Because from a business POV they are very interesting. I can't recall of many companies displaying that levels of incompetence for such a long timespan and still surviving, as if the management team is too incompetent to break the company for good, despite trying so hard.
Fixed it for you.
Curiously the drama queens don't complain when people criticize Intel for their less than stellar mobile chips, process delays, iGPUs, etc.
Have you forgotten what Intel did to distort the market? And, for all we know, what they're still doing? I really have to wonder what the landscape would look like if AMD hadn't been damaged this way.
AMD put a gun into their mouths and pulled the trigger with the purchase of ATI, just the start of a series of very poor management decisions.
When AMD had product people wanted to buy, they were running at full capacity and sold every chip they could make.
The ATI engineers were much more familiar with synthesized designs, porting designs, making complex ASICs, using foundries like TSMC. This is some value which goes beyond using some IP, which could probably have been licensed.AMD put a gun into their mouths and pulled the trigger with the purchase of ATI, just the start of a series of very poor management decisions.
When AMD had product people wanted to buy, they were running at full capacity and sold every chip they could make.
It's true. What I find so funny is that Intel has been delivering most enthusiasts on this forum great hardware year-after-year and, despite the basically complete lack of competition from AMD, has actually given people more value for their $ with each generation.
Yet, AMD is the "good guy" in their eyes while Intel is the "bad guy"
I would argue the start was back when they were trying to milk 65nm for all it's worth and did nothing to counter the threat of Pentium M (surely AMD didn't think Intel would really stick with Pentium 4 when Pentium M was so much more superior?).
AMD only dreamed of servers (And still do). Forgot all about mobile.
Zen will destroy skylake. 40% IPC improvement over the excavator already allows it to surpass skylake. By the time zen rolls along, only Intel's kabylake will be left to challenge the top tier zen. After that, it will be cannon lake vs the zen+. Can't wait for a repeat of the glorious Athlon days.
AMD needs a competitive CPU architecture which can scale from mobile to to desktop to server like Intel's big cores do. AMD cannot thrive without a 20% market share in servers and a 25% share in mobile and desktop. Zen is an earnest effort to compete. Lets see if AMD are able to compete.
In the same time Intel margins have been increasing all along. We all know AMD's failure to compete is the reason for Intel to prosper unchallenged. But there is no way you can say Intel is providing more value to the consumer than in the past. If we had good competition from AMD we would be seeing 6C/12T CPUs at USD 300, 8C/16T CPUs at USD 500. With Zen we hope we see a return to competition as to benefit us - the consumers.
thats debatable. The core i7 quad cores have been at the same USD 300 - 350 price point for well over 6 years. The die sizes have kept shrinking from the 45nm generation at 263 sq mm (core i7 860) to 122 sq mm (6700k) in the 14nm generation.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2839
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9582/intel-skylake-mobile-desktop-launch-architecture-analysis
In the same time Intel margins have been increasing all along. We all know AMD's failure to compete is the reason for Intel to prosper unchallenged. But there is no way you can say Intel is providing more value to the consumer than in the past. If we had good competition from AMD we would be seeing 6C/12T CPUs at USD 300, 8C/16T CPUs at USD 500. With Zen we hope we see a return to competition as to benefit us - the consumers.
Right now anybody who trusts AMD statements is naive given that they have a terrible history of execution stretching for 8+ years in the CPU department. The GPU department too has failed over the last 18 months. So many debacles and mismanagement has left even the most ardent AMD lovers disappointed and frustrated. Their revenues,losses and market share reflects the true state of their products and business. Its a pretty pathetic situation.
AMD needs to win back customer confidence based on impressive products which are well received by the industry and consumers. Thats easier said than done. I still think there is hope for AMD. But Polaris and Zen will determine if thats the case or not. If they fail with these 2 architectures its the end of the road for AMD.
So a $150 quad core is a massive chip for an unrealistic price (Intel sells quads for a few bucks more FYI). Yet AMD cant even sell a $130 8 core right now.
You keep repeating the same thing, ok you disagree. I'm still waiting to hear your scenario on how they can sell chips that perform like 4-5 year old Intel chips, cause this is mine.
I would agree that intel could offer more value than they currently are, for one thing, by offering a mainstream hex core. However, they *are* offering more value than previously. The chips are faster (although marginally so), and the prices are the same, so in inflation adjusted dollars they are cheaper. So they are offering more value, but probably not as much more as they could.
The ATI engineers were much more familiar with synthesized designs, porting designs, making complex ASICs, using foundries like TSMC. This is some value which goes beyond using some IP, which could probably have been licensed.
You really don't get it at all,so I want to know how they can sell a salvaged 8C/16T chip meant for servers at Core i3 level pricing??
Let me see - a few years of R and D,move to a new process,yeah - they can sell at Core i3 level pricing(not).
They might as well not bother selling any Zen chips to "enthusiasts".
Let me see,if AMD does achieve IB/Haswell level IPC - yes they can sell it for more than an FX8350 or a Core i3. Maybe not for you,but lets see:
1.)Lower power consumption than an FX8350
2.)Newer modern chipsets
3.)Upgrade path to an APU or higher end chip all on one platform especially if 8C/16T is on one platform. Thats not happening on socket 1151 anytime soon.
4.)Newer extension support
5.)Massively better single threaded performance than an FX8350
6.)Better multi-threaded performance than an FX8350
8.)Single threaded performance not massively lower than a Core i3
7.)Better multi- threaded performance than a Core i3
8.)Then gap between Core i3 ST performance probably being the least for years,going back to the Core i3 530 and Phenom II X4.
9.)Probably a different type of SMT implementation to what Intel has done. AMD got good scaling(using weak cores) with its CMT-like implementation and it wouldn't surprise if they aim for decent scaling with their own implementation of SMT too.
You see to be over excited about single threaded performance when the IPC difference between Ivy Bridge and Skylake,is like what 15% to 20% at most between Ivy Bridge and Skylake over three generations for single core tasks??
Or 10% to 15% over Haswell.
But AMD who might have a chip which obliterates a Core i3 in anything multi-threaded including next generation games,and will be not be massively behind in single threaded performance should be selling for Core i3 level pricing.
You just put up some ridiculous price-point and what you don't even seem to understand,is that those cheap Intel Core i5 chips can barely hit the multi-threaded performance of a Core i7 3770 or Core i7 4770 anyway due to their low clockspeeds ,or even don't have superior single threaded performance to a lower end Core i3.
Right,so using your distorted logic,Intel should be selling the Core i5 6400 for like Core i3 pricing,since Intel has had FASTER chips for years.
Wait a second,they cost more than a Core i3.
Oh wait,no then....
So,basically you are contradicting your own viewpoint.
Please don't answer since I don't agree on any of the points you have made.
So we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Now tell me Apple wouldnt want that APU for iOS with Metal.
Apple dont want an APU for IOS. A10 will have a custom GPU from the looks of it. And I dont see any for OSX either.
You are already way into dream land again.
It's true. What I find so funny is that Intel has been delivering most enthusiasts on this forum great hardware year-after-year and, despite the basically complete lack of competition from AMD, has actually given people more value for their $ with each generation.
So why do so many - myself included - steadfastly refuse to upgrade from our 2500K's. :\
Lol so now an i3 sells for $350? Which is what I suggested the 8c/16t chip should sell for. No wonder you're having so much trouble with this. Points 1-9, irrelevant when it comes to stealing back market share if the pricing isnt right. All that matters is that AMD needs to have a chip that can outperform Intel in every price bracket. 15% slower (if we are being generous) for a similar price gives me what reason to buy exactly? Come on now man...