Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › What happened to AMD?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What happened to AMD? - Page 2

post #11 of 17
You wanna know what happened to AMD in a nut-shell? Brilliant engineers being ignored by piss-poor mismanagement. Here are a few links which explain (all from ex-AMD employees) many of the blunders dating back from the early 00's to the K10 launch (Bulldozer).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111013232215_Ex_AMD_Engineer_Explains_Bulldozer_Fiasco.html
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037482638&postcount=88
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/comp.arch/RQGL8yFPYEk/60Ls55OazqcJ

Thankfully, the current AMD is completely different from the old one. They've been planning & executing at a much better rate rather than botching things left and right.
Quote:
I fear that that what happened to motorola will happen to AMD. Intel is building 22nm, but AMD is still using 32nm. If AMD can't get to 22nm before intel reaches 14nm, it will be over.

Process nodes aren't everything. Technically AMD is already at 28nm, several mobile products with Kabini can be found in various places. Kaveri will be 28nm bulk and eventually Carrizo will be down to 20nm with other products being on GloFo's 14nm FinFETs

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20131017231002_AMD_to_Tape_Out_First_20nm_14nm_FinFET_Chips_Within_Next_Two_Quarters.html
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by STRATUSRT02 View Post

I didn't exaggerate anything all I said was that the fx81xx wasn't very good but came along way.

What came along way? An FX-8150 now is the same FX-8150 that was available on launch, and the 8350 is a modest improvement. My FX-8150 @ 4.6GHz is barely slower than an FX-8350 at 4.6GHz, and the average FX-8350 doesn't OC more than a few percent better on the same cooling either. They do tend to run cooler, but again, a modest improvement all in all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STRATUSRT02 View Post

I ran these test when I first got my 8350 to see it next to my 955be scores.

Ah, you mean AMD has come along way since Deneb. Well, I certainly would hope so, since Deneb is almost five years old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaroonGTX View Post

Thankfully, the current AMD is completely different from the old one. They've been planning & executing at a much better rate rather than botching things left and right.

Hopefully this pays off, but I fear by the time it does that AMD will largely have exited the desktop market (barring their APUs and embedded processors).
Edited by Blameless - 10/27/13 at 5:29am
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
Vishera Testbed
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3GHz, 1.225v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F4m) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-12-12-28-T1, 1.35v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 CM Storm Spawn Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 1600MT/s 7-8-8-19-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 1600MT/s 7-8-8-1... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 2x Seagate 7200.10 RAID 0 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Prolimatech Genesis + 2x140mm Cougar 1200rpm Windows Server 2008 R2 Antec TP-750 Antec P182 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-9590 @ 5GHz, 1.55v ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 Reference NVIDIA GTX 780 2x8GiB G.Skill DDR3-1866 10-11-10-30-T1, 1.5v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Crucial M500 480GB 2x Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB XSPC RX360 + X20 750 + Raystorm Windows 7 Pro SP1 x64 
MonitorPowerCase
Dell S2740L Seasonic SS-860XP2 Coolermaster HAF-932 
  hide details  
Reply
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
Vishera Testbed
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3GHz, 1.225v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F4m) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-12-12-28-T1, 1.35v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 CM Storm Spawn Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 1600MT/s 7-8-8-19-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 1600MT/s 7-8-8-1... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 2x Seagate 7200.10 RAID 0 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Prolimatech Genesis + 2x140mm Cougar 1200rpm Windows Server 2008 R2 Antec TP-750 Antec P182 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-9590 @ 5GHz, 1.55v ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 Reference NVIDIA GTX 780 2x8GiB G.Skill DDR3-1866 10-11-10-30-T1, 1.5v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Crucial M500 480GB 2x Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB XSPC RX360 + X20 750 + Raystorm Windows 7 Pro SP1 x64 
MonitorPowerCase
Dell S2740L Seasonic SS-860XP2 Coolermaster HAF-932 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidz7 View Post

They stole AMD and PowerPC technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jezzer View Post

Intel gave illegal discounts to retailers for banning AMD CPUs on a worldwide scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sergeym View Post

AMD is and always was much smaller than Intel.

Meh. Now let's have a look at why Bulldozer failed (first article is from an AMD engineer):
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111013232215_Ex_AMD_Engineer_Explains_Bulldozer_Fiasco.html
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/100583-analyzing-bulldozers-scaling-single-thread-performance

Bottom line, they could have done much better and they choose to do multicore-heavy CPUs but with shared-cache aka. modules. That also was a bad design choice and, well multicore support isn't as good as it could be these days but this isn't the main issue.

