fine even for the money and the less expensive platform the core i5's will bring.

here is the link. http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=794&page=13

 

[black0ut]

Yeah. Instead of Intel "having that business at the snap of a finger" they're going to be the benevolent rulers of CPU design and "let them have the scraps" just because they're really nice guys. That totally makes sense and Intel are such nice guys!

I just love it when my favorite CPU manufacturer is like a benevolent God, don't you?

Besides mundane speculation about the business portion (which pretty much everyone is talking out of their ass), again, what about the technical side of things, desktop side? AMD is very quiet about their desktop plans (or perhaps they don't have one) yet Intel's roadmaps are and have always been public knowledge.

If you look at total market cap numbers (or R/D budgets, or marketing budgets, or gross profits, etc.), AMD really is close to nothing to Intel. Your idiotic sarcasm does not help your position either.

Intel is really just keeping AMD alive at this point for its own benefit, to give the illusion that the CPU field is an oligopoly. This allows Intel to avoid being painted as a monopoly, and the corresponding fines as well. Also, any R/D Intel makes can be inflated by comparing against the smaller gains posted by the less funded AMD R/D, which lets Intel decrease R/D spending. There's probably more reasons, but the monopoly reason is the biggest.

I don't feel like googling current roadmaps, but both Intel and AMD roadmaps have been equally available in the past (s775 and 939), so I don't know where you got that idea from.

... And lets be honest most people buying desktop processors are going to be using them for gaming or a media pc. If they need something on more of a professional level they aren't going to be looking at desktop cpu's. ...

I happen to use my pc for numerical simulations for research (simulating molecular interactions). We have a cluster available, but it's not necessarily faster, and there's usually a long queue for it.

Also, media PCs usually involve ripping/reencoding of some sort, which is generally computationally intensive. I was under the impression i7 trounces PhenomII for that.

 

[Mark Larson]

Intel is really just keeping AMD alive at this point for its own benefit, to give the illusion that the CPU field is an oligopoly. This allows Intel to avoid being painted as a monopoly, and the corresponding fines as well.

Two questions:

How exactly is Intel keeping AMD alive - is it buying up AMD stock or injecting money into AMD?

What fines?

Also, any R/D Intel makes can be inflated by comparing against the smaller gains posted by the less funded AMD R/D, which lets Intel decrease R/D spending. There's probably more reasons, but the monopoly reason is the biggest.

I don't even know what you're talking about here.

 

[diogo]

Again, where did I say I wasn't for competition?

And I really dislike the "fanboy" description, as I've owned top end AMD and Intel products over the last 30 years of being in the PC world.

But this doesn't change the fact that AMD is not a serious competitor to Intel. AMD disappearing would have little or no price impact on current Intel offerings. I'm not saying Intel is nice, and based on your description and tone of your arguments to suggest they aren't, I'd say there's a hint of negative bias in yours.

My problem is, you act as if AMD is a serious competitor. They aren't. They aren't even competition. If Intel wanted that business, believe me, they could have it @ a snap of a finger. Of course, what's really happening here is, Intel is allowing AMD to fight over the scrap, you know, the low margin business.

Personally, I don't care who produces what, AMD or Intel. What I do know is that AMD hasn't had a compelling product offering in quite some time. I also know that the i5 is going to put more pressure on AMD to lower prices, again, and cut into their share.

AMD isn't going to get back on the map until they come out with a compelling product line. Nehalem kills them on the top end, and now, it's going to kill them again in the mid range. AMD's ability to maneuver in the market is going to become quite a bit more limited when i5 launches.

Again, you have no clue about how the market works. And the point is not whether intel is nice, or, in what you call my anti-intel bias, not nice. The point is that they are a business, they have shareholders and they have responsibilities towards their share holders, so "being nice" is irrelevant. Their goal is and will always be to maximize dividends and market share.

Your view of the CPU market is shaped by your role as an enthusiast. Market competition doesn't happen based on benchmarks.

And I love the part about intel "letting" AMD have anything, even as they are fined around the world for being extra aggressive specially at the segments AMD is competitive...

 

[diogo]

If you look at total market cap numbers (or R/D budgets, or marketing budgets, or gross profits, etc.), AMD really is close to nothing to Intel. Your idiotic sarcasm does not help your position either.

