AMD Wants To Stop Being Known As The “Cheaper Solution”

[patrickjp93]

I've said this a while ago. Nice to know I share the same ideas as a CEO of a semi-conductor company. However, I wonder how aggressive she intends to be?

The performance of their upcoming chips alone (assuming they can match or beat Intel) is meaningless if no one knows they are competitive. We geeks who watch the market and ogle over speculations of architectures and benchmarks and gigahertz are not the market that will save AMD. On a global scale, our community (not just LTT but the whole of the water cooling, overclocking, sli running, torture testing, spec fapping community) makes up a very small percent of the desktop buying market. The general public sees AMD as cheap, and that's what hurts.

There has to be PR to push these parts. What's the AMD to Intel commercial ratio on the boob tube? Even when AMD was rocking and were at their competitive peak they foolishly didn't capitalize on it. They need to become aggressive. 

Got an OEM deal on a new lenovo/HP/Sony/whatever laptop? Cool. When they advertise their gadgets you make sure, in the deal, that AMD appears somewhere in that spot. Powered by AMD folks. You know, that other company. The one that wants to tear Intel a new anus. There's our logo. LOOK AT IT, FUCKER! DON'T FORGET IT! And you wanna buy a $1500 machine with our chip in it because this chip shits on Intel's chip at this price. Here's some graphs. Now PISS OFF and buy this thing MAGGOT! *exit with catchy 5 second jingle*. 

Marketing isn't only about what's true. It's about what the people know. AMD needs to market their stuff in the same way Apple did when they were in trouble and Jobs took over. 

Even then, if they manage to change public perception, they still have the deep pockets of Intel to deal with. Intel's profit margins are such compared to AMD's that they can cut their prices quite aggressively if they need to. With AMD already cutting their margins so thin, would they be able to battle Intel in a price war? 

It's not only an uphill battle, but there's 3 hills to conquer: performance, perception, and pricing. 

Those that think Zen coming out and being amazing alone will magically turn the tide are simplifying things to put it lightly. 

 

Last time I saw an Intel commercial was 2012.

[patrickjp93]

and how much does it cost like 200+

190 is the cheapest I can find, and given the prices of FX used to be in the $250 - 500 range, I don't particularly care that Intel's prices haven't fallen. It's only proof of their products' longevity.

[MageTank]

Last time I saw an Intel commercial was 2012.

 

You and I both live in Ohio, i see them quite regularly with Jim Parsons (Sheldon from Big Bang Theory) doing his quirky walkthrough of the secret Intel Labs. You might not watch TV that often, and I do not blame anyone for that, nothing is ever on anyways.

 

Sorry for the off topic rant about television. Carry on people.

[patrickjp93]

You and I both live in Ohio, i see them quite regularly with Jim Parsons (Sheldon from Big Bang Theory) doing his quirky walkthrough of the secret Intel Labs. You might not watch TV that often, and I do not blame anyone for that, nothing is ever on anyways.

 

Sorry for the off topic rant about television. Carry on people.

what channel?

[cesrai]

mantle is an open standard meaning anyone can get mantle if they want 

It still doesn't change the face it isn't open source.

[Homicidium]

190 is the cheapest I can find, and given the prices of FX used to be in the $250 - 500 range, I don't particularly care that Intel's prices haven't fallen. It's only proof of their products' longevity.

 

Oh, so the FX chips haven't proven their longevity? They still can compete with currents Intel's line up!

[MageTank]

what channel?

 

I mostly watch Velocity and Discovery, but i occasionally watch CBS because i am a fan of Blue Bloods with Tom Selleck. 

[patrickjp93]

Oh, so the FX chips haven't proven their longevity? They still can compete with currents Intel's line up!

No they can't. They were worse than Sandy Bridge when they launched and have only gotten worse since then. Any multi-threaded app you can build to take advantage of all 8 BD/PD cores I can refactor to go faster on an I7. The only applications I can think of which AMD remotely stays competitive in are CAD and some professional apps, and frankly by the time you get to those you should be working with E5 Xeons anyway, and 6 Xeon cores post-SandyBridge, which can be acquired for the same price as a 5820K will not simply compete with, but wipe the floor with an FX 9590.

