As processor shipments slump, AMD loses ground to Intel

The third-quarter x86 processor market share numbers are in, and they’re not good for AMD. According to Mercury Research data quoted by PC World, the perennial underdog saw its share of the market decline to 16.1%, down from 18.8% a year ago. Intel’s share grew from 80.6% to 83.3% over the same period, with Via picking up the remainder. Although the story doesn’t quote specifics for different chip segments, it says AMD lost more ground on the desktop front than it did in the mobile space. You may recall that AMD had to write down $100 million of unsold inventory in the third quarter, mostly made up of Llano-based APUs.

While AMD and Intel jockeyed for position, the x86 processor market shrunk as a whole. Shipments were down 8.6% from the third quarter of 2011 and 4% from the second quarter of this year. Q3 usually has stronger sales due to the back-to-school season, but that didn’t happen this time around. The impending arrival of Windows 8 may have caused some folks to delay upgrades. An “uncertain economic environment” is also blamed for the drop in processor shipments.

Of course, we can’t ignore the growing popularity of tablets, which seems to have diverted consumer interest away from PCs. IDG News reports that Q3 tablet shipments were up 49.5% over last year. Interestingly, though, the size of the tablet market increased by only 6.7% over the second quarter of this year. The next couple of quarters will be interesting to watch as Windows 8 and Windows RT convertibles blur the line between tablets and traditional PCs.

Comments closed
    • kristi_johnny
    • 7 years ago

    I hope this doesn’t mean the demise of AMD, but since 2006-2007 things started to look uglier and uglier fot them.
    If eventually AMD goes under, maybe former ATI division will survive as an separate entity, if not, the main competitor on both CPU and GPU markets will disappear, leaving Intel and Nvidia alone to do whatever they please. That doesn’t sound to pleasent for the buyers.
    Stay afloat AMD, we need you.

    • Derfer
    • 7 years ago

    It’s pretty sad AMD will drag their GFX department into the grave for reasons unrelated to it’s performance. Maybe they should stop selling big desktop parts and focus on fusion chips. It’s what consoles need, it’s perfect for the coming mini-itx and mobile takeover, and the current card lineup is competing just fine in the highend desktop segment. It’s just the whole AM3+ platform dragging them down now. Too much development cost with too little return.

      • ronch
      • 7 years ago

      I agree, but if they really wanna make money they have to create a core that they can use from top to bottom. Look at Intel, for example. Their Ivy Bridge cores are used all the way from the most expensive Xeons all the way down to cheap Pentium Dual Cores. Top end products command fat margins while low end SKUs are sold by the boatloads even while earning far less per unit. AMD cannot ignore the high end because the margins are there. Unfortunately, AMD’s ‘high end’ today is not as profitable as IB.

    • clone
    • 7 years ago

    any article that mentions Via picked up some of AMD’s marketshare is putting the recent missteps in perspective, that Intel took some was to be expected but how sad is it that Via was able to pull away a few scraps for themselves as well.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    Rory must surely be pounding his head on the wall for leaving Lenovo. And of all companies to go to, he had to choose AMD. Well, he did openly say he wanted to be there at AMD. I wonder how he feels now about that decision.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Maybe the board lied to him about how bad the company really was at the time,
      and he walked into a trap…

      AMD got 3 path in front of them

      a) slowly shrink to a VIA / Matrox (Get de-listed, cant borrow money , etc..)
      b) enter bankruptcy in Q3 2013 (So far it look like this is accelerating to be the case)
      c) Get bought by a company like Microsoft for its xbox division,
      or Apple to move to its own GPU architecture, etc…

      Only C would redeem R. Read move. But I think AMD got really bad karma and stigma around them that those company see b) happening and will just buy the IP during bankruptcy proceedings.

        • ronch
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]Maybe the board lied to him about how bad the company really was at the time, and he walked into a trap...[/quote<] If that's true then it just goes to show what a bunch of *ucktards the AMD BoD is. I actually pity Rory a little bit. He has one of the toughest CEO jobs around, that's for sure.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    Looks like Steamroller is pushed back. Holy crap. WTF, AMD?

    [url<]http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/29396-amd-desktop-roadmap-leaked[/url<]

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Bulldozer was done in close cooperation with Cray… today cray announced that they will stop using AMD products.

      AMD will not make any new server processors. Expect the BD architecture to die with piledriver.

      AMD is betting on Jaguar to keep the x86 alive for another 2 years, before switching to ARM.

      I dont think AMD continue to be in the CPU business, they are to small.

