Is AMD Really a Sinking Ship?

[gundersausage]

Is AMD Really a Sinking Ship?

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/588/1/

Manufacturer: AMD
Product: AMD in General
Date: Tue, Nov 06, 2007 - 10:52 AM
Written By: Nathan Kirsch - nate@legitreviews.com


Why is it that every time I read an editorial about AMD, it starts with the author portraying them as a sinking ship and ends with them begging to come out with a product that can compete with Intel’s Core 2 series? Sure, AMD’s Athlon 64 series of processors has been eclipsed by Intel’s latest Core 2 series, but has everyone forgotten about the past? AMD and Intel have changed roles as being the pace setter in the microprocessor industry for years, so in a sense this is nothing new. I hate to say it, but the last couple leadership changes were back in September 2003, with the Athlon 64 and its innovative integrated memory controller and again in March of 2000, when AMD beat Intel to the 1GHz mark. Both of these shifts in the industry happened before everyone wrote a blog or had a website, so maybe everyone has just forgotten the past or just wasn’t involved in the tech industry just a few years ago. It’s a shame really, as not only should the past must be remembered, it’s a critical part of journalism. So, forget thinking about AMD as a sinking ship and I’ll tell you the reasons why.

The past few years Intel and AMD have been in a fierce price war that drove prices down for consumers, but at the same time killed their profit margins, which had a negative impact on their stock prices. In the mean time, consumers have gotten used to lower processor prices and see this as a win-win situation; and for those at the checkout aisle, it is. Since Intel processors don’t have an integrated memory controller, the processor has to access the front side, but to fetch data from the system memory (DRAM) and this action takes place on the Front Side Bus (FSB). To help speed up the Intel Core 2 series of processors, Intel has been increasing the front side bus from 800MHz to 1066MHz to 1333MHz and in the future we will certainly see the move to 1600MHz. Think of this as increasing the speed limit of a major interstate, the faster the speed limit the quicker you can get to your final destination. By increasing the frequency of the front side bus, the system memory can be reached quicker, but why not move the data closer?

Well, Intel is also doing this by increasing their L2 cache. When the Intel core 2 microarchitecture was first released they had an L2 cache size of 2MB on Allendale to 4MB on Conroe. Just this week Intel introduced a quad-core part called Yorkfield that features a massive 12MB L2 cache. This now means that Intel has added 66% more L2 cache per core with the move to 45nm over the original entry level Core 2 processor series and 33% more when compared to the Conroe family of dual-core processors! Since the Intel quad-core ‘Kentsfield’ processors are basically two ‘Conroe’ cores paired together, they add up to 8MB L2 cache. So Intel has added 2MB of L2 cache or 66% more over the past couple years. Something I hear from the community here on Legit Reviews is, "Why doesn’t AMD add more cache?"

Well, AMD has been adding L2 cache. The first Athlon 64 X2 ‘Manchester’ processors featured 512KB L2 cache per core for a total of 1MB L2 cache. AMD then doubled the cache on Athlon 64 X2 ‘Windsor’ series to 1MB L2 cache for a grand total of 2MB of L2 cache. With the upcoming Phenom quad-core series of processors AMD has kept the 2MB L2 cache and has added 2MB L3 cache which is better for their microprocessor architecture. AMD Athlon 64 and Phenom processors have an integrated memory controller, so they don’t have to use a front side bus to access the memory. So, AMD Phenom processors (both quad-core and triple-core) will have 2MB of L2 cache and 2MB of L3 cache. Which is obviously an increase in cache, although it can’t be compared to what Intel is doing. AMD Phenom processors can also take advantage of an improved Hyper-Transport bus if one is used on the 7-series of chipsets as these boards have Hyper-Transport 3.0, which is a speed bump from 2400MHz to 3600MHz. Right about now you might be wondering why I’m rambling about L2 and L3 cache, but it all boils down one thing and the end of the day and its price. AMD Phenom processors may not have the clock per clock muscle to beat out the Penryn and Yorkfield Intel processors, but it costs far less to make them partially thanks to the overall smaller cache sizes.

