AMD just needs to strengthen it's ties to some strategic partners and start getting more design wins.
That would be a real problem. No OEM can build an entire line up with AMD processors only.
AMD just needs to strengthen it's ties to some strategic partners and start getting more design wins.
That would be a real problem. No OEM can build an entire line up with AMD processors only.
FD-SOI has the potential for high TDP performance. In the case of Carrizo, it would be used for the lower leakage current. Rather than for a higher clock rate as SOI is low power, low heat, and low cost.I don't think Carrizo will clock lower than Kaveri if they're using SOI
Why is that? also dont bring up the cost structure FUD.
I already showed you some things about the cost structure, on why Kaveri isn't really cost competitive against Core because it is basically double the die size, which means all things equal that it costs more than 100% to manufacture.. But let's assume that AMD would be able to swallow very low margins and beat Intel to the punch in terms of price to our hypothetical strategic OEM.
Just look at the AMD line up. It's mostly focused on low end offers, meaning that our strategic OEM would be restricted to low end SKUs.
Also every one of the top OEMs are betting on 2-1 convertibles, which AMD have essentially 0 share on this market, mostly because of high power consumption/battery life. Our strategic OEM also would be shut of this market.
In order to get high end chips and cost effective 2-1, OEMs must go to Intel, and you don't please your main supplier by straightening relationship with its main competitor.
All this talk is going deep into the guesstimation zone.
I guess we get to see first results in december when the first mobile chips are officially introduced to us (and not just some engineering samples).
And just mayyyybe we get to draw some better conclusions from that ^^;
I already showed you some things about the cost structure, on why Kaveri isn't really cost competitive against Core because it is basically double the die size, which means all things equal that it costs more than 100% to manufacture.. But let's assume that AMD would be able to swallow very low margins and beat Intel to the punch in terms of price to our hypothetical strategic OEM.
Just look at the AMD line up. It's mostly focused on low end offers, meaning that our strategic OEM would be restricted to low end SKUs.
Also every one of the top OEMs are betting on 2-1 convertibles, which AMD have essentially 0 share on this market, mostly because of high power consumption/battery life. Our strategic OEM also would be shut of this market.
In order to get high end chips and cost effective 2-1, OEMs must go to Intel, and you don't please your main supplier by straightening relationship with its main competitor.
AMD s chips specs are published and are official since 6 months, who is talking of ES.?.
Oh, all the specs are published?
Then kindly tell me the name of the Carrizo FM2+ Desktop chip, its mhz clocks for the highest model, all tech upgrades it does or does not have aboard and how much better the IPC is compared to Kaveri.
Because that is what I consider to be the actual specs...and not the transistor count or which method was used in the 28nm process....we can't even deny or confirm if HBM is going to be on the chip and everything is still rumor based/we got some sketchy Sisoft screenshots.
*cough*
My guesses for top end Carrizo.
XV; 3.9+ GHz(base)
mullins compete with in terms of performance, price, power and bom costs.
I dont understand your reasoning that in order to get a design win AMD would have to supply chips across the entire product line.
Does it? Then why Mullins was shunned by OEMs, despite being that good?
High power consumption you do realize that Kaveri ULV has the same or lower power consumption than Intel's i3 and i5 ULV Haswell offerings. Go check notebookcheck the Kaveri notebook is a obviously better choice actually even Beema is a better choice.I already showed you some things about the cost structure, on why Kaveri isn't really cost competitive against Core because it is basically double the die size, which means all things equal that it costs more than 100% to manufacture.. But let's assume that AMD would be able to swallow very low margins and beat Intel to the punch in terms of price to our hypothetical strategic OEM.
Just look at the AMD line up. It's mostly focused on low end offers, meaning that our strategic OEM would be restricted to low end SKUs.
Also every one of the top OEMs are betting on 2-1 convertibles, which AMD have essentially 0 share on this market, mostly because of high power consumption/battery life. Our strategic OEM also would be shut of this market.
In order to get high end chips and cost effective 2-1, OEMs must go to Intel, and you don't please your main supplier by straightening relationship with its main competitor.
Intel has an extremely strong graps on the American market so you will not see high end Kaveri notebooks and would have to settle for ones with a crappy screen and crappy everything. Sad but trueI dont understand your reasoning that in order to get a design win AMD would have to supply chips across the entire product line. I dont really know what would stop an OEM from making an AMD product to fill a particular niche and still sell intel chips in a different market segment. Now whether AMD has a compelling chip in any particular segment is another question. I could see an AMD APU on a low end gaming laptop for instance if they could solve their bandwidth problems and offer decent performance at a cheaper price than intel plus discrete. In fact, I would love to get my grandson a 500 to 600 dollar light gaming laptop, but just dont feel the performance is quite there yet.
Unfortunately, I am expecting Carrizo not to be a compelling improvement over Kaveri. I also wonder when we will see real retail availability, since it is still almost impossible to find Kaveri laptops, although I did see one advertised from a local store, either Best Buy or Microcenter, cant remember for sure which.
Baytrail chips were cheaper actually Intel is/was pouring so much money into that they may have gotten money and the design of the notebook for using it. See the chinese rockchip firm.Does it? Then why Mullins was shunned by OEMs, despite being that good?
ThisCost structure, a 25-30$ chip cant compete against a chip that is half as good but wich is free and 70$ subsided, notice that being free wouldnt be enough to be choosen over a Mullins..
Cost structure, a 25-30$ chip cant compete against a chip that is half as good but wich is free and 70$ subsided, notice that being free wouldnt be enough to be choosen over a Mullins..
"With contra revenue, Intel is paying tablet makers to cover the additional bill of materials (BOM) costs. This is not a price reduction; its truly a BOM cost equalizer, Krzanich said. It will also pay for non-recurring engineering costs, which means it will cover the cost of taking an ARM tablet design and porting it to an Intel chip."WHAT ? I don't really know anything about the business but can you elaborate what does it mean? Are you honestly saying that Intel give Bay Trails away for free AND pays 70$ on top of that ? I highly doubt that's the case and IMO claims like that require proof.
Cost structure, a 25-30$ chip cant compete against a chip that is half as good but wich is free and 70$ subsided, notice that being free wouldnt be enough to be choosen over a Mullins..
You make up random nonsense again.
Also Even without BT, Mullins wouldnt be picked either, because then there is ARM.
Always someone else but AMD to blame...
Does it? Then why Mullins was shunned by OEMs, despite being that good?
Your conclusions do not follow from the statements you've quoted. Again, it's an equalizer. OEMs would be making similar margins on comparable ARM devices, except they'd be stuck with Windows RT.So they will pay everything needed to make the design equal to the cheap ARM SoCs in terms of cost additionally they pay for all the R&D needed to design the product. Companies basically make money while spending nothing.
Mullins has 1 design win - which is pitiful- that shows it can compete, hp stream 14.
A laptop, entirely different market as well. And no contrarevenue to compete against.
At this point , even with competitive products amd doesn't stand a chance with oems. Intel is doing something to incentivize them to use the super crappy celeron branded atoms in every single product category. It can't be Bom costs or power or availability or performance.
Intel must be buttering up up oems for them to drop amd so hard right after they all flooded the market with bobcat craptops and netbooks.