        • ronch
        • 7 years ago

        The closure of their OS research center puts a nail on their server CPU business. I hope you’re wrong when you said they won’t make new server chips. Making only Jaguar CPUs would make them somewhat closer to VIA if it weren’t for their ATI division.

        If AMD’s gonna go down anyway (I’d totally hate that, but what can we do?), I might as well buy the fastest x86 CPU I could buy today (or even an FX) to last me a long time until ARM gets a grip on the desktop space, if that’s even gonna happen at all. Tablets and smartphones are nice, but I don’t want to play games nor would I want to do serious work-related stuff on them.

          • just brew it!
          • 7 years ago

          I don’t think it is quite as dire as that on the server front. As long as they continue to be open with CPU specs, Microsoft and the Linux community will continue to support their CPUs.

          • clone
          • 7 years ago

          I disagree, closing the server business does not not mean IBM or any other can’t use the product in the future if they get something interesting in the future.

          maintaining it when they had nothing would have been a compounding mistake and I wonder if AMD isn’t moving towards licensing deals given the recent ARM 64 talk.

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        Via thriving on less than 0.6 of the market disagrees with you.

    • squeeb
    • 7 years ago

    If you bought a CPU in the last 2-3 years, do you really need an upgrade anyways?

      • travbrad
      • 7 years ago

      Probably not, but that could be said at almost any time in the history of CPUs. It all depends how much money you have burning a hole in your pocket and what you use your PC for though.

      3-4 years is typically the amount of time between my CPU upgrades, where I feel it’s actually worth the money (went from PII-400mhz—>XP1900+—>X2-3800+—>E8400—>i5-2500K).

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    The only way to sell more chips, gain market share, and do so with more profits is to have faster, more energy efficient products, especially during this period. One has to wonder exactly how AMD will do that, with their future x86 chips not due for a while and their pockets full of holes. Even dipping their toes in the ARM market is a big stretch. It’s unknown territory and it’s anybody’s guess whether the ARM microserver market will take off or not, or grant AMD the necessary profits to keep themselves afloat.

      • BestJinjo
      • 7 years ago

      “The only way to sell more chips, gain market share, and do so with more profits is to have faster, more energy efficient products, especially during this period.”

      It’s only going to get worse when Haswell launches next year. AMD’s only chance in the short-term (next 3-4 years) is to find a way to make more money in other sectors outside of x86 CPU space. Even if they manage to gain market share from Intel, it’ll probably be very small and in the shrinking traditional PC market segment right now, if any gain is realized, it could be a wash. Gaining market share in a declining industry sector is not a long-term solution, especially as you said when this is probably not even feasible.

      It’s doom and gloom for AMD right now. I feel with Kepler 2.0, even their GPU division will lose their performance edge. The specs on Tesla K20 look mighty impressive.

    • LoneWolf15
    • 7 years ago

    I bought my first AMD CPU since my Athlon 64 X2 4800+ this past week.

    [url<]http://shopping1.hp.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/WW-USSMBPublicStore-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewProductDetail-Start;pgid=jDJwlVlq2W9SR0Yk2kO1Yuen0000x3BRtGjV;sid=b-1Bl2c-QYBHlzexf6uKA74xveN55mPRs4s=?ProductUUID=5L8Q7EN5zR8AAAEwi9FWzpJ4&CatalogCategoryID=&JumpTo=OfferList[/url<] I'd have preferred something Core i3-based, but NewEgg's Shell-shocker deal made it irresistable. Add an HP RAC card, and an (unintentionally compatible) HP SmartArray P410 RAID card, and you've got one heck of a Server 2012 Essentials box. I'll be sorry to leave Windows Home Server behind; it still irks me that after v1, Microsoft ripped the guts out of a really promising piece of software.

    • torquer
    • 7 years ago

    I love AMD.

    AMD deserves to fail.

    If we are going to be intellectually honest, we need to be able to say both of those things. As I’ve stated in other related threads, I’ve been an AMD fan for years, but right now as an enthusiast none of their products excite me on the CPU side. Its really unfortunate, I wish it wasn’t the case, but it is, and I have to accept that.

    AMD deserves to fail as long as they mismanage themselves, bring to market products that don’t perform as expected, etc. Bulldozer was a prime example of this, and it couldn’t have come at a worse time. I wish them all the luck in the world, but the fact that I like them or that they used to execute much better aren’t reasons enough for them to survive.

