AMD Exec would never buy an AMD Chip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

Xbitlabs was saying that the phenom II x2 cores are just as large in die size as the core i7.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...n-ii-x2_3.html

---

thats because the phenom x2 can be unlocked into a quad. its the athlon x2 thats almost 1/3 the size and is close to the size of a wolfdale

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

If I was the exec who said that six years ago, I would definitely agree with the facepalm. However in todays chip market, if I was a business exec, I would agree, that its better to use Intel chips because they offer way better performance per watt. And as an overclocker, they kill AMD on anything that is not ln2 or liquid helium.

Additionally, they are only competitive when their quadcores or tricores are taking on Intels dual-cores or last generation processors(at significantly higher speed to do it to in this case). The thing is, AMD fastest chips cost just as much to make as Intel fastest if not more.

Xbitlabs was saying that the phenom II x2 cores are just as large in die size as the core i7.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...n-ii-x2_3.html

They are only competitive using brute force(large die size or extra cores) and taking small margins which cause the company to lose money. This mean they are far behind techwise and this type of business model is not sustainable. This they are not truly competitive.

If Intel started to price their chips like AMD and follow the same business model, they would take out AMD in a year. Their current pricing plan is a more of making due with what they have, rather than something to due with how fast their chips are.

---

thats not true at all for the die cashe takes the same space so the logic part is rather small on both and amds l3 less parts are much smaller and a quad amd with no l3 is about the same as a dual core intel size wise. amd has better platforms than intel dose but intel has better cpus (although when u dont oc they are about the same), they have igps that are way ahead of intel, and for normal consumer use with booting windows, browsing the internet, casual games and video amd is better. but back in 04 intel had junk with the p4 and even with the 1st 775 parts latter. but then if he was to get a prebuilt im not sure were u could get a good system with an amd cpu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

First of all it was cited at the time AMD was dominating intel(facepalm number 1) ;second of all AMD is competitive today in all the segments except the high end (both server and desktop;high end is hardly relevant profit wise)-facepalm no 2.

So all in all, fail article and facepalm granted from me(after 6 years).

---

amd is better than intel for most high end servers, once u are in a dull x64 environment or using visualization amd really pulls ahead, especially when u can buy 8 amd cpus for the price of 4 intel and they will have the same power draw. intel is only better if u need brute force int work in 32bit and thats not all to common.

lol, amd and ftc sell intel, and this is how intel responds? :rolleyes:
digging up some 6 year old statement about how amd cpus werent competitive enough back then? pff... please... :rolleyes:

so what, intel execs always thought their chips were the best to get at all times? prescott? willamette? the crash and burn pentium 3 1ghz edition? the crash and meltdown 840XE dualcore? :p:

please... what a lame low blow...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

So are you saying they are not good at making processors?



If I was the exec who said that six years ago, I would definitely agree with the facepalm. However in todays chip market, if I was a business exec, I would agree, that its better to use Intel chips because they offer way better performance per watt. And as an overclocker, they kill AMD on anything that is not ln2 or liquid helium.

Additionally, they are only competitive when their quadcores or tricores are taking on Intels dual-cores or last generation processors(at significantly higher speed to do it to in this case). The thing is, AMD fastest chips cost just as much to make as Intel fastest if not more.

Xbitlabs was saying that the phenom II x2 cores are just as large in die size as the core i7.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...n-ii-x2_3.html

They are only competitive using brute force(large die size or extra cores) and taking small margins which cause the company to lose money. This mean they are far behind techwise and this type of business model is not sustainable. This they are not truly competitive.

If Intel started to price their chips like AMD and follow the same business model, they would take out AMD in a year. Their current pricing plan is a more of making due with what they have, rather than something to due with how fast their chips are.

---

lol is you were a biz exec, you would care about performance and price....for businesses both are sufficient. this will not help them anyway with their case, the opinion of the marketing (former?) head at the time is not relevant to their case.


it would be like if I went out for a drink with a midget, and I then asked the midget how they can drink so much alcohol; when they have such small bodies..... it's pointless and has no bearing on the conversation/issue at hand.

AMD and Intel have already settled this matter. Just water under the bridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therightway

AMD and Intel have already settled this matter. Just water under the bridge.

---

Uh.... :welcome:

Intel and FTC have not. :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therightway

AMD and Intel have already settled this matter. Just water under the bridge.

---

just because the intel has made amends with their rival; does not mean that the repercussions of their actions have simply vanished. this is about more than amd; or nvidia, it has to do with Intel abusing their dominate position to lock out competitors,and keeps prices inflated. look me in the eye and tell me that if amd had never been their to challenge intel; prices would have dropped and performance would have increased as much as they have.

Pretty much an open and shut case. :hammer: Nice work by the Intel legal team. There's a reason why they get paid those big bucks. :bananal:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User9498

Pretty much an open and shut case. :hammer: Nice work by the Intel legal team. There's a reason why they get paid those big bucks. :bananal:

---

once you have anti-trust case, you will never get back where you came from
look at MS

AMD executives admitted their CPU strategy was inferior

Quote:

---

“We were going to not be as competitive in the mobile space, even though we knew that mobile space was going to be critical. [AMD] was late with a competitive product in the mobile space,” Mr. Ruiz is reported to have said.