 

AMD has not been remotely competitive since the Athlon 64/Pentium days, and really since Core 2 Quad they were slipping. Now it's not even a contest. Maybe when Zen rolls out with its theoretical 5% performance advantage over Haswell we can see the resurgence of AMD, but I'm a realist, and the probability simply isn't in AMD's favor with or without Keller, Koduri, and Papermaster.

[KE2012]

If AMD wan't to be known as the 'high end' solution I think they need a major shake up and focus either on GPU's or CPU's for a while, CPU's they are miles and miles behind so imo they are better of focusing on GPU's as they are only behind team green by a small margin.

 

Either way, this is good news as it might mean Intel once again has a true competitor, re-igniting the CPU race once again, or the GPU market is going to become a really interesting place. 

[Homicidium]

[...]The only applications I can think of which AMD remotely stays competitive in are CAD and some professional apps[...]

 

You're proving my point here. 

 

Just to be clear, I've never said anything or was relating to Intel's enthusiast or professional line of CPU's, but compared to Intel's consumer-grade hardware (mostly referring to the i5's here), they're better in professional use than Intel and most likely (to be honest, I'm not really up to date on the most current line up of 4770 or 4790k) and still can keep up (roughly) with the performance of the i5 in gaming applications, even and especially if a game is bound heavily on CPU performance (and is optimized for multithreaded operations obviously). 

 

 

 

[...]you should be working with E5 Xeons anyway, and 6 Xeon cores post-SandyBridge, which can be acquired for the same price as a 5820K

 

That is true, however you're looking at a much higher initial spending than with a FX CPU and motherboard! Of course, I'm not going to argue with you about the fact, that ANYBODY who is remotely serious and professional about their work will invest in a Xeon setup, but what if you're not a professional? What if you do some CAD as a hobby, for modding for example? Not anybody has the money to invest into a Xeon setup considering that you can even setup a PC capable of decent CAD performance for the same amount of cash you have to pay for an entry level E5 Xeon with a 8350 and a decent motherboard. Not to mention that a 8350 based setup is most likely even going to be similar in performance and versatility compared to a Xeon - based system, and I think that is something the FX line up is still very good at and is still appealing to a lot of people; it's versatile. 

 

You can use it to edit photos, videos and even do some 3D design and game without having any very significant performance hit compared to Intel's i5 or (when overclocked) i7 line up, and all of that at a affortable price, which is again, the strong suit of AMD. It strikes the balance, which many Intel CPU's lack. Are there better Intel CPU's out there, meaning better performing, more efficient, that have more computing power? Of course, there are plenty! But most of these CPU's come at a certain price, which is too much for a some people, and that's where AMD slides in and says "Hey, you want to do all this stuff and can relinquish this or that feature? This is the CPU for you!"

 

 

 

AMD has not been remotely competitive since the Athlon 64/Pentium days, and really since Core 2 Quad they were slipping

 

Considering that a lot or most games are now more GPU-bound, I don't think that the CPU performance is really a bottleneck in performance. Again, the Piledriver architecture is still holding up nicely, considering it launched in 2011/2012, and considering how "far" we actually have developed in that period. Again, I'm not really going to argue about your point that AMD cannot completely keep up with Intel's newer line up and that most of Intel's line up is superior to AMD's outdated platform, but the overall point I'm trying to get across here or rather I disagree on is that the AMD is completely underpowered for today's standards, which it's simply isn't, at least not to the extend where it would be superbad or uncompetitive to Intel's line up (former and current)

[MrDynamicMan]

ITT: games are the only conceivable purpose for a CPU

No.

LTT: AMD needs to step up their Cpu game. Their IPC is crap

[patrickjp93]

You're proving my point here. 

 

Just to be clear, I've never said anything or was relating to Intel's enthusiast or professional line of CPU's, but compared to Intel's consumer-grade hardware (mostly referring to the i5's here), they're better in professional use than Intel and most likely (to be honest, I'm not really up to date on the most current line up of 4770 or 4790k) and still can keep up (roughly) with the performance of the i5 in gaming applications, even and especially if a game is bound heavily on CPU performance (and is optimized for multithreaded operations obviously). 