Intel is really just keeping AMD alive at this point for its own benefit, to give the illusion that the CPU field is an oligopoly. This allows Intel to avoid being painted as a monopoly, and the corresponding fines as well. Also, any R/D Intel makes can be inflated by comparing against the smaller gains posted by the less funded AMD R/D, which lets Intel decrease R/D spending. There's probably more reasons, but the monopoly reason is the biggest.

I don't feel like googling current roadmaps, but both Intel and AMD roadmaps have been equally available in the past (s775 and 939), so I don't know where you got that idea from.



I happen to use my pc for numerical simulations for research (simulating molecular interactions). We have a cluster available, but it's not necessarily faster, and there's usually a long queue for it.

Also, media PCs usually involve ripping/reencoding of some sort, which is generally computationally intensive. I was under the impression i7 trounces PhenomII for that.

Nonsense. The idea that the market is driven by benchmarks at the cutting edge of cpus is naive at best.

And regulation of competition is not done based on how many companies there are in a market, but the practices of each company. The idea that intel is letting amd hang around because otherwise it would be regulated as a monopoly is false.

In fact, intel has been fined, as I mentioned before, precisely because it has been doing some dumping around the world in an attempt to get rid of AMD.

 

[doxology]

I happen to use my pc for numerical simulations for research (simulating molecular interactions). We have a cluster available, but it's not necessarily faster, and there's usually a long queue for it.

Also, media PCs usually involve ripping/reencoding of some sort, which is generally computationally intensive. I was under the impression i7 trounces PhenomII for that.

sure the i7 is faster at encoding and re-encoding. I wouldn't say it trounces the Phenom II though. Also most core i7 benchmarks are done using a triple channel setup making price go up a decent amount. Thats why I think the Phenom II will do very well against the core i5, the core i5 will use dual channel setups and only has 4 threads instead of 8 like the core i7. I personally would rather use the money, like I said, on an extra video card. And personally if its not something I am making money on I can wait a few more seconds to decode or re-encode something. And its not as if it takes longer to watch media or listen to music if I have and amd cpu instead of an intel core i7.

 

[Yossarian22]

If you look at total market cap numbers (or R/D budgets, or marketing budgets, or gross profits, etc.), AMD really is close to nothing to Intel. Your idiotic sarcasm does not help your position either.

#1: I never compared AMD to Intel, it just laudable (in the sarcastic sort of way) to think that Intel is "keeping AMD floating" because they're such nice chaps, like a benevolent big brother or deity. Uhh, no, they're competing businesses, there is no reason to help them last time I checked.

Intel is really just keeping AMD alive at this point for its own benefit, to give the illusion that the CPU field is an oligopoly. This allows Intel to avoid being painted as a monopoly, and the corresponding fines as well...

#2 Fines for what? Anti-trust law? A little late for that. Don't think it won't happen again, either. There is little benefit for AMD to be in business for Intel.

I don't feel like googling current roadmaps, but both Intel and AMD roadmaps have been equally available in the past (s775 and 939), so I don't know where you got that idea from.

#3 I decided to take you up on your offer, Bruno, and I did a few minutes of googling yet, I could not find any 2010-2011 AMD roadmap information regarding the desktop segment. Only hints that Globalfoundaries are going to attempt to gear to 32nm for early 2011. Also, there is this thread with droves of speculators. That to me is a hint that there is no roadmap and not many people are exactly privy (even AMD investors themselves) what they're planning to do next.

...Also, media PCs usually involve ripping/reencoding of some sort, which is generally computationally intensive. I was under the impression i7 trounces PhenomII for that.

#4 I'm not an AMD fanboy and nobody has disputed that i7 or Nehalem is faster than Deneb. Of course you know that, HardOCP benchmarks as well as other sites have confirmed this; Otherwise why would there be a thread titled roughly "What the hell is AMD doing?"

tl;dr, the five replies above this one sum everything up quite nicely.

...

Back on topic, 2010 looks like a quiet year for AMD's desktop segment.

 

[Zachstar]

I have just got to laugh at just how varied the fanboyism for Intel is. Now its Intel as a nice guy who keeps AMD alive just to keep the fines away.

Intel is doing NOTHING of the sort. Core I5 is proving that they want to go for the throat. AMD was a pain in their ass during the recession and they seek more of AMDs market by letting loose i5.

