AMD: It Won't Be About 'AMD vs. Intel' Anymore

[cbn]

They will keep most of their chips in x86 and pray for a miracle. The short term out look for AMD is bad, bad or worse.

No doubt they are also looking at developing ARM based servers.....Calxedas (a company making ARM servers) happens to be located in the same city as AMD's new headquarters (Austin, TX)

 

[ocre]

Why does this article even bring up Tegra? <----That is a smartphone ARM SOC!

How does "Smartphone SOC" have anything to do with "ARMv8 Notebook chip"? As far as I understand these two designs are on a completely different level.

Because, this is where ARM is today. What nvidia already invested and what we see now, tegra. When ARMv8 starts showing up, all the ARM suppliers now will pretty much drop CPUs within in the same yr. Nvidias investment in arm will lead up to that point. Its all relevant.

You dont really think AMD can just pop up out of nowhere with an ARMv8 notebook chip and compete with multiple companies who have experience on top of already billions invested in ARM. AMD cannot throw its chips in ARM at this point. There sooo much going against them. How could ARM possibly pay their massive overhead from the start? AMD sells a decent amount more x86 CPUs than nvidia which all have higher margins. And they still arent doing very well. The will not enter in the ARM market with their first CPU and out sell competitors who occupy the space. The ARM space is crowded and it takes time to get contracts when so many do it for so cheap. Its not possible without cutting their income to nearly nothing. AMD will have a massive issue.

The minute AMD goes public with an ARM CPU, the minute they show doubt in x86. Once they show they no longer have confidence in x86 and their lack of ability to compete their.....well they just took a dump on x86 and shot themselves in the head. AMD currently are making money in x86. Nvidia, after all this time has not turned a profit in ARM, Doesnt that say something?

Nvidia has only things to gain in making a CPU. They have tons of extra cash and its only an investment. AMD owes more money than they make. They dont have tons of cash (barely any free cash). They have lots to loose by dropping x86 now. They are in a pickle, but you cannot just start over when your so deep in a completely different technology. It takes yrs to develope a CPU. AMD are working on x86 CPUs that are yrs down the road. They cannot do what you think.

If it ever come to this point, AMD will wont be a shadow of its current self the day it enters ARM. Whatever is left after a collapse may do it. But no way is it possible for the company of today to switch over to ARM with out a major break down. You think they are living off intel crumbs now, moving to ARM will have very little revenue thats far far from profit for a long long while.

AMD is selling x86 cpus and making profits every quarter. Nvidia has billions more invested than they ever made off ARM so far. This is why he brings up nvidia.

 

[cbn]

Because, this is where ARM is today. What nvidia already invested and what we see now, tegra. When ARMv8 starts showing up, all the ARM suppliers now will pretty much drop CPUs within in the same yr. Nvidias investment in arm will lead up to that point. Its all relevant.

I can't see how "Tegra" or "ARM Smartphone SOC" is even applicable to ARMv8 Server or Notebook chip?

How does what Nvidia built up in the smartphone business have anything to do with making server or notebook chips?

Does Motorola or LG plan on making Servers anytime soon?

How will this $2 Billion dollars Nvidia spent on Tegra in anyway help them compete against AMD's CPU Server experience?

 

[cbn]

Nvidia, after all this time has not turned a profit in ARM, Doesnt that say something?

Well yeah, that is because Nvidia makes very specialized 80mm2 Smartphone SOCs that only sell for $25 each.

 

[cbn]

http://www.tegra3.org/tegra-3-set-for-fast-start-as-nvidia-announces-high-profits-for-q3/

More clarification on Tegra 3's price.

This source claims $15 to $25.

 

[piesquared]

More lack of substance responses.

Can you say anything besides 'AMD is the bomb yo!' :whiste:

Yes.

 

[beginner99]

http://www.tegra3.org/tegra-3-set-for-fast-start-as-nvidia-announces-high-profits-for-q3/

More clarification on Tegra 3's price.

This source claims $15 to $25.

wow. Does that even cover manufacturing?

But that is the problem of the high-tech market. It is basically impossible to get there if you are not already there or are already a huge company in another segment with a few bucks to spend. The more advanced the stuff gets, the more money is wasted if 10 different companies research the same stuff. The research just gets too expensive and in the end we get Intel.

 

[aigomorla]

Because, this is where ARM is today. What nvidia already invested and what we see now, tegra. When ARMv8 starts showing up, all the ARM suppliers now will pretty much drop CPUs within in the same yr. Nvidias investment in arm will lead up to that point. Its all relevant.

