News AMD reports $197 million loss for Q3 2015

My operating systems are all multithreaded. Each process it runs is going to be on a different thread.

 

Its not tech people AMD need to prove there worth too. No matter how many Cores or how good there products might be.

The casual consumer sees Intel as the better CPU and Nvidia as the better GPU. These are harsh facts to get away from. They do not care if its called Zen Skylake Ivybridge or whatever they ask very basic questions.

Along with been super mislead by most pc stores. Ive saw Pcs advertised as having 1tb of ram in them. When in reality it was a 1tb Hard drive. Or a nvidia 950 gpu classed as high end gpu.

Theres a reason Apple sells alot of Macs they are pretty simple to understand.

AMD need to get better at marketing there products and have needed to do this for 3-5 years now. Theres nothing really wrong with the FX series chips for a general usage or Gaming pc. But how many people actually know that.

How many people actually know the Nvidia 770 is a last gen product same with AMDs series of gpus.

Tech forums like this are where AMD still makes the cash it makes. The lack of the brand in Dell / Lenova / HP. The big 3 volume buyers who are basically where Intel makes the money in the consumer sector of computing. ( its not us thats for sure theres not enough Tech geeks who upgrade every cpu cycle to make the cash they bring in)

 

Yea sorry I perhaps over simplified the single/multi core thing and was mainly referring to the Windows ecosystem (not the OS), who IMO have been terribly slow in taking advantage of multi core CPUs.

But not all threads are run on different processors/cores, unless I'm having a brain burp most software running on Windows (IDK enough about Linux) runs on a single core all be it with multiple threads.

 

My emphasis because for some reason i have the impression of Windows doing a god awful job when it comes to what you describe, it seems most threads end up either working on the same core or the software responsible for those threads not using all cores equally.

Is that going back to my assumption that most software doesn't take full advantage of a multi-core system, or that the majority of software is single threaded so all gets dumped on a single core (with Windows that normally seems like the 1st)

 

Linux won't save AMD. Nor will the hope that software finally uses more threads. People have said it for years.

AMD need a buyout but even that has its issues. The x86 licence will be very tricky.

Posts in the financial section have suggested AMD have till end of 2016 to turn a profit or face bankruptcy. Good luck to them we can all hope for it but honestly can't see it.

Hope I am wrong.

 

Finally someone asking the real questions

 

Maybe more a misunderstanding than confusion, i understand how programs spawn threads and everything you describe, what I'm saying is that either Windows or the programs themselves do a P poor job at distributing those threads, and/or the workload evenly between all cores.

That's not to say it doesn't schedule threads to work on other cores, just that from my experience when using your average Windows system i tend to find one core hitting 70-80% while the others hover around 10-30%

Maybe I'm just not taxing the system enough to warrant higher usage on the other cores but that goes back to what i originally said, that he majority of software doesn't use (need) more than a single core and that probably is never going to change as it's just not worth the investment (time, money).

But getting back on topic a little more: Higher core counts won't save AMD as rollo rightly pointed out Intel would just match AMD by launching it's own 6-8 core CPU, releasing a CPU that's matches or even worse is slower than Intel won't save AMD either, they need to be able to say buy our more expensive CPU because it's faster, draws less power, has better graphics, they need to release a CPU that commands a premium price with premium profit margins. (IMHO)

 

Yea i know i can max out all cores if i wanted to, what I've been referring to are the majorities, averages, normal usage scenarios, in those cases i still think people would be better served by a higher IPC than more cores.

Yes the majority of software also can't benefit from processors faster than about 1GHz, or more RAM than about a gigabyte, but i would suggest the edge cases where more RAM and a faster CPU would be noticeable are more frequent than more cores. I.E average users see, feel, notice higher IPC than having more cores.

Re getting back OT: Yes AMD would be better served by getting their product in to the mainstream (OEM or ODM) but wouldn't coming to market with a CPU that has higher performance and/or lower power draw, better graphics, create demand in those markets?

Would Dell et al really turn their nose up at a CPU that was better (higher performance, lower power draw, better graphics) than the Intel equivalent?

 

They have no assets left. Recently got $300+M for sell off of packaging tech investment and more staff cull iirc.

They have 4 quarters to survive before Zen, and even that will require a ramp into 2017.

 

Obviously neither of us knows the future but i want to remain positive.

I'm hoping that we wouldn't see a repeat of past illegal anticompetitive practices, i hope that if AMD does come to market with a better product that they'll sees their losses turn in to gains, maybe I'm being naive or stupid but I want to believe.

EDIT Re average user not noticing: That's why i defined better as higher performance, lower power draw, better graphics, if AMD comes to market with a CPU that draws less power for the same IPC then yes i think tablet users would see the benefit, if that same CPU could be scaled up to something that beats Intel's high end offering, if that same CPU can be used in a device where previously you would need a discrete GPU but now you can do away with adding a GPU.

That's what AMD needs Zen to do IMHO.

 

I know the future. Zen will be generationally behind intel at higher power consumption and a cheaper price.

 

Well at some stage even creative accountancy can't fight/defeat the truth. AMD as a company is pretty much in the wilderness right now. And what even more depressing is that this trend will accelerate in the next few years. Unless they finally decide to off-load ATI and focus on CPUs there is no hope in hell that AMD will be with us in 10 years time.

Problem of AMD is that they often create great things and present spectacular ideas to the world of broadly understood IT. Unfortunately they can't: 1. match financial muscles of Intel or nVidia and 2. they rarely do realistic things. APU is perfect example. While technically its great, realistically nobody cares about APU in desktop PC market. Here performance is absolutely paramount and who cares about internal GPU (except troubleshooting motherboard).

Mobile market won't save AMD either. Power efficiency&performance of competitors is light years ahead.

 

intel have nearly 50% of the market share for GPU......

 

Not all about speed though hence occupying Nvidia 85% of the GPU market.