 

[black0ut]

Nonsense. The idea that the market is driven by benchmarks at the cutting edge of cpus is naive at best.

I never said anything about the cutting edge. It's very obvious from a business standpoint that if AMD didn't exist, Intel would have very little incentive to offer any new technology, whether it be better performance or better performance/price ratio. AMD's offerings can be taken as the status quo, and used to exaggerate Intel's tech, so that Intel does less work for more PR. This was just a hypothetical marketing reason, and was a pretty much an afterthought, so it's not exactly the most sound argument.

And regulation of competition is not done based on how many companies there are in a market, but the practices of each company. The idea that intel is letting amd hang around because otherwise it would be regulated as a monopoly is false.

In fact, intel has been fined, as I mentioned before, precisely because it has been doing some dumping around the world in an attempt to get rid of AMD.

Yea, I worded that badly (and damn did you guys jump on that). I meant that Intel is being forced to let AMD live, in a sort of self-preserving way (i.e. letting AMD live so it doesn't get the big govt smackdown). I know Intel has been fined before, but nothing like anti-trust actions seen in the past, like Ma Bell.

#3 I decided to take you up on your offer, Bruno, and I did a few minutes of googling yet, I could not find any 2010-2011 AMD roadmap information regarding the desktop segment. Only hints that Globalfoundaries are going to attempt to gear to 32nm for early 2011. Also, there is this thread with droves of speculators. That to me is a hint that there is no roadmap and not many people are exactly privy (even AMD investors themselves) what they're planning to do next.

Sorry, your original post came off like saying AMD has been secretive in the past, whereas Intel has always been public. Again, I wasn't talking about current roadmaps.

#4 I'm not an AMD fanboy and nobody has disputed that i7 or Nehalem is faster than Deneb. Of course you know that, HardOCP benchmarks as well as other sites have confirmed this; Otherwise why would there be a thread titled roughly "What the hell is AMD doing?"

Maybe you should've read what I quoted? I was refuting his point that "normal" use wouldn't require i7.

/derail over

I wish AMD would get back in the game. Outside of Intel shooting itself in the foot with the strong 920, it's likely that the price/performance curve is gonna be a lot steeper than before if AMD doesn't offer something in the midrange.

 

[vjcsmoke]

I have just got to laugh at just how varied the fanboyism for Intel is. Now its Intel as a nice guy who keeps AMD alive just to keep the fines away.

Intel is doing NOTHING of the sort. Core I5 is proving that they want to go for the throat. AMD was a pain in their ass during the recession and they seek more of AMDs market by letting loose i5.

True. Intel is no 'gentle giant'. The i5 is an aggressive entry into the mainstream market that could well steal even more marketshare from AMD's pie. AMD needs to release something to combat i5 even if they don't intend to compete with i7. Otherwise they are going to be in trouble.

 

[Zachstar]

True. Intel is no 'gentle giant'. The i5 is an aggressive entry into the mainstream market that could well steal even more marketshare from AMD's pie. AMD needs to release something to combat i5 even if they don't intend to compete with i7. Otherwise they are going to be in trouble.

The only thing AMD has coming up that we know of is L3 less Athlon X3s and X4s that were delayed for more than a few months. So they have to make the prices even lower tho they do have the advantage of nice low power draw.

Oh and the 20W single core that will only sell if it can do hulu 480.

 

[diogo]

Yea, I worded that badly (and damn did you guys jump on that). I meant that Intel is being forced to let AMD live, in a sort of self-preserving way (i.e. letting AMD live so it doesn't get the big govt smackdown). I know Intel has been fined before, but nothing like anti-trust actions seen in the past, like Ma Bell.

No, they are not being forced to let AMD live. In fact, they have been going for AMD's throat for a while now, even being fined quite aggressively. In fact, they received the largest fine in EU's history for monopoly violations. And they are appealing it and trying to keep the same practice going. And in the US, where the regulation is a lot more lax, they've been more aggressive, if anything.

If you look at the latest marketshare reports, AMD gained a lot of the market in Q1, and intel responded by dropping prices very aggressively in Q2 to regain market share and bump AMD back to the 18% range it had Q4 2008. This sort of aggressive competition means that we all, as consumers, win. The problem is what will happen if/when AMD is not around...