      • shank15217
      • 7 years ago

      What if bulldozer did perform as expected? Would that be enough to change your opinions? Seems like your expectations were too high and now you are disappointed, its not like Intel isn’t a moving target.

        • torquer
        • 7 years ago

        I think it’d be hard to make the case that my expectations are the issue with AMD’s CPU efforts since the Athlon X2 or shortly thereafter. AMD has failed to keep up with Intel, and through numerous management missteps they have paid a heavy price.

        The problem (or one of the problems) with us as an enthusiast community at large is that we seem to be collectively unable to pry away our emotion and ideology from the technical and business merits of a particular company/brand/product.

        If AMD can bring forth CPUs that compete at the high end from a price/performance/power perspective with Intel I’d be happy to use them again – I’ve purchased dozens of AMD CPUs over the years. Until then they are relegated to the low end and they only have themselves to blame.

        If my expectations of AMD are high its because AMD themselves set them by beating Intel at their own game. I remain hopeful they will be able to do it again someday, but until then I’m disappointed and waiting.

        EDIT: And just for the record, I just purchased an FX-8350 for a friend as a birthday present to replace a Phenom II X6, so I’m no fanboy 😉

          • flip-mode
          • 7 years ago

          It’s not your expectations that are the problem. As you said, you have to remove emotion which means removing expectations from the purchasing equation. Performance, power, features. Those are the competitive fronts. Price a competitive front that opens up if you are close enough in the other fronts.

          The problem is not high expectations, but the cold hard reality that when a person goes to buy a CPU they’re looking to get the fastest CPU in their price range that meets their power consumption and feature needs.

          This isn’t an imagined reality. The market has responded very enthusiastically to all of Intel’s products since the Core 2 Duo. The market has retreated from AMD. This isn’t just because AMD has fallen behind, but also because AMD has actually stepped backwards at times – it’s power efficiency has sometimes gotten worse instead of better, which is unthinkable, and also unthinkable is that it’s processors have sometimes been succeeded by lower performing products. That’s crazy. AMD often gets blamed for marketing – but how do you market something slower and more power hungry than not only your competitor’s part, but your own previous part?

            • Hallucinosis
            • 7 years ago

            Well said. This is basically the reality of the situation with AMD. Also, it is possible that ATI poisoned the blood. (that last part is a joke, just in case that wasn’t clear.)

        • travbrad
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<] Seems like your expectations were too high and now you are disappointed, its not like Intel isn't a moving target.[/quote<] Was the Phenom II a moving target too? Because Bulldozer failed to outperform that in some applications, while being priced significantly higher.

          • BestJinjo
          • 7 years ago

          Pentium 4 failed to outperform the most potent Pentium 3s in some applications, and was slower in IPC with earlier Williamette cores, while being priced significantly higher. What’s your point?

          In fact, Pentium 4 CPUs failed to outperform A64 CPUs, while priced significantly higher.

          Pentium 4 3.0ghz = $218
          Pentium 4 3.2ghz = $278
          Pentium 4 3.4ghz = $417
          Pentium 4 EE = $999
          [url<]http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_prescott_3.2ghz_review/page19.asp[/url<] Even back then, AMD barely had 25% market share, despite having a faster, more overclockable and faster IPC processor. In other words, even when Intel's CPU was more expensive and inferior, AMD was still far behind in market share or brand awareness in the eyes of the average consumer.

            • travbrad
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Pentium 4 failed to outperform the most potent Pentium 3s in some applications, and was slower in IPC with earlier Williamette cores, while being priced significantly higher. What's your point? [/quote<] Yep Pentium 4 was very overpriced for the performance it provided (not to mention the heat it put out). I had AthlonXP and Athlon64 X2 CPUs for a reason. 🙂 I'm not sure how that excuses AMD for Bulldozer's failings though. AMD releasing a mediocre CPU in 2011 seems a bit more relevant to their current declining market share than a CPU Intel released 12 years ago. [quote<]Even back then, AMD barely had 25% market share, despite having a faster, more overclockable and faster IPC processor. In other words, even when Intel's CPU was more expensive and inferior, AMD was still far behind in market share or brand awareness in the eyes of the average consumer.[/quote<] They were GAINING market share when they had superior CPUs though, and now are losing market share with inferior CPUs. If they had kept producing great CPUs I guarantee they would have continued to take market share from Intel, but they didn't. It takes time for consumer perception to shift (in any industry). Intel's underhanded tactics certainly didn't help either. In the last 30 years AMD has had better CPUs than Intel for about 3 of those years (and a roughly equal CPU for another 1-2 years) so it's hardly surprising that Intel has a much better brand awareness and market share.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            What does this have to do with anything?

