1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hardware Is 2016 a make or break year for AMD?

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Combatus, 23 Jul 2015.

  1. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    Sorry I assumed as what you said was a new sentence that it was a single statement separate from the others, my apologies.
     
    Last edited: 27 Jul 2015
  2. ZeDestructor

    ZeDestructor Minimodder

    Joined:
    24 Feb 2010
    Posts:
    226
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'm in the other camp: if Zen can just come close enough to Intel in terms of perf/W, and scale the core counts high enough, the server market will pick them right up, if only to keep AMD in business. The problem so far has been that AMD has lagged SNB-EP since the beginning, and it's only gotten worse as Intel shrunk and increased core counts, while AMD did nothing.
     
  3. Snips

    Snips I can do dat, giz a job

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    1,940
    Likes Received:
    66
    "Consistently over promise but consistently under deliver"

    Unfortunately, the tag line for AMD for the last 10 years. No more "if's" "but's" or "maybe's" just truthfully market the products to the market place intended and stop pitching every architecture release as the second coming.

    Personally, I'd like to see the company broken up and each division ran independently of each other. Far too much has been wasted on fruitless projects and releases that have never made the company a dime. The better divisions will obviously survive but the dross regardless of whether they have merit will close. When the collective divisions are back in the black and profitable, maybe then explore the less in demand projects.

    People are kidding themselves if they regard AMD as competition to Intel/Nvidia. That ended many moons ago and no amount of "if's" "but's" and "maybe's" will get it back to a position to challenge the big dogs any time soon.
     
  4. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    I agree that there isn't much competition against intel, but AMD is very competitive against nvidia. Power consumption might not be perfect but they otherwise perform pretty close. Nvidia does have a better overall product but you pay more for that. In fact when you consider all the rebrands AMD is doing, that shows how well their architecture ages. I'm not saying they should be doing this - I'm very disappointed with the latest series. But saying there's no competition is ridiculous.
     
  5. rollo

    rollo Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,887
    Likes Received:
    131
    ATI were more competitive pre Merger some would argue they lead the market on performance at the time. I'd say even pre the Nvidia 580 they were still the best option. ( personally had a 6990) the launch of the 680 give Nvidia a lead that has never really been closed down. Nvidia are basically 3-6 months faster to market at the moment.

    If Fury had launched when the 980ti was not released it would of been reviewed a lot differently than it was. The problem was it took a lot longer than it should of done and that has cost them both Market share and Good PR.

    Imagine the review if it had been no 980ti. It would of effectively took the performance crown from Nvidia as the only competition it would of had was a overpriced Titan. ( which would of been another £300 extra) instead the 980ti has its lead and Nvidia simply dropped prices.

    Zen in q4 2016 assume that's the year I hope. Is still likely going to be after Intels next gen chips have launched, once again AMD will be left to play catch up.

    AMD should be pushing ZEN out of the door for a q2 release instead of q4.
     
  6. Snips

    Snips I can do dat, giz a job

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    1,940
    Likes Received:
    66
    Unfortunately, the "best bang for buck" (a term consistently thrown in any debate containing AMD) isn't what we are here for. This very site and it's sister magazine will have an Intel/Nvidia combo in most if not all build recommendations on a consistent basis. Occasionally, an AMD product would creep in at either end of the scale but it quickly gets replaced by a better product offering from Intel or Nvidia.

    It is a crying shame but AMD may not be around long enough to survive 2016, some analysts are predicting. They aren't looking at it as enthusiasts, they are looking at it from a market viability point of view.

    A break up maybe the only solution for it to survive in at least some fashion.
     
  7. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    I agree entirely, though, I don't think Intel's next gen chips will be a direct response to anything AMD makes. At this point intel is just chugging along as though AMD doesn't exist - even if AMD manages to make something that outperforms the average i7 (which I doubt they will) I still don't think Intel will really care.


    @snips
    It's not even about bang for buck. Look at the Fury benchmarks against the GTX 980 - they're almost head-to-head. AMD is a significantly cheaper option, but it's also noticeably more power consuming. In the end, one option isn't necessarily better than the other.
     
  8. ZeDestructor

    ZeDestructor Minimodder

    Joined:
    24 Feb 2010
    Posts:
    226
    Likes Received:
    4
    short memories....

    When NetBurst still ruled the roost, bit-tech and CPC both recommended the Athlon64/Athlon64 X2 for all higher-end builds, and Semprons and Athlon XPs for for budget-friendly builds. At the same time, in the server segment, you either ran AMD Opteron or paid 50-100% more in terms of power and cooling costs to run Intel. Or you have the case of the radeon HD 4000 vs GTX 200, or the HD5000/6000 vs GTX 400/500.