When it comes to cost, die size plays a critical role and Intel has the 45nm process down pat, but nothing is wrong with AMD’s 65nm process. Sure the smaller the nm the more dies can be put on a wafer thus reducing costs, but remember 12MB of L2 cache versus 4MB of L2/L3 cache makes a difference too. AMD has millions fewer transistors per die, which means lower power consumption, less heat generating transistors and ultimately lower prices. Of course AMD needs to start moving things over to a 45nm process, sooner rather than later, but it doesn’t have to happen today.

The take home message here is that AMD, from my point of view, is not a sinking ship. They just need to make sure they get out their next generation of processors and chipsets out on time. AMD has been delayed getting numerous products out the door as scheduled and that is without a doubt hurting them. Sure AMD will have the first ‘true’ quad-core processor, but how many consumers really cares if something is true or not? Could you imagine walking into Best Buy or Circuit City and hearing a sales associate telling a customer "This one is better because it’s native quad-core, but the other one is quad-core". That wouldn’t obviously work with the average consumer, which is the direction AMD has been aiming the majority of their marketing and product series. The best marketing tool AMD has is to sell the complete package. By offering processors, chipsets and video cards all under the AMD brand name they have the ability to tweak each component to make sure it’s stable and at the right price point. If AMD falls a bit short on performance they can lower the prices on their components 10-20% across the board making their platform the best bang for the buck. Since their products use fewer transistors and cost less to make, it means that Intel and Nvidia has more to loose, should they choose to engage in another price war. Just this week AMD's master distributor, ISA Hardware leaked out Phenom pricing and has shows the preliminary prices as $247, $278 and $288 respectively for the processor in a box versions of the the 2.2GHz 9500, 2.3Ghz 9600 and 2.4GHz 9700 quad-core processors. This means that right now BEFORE launch a 2.4GHz Phenom is priced at $288 and a 2.4GHz Kentsfield is $269. Hopefully after launch the price on the Phenom processors will drop below that of the Intel Q6600 as it needs to be, if they want to be competitive in the enthusiast market.

Lastly, there is always the chance that Intel slips up and if there was to be such a time it would be on their Nehalem based system architecture. After mainstream Penryn and the 45nm Hi-k silicon technology introductions in January 2008 comes Intel's next-generation microarchitecture (Nehalem) slated for initial production sometime in 2008 (five years after AMD went to an integrated memory controller). Nehalem will be Intel’s first processor with scalable and configurable system interconnects and integrated memory controllers. That will be a major change for Intel and history has shown if a stumble is to happen it is at one of these junctures.

[Equil|briuM]

I've always been an AMD man from day one.

I invested into AM2 which had it's uses, though they done a Microsoft with Socket 939, dispanding the line.

Instead of releasing AM2, they should have cracked straight on with Phenom.

Fact of the matter is Intel caught them completely offguard with C2D.

That was over a year ago, what do we have from AMD? Nothing.

We have had yet more K8 5 year old architecture being released, aloada cash spent on marketing when really the time should have been used too speed up the K10 process.

Now that K10 doesn't seem to be so 'amazing' this is the reason why it has been delayed, if it was so awesome, they couldn't wait too get it out on the market.

For me they are a dissapointment, like many others I guess.

Im moving to Intel now, Yorksfield is out and tbqh, it's fantastic.

It's cool, quick and ofcourse a natural quad.

AMD sunk ship?

Nah, though they will have to release something pretty spectacular too regain the market.

Christmas would have been they're big break, yet they are far arsing about again.

[nemrod]

Instead of releasing AM2, they should have cracked straight on with Phenom.
0 process.



I have not like the transition from 939 to AM2 but I believe that is one big reason AMD is still alive. This thought transition has open the oem market and probably has help AMD to win the power/performance crow in server system.

[mstp2009]

Im moving to Intel now, Yorksfield is out and tbqh, it's fantastic.

It's cool, quick and ofcourse a natural quad.


No it's not. It's a multi-chip module (MCM) just like Kentsfield.