        • just brew it!
        • 7 years ago

        Expecting a product to be competitive is not setting expectations “too high”.

        With Bulldozer, AMD relied a bit too much on “look, look, we’ve got more cores!” marketing. Similar to how Intel relied on “look, look, we’ve got more MHz!” in the Netburst days. Difference being, Intel could get away with it and survive since they were already the incumbent 500 lb gorilla.

        I will likely buy a Piledriver CPU when prices come down a bit from launch levels. But not today.

      • BestJinjo
      • 7 years ago

      I am sorry, but no intelligent person who understands business can expect a firm 75x smaller in size, with no dedicated fabs, to actually compete with Intel in the high end CPU performance race. In fact, no company has ever managed to do it besides AMD. It’s a miracle that FX-8350 for $195 slots in between i5-3570K and i7-2600K in multi-threading performance given the engineering, financial and fabrication resource advantages Intel has had over AMD for more than a decade.

      Intel spent $8.35B in annual R&D alone in fiscal 2011.
      [url<]http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AINTC&fstype=ii&ei=8PKaUPjMA8SXqgGS1gE[/url<] Did people who have expected AMD to compete with Intel even check AMD's profits, their cash vs. debt obligations in the last 5 years? Seriously, no person who actually understands the financial situation AMD has been since 2006's ATI buyout should have ever expected AMD to actually compete with Intel. AMD generally competed on price/performance and it was mostly a result of Intel's own mis-management deciding to go with Netburst / Pentium 4 rather than going with Benias that gave AMD a small window to shine. Had Intel launched the original Merom/Benias and then transitioned to Conroe and skipped Pentium 4/D's Netburst, AMD would have lost every single CPU generation above $250 since its existence. Was A64/X2 that brilliant or was it the single biggest flop in Intel's history to choose Netburst over Benias on the desktop? The reality is AMD never really had a chance to beat Intel and once AMD became fabless, they have no chance at all since Intel has a full generational node manufacturing advantage. That means even if AMD's engineers in theory designed a processor with similar IPC/performance, it would still trail Intel's in power consumption and performance/watt. Saying you think AMD deserves to fail is absurd since that means no AMD graphics. Are you forgetting that AMD still makes very good GPUs? Or do you feel like paying $700-1000 for next generation NV cards, or be happy with incremental 20-30% GPU improvements every 2 years? The market needs AMD for competitive reasons and to push innovation, even if it means for the time being they have to compete on price/performance. It's a lot better than seeing AMD go bankrupt entirely. Frankly, the performance of FX8000 chips is not that bad, except for gamers: [url<]http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2012/test-amd-fx-8350-vishera/5/[/url<] [url<]https://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14[/url<] I don't even own an AMD CPU, but I tend to get the feeling people don't even read the actual reviews. $195 for overall performance that actually gives a $225 i5-3570K a run for the $ is not bad, especially if you consider the $169 FX-8320. I think it's a matter of market perception too. FX-8320 for $170 is actually a very decent value compared to i7 CPUs. For someone who uses their computer for a wide variety of applications, this is a $150 savings over i7-3770K that could be spent on a faster GPU, larger SSD, or pure savings towards the next upgrade. AMD's CPUs are not as bad as people make them out to be. They are poor for gamers, but otherwise, not that bad.

        • Krogoth
        • 7 years ago

        I would go as far to say that CPUs haven’t really matter that much in the gaming arena for years. A SB/IB-based i3 can handle all of your gaming needs for the cheap. You don’t really need an i5 or i7 chip to obtain optimal gaming performance.

        Intel doesn’t care about the gaming market either. They shift the focus of their CPU performance parts towards the enterprise market. They focus more on power consumption in the mainstream market. The primary advantage of the regular Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge chips has always been power efficiency. AMD chips cannot touch them in this.

        • torquer
        • 7 years ago

        All of your points about the disparity in business size, etc would make sense except for the fact that AMD has done it before.

        To suggest that smaller more agile companies cannot overtake their larger competitors in the market is about as ignorant of business as anything I can think of. Remember that Intel was once a small company too. Companies get ahead through innovation, execution, and effective management. AMD has done all of those things in the past but has lately failed to do so.

        That doesn’t mean their chips are garbage. My point is simply that as an enthusiast their products do not excite me and battling it out for the lowest of the low end of the market will not be a winning strategy long term, and we are seeing that in their financial performance (or lack thereof).