---

Xbitlabs

Interesting that even though they realised it they still tried to sell K8 until recently, a good strategy ignoring 2/3rd of the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpha_tot

The quote is from 2004... which means he'd take a P4 over an athlon 64? fail

---

LOL, i was thinking the same thing, A64 murdered the P4.

Good job Exec, now the marketing department will be pissed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpha_tot

The quote is from 2004... which means he'd take a P4 over an athlon 64? fail

---

i really think his statement wasn't meant to be taken literally. even though amd's a64 wiped the floor with intel's p4 back then, intel sold more p4 than amd its a64 - because most large oems just offered pcs with intel's p4.... that's what the recent anti-trust case between amd and intel was about. and here is, imo, the point where this statement might fit: "imagine you're a casual pc user that has no clue about performance figures and the like and you go to a store or oem-website and everywhere you look there's always a huge p4-advertising catching your eyes. almost every pc features a p4, oem pcs with a64 are scarce articles. NOW what would you buy? under these circumstances 'i wouldn't buy amd either'".

i think you get the idea ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

Well, being 6 years old does make it less bad. But that's still horrible PR regardless, and a very stupid comment for an Exec to make

---

It wasn't PR :up:

Quote:

---

internal AMD communication from former Executive Vice President ....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Truckchase!

Read the story; it's an internal memo. This has nothing to do with PR.

---

Thank you :clap:

The entire context is likely missing... He was stating that AMD needed their own chipsets and such, and by the looks of it suggesting they needed better marketing which was true in 04'. Noobs still praise the p4 though much less now.

Is this any difference than what has been trotted out as truth that Intel was engaging in anti-competitive practices? It all comes down to the details. We won't get those until the courts start seeing this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuroimaho

Xbitlabs

Interesting that even though they realised it they still tried to sell K8 until recently, a good strategy ignoring 2/3rd of the market.

---

totally agree :toast:
it took amd too long to become competitive? as if they were competitive right now... only by lowering their prices massively are they able to sell mobile parts... thats not what id call competitive...

and the mobile market is important because its the future...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

i really think his statement wasn't meant to be taken literally. even though amd's a64 wiped the floor with intel's p4 back then, intel sold more p4 than amd its a64 - because most large oems just offered pcs with intel's p4.... that's what the recent anti-trust case between amd and intel was about. and here is, imo, the point where this statement might fit: "imagine you're a casual pc user that has no clue about performance figures and the like and you go to a store or oem-website and everywhere you look there's always a huge p4-advertising catching your eyes. almost every pc features a p4, oem pcs with a64 are scarce articles. NOW what would you buy? under these circumstances 'i wouldn't buy amd either'".

i think you get the idea ;)

---

Exactly. I think the point he was trying to make is "If I didn't work at AMD, I wouldn't have known it's just as good or better, and I would have went with the familiar and common Intel instead".

And what mr Ruiz is saying is that they could have been better off with delivering a complete platform rather than just the processors - from their (AMD's) business perspective. Not from a performance or cost perspective to the end costumer.

i don't get all your facepalm comments---


it's an internal memo and i bet that they weren't talking about desktop chips

read the hector ruiz quote above; i'm 100% sure that this talk was about mobile chips which simply sucked back then (desktop chip stuck into a mobile system; propably athlon XP) and it could be a complaint from exec to R&D regarding the lack of competitive mobile chips from amd....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RHKCommander959

It wasn't PR :up:


Thank you :clap:

The entire context is likely missing... He was stating that AMD needed their own chipsets and such, and by the looks of it suggesting they needed better marketing which was true in 04'. Noobs still praise the p4 though much less now.

---

I assume the discussion was about the need of an "platform approach".

The comment could have been taken out of context, since most probably it was describing the market situation and customer perception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuroimaho

Xbitlabs

Interesting that even though they realised it they still tried to sell K8 until recently, a good strategy ignoring 2/3rd of the market.

---

from the article:

Quote:

---

According to Intel AMD’s marketing chief called AMD “pathetic” for “selling processors rather than platforms

---

so is this the reason why we now have some killer platforms from AMD? the 790 and 890s are great for almost everything, and cost next to nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olivon

AMD executives admitted their CPU strategy was inferior

---

well resources were not available because they could not sell units (didn't they try to give away a million units...and no one would take them?),without income or access to the market, amd could not develop a good mobile platform. yes they did not have there own chipsets, but that is only part of the problem. the way that intel shut them out, even if they did have the whole platform, they would not have been able to come to market anyways.

it really is open and shut, either intel will settle (give in) to ftc demands, or they will lose the case. if anyone becomes surprised that these events happen...they are seriously deluded.

:shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RHKCommander959

It wasn't PR :up:


Thank you :clap:

---

Umm....

I don't know how to put this...but...of course I know he didn't say that directly to the media as a PR move. However with the context intel has put it in, for the average clueless user, yes it is terrible PR. Making negative comments about your company is never something you say on the record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haylui

this kind of internal memo isn't strong enough to support Intel in FTC case

---

I was simply connecting the dots for those who couldnt. I never said it was strong enough to help Intel's case with the FTC. I just simply was shedding light on the point of why Intel brought it up. A lot of people missed that point completely. ;)

It fails because what Intel did was wrong regardless of the competition and if AMD was truly that bad why were they trying to stifle competition? If they would actually use this as a defense they will be laughed out of court it would seem. Am I missing something?