[gundersausage]

AMD Phenom won't hit 2.6GHz until 2008

Written by Lars-Göran Nilsson
Thursday, 08 November 2007 09:42

65nm production issues

According to Digitimes, AMD is having some problems hitting high clock speeds of the upcoming Phenom processors and although this isn't big news in itself, it seems like we won't see a 2.6GHz part until next year.

There will aparently only be two launch parts as well, the 2.2GHz 9500 and the 2.3GHz 9600, with the 2.4GHz 9700 arriving some time in December.

AMD need to step up and sort our these production issues as soon as possible, if the leaked benchmark figures we've seen is anything to go by, Intel doesn't exactly have a lot to worry about.

Hopefully AMD is just having some teething problem with its 65nm production process, but we really hoped to see more competitive parts from AMD at launch.

[eToh]

Amd ftl.:)

[ownage]

Amd ftl.:)

:rofl:


AMD will be back in the race probably somewhere in 2009. I dont expect anything from them in the meantime.
I hope they won't sink!

[Sparky]

Amd ftl.:)

If you believe that, then please go back to the intel section. A post like that in the AMD section is pointless at best.

[Epicenter]

Or at least learn to type in coherent sentences that aren't 100% acronym. AMD survived much worse times like back in the days of K6/K6-II/K6-III. I've always built PCs on a tight budget and worked to get the best for my money-- low-end AMD CPU, feature-rich midrange motherboard with a lot of overclocking features, sufficient RAM with modest timings (since timings really mean nothing in the real world), midrange video card, get one good PSU and let it last for years.

That was my strategy when I built my 450 MHz K6-II box and OC'd it to 550 MHz, put as much RAM as possible in it, with a Voodoo 3 and overclocked the crap out of the V3 as well. I built a solid machine for next to nothing and while it would lose to Pentium II/III machines in benchmarks, for the few hundred dollars it cost me it did a marvelous job of it.

Now I run a machine with a Brisbane 4000+ X2, 2GB of Patriot DDR2-667, an eVGA 8600GT/256MB, on an mATX board in a small case, with the CPU OC'd from 2.1 to 2.9 GHz-- my machine won't win benchmarks with a more expensive C2D system, but it gets the job done faster than any machine I've ever owned, and keeping the system well tuned and the OS bloat-free it still runs circles around the PC of most people I know. It cost me very little ($600 + $200 for my liquid cooling system which should last me a very long time); when I want to go to an X4 it will cost me nothing but the cost of the CPU and a BIOS update (free) to do so. Had I opted for an Intel platform I'd be looking at a new board for chipset revision/VRM standards change reasons.

Whoever has the best numbers in SuperPI or what have you isn't the only choice out there. If Intel had a better platform available for less money when I built this box I'd have done so; I'm no fanboy and I'll go with the rational deal. But in this case, even given AMD's rumored 'sinking ship' status, they were the 'smarter choice'.

[Lastviking]

AMD Phenom won't hit 2.6GHz until 2008

Written by Lars-Göran Nilsson
Thursday, 08 November 2007 09:42

65nm production issues

According to Digitimes, AMD is having some problems hitting high clock speeds of the upcoming Phenom processors and although this isn't big news in itself, it seems like we won't see a 2.6GHz part until next year.

There will aparently only be two launch parts as well, the 2.2GHz 9500 and the 2.3GHz 9600, with the 2.4GHz 9700 arriving some time in December.

AMD need to step up and sort our these production issues as soon as possible, if the leaked benchmark figures we've seen is anything to go by, Intel doesn't exactly have a lot to worry about.

Hopefully AMD is just having some teething problem with its 65nm production process, but we really hoped to see more competitive parts from AMD at launch.

I really dont think 2.6ghz will be hard to do becuse we have seen K10 do easy 2.5ghz with low vcore and also 3.0ghz+

[nemrod]

I don't know exactly the meaning of flt. But according to your post it could be related to bankrupt.
And I'm not agree with your statment:

AMD survived much worse times like back in the days of K6/K6-II/K6-III.
You can't compare K6 period and actual period because new Fab, new technology costs explode. I don't hope amd go bankrupt but I'm not sure you could refer to the past to say they will not go. If they have not enought money they can't invest enought for the future :shrug:

[hardrail]

Or at least learn to type in coherent sentences that aren't 100% acronym. AMD survived much worse times like back in the days of K6/K6-II/K6-III. I've always built PCs on a tight budget and worked to get the best for my money-- low-end AMD CPU, feature-rich midrange motherboard with a lot of overclocking features, sufficient RAM with modest timings (since timings really mean nothing in the real world), midrange video card, get one good PSU and let it last for years.

