What happened to AMD?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by midnightwarrior, Sep 26, 2012.

  1. midnightwarrior

    midnightwarrior

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I built computers a few years back, AMD provided the best processors available. The Athlons were much cheaper than Intel counterparts and could overclock really easily.

    What ever happened to AMD? I don't see many computers being built with their CPUs anymore, are they just not as fast or are they lagging behind Intel?
     
    midnightwarrior, Sep 26, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. midnightwarrior

    clifford (c_c)

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    30
    AMD was having competitive issues. I say was as AMD stepped up and publicly stated they was no longer going to be competing head to head with Intel. To be honest I don't really exactly what that means in the long run. AMD may find a way to step up to the plate again. Personally I don't blame AMD, Intel started hitting home runs and left AMD in the dust. Only time will tell if AMD can present another competing CPU. I've heard rumors of AMD's next gen CPU's starting to emerge. Maybe Piledriver, the successor to Bulldozer will be a worthy offering.
     
    clifford, Sep 26, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. midnightwarrior

    Papo

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    12
    That’s a good question. A few years ago, when AMD bought ATI, my first impression was a company heading in the right direction. ATI was ahead of NVidia as far as graphic cards were concerned and AMD was giving Intel a run for their money. Most of the computers I built a few years ago were AMD based computers using the ATI graphics, due in part to its low cost (compare to Intel), but also because those CPUs were reliable and the ATI graphics cards drivers were simple to update.

    I think the biggest mistake AMD made was trying to compete against Intel, instead of concentrating on their “own” innovations. NVidia has done this well…instead of competing against Intel or QUALCOMM, they went out and developed their own CPU with tablet and the future in mind. The NVidia Tegra ® 3 may not be the best CPU for tablets, but it’s available as quad-core and that in itself makes a difference for many customers, as well as manufactures trying to sell their tablets.

    About a month ago, I read an article about AMD and Windows 8 tablet CPU, but can’t remember the IP address. Perhaps they’ll bounce back, but it’s going to be tougher this time around as the competition has expanded beyond Intel.
     
    Papo, Sep 26, 2012
    #3
  4. midnightwarrior

    lucasbytegenius

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    13
    I use an AMD processor, and still make up build lists for people that includes AMD CPUs, because they're still more bang for your buck than Intel's pricey stuff.
     
    lucasbytegenius, Oct 4, 2012
    #4
  5. midnightwarrior

    Papo

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    12
    Finally some AMD new “news”: supposedly AMD has begun shipping a processor designed for tablets and will be compatible with Windows 7 and Windows 8. The new processor named Z-60 will integrate “Radeon graphics support for video playback at full HD 1080p resolution as well as an HDMI output for connecting to external displays”.

    You can read more here: http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=102007TURYI0
     
    Papo, Oct 19, 2012
    #5
  6. midnightwarrior

    Papo

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    12
    Here's another good news for AMD enthusiast, Fujitsu has decided to build a Windows 8 tablet using the AMD Z-60 processor.

    Click here to read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49507995
     
    Papo, Oct 22, 2012
    #6
  7. midnightwarrior

    Kougar Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    11
    AMD's latest Vishera chips are actually price/performance competitive with their Intel counterparts. AMD's flagship FX-8350 competes against Intel's Core i5 3570 Here's one of many reviews on 'em: Link

    There's still a bad downside though. If you leave a system running 24/7 or regularly keep the CPU 100% utilized under load, the power consumption makes AMD's newest chips uncompetitive. For example:

    There's a 20-25watt difference at idle, and a 75-95watt difference under load when comparing the FX-8350 to the 3770K depending on whose website you read. The US average kWh rate is 12 cents (UK seems to average higher). The following uses the 12 cent kWr rate and that the system is left running the entire year.

    25w @ Idle: $26.28
    95w @ Load: $99.86

    So basically, the power consumption makes it cheaper to go Intel if you run a system 24/7 under any sort of load. Since I run [email protected], I'd begin saving money and still get much higher performance by choosing a the i7 3770k after a single year of use.
     
    Kougar, Nov 1, 2012
    #7
  8. midnightwarrior

    Core coffee & gigabytes Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    Finland
    AMD: Almost As Good.
     
    Core, Nov 1, 2012
    #8
  9. midnightwarrior

    Samuel Kline

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have an AMD FX 8350 OC'd to 4.7 Ghz running on an Asus Sabertooth 990FX rev1 MB with 8 g DDR3 ram and it runs fast! Competes with my Intel I5-2500ks OC to 4.5 Ghz in gaming.
     
    Samuel Kline, Nov 15, 2012
    #9
  10. midnightwarrior

    Kougar Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    11
    And look what happens to your power consumption when you do that. :eek:

    (From Anandtech.com)
    [​IMG]
     
    Kougar, Nov 15, 2012
    #10
  11. midnightwarrior

    Digerati

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    It should be noted that AMD still makes excellent processors that easily help form a solid foundation for a quality system.

    They said they would no longer compete heat to head with their PC processors because as you noted, Intel hit a home run, starting with their Core 2 Duos back in 2006. AMD has decided to concentrate on providing processors for hand held devices where they believe they can fully compete - if not lead the way.

    The home run - or triple play if you will - was that the Core 2 Duo (and generally, with a few notable exceptions of course - the entire line of Intels) offer (1) better performance while (2) consuming less power and by (3) generating less heat (more efficient). The only real, and consistent advantage AMD could offer is better prices with comparable AMD CPUs costing $40, $50, or even $100 less than their Intel counterparts.

