Intel and amd questions

[IGetMoreAssThanAToiletSeat]

So I just want to ask, why doesnt amd try to go to the level of performance that intel is on? Do they just not have the same technology ability? Why is amd always behind on the core strength? could amd start making stronger or as strong cpu cores as intel? 

 

THIS DOESINT FAKING MAEK SENTS

 

[Sauron]

AMD has a lot less money to play with and doesn't produce their own silicon. They are trying, they just need more time.

[WereCat]

AMD is trying to do something about it.. you just have to wait till 2016 for their ZEN APUs/CPUs

[IGetMoreAssThanAToiletSeat]

Cool, because I really like amd but for gaming they just lack compared to intel... I hope something is done

[Mew]

Why doesn't Qualcomm catch up to the "core strength" of Apple's Ax SOC? Why doesn't Samsung either? Why doesn't nVidia? We can ask these questions all day but they're trying the best to improve their products with the limited resources that they have. 

[LegacyStijncat]

AMD's thing is budget. It shouldn't happen that they try to be Intel.

[dizmo]

It's only a matter of time before Intel crushes everything else out there.

They'll slowly work their way into the mobile space, do a proper job of that, and it'll be game over for everyone else.

 

Intel has 10x the number of employees that AMD does, and 10x the revenue.

[flipped_bit]

Unfortunately AMD made a huge blunder with their Bulldozer architecture they released some years ago.  They thought the industry was moving towards more parallel computing, but instead single-threaded performance has remained as important as ever.  They've make significant IPC improvements with successive refreshes, but the architecture limits just how far they can go.  They need an entirely new architecture, and these take a lot of time (years) and money (billions) to develop, so it's not like AMD can turn on a dime and fix their mistakes.

 

The good news is their new architecture - Zen - has been in the works for awhile now and should be a major improvement on Bulldozer.  The bad news is it won't show up until 2016 at the earliest. 

[flipped_bit]

It's only a matter of time before Intel crushes everything else out there.

They'll slowly work their way into the mobile space, do a proper job of that, and it'll be game over for everyone else.

 

Intel has 10x the number of employees that AMD does, and 10x the revenue.

 

Intel does dwarf AMD, but it's not an apples to apples comparison because AMD outsourced their fabs years ago, whereas Intel has kept there's in-house.  It's arguably one reason Intel has been able to iterate so quickly and build up its tremendous lead in the industry.

[dizmo]

Intel does dwarf AMD, but it's not an apples to apples comparison because AMD outsourced their fabs years ago, whereas Intel has kept there's in-house.  It's arguably one reason Intel has been able to iterate so quickly and build up its tremendous lead in the industry.

It still is tbh. GlobalFoundaries only has 13,000 employees and a 4.5bn revenue. So. Still gets absolutely smashed by Intel.

[erty176]

Also there is one major thing that everyone is forgetting. Intel invented hyper-threading, and that is a major step in the processor world. AMD just hasn't had the time to catch up, not to mention I'm sure Intel doesn't want to just hand over their ideas. But there is one thing that AMD has always had that Intel cannot compete with, and that's the price. Intel just found that people are willing to spend a lot more on processors then previously thought, so they will continue to increase price's until consumer's refuse to pay them. When that happens, AMD will become the major choice. Although, even I admit they need a new architecture. They have pretty much expended what they have now. I feel as though, a new architecture and a new Graphics architecture will bring AMD back to it's former glory. But again, this requires money, and until people are not going to pay for the ever increasing price of Intel, they won't have it. 

[IGetMoreAssThanAToiletSeat]

if amd goes out of business watch intels pentiums go up to like 250$. amd is really good with price

[i_build_nanosuits]

So I just want to ask, why doesnt amd try to go to the level of performance that intel is on? Do they just not have the same technology ability? Why is amd always behind on the core strength? could amd start making stronger or as strong cpu cores as intel? 

 

THIS DOESINT FAKING MAEK SENTS

They could but it would cost major bucks in research and development to achieve that kind of performance and AMD is not in a position where they could afford to spend billions on R&D right not and for the foreseeable future as well.

[harrynowl]

R&D is expensive, AMD has no cash to throw at making new things. They don't even have a fab and their usual partner (gloflo) is stuck with smaller processes right now.

[Megahurt]

AMD bet that programs would use more cores efficiently, they were wrong, and now they completely changed direction. If they had kept in the same direction, we'd probably have the next gen of that architecture already, but since they basically scrapted that and started from scratch, we need to wait for Zen sometime next year.

[itachipirate]

Because AMD's CPUs are from 3 years ago, and made for something that isn't gaming. Just because a tour de france road bike can't go through a mountain doesn't mean it isn't "on the same level" as a mountain bike

[i_build_nanosuits]

Because AMD's CPUs are from 3 years ago, and made for something that isn't gaming. Just because a tour de france road bike can't go through a mountain doesn't mean it isn't "on the same level" as a mountain bike

actualy AMD started development for bulldozer architecture back in 2010...and it was developped with server purposes in mind...not gaming or any other piece of sofware that benefit from strong and fast CPU cores...and piledriver is only a 10% improvement on bulldozer and it,s very similar architecture AKA pretty much the same...so those processors are way old school by now...a lot more than 3 years old...they trail intel CPU's from 2008-2009 to be honest.

[itachipirate]

actualy AMD started development for bulldozer architecture back in 2010...and it was developped with server purposes in mind...not gaming or any other piece of sofware that benefit from strong and fast CPU cores...and piledriver is only a 10% improvement on bulldozer and it,s very similar architecture AKA pretty much the same...so those processors are way old school by now...a lot more than 3 years old...they trail intel CPU's from 2008-2009 to be honest.

Exactly. Reasons people think the AMD FX CPUs are complete garbage

1: Using them for an unintended purpose (gaming)

2: People think they aren't old as all hell

 

AMD spent a lot of time and money with APUs, since a breakthrough in CPU-GPU integration would mean a PC revolution. They have not made new CPUs in a long time. They have not made gaming CPUs for even longer. If you're expecting an 8 core server CPU that is old as hell to play new AAA titles better than a brand new gaming CPU you're just crazy.

 

If you're taking a Tour De France road bike into the mountains and saying "awh man this is shit i could get a cheaper mountain bike that would do better, this thing is garbage. why doesn't Stage One make something better" you need to rethink what you're comparing

[Faceman]

@erty176

While the price of the processor is less expensive on AMD's side, the overall price of an AMD system costs the same or more than an Intel system. No matter how far you overclock the FX, it won't catch up to an equally or lesser priced Intel. The price:performance argument has been debunked long ago.