That was my strategy when I built my 450 MHz K6-II box and OC'd it to 550 MHz, put as much RAM as possible in it, with a Voodoo 3 and overclocked the crap out of the V3 as well. I built a solid machine for next to nothing and while it would lose to Pentium II/III machines in benchmarks, for the few hundred dollars it cost me it did a marvelous job of it.

Now I run a machine with a Brisbane 4000+ X2, 2GB of Patriot DDR2-667, an eVGA 8600GT/256MB, on an mATX board in a small case, with the CPU OC'd from 2.1 to 2.9 GHz-- my machine won't win benchmarks with a more expensive C2D system, but it gets the job done faster than any machine I've ever owned, and keeping the system well tuned and the OS bloat-free it still runs circles around the PC of most people I know. It cost me very little ($600 + $200 for my liquid cooling system which should last me a very long time); when I want to go to an X4 it will cost me nothing but the cost of the CPU and a BIOS update (free) to do so. Had I opted for an Intel platform I'd be looking at a new board for chipset revision/VRM standards change reasons.

Whoever has the best numbers in SuperPI or what have you isn't the only choice out there. If Intel had a better platform available for less money when I built this box I'd have done so; I'm no fanboy and I'll go with the rational deal. But in this case, even given AMD's rumored 'sinking ship' status, they were the 'smarter choice'.

Best post I've read here in a while.

Furthermore, Intel doesn't do themselves any favors releasing a new "bleeding edge" chipset every 3 months (seems like it) with no performance benefits. All I read for weeks was about this X38 chipset that turned out to be pretty useless. I don't buy Intel because there MB's are more expensive, their chips are more expensive.

[Nedjo]

AMD Phenom won't hit 2.6GHz until 2008

Written by Lars-Göran Nilsson
Thursday, 08 November 2007 09:42

65nm production issues

According to Digitimes, AMD is having some problems hitting high clock speeds of the upcoming Phenom processors and although this isn't big news in itself, it seems like we won't see a 2.6GHz part until next year.

There will aparently only be two launch parts as well, the 2.2GHz 9500 and the 2.3GHz 9600, with the 2.4GHz 9700 arriving some time in December.

AMD need to step up and sort our these production issues as soon as possible, if the leaked benchmark figures we've seen is anything to go by, Intel doesn't exactly have a lot to worry about.

Hopefully AMD is just having some teething problem with its 65nm production process, but we really hoped to see more competitive parts from AMD at launch.
So far DigiTimes has proved to be one of the most un-reliable news sites (we all remember "native Yorkfield. So why to believe that this "news" is accurate?

[Epicenter]

You can't compare K6 period and actual period because new Fab, new technology costs explode. I don't hope amd go bankrupt but I'm not sure you could refer to the past to say they will not go. If they have not enought money they can't invest enought for the future
People seem to assume no one is buying AMD hardware because they're not on top. Such is not the case. Your average consumer thinks with his wallet first and benchmark numbers second, if he's even savvy enough to look at those rather than following whatever he read in a magazine or saw in an ad. Having a less competitive project doesn't mean you go out of business, otherwise every industry in the world would have only one player.

That said I think AMD's acquisition of ATi was probably not the best timed, and ATi's poor position competing with nVidia is a part of that. I don't see AMD's business plan being in the enthusiast sector, I see it being in servers and 'least common denominator' PCs.

Think about it-- AMD stands to create a line of ICs that essentially are a desktop version of what's so popular in mobile devices, a System-on-a-Chip. A multi-core CPU, a modest GPU, and a northbridge all in one; a southbridge could easily be integrated too. You're looking, then, at AMD producing a chip that composes the vast majority of the components in your average PC. Sold at low cost to OEMs/System builders, they could really stand to clean up. That sort of innovation may very well lead to tiny ITX-style machines (well, look at DTX!) at extremely low prices, low power consumption (look at Geode) .... it's not hard to see where they're going with this. That's potential market share not to be scoffed at, even if it doesn't win benchmark comparisons against Intel.