 

[Zachstar]

Or worse if AMD is around but so far back that Intel has the excuse to keep existing prices high for much longer.

Intel is going to hit 32nm soon. AMD is atleast another year away if not longer. My guess is during that time 32nm parts are going to remain at their start prices for months maybe quarters. There will be nothing to counter them and Intel still has plenty of 45nm stuff to make the bread money.

AMDs only way out at this point is cheap effective 6 cores including even an Athlon or two of it. And even more options between the current 45nm line. And if you ask me a well designed single core added to the mix couldnt hurt (Not a disabled regor) However even then it will just gain them a little reprieve from the massive losses i5 will entail.

 

[doxology]

Or worse if AMD is around but so far back that Intel has the excuse to keep existing prices high for much longer.

Intel is going to hit 32nm soon. AMD is atleast another year away if not longer. My guess is during that time 32nm parts are going to remain at their start prices for months maybe quarters. There will be nothing to counter them and Intel still has plenty of 45nm stuff to make the bread money.

AMDs only way out at this point is cheap effective 6 cores including even an Athlon or two of it. And even more options between the current 45nm line. And if you ask me a well designed single core added to the mix couldnt hurt (Not a disabled regor) However even then it will just gain them a little reprieve from the massive losses i5 will entail.

googling intels roadmap makes it appear that intel will be going to 32nm but it appears that its only going to 32nm for dual cores and it looks to stay that way a while based on the roadmaps I saw. so it looks like AMD should be able to stay competitive especially considering the quads from amd and intel will both be on 45nm, even once the 32nm dual cores come out.

considering the Phenom II's are competitive with the core i7 I think the Phenom II's are looking good against the core i5. especially like i said the core i5 is only going to do dual channel memory instead of triple channel and the quad core i5's only have 4 threads instead of 8 like the core i7 quads. And for the price amd right now seems to be sitting prett, maybe not clock for clock as fast as intel but clock for money is better, and amd thinks they can hit the 4.0Ghz marks with the phenom II's based on some leaked stuff online.

 

[Mark Larson]

Haven't you guys heard? Intel is only releasing Core i7 and Core i5 at these low prices because it looooves AMD and us?

 

[Zachstar]

googling intels roadmap makes it appear that intel will be going to 32nm but it appears that its only going to 32nm for dual cores and it looks to stay that way a while based on the roadmaps I saw. so it looks like AMD should be able to stay competitive especially considering the quads from amd and intel will both be on 45nm, even once the 32nm dual cores come out.

considering the Phenom II's are competitive with the core i7 I think the Phenom II's are looking good against the core i5. especially like i said the core i5 is only going to do dual channel memory instead of triple channel and the quad core i5's only have 4 threads instead of 8 like the core i7 quads. And for the price amd right now seems to be sitting prett, maybe not clock for clock as fast as intel but clock for money is better, and amd thinks they can hit the 4.0Ghz marks with the phenom II's based on some leaked stuff online.

AMD is already at 140W with their highest offering. Going to 4.0 without some serious issues is going to be difficult.

Core i5 may have less threads but it will be dominating wihen it comes to sales because core series looks "Good" to the fanboys and the manufactures hoping to make some sells based on the rage over i7. There is no sugar coating it. i5 is going to take some serious sales away from AMD. And as AMD seems to have trouble getting out x3 and x4 athlons (They ought to have been selling months ago) AMD is in trouble.

 

[vjcsmoke]

How in the world is a Phenom II competitive with i7?
Is it cheaper? Yes.
Does it perform better or 95% as good? Nope.

Phenom IIs are competitive with Core 2 quads, but they are not in the neighborhood of i7s or they'd be priced to match.
When i5s come in and blow the door off Core 2 quads and Phenom IIs, AMD better be ready with a Phenom III or better processor to compete.

 

[doxology]

AMD is already at 140W with their highest offering. Going to 4.0 without some serious issues is going to be difficult.

Core i5 may have less threads but it will be dominating wihen it comes to sales because core series looks "Good" to the fanboys and the manufactures hoping to make some sells based on the rage over i7. There is no sugar coating it. i5 is going to take some serious sales away from AMD. And as AMD seems to have trouble getting out x3 and x4 athlons (They ought to have been selling months ago) AMD is in trouble.

yeah but amd is working on tdp. there is already a 125W version of the most powerful amd quad, and they are starting to release 95W versions of some of the other higher end quads.