 

 

 

 

That is true, however you're looking at a much higher initial spending than with a FX CPU and motherboard! Of course, I'm not going to argue with you about the fact, that ANYBODY who is remotely serious and professional about their work will invest in a Xeon setup, but what if you're not a professional? What if you do some CAD as a hobby, for modding for example? Not anybody has the money to invest into a Xeon setup considering that you can even setup a PC capable of decent CAD performance for the same amount of cash you have to pay for an entry level E5 Xeon with a 8350 and a decent motherboard. Not to mention that a 8350 based setup is most likely even going to be similar in performance and versatility compared to a Xeon - based system, and I think that is something the FX line up is still very good at and is still appealing to a lot of people; it's versatile. 

 

You can use it to edit photos, videos and even do some 3D design and game without having any very significant performance hit compared to Intel's i5 or (when overclocked) i7 line up, and all of that at a affortable price, which is again, the strong suit of AMD. It strikes the balance, which many Intel CPU's lack. Are there better Intel CPU's out there, meaning better performing, more efficient, that have more computing power? Of course, there are plenty! But most of these CPU's come at a certain price, which is too much for a some people, and that's where AMD slides in and says "Hey, you want to do all this stuff and can relinquish this or that feature? This is the CPU for you!"

 

 

 

 

Considering that a lot or most games are now more GPU-bound, I don't think that the CPU performance is really a bottleneck in performance. Again, the Piledriver architecture is still holding up nicely, considering it launched in 2011/2012, and considering how "far" we actually have developed in that period. Again, I'm not really going to argue about your point that AMD cannot completely keep up with Intel's newer line up and that most of Intel's line up is superior to AMD's outdated platform, but the overall point I'm trying to get across here or rather I disagree on is that the AMD is completely underpowered for today's standards, which it's simply isn't, at least not to the extend where it would be superbad or uncompetitive to Intel's line up (former and current)

Eh, even quad-core I7s do better than AMD's FX 8 series for professional apps, but professional apps should be running with ECC memory anyway, so I didn't bother.

 

AMD bet on massive multicore far too early for the consumer market. If OpenMP didn't make developers jump to it over 6 years ago, AMD should have known to not pursue that.

 

Originally that wasn't true, because the FX 8 chips were $400 each on their own back in the day of Sandy Bridge. Xeon setups are not more expensive than I7 setups until you break into the middle and upper ends of the Xeon E5 lineup such as 10-core parts. Now, what will cost you more if you choose to invest is the ECC memory.

 

In gaming the 8350 bottlenecks anything more powerful than a stock GTX 970.

 

And I would argue you greatly overestimate AMD's performance and potential.

[othertomperson]

No.

LTT: AMD needs to step up their Cpu game. Their IPC is crap

 

For some applications more cores is better than faster cores. This is why we have 18 core Xeons clocked at 2.3GHz. But no, if it's not a good component for gaming most of the comments on this forum will not see its relevance.

[patrickjp93]

For some applications more cores is better than faster cores. This is why we have 18 core Xeons clocked at 2.3GHz. But no, if it's not a good component for gaming most of the comments on this forum will not see its relevance.

The real problem for AMD will be if DX 12 can be mended to scale up to 8 cores and breathe new life into the FX 8 series, because at that point all of their CPU bottlenecks evaporate, and the FX 8 series will be so much cheaper compared to Zen that Zen just will not sell to anyone but the most diehard AMD fans. Bulldozer wasn't just a bullet in the foot. It was like chopping AMD off at the knee in the worst case.

[Homicidium]

In gaming the 8350 bottlenecks anything more powerful than a stock GTX 970.

 

I think you underestimate the 8350, my friend.

 

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/55/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-2560x1440/index.html

 

I'm not going to argue with you on the point that Intel's line up of CPU's is going to be quicker in most applications and is going to open up more performance with newer architecture GPU's, however to speak of a bottleneck is taking it a little far, especially since they actually used SLI 780's and 980's in this test and compared it to a enthusiast grade CPU from Intel, it would've been interesting to see the graphs with a 4770k or a 4790k, but I'd say that the results would be slightly worse of Intel's part yet still in front of the AMD. 