Guess who sells the most GPUs? .. It's not nVidia or ATi/AMD .. it's Intel and their onboard video. So imagine the kind of market share AMD could have if they are selling boards with an onboard AMD-made CPU, chipset, GPU, northbridge, and a handful or two of small parts (capacitors, resistors, etc.) and all the OEM needs to supply is a case, PSU, HDD and optical drive? I think you see what I'm getting at here.

[nemrod]

People seem to assume no one is buying AMD hardware because they're not on top.

I don't assume nobody buy AMD hardware. I just see than since a lot of quater they lose several hundred of millions dollars each quater.
what I see is that to keep sale, they have to sale at a much too low price. As consumer we enjoy of low price, but this will perhaps what could finally kill AMD.

but you're right on that point:


Guess who sells the most GPUs? .. It's not nVidia or ATi/AMD .. it's Intel and their onboard video. So imagine the kind of market share AMD could have if they are selling boards with an onboard AMD-made CPU, chipset, GPU, northbridge, and a handful or two of small parts (capacitors, resistors, etc.) and all the OEM needs to supply is a case, PSU, HDD and optical drive? I think you see what I'm getting at here.

if they could sale with enought margins.

[nemrod]

So far DigiTimes has proved to be one of the most un-reliable news sites (we all remember "native Yorkfield. So why to believe that this "news" is accurate?

September 2006:


Intel plans to launch its second-generation quad-core processors - the Yorkfield series–as replacement parts for the upcoming Core 2 Quad (codenamed Kentsfield) CPUs in the third quarter of 2007, motherboard makers familiar with Intel's latest roadmap revealed. Intel is on track for a roll-out of its Kentsfield series on November 16, according to the makers, adding that the first-generation quad-core lineup may be considered a transitional product segment due to insufficient design capability.

Since Kentsfield appears to have two separate L2 caches, shared separately by each pair of processors, bus bandwidth consequently increases, the makers said. In contrast, Yorkfield will have one L2 cache shared directly by each pair of chips, enabling more efficient quad-core operation, with less FSB bandwidth, the makers noted.

Intel's Yorkfield will be paired with the next-generation Bearlake chipset family, which will support a 1333MHz FSB and a PCI Express 2.0 interface, according to the makers. The first Yorkfield-based systems, which will utilize the Bearlake X chipset and DDR3-1333 memory, will target the high-end gaming market, said the makers.

Intel's Yorkfield will be manufactured on 45-nanometer (45nm) process technology, the makers indicated.

It looks not so bad. The only really wrong information is
"Yorkfield will have one L2 cache shared directly by each pair of chips, enabling more efficient quad-core operation, with less FSB bandwidth, the makers noted."

Do you want to compare with informations we had in september 2006 about the barcelona? Even the name was wrong.. K8L... :shrug:

You think unbelievable that there will not be 2.6GHz phenom before Q1 2008. I 'd like to have your story for this:
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2007q3/cpu2006-20070903-01948.html

[Nedjo]

You think unbelievable that there will not be 2.6GHz phenom before Q1 2008. I 'd like to have your story for this:
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2007q3/cpu2006-20070903-01948.html

I guess that only IBM knows why did SPEC done that.

[Hornet331]

I guess that only IBM knows why did SPEC done that.

i guess your wrong.

SPEC has determined that this result was not in compliance with the
SPEC CPU2006 run and reporting rules. Specifically, the submitter
reported that the result would not meet the 3 month availability
requirement in the SPEC CPU2006 run rules due to a change in the
availability date of the system.

ibm just cant deliver the system cause there are not enough cpus.

