[bloomberg] AMD Falls After Reporting Unexpected Quarterly Sales Drop - Page 10

The big issue with the 8 core FX chips is that the power consumption especially when overclocked is so bad that even at a reduced price they are a tough sell. Obviously this is a personal opinion but if PC was more in line with Intel's offerings I could see myself considering on of their chips on a secondary build. As it is the PC makes them a complete no go for me.

The basis of all chips we have now are back then.....It is common knowledge that the CPU's of now are faster ones of then..though be it they are highly tweaked and modernised. But to say that the intel CPU's and AMD aren't recycled is making yourself look just as ignorant.

Intel when they did bring out P4, and what a fail that was had to go back to the PIII design and highly tool that and that was the basis of the core tech.....

Intel revolutionized personal computing. It's obvious you clearly don't know your history. Maybe you should stop getting your news from AMDplanet.com?

And everyone talks about this proof that websites are taking kickbacks from Intel to skew results. Where is it? You have the proof but you don't know what it is.
Edited by Clairvoyant129 - 7/11/12 at 9:17am

the issue here for amd is this,they cant just say we re better then intel etc!user need to be able to apply this,we all know for exemple gamer stream while they game while they skype while they facebook etc!this is where gamer are .we also know wich software is the number one for streamer be on twitch ,xfire or own3d,they all use the same,if amd truelly have a better solution?why they eck isnt amd showing it off!i dont mean where only reviewer see it!i mean take a game that is very demending stream with amd tool etc by amd on twitch etc announce it ,they dont need to show off to reviewer .gamer are the one that do the word of mouth!if it is truelly awsome trust me amd will be the first to know it !

by going at it the way they do they basicly shoot themselves in the foot!

Right exactly what I said.

I just hate Intel.

the issue is that intel is still recycling older tech but amd went ahead and pioneered a new tech and now because its differenet and doesnt perform the way some people think it should it means its garbage! yes the even mighty IB series still has roots from the old p3 era. but bulldozer is a fresh sheet of paper design from ground up. its not perfect mind you but its good. and its still pretty good value to dollar performance.

Huh? Its still an x86-64, with roots back to the 8086.

Because they have the money to do so. A company with the extraterrestrial amount of money that Intel has cannot fail to deliver. It's just impossible, as they have too much money for failure to be an option.


AMD can design a powerful architecture, but in the end the performance will still be mostly determined by the foundry's process. If Bulldozer was just like it is, but ate 100W under load, we wouldn't call it a failure.

If the P4, even with that terrible IPC, didn't reach high 80s under normal load, nor ate 145W under full load, and instead loaded at mid 50s and ate 50W, we wouldn't have said it failed, and neither would Intel.

If the P4 never had the Athlon64 as a competitor, it probably wouldn't have been thrashed.


Crap happens. It just affects the weaker in a bigger scale.
Edited by Artikbot - 7/11/12 at 12:37pm

There really isn't any evidence-based proof to present because it's not a point up for debate. If you look at the news articles from the introduction of the Core or Core 2, you will find mentioned that it was heavily based on P6. I'm not saying that Nehalem is a Pentium Pro with an IMC strapped to it, but it is the result of improvement piled on improvement that can be traced back to the P6.

This is just simply not true. The ideas behind Bulldozer are solid, and it will likely end up being a good bet in the long-term. That the initial execution/implementation isn't good implies AMD's collapse is absurd. NetBurst is the best example of a new-from-the-ground-up architecture like Bulldozer and it was pretty terrible at first too. But it was improved to be pretty competitive in its lifetime.

Most likely, the engineers decided it was better to take a relatively short-term hit to better the product in the long-term. I don't doubt that AMD could have continued to improve the performance of K10.5, but there are limits. The two big ways of improving performance is to improve single threaded performance or to improve scaling. Improving single threaded performance requires logic to reorder instructions to execute in the most efficient way possible and extract instruction-level parallelism. At some point, there is a limit to the amount of ILP you can extract and benefit from and the closer you come to this limit the greater the diminishing return on improving your reordering logic. In other words, the faster your single threaded performance gets, the more expensive / time consuming / difficult it is to continue improving it. AMD was probably getting to the point where K10.5 was beginning to suffer from these diminishing returns.

Nobody is just recycling old tech. It's an extremely expensive and time consuming process to create a brand new architecture. It's faster, easier, and more cost efficient to take proven designs and improve them / remove bottlenecks. It's not like Intel just took the Pentium Pro, slapped an IMC to it and dubbed it i7. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to independently look at a p3 and an i7 and determine they have a shared ancestry.

Except AMD is responsible for introducing 64-bit and multicore to the consumer desktop, things we take for granted today.

x86-64 is an instruction set, not an architecture (though it is commonly called that).