        Seriously – look at Bulldozer. AMD essentially duplicated in a modern way the very same cluster that was the Netburst architecture – the very same architecture that allowed AMD to zoom past them with the Athlon 64. I mean, if that isn’t an illustration of horrible mismanagement and engineering nearsightedness, I don’t know what is.

          • BestJinjo
          • 7 years ago

          I apologize, but you come off as a very naive consumer or you simply do not understand the semi-conductor business. The semi-conductor industry is extremely capital intensive. Alternatively, you have to outsource your manufacturing from companies such as TSMC and Global Foundries. Both of those lack the execution and node advantage that Intel has/had. This means delays, and inferior process technology most of the time compared to what Intel has for its own chips. It is no wonder why Intel won’t open up its fabs to any 3rd parties even if they are currently being underutilized — they do not want to give away their manufacturing advantage to anyone.

          You cannot talk about power efficiency and the ability to make a much faster CPU independently of the node discussion, at least not in the high-end CPU space (I realize that ARM and co. are very power efficient for their markets). Even Intel includes its manufacturing advantage as a key competitive advantage over the competition. In other words, it’s integral to their leadership model.

          So first of all, you sitting there and stating that smaller more agile companies have overtaken larger companies doesn’t relate to this particular example, and certainly not at all to high-end CPU industry. IBM, Samsung, AMD have all failed to compete with Intel in the high-end CPU race and frankly AMD has conceded this race since Core 2 Duo in 2006, but it took their management a while to admit this publicly. Now we know from Rory Read’s public statements that AMD is no longer interested in competing in the high-end CPU race.

          You must have either been in denial since 2006 or pretended that out of thin air and some “magic” that AMD could overcome the constant manufacturing node disadvantage, the lack of funds to hire the top engineers, the lack of R&D to actually design CPUs by hand, rather than via automation software. All these things do not exist in a vacuum in the semi-conductor industry and are largely dependent on the company’s economies of scale, its cash flows and manufacturing advantages.

          I am not disagreeing with you that Bulldozer was poorly engineered but so was Phenom I and Phenom II. If you look at the performance of Bulldozer FX8320/8350 in relation to Intel’s $225-325 chips, it is really no worse than how Phenom I and II stacked up against their respective Intel competitors. Phenom II’s IPC is only about as good as Core 2 Quad Q6600 (Kentsfield), maybe if we stretch it 45nm Quads of that era like Q9550. Phenom II trailed similarly to Core i5/i7 CPUs.

          Your example of Intel starting out as a small company is not relevant. When Intel designed x86 CPUs, there was no company that was actually 75x larger than them and already better at x86 CPU designs. What you are asking is for a company such as Mazda to design a world class sports car as good as a 911, all the way up to the 918 Spyder. It’s just not possible. It’s actually not even a good example since even if you hired the world’s best engineers, you can’t just create 22nm fab out of thin air without $.

          When AMD gets to 22nm, Intel will be on 14, and so on…

          Again, by you stating that “AMD deserves to fail”, you sound like a bitter AMD fan of old who turned against AMD. The truth is, your own expectations were completely out of touch with where the two companies actually ranked against each other. The fact that you ignored the importance of having AMD for competitive reasons, ignored the value that AMD’s CPUs service for low-end markets/consumers who don’t think like you regarding gaming CPUs, makes you sound entitled almost. You ignored reality and created a constraint that Company X has to fulfill your specific desire Y, or they should fail. If Company X doesn’t meet your needs, find another company that does (like Intel). As long as some customers see value in AMD’s products, they still deserve a shot at existence.

            • flip-mode
            • 7 years ago

            Stop being a jerk. You’re too emotionally invested in AMD to have an objective discussion.

            • torquer
            • 7 years ago

            Your argument seems to basically state that AMD has no chance of succeeding, then you say they deserve to succeed. No one deserves to succeed unless they have the products to back it up. If the market is so hopelessly tough for any other semiconductor that its impossible to compete against intel, then I guess IBM and ARM should pack it up as well.

            The point is that AMD has beaten Intel before at a much higher end. It was a mistake for them to try to become intel by building fabs and spending billions on that capital expense. This is why Hector Ruiz is gone (among other reasons). It was the wrong move and basically blew through all the cash AMD won through the innovation of its Athlon products up through the Athlon II.

            You can’t just claim all past reality is irrelevant because it doesn’t support your point. Frankly I’m not sure what your point is anymore other than to say I’m wrong and AMD deserves to somehow “win” in the market based on nothing other than their existence.

