Originally Posted by WorldExclusive
I thought from the beginning lumping ATI and AMD together would make the company seem inefficient as a whole. AMD CPUs success will dictate AMD GPU success. To casual users and manufactures, if their CPUs are subpar then the GPUs must be also. One thing affects the other from a financial standpoint.
At the beginning of the merger it hardly made sense as well. I thought "how is a CPU company going to keep the GPU company on track" since that was not their speciality. With fusion it made a lot more sense. My main concern is down the road. GPUs, like CPUs, are planned years in advance. So up to the 7K and maybe even higher were already planned out. What I am concerned with is how many GPU resources have been pulled for Fusion/HPC etc. , that may affect future discreet GPU performance.
For the general consumers, depending when they ask for advice are told either red or green, not knowing why. That or they are convinced by Geek Squad etc. that whatever they have on the shelf is the best for them. I get people asking me all the time if ACER , Dell etc. is a good product. If I am tired of explaining things, I just tell them that is like asking if a red car is better than a blue one. Most enthusiasts research and know what products are and how they work. Mainstream users know brand names and brand name marketing and if their new Gateway laptop is faster than their old Acer, then Gateway is better. Sad but true in a lot of cases.
I think that having both CPU and GPU products in one company is both good and bad. ie. They could have a great GPU that makes up for a subpar CPU, while some investors may need to see both products become superior to see the value financially. There are other products that affect value also, but this is just an example.
Originally Posted by un-nefer
That could work the opposite way also. AMD GPU being better could allow some to think AMD CPUs are too
What I think is of benefit though, is that a lot of ppl used ATi cards and never even considered AMD CPUs, but with AMD's GPU successes wth the 68xx/69xx series, I'd expect more ppl are looking at AMD for CPUs - which is why there seems to be an ever growing hype around Bulldozer atm.
Put it this way, if AMD wasn't as successful with the 68xx/69xx series GPUs, I doubt anyone would have put of purchasing a SandyBridge CPU while they wait to see the results of the coming Bulldozer CPUs
That shows that success with their GPUs can help increase interest in their CPUs
I do not see this group of people being that large though. If by association, then it would be easy for someone to by a iPhone just because they really liked their ipod. Many (if not most) consumers though, will not even know that AMD CPU and AMD (ATI) GPU are the same company if it weren't for the name change. They have changed the name of the GPU which will help develop customer association over time, but by that time they will just know AMD Fusion because most consumers do not even need discreet graphics.
BD has had enough of its own marketing aura to keep people waiting. SB is what it is, LGA 1366 performance on the cheap. To be honest myself and I am sure a bunch of others here, would have waited things out regardless. SB is/was very tempting but having SB 1155, BD and SB 2011 all this year, it is just as hard not to wait as well. Like JF said though, most people will upgrade when they are ready to upgrade. While me and many of us here will be tempted to wait it out till the next best thing comes out, which could be forever, since there is always going to be better things just around the corner. Some people upgrade all the time, while others just take longer before they feel it is time.
(and yes it is SB 2011, I keep seeing people call it Ivy, Ivy is the shrink of Sandy due next year)