You dont really think AMD can just pop up out of nowhere with an ARMv8 notebook chip and compete with multiple companies who have experience on top of already billions invested in ARM. AMD cannot throw its chips in ARM at this point. There sooo much going against them. How could ARM possibly pay their massive overhead from the start? AMD sells a decent amount more x86 CPUs than nvidia which all have higher margins. And they still arent doing very well. The will not enter in the ARM market with their first CPU and out sell competitors who occupy the space. The ARM space is crowded and it takes time to get contracts when so many do it for so cheap. Its not possible without cutting their income to nearly nothing. AMD will have a massive issue.

The minute AMD goes public with an ARM CPU, the minute they show doubt in x86. Once they show they no longer have confidence in x86 and their lack of ability to compete their.....well they just took a dump on x86 and shot themselves in the head. AMD currently are making money in x86. Nvidia, after all this time has not turned a profit in ARM, Doesnt that say something?

Nvidia has only things to gain in making a CPU. They have tons of extra cash and its only an investment. AMD owes more money than they make. They dont have tons of cash (barely any free cash). They have lots to loose by dropping x86 now. They are in a pickle, but you cannot just start over when your so deep in a completely different technology. It takes yrs to develope a CPU. AMD are working on x86 CPUs that are yrs down the road. They cannot do what you think.

If it ever come to this point, AMD will wont be a shadow of its current self the day it enters ARM. Whatever is left after a collapse may do it. But no way is it possible for the company of today to switch over to ARM with out a major break down. You think they are living off intel crumbs now, moving to ARM will have very little revenue thats far far from profit for a long long while.

AMD is selling x86 cpus and making profits every quarter. Nvidia has billions more invested than they ever made off ARM so far. This is why he brings up nvidia.

+1 sum'd it very nicely...

How will this $2 Billion dollars Nvidia spent on Tegra in anyway help them compete against AMD's CPU Server experience?

you dont need super computers to run cloud computing...
infact u just want MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY low wattage processors handling data today more so then the power house servers.

 

[cbn]

wow. Does that even cover manufacturing?

But that is the problem of the high-tech market. It is basically impossible to get there if you are not already there or are already a huge company in another segment with a few bucks to spend. The more advanced the stuff gets, the more money is wasted if 10 different companies research the same stuff. The research just gets too expensive and in the end we get Intel.

Yep, and it just amazes me that each time Nvidia wants to make a $15 to $25 sale like that, the consumer needs to spend a whopping $499 on a device like ASUS Transformer Prime.

Really if it wasn't for the contract phone subsidies I feel these whole category of ARM SOCs would be a completely different game....and not in a good way for ARM.

 

[cbn]

you dont need super computers to run cloud computing...
infact u just want MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY low wattage processors handling data today more so then the power house servers.

Yeah, but those ARM Servers you are referring to wouldn't need to be Tegras.

There are a lot of specialized processors on those smartphone SOCs that would never be used for a server.....that is my point.

 

[AtenRa]

Lets put some things straight,

AMD Q1 CPU market share

AMD Q2 CPU market share

In Q1 2011 AMD had ~35 25,8&#37; of the Desktop Market (units shipped) with an ASP(Average Selling Price) of $54,16

AMD's Desktop Total Revenue in K$s $598,497
Intel's Desktop Total Revenue in K$s $2,872,036


In Q2 2011 AMD had ~37 26,9% of the Desktop Market (units shipped) with an ASP(Average Selling Price) of $51,14

AMD's Desktop Total Revenue in K$s $574,381
Intel's Desktop Total Revenue in K$s $2,717,361

I believe they doing ok in Desktop, they are just not competitive in the Performance Desktop market where high ASP makes more profits.

Their APUs (Llano and Bobcat) seams to be doing great and we already know they will release Trinity in Q1 2012.




Server Market

We can all see that Server market has the Highest ASP and that translates to higher profits. Intel makes more revenue in the Server market alone than AMD does in all three markets combined.

In Q1 2011 AMD had ~7,3 6,8% of the Server Market (units shipped) with an ASP(Average Selling Price) of $379.03

AMD's Server Total Revenue in K$s $109,161
Intel's Server Total Revenue in K$s $2,194,026


In Q2 2011 AMD had ~6,23 5,9% of the Server Market (units shipped) with an ASP(Average Selling Price) of $336.94

AMD's Server Total Revenue in K$s $82,214
Intel's Server Total Revenue in K$s $2,235,818




Mobile Market

The biggest market is the Mobile, especially for Intel the Mobile market revenue is almost the same as the combined of Server and Desktop.