            You should be more objective and realize AMD is capable of greatness without needing emotional enabling from us. They just have to be properly managed. All of their obstacles CAN be overcome, they’ve done it before. If you wish to continue thinking they have no chance at all but should succeed anyway, by all means continue to do so. Investors likely won’t agree.

        • flip-mode
        • 7 years ago

        Bulldozer was slower than Thuban / Deneb and Piledriver still probably is too on a per clock basis. AMD’s size relative to Intel has nothing to do with that fact. Stop insinuating that other people are unintelligent because they don’t consider AMD’s smaller size to be the crux of the problem. It’s a ridiculous ad hominem. If you think AMD’s size is the problem then just say so, but don’t call otherr, clearly intelligent people unintelligent because they don’t agree with your opinion of causality.

      • clone
      • 7 years ago

      what does “deserve” have to do with anything?…. when did any sense of fairness enter into the equation?

      2ndly is AMD mismanaged or is/was AMD forever struggling to keep pace with a company that has 50X more resources readily available to them?

      “deseves to fail” implies that you believe their is a company out in the wild that can surpass Intel when in reality they all stopped competing with Intel more than a decade ago, Via, Cyrix, Motorola, Texas Instruments, IBM …. pick your chipmaker and I’ll show you companies that fled or failed….. I hope you don’t mention ARM as a viable replacement.

        • torquer
        • 7 years ago

        Any company who fails to compete effectively deserves to fail, thats how the market works. My point is that many fanboys think AMD deserves to succeed simply by virtue of their existence, which is a false belief.

          • BestJinjo
          • 7 years ago

          False premise. Your premise assumes that “competing effectively” means satisfying your own arbitrarily defined criteria. If the overall market deems AMD’s products ineffective, then the company will fail. However, your own selective criteria (i.e., AMD MUST make the world’s fastest consumer CPUs) does not automatically mean that the company does not service the needs of other types of consumers.

          What if everyone said: “If car Company X does not make a car with performance of a Ferrari, then they deserve to fail.”

          What if other consumers prefer a car with high towing capacity, passenger space, or prioritize fuel economy over performance?

          You sound like a dictator. Not everyone has the same specific needs as you do. If you want the market to do its job, let the market participants as a whole decide what happens to AMD. Your opinion on its own just sounds like anti-AMD propaganda.

          How about this? What if a consumer has limited budget, but wants an overall fast system for games and multi-tasking.

          Option #1: FX8320 $170 + HD7970 / GTX670 for $350 = $520
          Option #2: Core i7-3770K $320 + HD7870 / GTX660 for $200 = $520

          I guess you can’t think outside the box because apparently everyone thinks exactly like you?!

            • flip-mode
            • 7 years ago

            Let’s see, you’ve called him unintelligent, naive, a dictator, and in denial. Dude, I’m calling you an ass hole for the way you’re talking to him. You have to try to be less emo. You have to learn how to have these conversations without ad hominems.

            • torquer
            • 7 years ago

            I’m starting to think you’re having this argument with someone else. When did I lay out the criteria that AMD’s stuff has to be faster than Intel’s? AMD needs to be able to compete effectively on a price/performance/power basis at least at the midrange if they are going to regain marketshare and make money. Fighting with Intel at the lowest of the low end is not a recipe for long term success because the profit margins are too low. This is a pretty basic tenet of business, and yet you accuse me of not knowing how business works.

            Piledriver has shown improvements, and thats great. Again thats why I bought my buddy an FX-8350 to replace his Phenom II. It made more sense to go with that than Intel. Its amusing that you guys fighting with me seem to think that I believe everything AMD makes is rubbish, which I never stated. I want AMD to succeed and be relevant in the market at a higher end. They don’t have to have the best CPUs in the world to do that, but they do have to be the best choice in their competitive segment at a given price point.

            • Derfer
            • 7 years ago

            Your argument would be more sensible if it was applicable. Even in the instances where a new FX appears to perform competitively for it’s price that all goes out the windows when you get to the power consumption page. It’s not about failing to meet his standard when they can’t compete by any metric.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 7 years ago

      Lets take that further. I think that people who don’t manage straight A’s deserve lifelong unemployment and poverty. They [i<]deserve to fail[/i<]. If your not the best then you [i<]deserve to fail[/i<].

        • torquer
        • 7 years ago

        Heh, the good ol argument of all or nothing. AMD can succeed and have a strong place in the market without putting Intel out of business. They don’t have to be an “A” player, but would anyone here give their desktop performance CPU business more than a “D+” at this point?