 

I think you misunderstand (maybe due some inproper explaination on my part) what I'm trying to say here. Like I said at the end of my last comment and the beginning of this one. I'm not going to argue with anyone, when they say that the current Intel's line up is spanking AMD's FX - Series chips left and right, they do, but point is however that I personally think that the FX - Series chips (which the link I've posted proves, at least from a gaming standpoint) still hold up well considering for how low they're sold for. I'm not saying, they're better or faster or whatever compared to Intel, all I'm saying is, that they still can keep up somewhat decently, ESPECIALLY considering the price point. 

 

Could it be that you're a little bit biased towards Intel? Don't take this the wrong way, but it just seems like it, if not then it's all good

[MrDynamicMan]

For some applications more cores is better than faster cores. This is why we have 18 core Xeons clocked at 2.3GHz. But no, if it's not a good component for gaming most of the comments on this forum will not see its relevance.

But the other thing is that a lot of programs are not very effective when it comes to multiple cores, especially on the consumer level. We, generally, are consumers running consumer software on high end but still consumer level systems. Also AMD needs to cater to consumers, because make up the majority of the market. This is why we have 4core i5s @3.5 ghz.

[Briggsy]

AMD have to be careful how they try to market themselves once they have strong IPC. For general task computers that aren't going to be used for high-end gaming or heavy rendering, their Trinity/Richland APU's were brilliantly priced. I've been able to put together cheap A8-6600k office computers that are fast, reliable and powerful for everything thrown at them, and I expect them to last for years and years before an upgrade is ever needed. The desktop experience is very snappy, much more than the Sandy Bridge Intel machines with HD graphics, especially when something graphical is involved. 

 

But, If my only choice was between an equivalent Kaveri APU or Intel i3 with Iris Pro, I might lean toward Intel because of the Increased price of Kaveri. The Richland APU's are dirt cheap and run easily on feature-rich FM2+ motherboards, and Total system power draw while idle is 20-25 Watts, even with Core parking disabled. They overclock with a Hyper 212 easy and produce little heat. If Carizzo are good and not overpriced, that might shift my opinion back towards AMD for general purpose computing, at least for the time being.

 

My Guess is that with Zen APU's, AMD might try a dual-core with multi-threading, and Match an Intel i3 for price and functionality. Whether this is a good thing, or if it even happens, remains to be seen. Trying to market a dual-core with 4 threads is going to be hard with your regular crowds who think more cores is better.

[mr moose]

Every piece was new. OS, case, SSD, GPU etc. I built it "my way" and not just the cheapest thing I could throw together for him. I put some love into the build. Cause it was for Pops.

 

I am not saying that AMD chips can't do anything. Its the Intel hype train/ AMD bash train. Read the posts in this topic for fuel for that. Ive been a AMD CPU and Nvidia GPU guy for years and years. Any new build I do for anyone is AMD/Nvidia. I have yet to have anyone complain that it is slow. Or doesn't satisfy their needs.  

 

The thing is You won't hear anyone complain like that unless they are at the stage of upgrading, the issue here is that no one is actually bashing AMD products.  If you were to build a system now you can get an Intel part for the same price if not only a few $ more that is superior not only in performance but future upgrade paths as well.  This is not people bashing AMD they are just beinf realistic with whats out there and how it performs over all.   The company bashing and fanboyism isn't limited to AMD bashing and nvidia4life wankers though,  just look at post #148.  If that (including the quote) isn't a veiled insult at Nvidia then there is no such thing. 

 

I can't believe I am saying this again, but the reality is this forum is actually more supportive of AMD than many of you think.  More often AMD GPUS are recommended, more often I read posts that say how they don't want AMD to die and they want something awesome from them.  But for some inexplicable reason people tend to only concentrate on the handful of vehemently anti-amd posts as if they constitute the majority on these forums.   We are enthusiasts not football fans. A few people on these forums need to leave their colors at the door. 

