Article: AMD's Mobile Strategy
By: Vincent Diepeveen (diep.delete@this.xs4all.nl), December 30, 2011 11:29 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Brett (ggtgp@yahoo.com) on 12/29/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>Bill Henkel (noemail@yahoo.com) on 12/29/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>gallier2 on 12/20/11 wrote:
>>> good enough is the worst brake in CPU developement
>>
>>There are always people with bigger problems or less patience, even though this
>>isn't true in your particular case. I think the real problem for both AMD and Intel
>>is that their new processors don't make most existing software run any faster.
>>Also, for the first time ever, the latest version of Windows doesn't use more resources than its predecessor.
>
>Windows 8 is being designed to be responsive on LESS powerful ARM CPU's.
>The bloatware era is over, the top 10 requested features in Office by users are
>actually part of Office, people just can't find or figure out that the features they want are already in the product.
>
>>Doug Siebert on 12/20/11 wrote:
>>> Basically your option is a total gamble,
>>> and unless everything went exactly
>>> according to plan, and Intel was not able
>>> to use their process generation and cash
>>> advantage to take back the performance
>>> lead, AMD would be bankrupt before they
>>> could get another design out the door.
>>
>>Is making low-profit bargain bin chips a better strategy? AMD's products need
>>differentiation from Intel's products that some group of customers will pay extra
>>for. For mobile processors, a differentiator could be a high-quality low-power
>>H.264 encoder. For desktops and workstations, a differentiator could be higher
>>single thread performance rather than more cores per socket (e.g. a 6 GHz dual-core
>>water-cooled processor). Another differentiator could be larger caches (e.g. 256
>>MBytes of L4 cache on the processor socket). Another differentiator could be enabling
>>3rd-party innovation by making the cache-coherency protocol on the HyperTransport
>>bus publically available and royalty-free.
>>
>>Intel is adding more cores per socket so I think AMD should focus on single thread
>>performance. If Intel was focused on single thread performance, then AMD should
>>focus on more threads per socket. This is more profitable than trying to make a
>>cheaper version of whatever Intel makes, especially when AMD's version just has a lower price, not a lower cost.
>
>AMD's differentiation is graphics, half the Liano die is graphics and the CPU will continue to shrink in die share.
>CPU tech has hit a brick wall, and most users do not need more than 4 threads.
>The CPU no longer matters as much, the war is moving to graphics, and AMD has better graphics.
>
>Intel pre-annouced that they would miss sales targets by a billion dollars, AMD
>pre-announced that they would meet sales targets.
>AMD's CPU's suck compared to Intel's, if CPU's mattered this would not have happened.
Intel has expensive cpu's, AMD dirt cheap cpu's.
You're still seeing sales of sixcores of AMD in the current sales and intel has released in CPU market basically relative expensive cpu's based upon sandy Bridge. they always asked prices like that, so nothing new there.
Yet this planet has more people and wealth gets more distributed amongst those, so the total purchasing budget a person is simply, inflation corrected, less than in the past and it seems that won't change any soon as it isn't a temporarily drop of wealth in 1st world nations.
Sure US government has miserably failed to recognize that as they're overspending 47.5% or so, they have as projected income 2644 billion dollar and intend to spend up to 3900 billion for 2011/2012.
Other than governments, that's the new world order simply. Intel will also need to adapt to that in their pricing, and in contradiction to AMD they also have room left in their margins to do so.
Would intel release right now a cheap sixcore sandy bridge, so i don't mean the $550 i7-3930k, i really mean something in the $200 range, then they'd annihilate bulldozer sales of AMD.
Any time they want to do that at intel, they can.
Many new users of cpu's, especially in 3d world nations, simply do not have the budget to pay $550 simply.
---------------------------
>Bill Henkel (noemail@yahoo.com) on 12/29/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>gallier2 on 12/20/11 wrote:
>>> good enough is the worst brake in CPU developement
>>
>>There are always people with bigger problems or less patience, even though this
>>isn't true in your particular case. I think the real problem for both AMD and Intel
>>is that their new processors don't make most existing software run any faster.
>>Also, for the first time ever, the latest version of Windows doesn't use more resources than its predecessor.
>
>Windows 8 is being designed to be responsive on LESS powerful ARM CPU's.
>The bloatware era is over, the top 10 requested features in Office by users are
>actually part of Office, people just can't find or figure out that the features they want are already in the product.
>
>>Doug Siebert on 12/20/11 wrote:
>>> Basically your option is a total gamble,
>>> and unless everything went exactly
>>> according to plan, and Intel was not able
>>> to use their process generation and cash
>>> advantage to take back the performance
>>> lead, AMD would be bankrupt before they
>>> could get another design out the door.
>>
>>Is making low-profit bargain bin chips a better strategy? AMD's products need
>>differentiation from Intel's products that some group of customers will pay extra
>>for. For mobile processors, a differentiator could be a high-quality low-power
>>H.264 encoder. For desktops and workstations, a differentiator could be higher
>>single thread performance rather than more cores per socket (e.g. a 6 GHz dual-core
>>water-cooled processor). Another differentiator could be larger caches (e.g. 256
>>MBytes of L4 cache on the processor socket). Another differentiator could be enabling
>>3rd-party innovation by making the cache-coherency protocol on the HyperTransport
>>bus publically available and royalty-free.
>>
>>Intel is adding more cores per socket so I think AMD should focus on single thread
>>performance. If Intel was focused on single thread performance, then AMD should
>>focus on more threads per socket. This is more profitable than trying to make a
>>cheaper version of whatever Intel makes, especially when AMD's version just has a lower price, not a lower cost.
>
>AMD's differentiation is graphics, half the Liano die is graphics and the CPU will continue to shrink in die share.
>CPU tech has hit a brick wall, and most users do not need more than 4 threads.
>The CPU no longer matters as much, the war is moving to graphics, and AMD has better graphics.
>
>Intel pre-annouced that they would miss sales targets by a billion dollars, AMD
>pre-announced that they would meet sales targets.
>AMD's CPU's suck compared to Intel's, if CPU's mattered this would not have happened.
Intel has expensive cpu's, AMD dirt cheap cpu's.
You're still seeing sales of sixcores of AMD in the current sales and intel has released in CPU market basically relative expensive cpu's based upon sandy Bridge. they always asked prices like that, so nothing new there.
Yet this planet has more people and wealth gets more distributed amongst those, so the total purchasing budget a person is simply, inflation corrected, less than in the past and it seems that won't change any soon as it isn't a temporarily drop of wealth in 1st world nations.
Sure US government has miserably failed to recognize that as they're overspending 47.5% or so, they have as projected income 2644 billion dollar and intend to spend up to 3900 billion for 2011/2012.
Other than governments, that's the new world order simply. Intel will also need to adapt to that in their pricing, and in contradiction to AMD they also have room left in their margins to do so.
Would intel release right now a cheap sixcore sandy bridge, so i don't mean the $550 i7-3930k, i really mean something in the $200 range, then they'd annihilate bulldozer sales of AMD.
Any time they want to do that at intel, they can.
Many new users of cpu's, especially in 3d world nations, simply do not have the budget to pay $550 simply.