        This isn’t special ed football – everyone can’t get a “Winner” ribbon just for showing up. Despite what many of us would hope to be the case, AMD is paying for its missteps and poor performance through reduced marketshare, lost talent, and severe cutbacks. You can believe whatever you wish, but the market and investors have spoken, and sadly it is playing out through AMD’s financials.

        This is business, its not a sport.

    • jdaven
    • 7 years ago

    Dell and HP stocks are almost at 10+ year lows. The PC market is dying. Intel can take pride in being king of a dying industry.

      • srg86
      • 7 years ago

      I’ll never understand why you’re so happy that a relatively open standard could be dying (I don’t think it is), over boring locked down tat. I like the freedom to be able build my own system.

        • chuckula
        • 7 years ago

        It’s even funnier that he is an AMD fanboy but crows about changes that will hurt AMD much much more than they hurt Intel. I still think he’s convinced that once AMD gets an ARM chip out the door that it will usher in some golden age. I don’t think he realizes that the ARM market is full of competitors who have zero vested interest in intentionally taking steps to keep AMD alive.

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          You will see a cliff: high end server chip will cost an arm and a leg because only one company will be able to produce them (Intel)
          The rest will be chip that cost as much as TSMC can make them for… zero margin.
          AMD will have to rely on keeping its GPU state of the art… but can they ?

          And speaking of stock, company like TSMC wins no matter what.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Dell revenue for the past 5 years is ~60 billion each year.
      I would expect to see at least some revenue decline for a dying industry.
      (And Dell profit is up for the past 3 straight years)

      BTW, You have to realize that stock price != revenue.

      Intel profit and revenue have also grown for the past 4 years, breaking records after records.

      And do we really need the industry to grow 3% a year for it the be healthy?
      isn’t selling over a quarter billion PC a year enough to make an industry not dead ?

      Its like saying that the car industry is dead because moped sale have grown 10x in the past 3 years.

      and people are making absurd extrapolation “cell phone are on fire and you can watch netflix on them, TV are a thing of the past, they are dead”

    • ish718
    • 7 years ago

    Radeon HD 8970 will save the day!

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      I have a check already written, but AMD wont take my money.

      I wish AMD would go into overdrive and get this out asap… forget out all this CPU nonsense.
      oh, wait, thats what they are doing 🙂

      At this point Microsoft might as well take over AMD and make it part of its xbox division and release “XBox” branded gaming cards and gaming GPU for its tablets and phone.

    • Squeazle
    • 7 years ago

    You can do it AMD! Live, live, Liiiiiiive!

    I just bought an AMD CPU partially out of pity, and mostly due the fact that anything these days is a huge jump from my old Core 2 duo. And my limiting factors are still wifi speed and HDDs.

    It’s not the best, sure, but it was $120 and a huge difference over my old guy.

      • Voldenuit
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]I just bought an AMD CPU partially out of pity...[/quote<] Ahhh, sweet pity. Where would my [s<]love life[/s<] sales numbers be without you? /Homer Simpson

        • rrr
        • 7 years ago

        Too bad it doesn’t work with love life IRL.

      • sircharles32
      • 7 years ago

      Not out of pity, but I’ll join in. I just purchased a Phenom II X4 965, for a new build. It’s still quite a potent chip, and at less than a $100, a bargain!

        • ronch
        • 7 years ago

        Cyrix and the other chip makers that went before AMD went through the same phase; selling low-cost but still-good-enough chips, which turned out to be their last. I really hope AMD can get itself out of their mess.

          • just brew it!
          • 7 years ago

          AMD went through that phase once before too, with the K6 lineup. Market conditions are different this time around though (PC industry shrinking rather than expanding), and IMO their venture into ARM is an even bigger gamble than the original Athlon. So it is unclear whether they’ll be able to pull it off again.

            • ronch
            • 7 years ago

            AMD has escaped extinction many times, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be able to do so forever.

    • Deanjo
    • 7 years ago

    Might want to mention about AMD shutting down their Operating System Research Center

    [url<]http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTIyMzI[/url<] [url<]http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/AMD-dismisses-numerous-open-source-developers-1745131.html[/url<] Pretty much spells out end of the line for AMD getting serious about servers when there is nobody to maintain or add support to the *nix systems that used in huge numbers in the enterprise world.