[TorqueS]

I think you underestimate the 8350, my friend.

 

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/55/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-2560x1440/index.html

 

I'm not going to argue with you on the point that Intel's line up of CPU's is going to be quicker in most applications and is going to open up more performance with newer architecture GPU's, however to speak of a bottleneck is taking it a little far, especially since they actually used SLI 780's and 980's in this test and compared it to a enthusiast grade CPU from Intel, it would've been interesting to see the graphs with a 4770k or a 4790k, but I'd say that the results would be slightly worse of Intel's part yet still in front of the AMD. 

 

I think you misunderstand (maybe due some inproper explaination on my part) what I'm trying to say here. Like I said at the end of my last comment and the beginning of this one. I'm not going to argue with anyone, when they say that the current Intel's line up is spanking AMD's FX - Series chips left and right, they do, but point is however that I personally think that the FX - Series chips (which the link I've posted proves, at least from a gaming standpoint) still hold up well considering for how low they're sold for. I'm not saying, they're better or faster or whatever compared to Intel, all I'm saying is, that they still can keep up somewhat decently, ESPECIALLY considering the price point. 

 

Could it be that you're a little bit biased towards Intel? Don't take this the wrong way, but it just seems like it, if not then it's all good

 

I think you're right when you say they hold up well against intel's current offerings, but that's just because there's nothing else coming from AMD.

I have an FX system myself, and it's great, for now, since I ended up getting an R9 270 and waiting to upgrade to R9 3xx.

Since i have a 900p monitor the 270 is great, and the FX has no problems in games along with this GPU. 

But what happens when I'll upgrade to something stronger, say an R9 380X/390/390X?

 

I think the bottom line in this case is shaped towards those who posess an FX setup, and are in a dilema, whether or not they should upgrade right now.

I think it's not worth it. The FXs hold up well for the majority of users and unless you're really productive or a professional gamer, there's no problem staying FX8 one more year.

DX12 is said to eliminate the CPU bottleneck, which, if it's true, will be like a resurrection for the FX line.

 

[patrickjp93]

I think you underestimate the 8350, my friend.

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/55/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-2560x1440/index.html

I'm not going to argue with you on the point that Intel's line up of CPU's is going to be quicker in most applications and is going to open up more performance with newer architecture GPU's, however to speak of a bottleneck is taking it a little far, especially since they actually used SLI 780's and 980's in this test and compared it to a enthusiast grade CPU from Intel, it would've been interesting to see the graphs with a 4770k or a 4790k, but I'd say that the results would be slightly worse of Intel's part yet still in front of the AMD.

I think you misunderstand (maybe due some inproper explaination on my part) what I'm trying to say here. Like I said at the end of my last comment and the beginning of this one. I'm not going to argue with anyone, when they say that the current Intel's line up is spanking AMD's FX - Series chips left and right, they do, but point is however that I personally think that the FX - Series chips (which the link I've posted proves, at least from a gaming standpoint) still hold up well considering for how low they're sold for. I'm not saying, they're better or faster or whatever compared to Intel, all I'm saying is, that they still can keep up somewhat decently, ESPECIALLY considering the price point.

Could it be that you're a little bit biased towards Intel? Don't take this the wrong way, but it just seems like it, if not then it's all good

The 4790K would perform better because it's a game which doesn't rely on multicore performance, but rather single core performance. Furthermore at 1440p with AA you get a GPU bottleneck. 1440p vanilla or 1080p vanilla CPU bottleneck instantly.

[Dabombinable]

whut the intel xeon is weaker in single core performance wtf ?

I'd say 'whut' as well, even an older Core 2 Duo has stronger single core performance.

[Grimsace]

I don't think anyone outside of AMD or their fabs knows how the Zen processors will be upon launch. However I'd like to see AMD give Intel a reason to produce a balls to the wall CPU again. I'm also hoping that the next generation of AMD CPUs are actually CPUs with no graphics core on them unlike their current line of APUs. In response to

 

Fairly simple reason actually: the low-hanging fruit have all been picked.