EDIT: +1 to NaroonGTX.
Ti-89 Titanium
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Motorola 68k @16 MHz Ti-89 HW4 256 KB 2.6 MB Flash ROM 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Ti-89 OS 3.10 LCD Dot-Matrix 160x100 4x 1.5V AAA Ti-89 HW4 Black 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core™ i7 930 Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R 2.0 Gigabyte GTX 470 SOC G.Skill RX 2x4GB 1600C8 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
PNY Prevail Elite 120GB Hitachi 7K1000.C 1TB LG GH24LS50 Noctua NH-C12P SE14 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8 Pro x64 Lubuntu 13.10 x64 Samsung BX2250 Logitech Illuminated 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Be Quiet! S.P. E⁷ 600W Fractal Design Core 3000 Logitech G300 AKG K240 Studio 
  hide details  
Reply
Ti-89 Titanium
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Motorola 68k @16 MHz Ti-89 HW4 256 KB 2.6 MB Flash ROM 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Ti-89 OS 3.10 LCD Dot-Matrix 160x100 4x 1.5V AAA Ti-89 HW4 Black 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core™ i7 930 Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R 2.0 Gigabyte GTX 470 SOC G.Skill RX 2x4GB 1600C8 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
PNY Prevail Elite 120GB Hitachi 7K1000.C 1TB LG GH24LS50 Noctua NH-C12P SE14 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8 Pro x64 Lubuntu 13.10 x64 Samsung BX2250 Logitech Illuminated 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Be Quiet! S.P. E⁷ 600W Fractal Design Core 3000 Logitech G300 AKG K240 Studio 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by adridu59 View Post

Bottom line, they could have done much better and they choose to do multicore-heavy CPUs but with shared-cache aka. modules. That also was a bad design choice and, well multicore support isn't as good as it could be these days but this isn't the main issue.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the module approach. AMD just didn't execute it very well.

Bulldozer would have been a phenomenal part if it had a front-end wide enough to feed both cores in a module, the capability of retiring instructions at the full IPC of the cores, and reached original clock speed and design targets.

Sharing resources is not bad. Indeed, it's generally an advantage, as long as there is enough to go around and bottlenecks are mitigated.
Edited by Blameless - 10/27/13 at 5:46am
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
Vishera Testbed
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3GHz, 1.225v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F4m) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-12-12-28-T1, 1.35v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 CM Storm Spawn Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 1600MT/s 7-8-8-19-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 1600MT/s 7-8-8-1... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 2x Seagate 7200.10 RAID 0 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Prolimatech Genesis + 2x140mm Cougar 1200rpm Windows Server 2008 R2 Antec TP-750 Antec P182 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-9590 @ 5GHz, 1.55v ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 Reference NVIDIA GTX 780 2x8GiB G.Skill DDR3-1866 10-11-10-30-T1, 1.5v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Crucial M500 480GB 2x Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB XSPC RX360 + X20 750 + Raystorm Windows 7 Pro SP1 x64 
MonitorPowerCase
Dell S2740L Seasonic SS-860XP2 Coolermaster HAF-932 
  hide details  
Reply
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
Vishera Testbed
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.3GHz, 1.225v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F4m) 2x Sapphire R9 290X Tri-X OC New Edition (10036... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-12-12-28-T1, 1.35v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.05) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Cooler Master Nepton 280L 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 CM Storm Spawn Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Reference R9 290X w/Stilt's MLU 1000e / 1375m E... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 1600MT/s 7-8-8-19-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 1600MT/s 7-8-8-1... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 2x Seagate 7200.10 RAID 0 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Prolimatech Genesis + 2x140mm Cougar 1200rpm Windows Server 2008 R2 Antec TP-750 Antec P182 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-9590 @ 5GHz, 1.55v ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 Reference NVIDIA GTX 780 2x8GiB G.Skill DDR3-1866 10-11-10-30-T1, 1.5v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Crucial M500 480GB 2x Samsung Spinpoint F1 1TB XSPC RX360 + X20 750 + Raystorm Windows 7 Pro SP1 x64 
MonitorPowerCase
Dell S2740L Seasonic SS-860XP2 Coolermaster HAF-932 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidz7 View Post

Before 2007 AMD made the fastest x86 CPUs. There wasn't anything that could compete. The architecture was better, intel had double the clocks but couldn't come near the performance of an AMD. Around 2007, things began to change. Intel built lower clocked CPUs. They improved the architecture. They stole AMD and PowerPC technology. They began to slowly get better. AMD stayed stagnant. Faster than we could ever had imagined, intel began to outperform AMD. We saw core 2 quads beating phenom x6s. Now we are here today, with CPUs with fake "cores", and a piece of crap architecture brutely overclocked to 5GHz, still not able to compete with a 3.xGHz intel CPU. What the heck happened to AMD?!

depends on the game. i don't think any core2quads can beat my thuban in games like BF3 and BF4 MP.

what cpu do you have?
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 8 / 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 7 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 8 / 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 7 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 17
One can easily look at the end product of a CPU and compare performance to make a simple decision that generally Intel CPUs perform better than AMD CPUs.