In Q1 2011 AMD had ~15,22 13,2% of the Mobile Market (units shipped) with an ASP(Average Selling Price) of $36.98

AMD's Mobile Total Revenue in K$s $259,688
Intel's Mobile Total Revenue in K$s $4,152,149

In Q2 2011 AMD had ~17,25 14,7% of the Mobile Market (units shipped) with an ASP(Average Selling Price) of $40.06

AMD's Mobile Total Revenue in K$s $309,467
Intel's Mobile Total Revenue in K$s $4,341,669





AMD has 33-40 25-30% of Desktop market share and i believe they will try to keep this margins but they will try to raise ASP and profits if possible. AMD simple doesnt need to try catch Intel in Desktop High End.

Mobile is the biggest x86 market both in units shipped and in revenue. Server market has the highest ASP and the highest profits. In both of this two markets AMD lags behind by substantial margins against Intel.

It seams that Bobcat and Llano has raised both market share and revenue in the Mobile market and it is only logical for AMD to really focus more in this segment than Desktop. Fusion will be their weapon and they have to continue releasing a new product every year with better availability. Mobile market is shifting to lower power laptops and Tablets and Bobcat architecture with ATIs iGPU can give them an advantage in performance per Watt.

Server has the highest ASPs and thats where higher profits are. I believe Bulldozer architecture will give them an advantage in selected areas. They are targeting specific workloads with bulldozer like Cloud, Virtualization etc.

It seams AMD will not try to compete directly with Intel and they will focus in areas where they will be able to catch a bigger market share. That doesnt mean they will exit the Desktop market in favor of ARM.

Edit: Correction of Market Share percentages (units shipped)

 

[cbn]

It seams AMD will not try to compete directly with Intel and they will focus in areas where they will be able to catch a bigger market share.

I am still confused on how they will do this?

Focusing on discrete GPU is the only way I could see this being true, but doesn't the AMD CEO want to do away with the discrete Radeon business?

Or maybe "not competing directly with Intel" means the company will put a much greater focus on GPGPU development for their x86 APUs?

 

[AtenRa]

My understanding of the sift they talking is this,

Each market (Server, Desktop and Mobile) is divided in to subcategories. For instance, Desktop is divided to entry level, middle level and High end. AMD cannot compete with Intel in the entire x86 arena. They dont have the money, human resources and fab capacity.

Instead, they can focus on specific segments using whatever weapons they have. Entry and middle Desktop is an area that they can be competitive with Bobcat and Llano.

Big changes happening In mobile. Low power and Tablets are new emerging markets and AMD could use its current and future technologies to aggressively try and compete. They know that Mobile is bigger and more profitable market than Desktop and they will focus not in the entire Mobile market but in specific areas like Low power and entry level mobile with Bobcat, middle and entry level gaming with Llano. No point competing in the High End mobile against Intel.

Same with Servers, they targeting specific areas and workloads like Cloud and Virtualization. Bulldozer can be very competitive in those areas especially if applications are written to take advantage of its strengths.

This is something that AMD haven't focused in the past and i believe they will start now, software.

http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4531603&postcount=762

AMD CEO Rory Read
2) Recent restructuring should improve
execution by reducing mgmt layers, with savings redeployed to platform and
software engineers, and new leadership focused on execution

NVIDIA did it, AMD could do it.

One more market they can compete is the GPGPU. Intel is trying to enter and AMD already have started with GCN.

I believe they can be competitive in a lot of different areas in x86 markets, they just cant follow Intel in the High End.

 

[Idontcare]

Lets put some things straight,

AMD Q1 CPU market share

AMD Q2 CPU market share

In Q1 2011 AMD had ~35% of the Desktop Market with an ASP(Average Selling Price) of $54,16

AMD's Desktop Total Revenue in K$s $598,497
Intel's Desktop Total Revenue in K$s $2,872,036

Something is catastrophically wrong with your math here.

$2,872,036 + $598,497 = $3,470,533

$598,497/$3,470,533 x 100% = 17.25%

I did not check the rest of your numbers, but if I were you I would...

 

[Idontcare]

wow. Does that even cover manufacturing?

At 80mm^2 its debatable, that is a rather large chunk of silicon to be sold for that kind of ASP. It obviously comes down to yields and whether or not it is more like $15 asp or more like $25 asp.

It would not surprise me if they are selling them at or near production cost (but not enough to recoup development costs), they are still attempting to gain traction in the market after all.

 

[antisocialmunky]

Something is catastrophically wrong with your math here.

$2,872,036 + $598,497 = $3,470,533

$598,497/$3,470,533 x 100% = 17.25%

I did not check the rest of your numbers, but if I were you I would...

Last time I checked, not all systems cost the same. Those are rev numbers not absolute units shipped.

 

[AtenRa]

Something is catastrophically wrong with your math here.

$2,872,036 + $598,497 = $3,470,533

$598,497/$3,470,533 x 100% = 17.25%

I did not check the rest of your numbers, but if I were you I would...

Im counting units shipped as market share, you count revenue.