    HOWEVER, two things factor in. The CPU is but one component in the computer and must be purchased along with the motherboard, RAM, drives, case, PSU, Windows license, monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. So (1) when considering the cost of the entire computer, the higher purchase price for the Intel CPUs becomes less significant. And more importantly (2) when consumers (especially big business) factor in operating costs over the life expectancy of the computer, the savings in electricity costs, and air conditioning (due to less heat being pumped into the room) easily compensates for the initial higher CPU price.

    What I find really interesting is the history of all this. Years ago, AMD was setup by IBM to create, by license, Intel processors! This is because IBM wanted a second source of CPUs for the IBM PC!

    But as we all know, AMD began manufacturing compatible CPUs of their own design that spanked the Intels big time! Intel was caught red-handed sitting on their as... err... laurels. Getting spanked by this little upstart, and spanked so badly really embarrassed Intel. But even more embarrassing for Intel is it took nearly 6 years! for them to come up with a product that would leapfrog past AMD again with the Core 2 Duo.

    Intel promised then and there they would never bask in their own glory again and let the competition get the jump on them again. And so not only did they leapfrog past AMD with the Core 2 Duo, they have not slowed down in increasing their lead. And with Intel's immensely deep pockets, they are able to feed that R&D furnace, and re-tool their factories to keep advancing.

    So AMD decided to stop trying to compete at that level and instead decided to create excellent, reliable alternatives and concentrate their R&D resources on hand helds. And I think that is good business strategy.

    Something else to consider - in recent years, more and more computers are being integrated into home theater systems as PVRs and Intel is producing some of the best SFF/µATX motherboards with "excellent" Intel made integrated graphics. So AMD/ATI is competing with the Intel on multiple fronts - in a very tough, competitive market.

    And I say, WTG AMD! Not only are they staying innovative and competitive, they keep nipping at the heels of Intel. And that drives further innovation and helps keep prices in check. All good for us consumers.
     
    Digerati, Nov 15, 2012
    #11
  12. midnightwarrior

    EmoPopsicle

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pretty much Intel dominated the processor market.

    I think that because AMD poured their funding into both the graphics and processor department, they couldn't compete with the Intel market, which released, in my opinion, pretty bad graphics integrated with their processors (Intel HD Graphics...-shudder-). However, the point in which Intel really passed AMD was with the Sandy Bridge series. Superior overclocking power, low power consumption, waaaaay less heat. AMD tried to catch up with Bulldozer, but that was a fiasco, and now Intel dominates the processor market. However, AMD video cards are still excellent and compete very well with Nvidia.
     
    EmoPopsicle, Nov 16, 2012
    #12
  13. midnightwarrior

    Digerati

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    No, Intel zipped past AMD way before then. As noted, it was with the introduction of the Core 2 Duo. But you are right, the Bulldozer hurt AMD and the Sandy Bridge series increased Intel's lead even more. But again, AMD was in the dust after the Core 2 Duo came out, and while still nipping at the heals, never, and likely never will pass Intel again - not unless some scandal or the like brings Intel down.

    I do agree, however, that AMD did stretch themselves pretty thin when they started getting heavy into graphics too, but note they did that primarily by buying ATI - not by pouring money into graphics R&D. They could not compete simply because Intel has extremely deep pockets.

    As for Intel integrated graphics, I have to disagree there too. Now of course, integrated (by any maker) will never be able to compete with higher end cards. And if you are speaking of gaming , well... in spite of what the marketeers will tell us, integrated graphics just don't make good gaming systems.

    But as I noted, many Intel based systems were being integrated into HTPCs as PVRs, and to play Blu-Ray movies and the Intel graphics are great for that. Not that the others are not, but the Intels can hold their own.

    I agree 100% there.
     
    Digerati, Nov 16, 2012
    #13
  14. midnightwarrior

    persiankid400

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    1
    AMD still has its advantages. While streaming and rendering, it has the upper hand over Intel. But for pure gaming, an Intel is a better choice.
     
    persiankid400, May 21, 2013
    #14
  15. midnightwarrior

    crazycroc

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well the main problem is their development budget is much smaller than Intels so it is hard to compete on that level. Also at the time the Athlon's were the best on the market AMD began to go through some problems with the companies leadership and lost a lot of valuable employees.
     
    crazycroc, May 28, 2013
    #15
  16. midnightwarrior

    guitarhero

    Joined:
    May 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd say AMD are at the top of their game right now, with both the PS4 and Xbox One being announced as to have AMD CPU architectures they have just gained a huge market and manufacturing project which will surely increase their popularity on PC's with developers as it will allow for smoother streamlined porting of video games from the consoles to the PC market
     
    guitarhero, May 29, 2013
    #16
  17. midnightwarrior

    airplayne

    Joined:
    May 29, 2013
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    California
    From what I understand, if you are going to build a budget pc with limited capabilities (running office, and other basic software) AMD processors will do just fine, but if you are wanting to do anything graphics-wise you might as well shell out the extra cash for an intel chip. I recently upgraded a computer I built about 5 years ago with an AMD chip to an Intel i3 processor and the difference is night and day. The AMD chip was able to handle graphics at a reasonable level, but the ones out today just aren't as good.
     
    airplayne, May 29, 2013
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.