Sure the intel processors are better for different things but for gaming i7 hasn't been as good as people where hoping. this is information benchmarks have shown since the beginning. big improvement over the previous stuff except gaming. i5 isn't going to blow the doors off anything in gaming. alot of pc enthusiasts primary concern is gaming. like i said phenom II versus i7 isn't a huge difference, except price. mainly because of the motherboards and triple channel memory. and for gaming i can use that extra cash for a second gpu and my amd rig will blow the door off the intel i7 setups that are running a single gpu but cost the same amount as the amd setup.

i am not arguing anything but gaming. thats all i care about. thats all most care about. if i want stuff to do other stuff i will buy a 6 core cpu from intel or amd or something even more extreme if i need it on a professional level. thats all i am saying. intel i7 versus Phenom II in gaming is not a big difference.

 

[Impulse]

Frankly, AMD better rev up it's mobile strategy where aggressive pricing can overcome any performance deficiencies... And where they've been lacking lately. Because from the looks of it they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell on any market segment on the desktop once i5 is out, Intel's parts are gonna be substantially faster at any price level. Far as I know laptop sales have long overtaken desktops anyway, despite how jazzed up we enthusiasts still get over our desktop systems and new video cards.

 

[funkydmunky]

How in the world is a Phenom II competitive with i7?
Is it cheaper? Yes.
Does it perform better or 95% as good? Nope.

To ask a dumb ass question, then answer yourself in the very next sentence and not realize it? Wow.

 

[diogo]

Why do people insist on talking about the i7 as if it is the make or break segment of the market?

By intel's own estimations, the i7 are still 1% of it's sales in 2009. 45nm core quads? 8% of sales.

So AMD's problems have nothing to do with being beat at the enthusiast market. Heck, even the desktop market doesnt matter that much anymore. Notebooks surpasses desktops in sales in 2005, and are about 2/3s of the market now.

The reason for AMD's financial struggles, despite recuperating a bit of marketshare this year, is that it can't compete with intel's manufacturing capacity.It's that simple.

 

[BoogerBomb]

For what I do, I see ZERO difference between Phenom II's and i7's. Put one system of each next to each other and ask the average consumer if they see a diffrence and I bet almost all of them wil say no. You could put an i5 and i7 system next to each other and get the same results.

It may be best in benchmarks but benchmarks aren't the end all be all of computing.

 

[reb00tin]

I divided the benchmarks by the price and the winner is....

Phenom II X4 B50

best bang for the buck.... ever

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

 

[Ranari]

Enthusiasts barely even show up on AMD/Intel's radar when it comes to sales, but we probably are the most vocal of their clientel base. AMD's solution to the Core i5 is very important, because anything that was previously Core 2 will now be Core i5 in the viable future. That's everything from enthusiasts to notebooks.

If AMD really wants to compete with Intel, then they need to compete on the netbook/notebook level more competitively. Athlons are fine notebook chips, but their speed and power efficiency is a bit lacking compared to Core2. The only thing they have going for them is vastly stronger bottom-level graphics capabilities, but that's not a CPU thing now is it?

 

[Impulse]

Performance aside, AMD needs to compete on some level... If not with Intel as a whole then at 'least with specific Intel offerings at a certain price level; whether it be on price, performance, power efficiency, whatever. Once i5 is out and the mobile lineup is fully fleshed out, that's no longer gonna be a reality at anymore. 'Least right now laptops w/AMD parts are often cheaper than C2D laptops even if they're a lil' slower or less power efficient, after i5 that gap is gonna balloon while the price difference won't. Enthusiasts and anyone with a clue will quickly drive that point home for the casual consumer, and AMD will suffer.

Hey, I don't want AMD going anywhere, but it's looking very grim imo. They don't have a competitor for the Atom, they don't have a competitor for i5, they certainly can't compete with i7, and C2D/C2Q will only make a very tiny portion of the market after the next 6 months.

 

[sizzlemeister]

Why do people insist on talking about the i7 as if it is the make or break segment of the market?

By intel's own estimations, the i7 are still 1% of it's sales in 2009. 45nm core quads? 8% of sales.