However just looking at pure CPU performance doesn't tell the full picture.

What happened to AMD were various reasons. Many posters already mention, stagnant RD, RD budget, Intel Bribes, poor management.

At this moment, you should be looking at what the future is for AMD and not what happened with them. I believe they've dipped on the roller coaster and are on the way up.

Some folks won't agree with me, but the acquisition of ATi by AMD is by far one of the best decisions the old management made. Although costly at first, it opens up AMD's future to not just being 2nd hand to Intel in the CPU world.

At this point in time Intel is making good strides in CPU designs. It started with Nahalem, taking queues from an IMC and Hypertransport designs. Some would say the Core2 was the dethronement of AMD, but I disagree. Hypertransport and an IMC still allowed AMD to dominant performance wise on the server market. It wasn't until Nehalem that Intel dominated in both Desktop and Server performance. From here on Intel has gradually increase performance, while introducing new CPU features.

AMD recently has adopted a completely different strategy. I believe at first they were trying to stay competitive with Intel on a pure CPU performance (think original Phenom). But given the size of their R&D as oppose to Intel's R&D, it just isn't feasible to try and maintain the same level of performance with Intel. AMD is not redesigning the traditional CPU anymore, but instead they are redesigning how we do PC computing.

It has come to a point in which CPUs are so fast and powerful that most general software is no longer able to utilize all the computing power of a CPU. The CPU pretty much wastes some cycles waiting on memory. Intel's know this, why do you think they brought back Hyperthreading. Hyperthreading essentially uses these unused cpu cycles.

If you're AMD and you know that CPU performance is at an all time high, while software still needs to catch up, why not help software come along and negate the gap between your CPU and Intel's CPU. This is where HSA comes in.

Not only is CPU performance at an all time high, so is GPU performance.The GPU is one of those things where it rarely gets used for typical PC users. Unless you're using the GPU for application specific duties (Gaming, Folding, Encoding, etc.) most of the time it just sits and do almost nothing. If you're AMD why would you need a FPU unit in your CPU when a GPU can do the same functions. Eventually AMD (will) probably get rid of the FPU altogether and use its APU to do floating point work.

I've been around since the IBM AT days and it's exciting to see AMD take on challenges of the old AT design with their APU and HSA.
post #17 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyin15sec View Post

AMD recently has adopted a completely different strategy. I believe at first they were trying to stay competitive with Intel on a pure CPU performance (think original Phenom). But given the size of their R&D as oppose to Intel's R&D, it just isn't feasible to try and maintain the same level of performance with Intel. AMD is not redesigning the traditional CPU anymore, but instead they are redesigning how we do PC computing.

You don't necessarily need an enormous R&D lab to come up with a good chip design. Plus Intel does all kind of R&D, not just for their CPUs.
Ti-89 Titanium
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Motorola 68k @16 MHz Ti-89 HW4 256 KB 2.6 MB Flash ROM 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Ti-89 OS 3.10 LCD Dot-Matrix 160x100 4x 1.5V AAA Ti-89 HW4 Black 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core™ i7 930 Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R 2.0 Gigabyte GTX 470 SOC G.Skill RX 2x4GB 1600C8 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
PNY Prevail Elite 120GB Hitachi 7K1000.C 1TB LG GH24LS50 Noctua NH-C12P SE14 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8 Pro x64 Lubuntu 13.10 x64 Samsung BX2250 Logitech Illuminated 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Be Quiet! S.P. E⁷ 600W Fractal Design Core 3000 Logitech G300 AKG K240 Studio 
  hide details  
Reply
Ti-89 Titanium
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Motorola 68k @16 MHz Ti-89 HW4 256 KB 2.6 MB Flash ROM 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Ti-89 OS 3.10 LCD Dot-Matrix 160x100 4x 1.5V AAA Ti-89 HW4 Black 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core™ i7 930 Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R 2.0 Gigabyte GTX 470 SOC G.Skill RX 2x4GB 1600C8 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
PNY Prevail Elite 120GB Hitachi 7K1000.C 1TB LG GH24LS50 Noctua NH-C12P SE14 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8 Pro x64 Lubuntu 13.10 x64 Samsung BX2250 Logitech Illuminated 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Be Quiet! S.P. E⁷ 600W Fractal Design Core 3000 Logitech G300 AKG K240 Studio 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › What happened to AMD?