 

Well this is true, that doesn't mean AMD, especially after winning huge bids in the home console market, couldn't reinvest that money into top of the line features such as their hyper-threading like technology (forgot their marketing term).

 

I'm not saying that AMD will not be the cheaper option, but it would be nice for them to give intel a run for their money.

[Dabombinable]

Again, this is why AMD would have troubles not being the cheaper solution. Stock i5 vs suicide clocked FX 8320 and FX8350:

Right from the benchmarks of forum members

[Dabombinable]

I don't think anyone outside of AMD or their fabs knows how the Zen processors will be upon launch. However I'd like to see AMD give Intel a reason to produce a balls to the wall CPU again. I'm also hoping that the next generation of AMD CPUs are actually CPUs with no graphics core on them unlike their current line of APUs. In response to

 

 

Well this is true, that doesn't mean AMD, especially after winning huge bids in the home console market, couldn't reinvest that money into top of the line features such as their hyper-threading like technology (forgot their marketing term).

AMD actually managed to squeeze graphics into their Phenom II line that were definitely better than what Intel was using while providing very good CPU's. AMD needs to stop shooting for the moon with their APU's as they aren't going to get there, and focus on strengthening the CPU cores as the GPU's in use are fine for gaming. Heck, with the resolution dropped right down there is a high chance of getting near 60fps on high to full settings in games with the current configurations..

[mr moose]

Because I think it's ridiculous how low AMD's market share is when they build great GPU's. For as competitive they are in performance and pricing they really deserve better than half the market share Nvidia has.

 

From your perspective that is true, if all consumers had your requirements, budget, experiences and end goals then the market share would be very different. 

Basically price/performance is not the only factor when deciding on a new GPU.

 

 

However consumers are not all the same, we don't all have the same experience so some of us will buy our next card based on how the last one performed, some will buy the next one based purely on review performance, others will buy based only on forum recommendations. All these things are variables and the only one effecting factor is the general overall suitability of a product. It seems that over the last 4 years Nvidia has, through it's business practices, managed to either provide a suitable card/gaming experience or simply not annoy enough of it's customers with quirky issues. The mere fact that AMD GPUS perform adequately is clearly not enough to overcome the reputation they have for being hot and have buggy/unoptimized drivers. I know this is not the case for everyone, clearly there are people in this forum who have had nothing but the perfect experience with AMD, however when you actually ask people why they want nvidia over AMD the reasons are always the same, they usually stem from a bad experience with drivers or fear of heat/power issues.

The exact same thing happens in other markets too. Toyota had the worlds best selling car in the 90's even though they were not the cheapest nor most reliable. It happened because toyota developed a reputation for building solid cars in the 80's. It wasn't until after 2000 that hyundai caught them and that was purely because hyundai are significantly cheaper. After the heat issues of Fermi Nvidia worked hard to ensure their drivers where good and that game devs had the resources they needed to make their GPUs perform at there best. We see this in optimised drivers for DX and even for Linux.

These are just some of the reason why Nvidia has the market, Quite a lot of the enthusiast market will look beyond raw performance because there is not point in having massive Tflops, thousands upon thousands of cores, 8G of stacked ram running 8 times faster the tradition vram if the driver is unoptimized and the game stutters or crashes every 2 minutes. Now I have to say it again, these are not hard and fast rules/conditions, but if you spend an hour reading forums you'll note they are not uncommon, particularly from a year back. Which is close enough in recent history to still be an effecting factor in peoples purchasing conditions. My last GPU was a 270 and so far I am absolutely wrapped with it. I will never recommend the 750Ti after getting it. To me the 750Ti is like the FX range and the 270 is like an i5, it just doesn't make any sense to go there for the sake of a few dollars.

So from my experience and from reading peoples opinions i can see why Nvidia has the market share they do. If AMD want to change that then they don't need to change the performance of their GPUs, they need to change how they work with game devs, how they advertise and how much effort they put into the things that have the biggest effect on after sales experience (drivers, support etc).

Before anyone says it because they read my post wrong, I am not saying stacked ram will stutter and fail, I am saying people will be less impressed with the such specs if the drivers have historically let them down.