So AMD's problems have nothing to do with being beat at the enthusiast market. Heck, even the desktop market doesnt matter that much anymore. Notebooks surpasses desktops in sales in 2005, and are about 2/3s of the market now.

The reason for AMD's financial struggles, despite recuperating a bit of marketshare this year, is that it can't compete with intel's manufacturing capacity.It's that simple.

Good post. Imagine, then, if AMD can increase its manufacturing output without altering their pricing model; prices for their processors would theoretically drop even further making them HIGHLY competitive despite performance differences (which are slim in the low end).

Also imagine, if you will, that with increased output, AMDs "process" evolves faster (although it's technically not AMD's "process" per se) resulting in refined and revised CPUs coming to market faster. AMD has shown, lately, they are pretty quick to make improvements and take advantage of manufacturing cycles especially when it comes to minor architecture fixes and/or improvements and improving TDP.

The Globalfoundries fab 2 can't get online soon enough! I don't see AMD going down before fab 2 goes online.

 

[maxius]

price drops and 32nm phenoms II's for 2010 and for 2011 see here http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1448119 bulldozer comes on to the field with cluster multithreading does amd need to answer intel no they just need to provide a competitive product at a reasonable cost

 

[singe_101]

Hey, I don't want AMD going anywhere, but it's looking very grim imo. They don't have a competitor for the Atom, they don't have a competitor for i5, they certainly can't compete with i7, and C2D/C2Q will only make a very tiny portion of the market after the next 6 months.

Can you substantiate your claim? Everyone will have i5 notebooks? Most computers are dual-cores on DDR2 and integrated graphics. Actually there are a lot of P4's but they don't really change the direction or anything.

Even with enthusiasts, they'll i5 their HTPC?

And AMD/ATI will be unable to combine processor and GPU technology for a low price? Umm...

 

[diogo]

Performance aside, AMD needs to compete on some level... If not with Intel as a whole then at 'least with specific Intel offerings at a certain price level; whether it be on price, performance, power efficiency, whatever. Once i5 is out and the mobile lineup is fully fleshed out, that's no longer gonna be a reality at anymore. 'Least right now laptops w/AMD parts are often cheaper than C2D laptops even if they're a lil' slower or less power efficient, after i5 that gap is gonna balloon while the price difference won't. Enthusiasts and anyone with a clue will quickly drive that point home for the casual consumer, and AMD will suffer.

Hey, I don't want AMD going anywhere, but it's looking very grim imo. They don't have a competitor for the Atom, they don't have a competitor for i5, they certainly can't compete with i7, and C2D/C2Q will only make a very tiny portion of the market after the next 6 months.

How long have quad cores been out? And yet they don't make up even 10% of intel sales, all models combined.

The idea that i5 and i7 will become the industry standards in 6 months is not based on reality.

 

[Impulse]

I don't see why i5 wouldn't spread rapidly thru notebook offerings... I mean, it's gonna be priced competitively on the desktop and it's gonna be a leap forward in power efficiency when it comes to laptops. You'll have more options when it comes to performance too (stick with i5 dual cores, now with HT, or toss in a quad-core that can shut down individual cores). DDR3 prices have plummeted too.

So yeah, I don't see Intel needing to continue selling the C2D/C2Q for much longer after the i5 is out, and C2D/C2Q is all AMD can currently compete with (in any sense, not just performance). This was the entire point of rolling out i7 first... Maybe it takes a year instead of 6 months, at worst, what's AMD got coming in a year?

 

[BlackTTC6]

I don't see why i5 wouldn't spread rapidly thru notebook offerings... I mean, it's gonna be priced competitively on the desktop and it's gonna be a leap forward in power efficiency when it comes to laptops. You'll have more options when it comes to performance too (stick with i5 dual cores, now with HT, or toss in a quad-core that can shut down individual cores). DDR3 prices have plummeted too.

So yeah, I don't see Intel needing to continue selling the C2D/C2Q for much longer after the i5 is out, and C2D/C2Q is all AMD can currently compete with (in any sense, not just performance). This was the entire point of rolling out i7 first... Maybe it takes a year instead of 6 months, at worst, what's AMD got coming in a year?