    Fact is, since Conroe came around Intel hasn't let that performance crown go, and AMD, through a combination of some poor bets (not improving FPUs (particularly notable on Bulldozer) on CPU based on the assumption of GPU offloads), generally pathetic API (CUDA just completely and utterly dominated the market until OpenCL 1.2 came around and go implemented on Nvidia hardware.. meanwhile what did AMD peddle? Stream SDK forcing programmers down to assembly-style coding? Pah.) lackluster marketing (very few OEM wins, especially in the higher-end and mobile spaces) and poor driver support (where's my properly good Linux driver?Where's my pile of ISV-certified professional card/driver combos) failed to capture any long term tie-ins, or any mindshare for that matter, leading to loss of marketshare - you can't win if you don't show up with anything good.

    Some of it wasn't AMD's fault - HPC picked up GPUs really rather fast, but the rest of the industry failed to follow, for example, but other stuff like poor Linux support, no popular mobile GPUs, Stream SDK.. those are entirely in AMD's court, and they have reaped what they have sown, for better or worse.

    EDIT:

    @schmidtbag: if Zen is good enough, Intel will simply reshuffle it's core counts a bit to match the AMD chips and carry on carrying on, which is really all that people seem to really want behind the facade they put up of wanting "competition in the market".
     
  9. rollo

    rollo Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,887
    Likes Received:
    131
    We live in the today not 10 years ago.

    AMD have to deliver for today's market. Good enough simply does not apply in servers. They want the best. AMD give up on the 2 highest profit per unit markets no one feels sorry for them. They made a choice it backfired here we are today.

    They have made a few choices that have been questionable. The console deal which has basically consumed all there fab space for the last year. The original merger with ATI which put the company in heavy debt. The sale of there own fab space which they have never truly recovered from.

    The brutal reality of there situation is that they need to find a backer with lots of cash who wants to invest but not buyout AMD. Or they need major win in CPU or gpu. If neither happens they will likely be brought out for gpu patents with the rest of the company scrapped for parts.

    They can not resist a buy out from any big company. Rumours are high that Samsung Via or Apple will make a offer to the shareholders that can't be refused. If the offer comes and is accepted that's it for the x86 licence they would need to redo the terms with Intel and who knows what they will ask for In exchange.

    Intel have relised in the last year that they can state ARM as competition and not worry to much if AMD survives. They have went at there last remaining area where they do have some sales success the budget range.

    Intel basically has no money worrys and even if they did they could sell fab space to Apple for chip production with rumours a deal is already close for the IPhone 7. ( a lot of the rumours come from Apple wanting to leave Samsung and there been no one else who could match there requirements)
     
  10. NethLyn

    NethLyn Minimodder

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    972
    Likes Received:
    19
    As well as cashflow it all comes down to my sig. For gaming there's no contest anymore.

    However for anyone paying the electric bill on their own, AMD APUs able to go below 50-70W just for 2D work, that's a godsend and I'll have to hope I haven't missed out on any K8/K10 if it can truly hit 40-50W, which matches my laptop's charger and old lightbulbs or small LED tellies, basically any other small appliance in a home. AMD haven't pushed the recession-friendly angle to their products as well as they could have, I can see one final big gaming PC down the line but if building it tomorrow I'd get an APU for those mobos under £50.
     
  11. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    Huh? For almost ALL games in existence, a "higher-clocked" i5 (meaning, at least 3.2GHz) is good enough to play them at 60FPS. AMD has products that can compete with i5, albeit, with a heavy power envelope.

    AMD does have APUs that are under 50W. They're not impressive by any means, but they're "good enough" depending on your workload. I'm currently using an ARM-based system, and my work PC involves a Core2 Duo, so you can get a lot done on these weak systems.
    Anyway personally, I've never recommended AMD for laptops. They're decent for gaming laptops, but I also always advise against gaming laptops.
     
  12. Ahadihunter1

    Ahadihunter1 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    30 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    for christ sake shizo, do you even reason?
    Factual intelligence is different from personal perspectives or opinions.
    your entire statements are entirely opinions. The fact is, that even if AMD are not catching up great; they leaving the market is bad for ALL consumers. We mean ALL.

    Lets face it, Intel is a cooperate money business, theres nothing at all they would risk to actually move mankind forward.

    sent from my Samsung Galaxy 2
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page