[nemrod]

I guess that only IBM knows why did SPEC done that.
Apparently that was IBM who ask, not spec. But spec rule, ask that vendors be able to ship their system within 90 days of issuing a fresh test score.
Why can't IBM provide those barcelona servers to customer in the 3 months after the 10 september, I don't know exactly but I assume we should not laugh too high when we have information like no 2.6 GHz phenom before Q1 2008. :shrug:

[JohannesRS]

well, for me, teh calculation is the following:

just before the athlons hit the market, AMD was 10 BILLION dollar deficitary.

It's much bigger now than before, and from what I can guess it's stil not even that negative again.

So Intel would still have to do a big job to kill amd. Or too much speculative movements on nasdaq. ;)

[Ace123]

Good find, and good point.

Theoretically, if AMD produces a product thats far cheaper to produce, then they could win a price war if they could get their chips prices a little more competetivley than Intels.

Now... this doesnt take into account that AMD owes alot of money.

If GM can make comparable cars to fords, and produce them for cheaper, it would make since that GM would be able to price them out of the market.

Gm has been successful with this for some time, regardless of the fact that everyone has been spouting the "GM is a sinking ship" song for years, decades even.

[scafT]

AMD is a sinking ship, a space ship that is. they will always be afloat :D

[awdrifter]

The future doesn't look good for AMD, at least till the end of next year. From all the leak benchmarks the K10 is slower than Yorkfiled in almost every aspect, and the price will not be any lower. The HD38X0 series will not beat the GTX or it might not even beat the 8800GT. Sure, there are still suckers that will buy the products, but it'll be a lot less than if they have a good product. I have a AMD and ATI setup right now, but my next build will probably be Intel and Nvidia.

[akaBruno]

The only people who are "Suckers" in all this... are the people slurping up all the intel FUD.

Them peeps got some funny lookin stuff droolin down their chins. :clap:

Talk about fanboys?

[Machinus]

This is a bigger ass-kicking than any of the previous wars.

Also, the market flooding is unprecedented because Intel's fabs are so far ahead of AMDs and their prices are unbeatable.

So this whole article is pointless. People aren't hyped because Intel is beating AMD in this generation. They are hyped because Intel is trying to put AMD out of business and it looks like they might succeed.

[akaBruno]

It's becoming obvious that AMD will put out something close to c2d. It may not win many benchies but, AMD people will find it much smoother. Check out the poll at Anand.

The race won't end on Nov. 19th.

It's only just begun.

All you intel fanboys... take note.

BRUNO

[mad_skills]

just use common sense..
they'll put something good out in order to make profit
over and out :)

[nonworkingrich]

And if not ... Google will buy AMD.

[akaBruno]

And if not ... Google will buy AMD.

:up:

[stealth]

Do you really believe that AMD is a sinking ship?

There are a lot of people out there that they don't have the money to buy a high end system and they just wait for the second generation systems to get cheep enough.If you have a look at Asus forums you will see that a lot of people buy now 939 systems.

If you have a low price CPU that is worth the money people will buy it.

And if AMD is in the wrong path why Intel is going to change the architecture and follow AMD's steps?
If i was an Intel user i was going to worry that in a year time i have to throw away my high end system which cost me a few thousands dollars and buy something totally different.

"Nehalem will be Intelʼs first processor with scalable and configurable system interconnects and integrated memory controllers."

Why i think that i heard the word AMD more than one time in the above sentence,and why i think that i could just put Nehalem on an AM2+ mobo and make it run?

AMD has a five years experience on that technology,Intel?

AMD is a sinking ship?Ok i believe you.

stealth

[nemrod]

just before the athlons hit the market, AMD was 10 BILLION dollar deficitary.

Are you sure?
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6587/finanzq1.png

[cadaveca]

AMD long ago, before the aquisition of ATI, said they were focusing on the server market.

Lately there has been a lack of retail products, and many reports of a supply constraint from AMD.

Um, wait a second....AMD has issues meeting demand? And that's bad?

AMD is selling stuff like hotcakes, but not to retail sources. This merely confirms that they have done exactly as they said they would...focused on the server market.

Not long ago we heard that they had a sale of 25,000 K10 cpu's in one contract.


So, because thier supply was tapped, intel took a bold move, and lowered prices, trying to pick up the demand that AMD could not meet...becuase if they had kept thier old prices...noone was interested, as AMD had a better deal. Sure, it meant purchaser's had to wait a bit, but so what?