I thought the I5 was being released so intel could discontinue the C2Q and the I3 was to replace the C2D? Wish intel would hurry up with those damn I3's

 

[doxology]

I don't see why i5 wouldn't spread rapidly thru notebook offerings... I mean, it's gonna be priced competitively on the desktop and it's gonna be a leap forward in power efficiency when it comes to laptops. You'll have more options when it comes to performance too (stick with i5 dual cores, now with HT, or toss in a quad-core that can shut down individual cores). DDR3 prices have plummeted too.

So yeah, I don't see Intel needing to continue selling the C2D/C2Q for much longer after the i5 is out, and C2D/C2Q is all AMD can currently compete with (in any sense, not just performance). This was the entire point of rolling out i7 first... Maybe it takes a year instead of 6 months, at worst, what's AMD got coming in a year?

well whats the point in a notebook? intel can make more money more than likely selling older tech and at the same time making the fab on the older stuff smaller and decreasing heat and power power. just as amd will be able to move to smaller fab on phenom II's if they wish to make them more power efficient and cooler running. i would guess when amd said they could get phenom II's to 4.0Ghz they probably where saying that based on a 32nm fab rather than a 45nm one. Thats just speculation but i think its probably an accurate one. amd also is alive and kicking in the htpc market where there igp setups are very popular. and ati has made a huge comeback and nvidia had huge issues with faulty gpu's costing them a ton of money and left them kind of vulnerable for a while and amd has seemed to take advantage with the ati cards especially the 4xxx series and it seems ati will be first out with there 5xxx dx11 cards. enthusiasts market is small. sure it gets the press on sites and blogs etc but it doesn't mean the highest end cpu's make up the largest market share.

amd also has there consumer 6 core cpu's slated to come out next year as well. Which is called Thuban and it sounds like it is going to launch possibly along side the 890FX and 890GX. So I think amd will be fine.

 

[Impulse]

Notebooks make up the bulk of sales these days... They generally don't pack in C2Q processors because they run too hot or eat up too much battery power. An i5 can shut down two cores and basically behave like a dual-core on a notebook that's running off battery, not to mention that even as a dual core it has HT and it's much faster clock for clock than a C2D or a C2Q... So there's a lot to gain by transitioning Lynnfield/Clarkdale to the mobile market, much more so than on the desktop possibly (where it's just a budget alternative to i7).

 

[doxology]

Notebooks make up the bulk of sales these days... They generally don't pack in C2Q processors because they run too hot or eat up too much battery power. An i5 can shut down two cores and basically behave like a dual-core on a notebook that's running off battery, not to mention that even as a dual core it has HT and it's much faster clock for clock than a C2D or a C2Q... So there's a lot to gain by transitioning Lynnfield/Clarkdale to the mobile market, much more so than on the desktop possibly (where it's just a budget alternative to i7).

there really is no reason for more powerful cpu's in notebooks unless you are using gpu's that need the extra cpu power. and considering netbooks are taking over that atom is where intel is raking in the money. i don't think we will see a lot of i5's in notebooks. if anything it will probably be the i3 that is popular in notebooks.

 

[Impulse]

Why is there no reason for more powerful CPUs in notebooks unless it's to feed a GPU? There are plenty of people who do a lot of work on their notebook (actual work, not gaming) and they would certainly enjoy a more powerful processor, that's some lousy logic.

Intel isn't raking a ton of cash in over the Atom/netbook trends either, the profit margins for the Atom are minuscule compared to other processors and the only reason Intel entered that market space was so someone else like VIA wouldn't swoop in and take their place... But netbook sales are actually eroding other laptop sales which are much more profitable for Intel, and they (along with MS) have actually tried to discourage netbook manufacturers from pairing the Atom with more powerful GPUs or larger screens in order to curb the whole netbook fad in general.

AFAIK i3 is just a variant of i5, it's just their naming scheme for some future Lynnfield/Clarkdale/whatever parts. There's even gonna be i7 Lynnfields (which most people equate with i5); marketing names are, as usual, rather useless. Clarkdale, with it's integrated GPU, has the potential to be even more efficient and more noteworthy on notebooks too... Frankly I think it's one of the biggest things to happen to processors in a while outside of the enthusiast space.

 

[vjcsmoke]

I think i3 is supposed to replace celerons and low end dual core 2 processors. From what I hear 'Arrendale' is going to have 32nm process and consume very little power which makes it ideal for notebooks.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3513&p=5