      • cegras
      • 7 years ago

      I’m not an executive by any stretch of imagination, but I think Rory read should have taken a $1 salary, encouraged the board to do the same, and ask employees to take a cut together so they can keep motivation high and work towards making themselves competitive again. I don’t really see the point of slashing employees and R&D, then bringing in McKinsey and asking them “what do?”

        • indeego
        • 7 years ago

        Employees taking paycuts will not raise morale. It will cause them to get picked up by the other Semi’s actively recruiting.

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          I think the people worth picking up are already settle in their office at Apple or Samsung, etc…

          But on the salary issue , AMD exec are awarding themeslves nice bonuses.
          [url<]http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/2488.htm[/url<] AMD is being milked as we speak.

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            Dude, nobody is unmovable by offers of cash/options. Look at the new CEO of yahoo/former google chick. Very large risk for her (reputation) to make that move, very large payoff if she pulls it off.

        • albundy
        • 7 years ago

        yeah. people should work for free like slaves. income earned should all go to investors of the company, because that’s all that matters. in reality, if they ever do what you suggest, you will have a massive amount of people leaving the company for better paying jobs. people have mortgages and families to feed, not your bureaucratic bs on company comes first mentality. just my 2 centz from personal experience.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 7 years ago

          Read is already rich as is much if not all of the board. There are way too many people milking that cow at the worst possible time and it’s executives that need to be on the chopping block. Gutting middle management is the first place you should start – not the last.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Read is already rich[/quote<] Being "rich" is an entirely subjective depending what a person considers "rich" is. In many areas of the world a pan handler in North America looks "rich" to others in other areas of the world.

        • Meadows
        • 7 years ago

        Cutting down on marketing and “superfluous” employees is also the first thing any company has to consider after filing for bankruptcy chapter 11.

        I’m guessing AMD would rather stab themselves in the thighs now, than have to amputate a leg later.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Sadly AMD as been out of the linux server market for a couple of years now.
      (they have what 3% of the market? it was already only 5.5% in 2011)
      Its so insignificant that doing linux support was just burning money for nothing.

      AMD is in effect winding down its server CPU business.

      Their is absolutely no demand for the 6300 serie. AMD is out…

        • Deanjo
        • 7 years ago

        Ya but that small percentage was using them for virtualization purposes, the one small area where they still had a bit of an advantage. With the cutting of the OSRC that is now essentially dead. It also doesn’t bode well with us continuing to see extra value features such as virtualization support, IOMMU, ECC support on their consumer products either.

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          What is currently missing that is needed from the OSRC team?
          My guess is that people stuck using Opteron and need special linux feature that re not currently working (witch one?) will do it themselves.
          (maybe by hiring some of those guys)

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]What is currently missing that is needed from the OSRC team?[/quote<] What is missing now is "support" for amd iommu, microcode, power control, etc with now them going to a "maintained" state which basically leaves even the maintenance of appropriate drivers at their current state and if the laid off developer has time (and continued interest) to maintain it. Again this does not only effect their server division but also trickles down to their consumer class products where these technologies are found as well. This division was also responsible for proper open documentation that the open source community uses. What is going to happen when Excavator is released when there is nobody to document and develop it's chipset and cpu features for the open source community?

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            Have you seen AMD 2013 road map ? Take a peek, it might alleviate all your concerns 🙂
            (spoiler, piledrive will last until 2014)

            AMD situation is actually much worse then it looks.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            That doesn’t allieve any concerns. Development and documentation of that support starts well before a product is released. Amd’s contributions to the linux kernel for example with AMD 64 support was commited two years before working silicon was even available and usually support for their newest families appear at least a year before they are actually released.

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            Maybe I was to subtle… AMD is not going to make a new x86 Opteron.
            Cray is switching to Intel (BD was mainly design for Cray)

            AMD is out of the Opteron market.

    • tbone8ty
    • 7 years ago

    Vishera is selling well at least…everybody who bought a bulldozer is buying one lol

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 7 years ago

      People admit to having purchased a Bulldozer CPU?

        • LovermanOwens
        • 7 years ago

        I picked one up at launch.

        • dpaus
        • 7 years ago

        It’s been our standard processor since launch. Our tests show that for our Java workload, it’s equal to or better than Sandy, and at a lower platform cost.

          • rrr
          • 7 years ago

          Shhhh, don’t say that loud, anti-AMD zealots, who think Bulldozer is good for exactly nothing, will get spasms because of it

          😉

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    Having the less compelling CPU lineup it’s only to be expected that AMD will cede market share to Intel when something like a global CPU sales slump happens.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This