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=476&pt=msg&mn=208333

Q1 2011 Desktop

AMD 11,050 units
Intel 31,807 units

AMD has ~35% Desktop market share

 

[Vesku]

With Bulldozer we are seeing exactly the shift they are trying to do. Look at Interlagos PR, focusing on Wattage per core (whence the 8-16 core marketing), idle power, and throughput. Their new strategy is to attempt to dominate sub-markets. Just as with mobile APUs they are looking to get large gains in budget mobile area of the mobile market.

I would guess Intel letting Atom sort of lie around has encouraged AMD to think that they can indeed be more nimble. Which is not something I would have concluded prior to this long drawn out AMD management shuffle.

 

[piesquared]

Good points AtenRa, sums it up pretty nicely IMO.

[edit]

I think GPGPU and heterogeneous computing is definitely where they are heading. AMD has been planning for it for a few years now, and GCN is probably the key. John Carmack is pretty pumped about it, and that says a lot considering his favorite IHV.

 

[tweakboy]

Here we go again. Yes nVidia or another company making CPU's. Ill pass

Iill stick with Intel whos been doing this for 50 years.

Not hating big RED, just their driver infrastructure. gl

 

[senseamp]

That's right. It will be ARM vs Intel.

 

[cbn]

I foresee future smartphones running windows 8, with mini hdmi, several mini usb ports. Users can take it on the go, or when its at work or "docked" at home, plugged into it is a full size keyboard, mouse, and hdmi out to a big monitor or LED tv, running all the windows software thats compatible for work and play.

When will it happen? When bobcat gets to stretch its legs on TSMC or GF 20nm tech (i think they are skipping 22nm) and windows 8 is available. A E-450++ sipping 2W packs serious power compared to ARM devices, with x86 support thats required for so many software with a huge user base.

Heck if i had a smartphone like that which runs windows, i dont need notebooks anymore.

That must be the general goal for bobcat.

AMD ultimately wants the "docked Smartphone" concept.

Docked Smartphones make a lot of sense to me, but I just wonder if the economics are going to be there for the bobcat Smartphone SOC to make it?

 

[Idontcare]

Im counting units shipped as market share, you count revenue.

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=476&pt=msg&mn=208333

Q1 2011 Desktop

AMD 11,050 units
Intel 31,807 units

AMD has ~35% Desktop market share

1) If you post revenue numbers, as you originally did, and then refer to "market share" without making the distinction between unit or revenue market share, then pretty much everyone is going to assume you mean to imply that you are quoting revenue market share numbers.

Otherwise why post revenue numbers but not revenue market share, only to then post unit market share without posting the unit numbers?

2) Your math is still in error

11,050 + 31,807 = 42,857

11,050/42,857 x 100% = 25.8% (not ~35%)

 

[IntelUser2000]

AMD Q1 unit and revenue marketshare respectively,

Server:
6.8&#37; units
4.7% revenue

Desktop:
25.8% units
17.2% revenue

Mobile:
13.2% units
5.9% revenue

Total:
18.3% units
9.5% revenue

Q2

Server:
5.9% units(-0.9%)
3.5% revenue(-1.2%)

Desktop:
26.9% units(+1.1%)
17.4% revenue(+0.2%)

Mobile:
14.7% units(+1.5%)
6.7% revenue(+0.8%)

Total:
19.5% units(+1.2%)
9.4% revenue(-0.1%)

 

[cbn]

I would guess Intel letting Atom sort of lie around has encouraged AMD to think that they can indeed be more nimble. Which is not something I would have concluded prior to this long drawn out AMD management shuffle.

The fact Intel just lets atom lie around doesn't look encouraging.

In the non-mobile Mini-ITX platform atom is too weak (or not desirable) for general computing. (and often relegated to esoteric uses such as HTPC). Sure Atom is low power and therefore can make a passively cooled system, but it won't be long before stronger (and almost as cheap) Intel products will be able to do the same thing.

In the mobile market (laptop), Atom suffers from too much price compression and competition from other Intel processors. OEMs pairing the absolute cheapest laptop chassis with Atom has helped price differentiation to a degree....but still we see big players like Samsung dropping the netbook platform for 2012.

In the Tablet market atom suffers from lack of legacy apps. This puts Intel is a real bind because it can't get consumers to pay the x86 tax.

This makes me wonder at what point will we see atom/bobcat progress beyond 32/28nm?

If Atom/bobcat are able to progress to 22/20nm it probably won't come until the wafers drop to the point of being very cheap. <----By that time we may see Custom "hand optimized" ARMv8 CPU designs on servers.....with some of those "hand optimized" Server CPU designs being shared across platforms. (eg, when the necessary die shrink makes them appropriate for a smartphone SOC)

EDIT: I feel like I need to add this post here to balance this one out a little bit.