Some peopel seem to forget that it was back in May that AMD "announced" the Phenom. This annoucement meant that large purchaser's, such as that contract for 25K cpu's, could start lining up. They have been since then.

Now, we hear, many months later(almost 2 quarters) that AMD's retail launch of the Phnom will not have the clockspeeds as predicted, and immmediately people start screaming "BAD YIELDS!!!!", completely forgetting that AMD has been taking orders for Phenom for many months...orders that may just have been for those higher bins that everyone is waiting for.

I od not see this current AMD situation as bad. I do not see yield issues either. I see AMD meeting the server market demand, for top-quality wafer products. I see the left overs from each slice of wafer being stockpiled, awaiting a proper worldwide release...leftovers that do not meet thier predictions, as the high-quality slices are already sold to the top 90% of the market...which is not retail.


AMD forsaw thier supply issues, and decided that they'd go with the server market, as this market has a far different purchasing scheme than retail...and comes with some guarantees that retail cannot offer. 10% of the market, even 15%, is miniscule compared to 90% or 85%, which is where AMD is focused.

Yes, AMD is in a bit of a rough spot financially, but also notice that when they offered tenders for extra cash, they were gone within 24hrs. This only bolster's AMD position, and truly shows that AMD had proven themselves to these people...the people that are willing to spend 100's of 1000's of dollars...not the retail market where people may buy a few cpus...


AMD had my vote of confidence...and it still does....but i guess I'm a bit more business minded than some other people, and understand what moves they have made.

[Sparky]

Then once all the server market is satisfied, we get the goods right? Please?

[nemrod]

Not long ago we heard that they had a sale of 25,000 K10 cpu's in one contract.

Some peopel seem to forget that it was back in May that AMD "announced" the Phenom. This annoucement meant that large purchaser's, such as that contract for 25K cpu's, could start lining up. They have been since then.


Do you know that about 230 million systems was sold in 2006... And you think that 25000 cpu provoke a shortage?

(and the system was already sold 1 year before ;) )

[adamsleath]

amd have been a sinking ship since they started (ok theyve had their triumphs)
but they still around selling stuff so :p:
intel got pooey when amd started to make marketshare inroads and retaliated with c2d etc.

[cadaveca]

Do you know that about 230 million systems was sold in 2006... And you think that 25000 cpu provoke a shortage?

(and the system was already sold 1 year before ;) )

NO, it does not create a shortage, however, the actual dollar value of that single small contract...at even just $100 per cpu equals $2.5 million...a sale that almost no single retailer can match in a single purchase.

[knightwolf654]

even if AMD were to fall , i have a feeling IBM would get them back on there feet.
this is a good article and explains alot of whats going on.
i know it was said but the hole AMD ftl thing is uncalled for period. if intel chips are so much to make they wont have that many price drops then. hopefully there are bugs with phenom, if there are its a good thing which means when there fixed, benchmarks will improve. i hope shanghai or sandtiger get AMD back on top.

[haylui]

If C2D is a success then since K6-2 AMD scores successes until now. Recalling the first pc I helped my friend to build is K6-2 400MHz. I choose it because it's much cheaper than Pentium II 350MHz, although it was slower on benchmarks but it doesn't mean the chip is bad. AMD always been my choice since K6-2 day. With the launch of Phenom X4, it will put AMD into a more competitive position that Athlon64 X2 days. The aggressive moves from Intel certainly created a big impact on AMD for past 2 years. But I believe that AMD is now in the transition period consuming ATI so that in future there are sufficient chipset and 3D accelerator to be bundled with for OEMs and retail market.


AMD always compete with Intel with older process technology and yet able to deliver same level of performance. I really has got problem with those people just keep looking on benchmark result and overclocking ability than really looking into the technology behind before they comment on AMD. Try imagine a 2.0L L4 engine is on par with 2.5L V6 engine, which one product greater hp/L?

Lets hope that Phenom X4 will help AMD continue to progress. And a new board in AMD, Dirk Meyer could bring AMD out of loses.