How is that a valid comparison, jeez ? With the number of vehicles being equal, they'll go to the one gas station left but you won't see desktop/laptop users replenishing their aging AMD parts with Intel, will they ! The right analogy will be with say two car manufacturers ~ if one of them goes under then the rest of the prospective buyers may choose to go with the one manufacturer left, provided it fits their budget, or go the public transportation way !Suppose there are two gas stations in a town, and each sells 10,000 gallons of gasoline a month. If one of them closes down, will the other still sell only 10,000 gallons?
In an expanding market not one that is contracting which is what I'm debating here. They might pick up the volumes over time, that too with some cheap parts, but in absolute(value) terms the x86+dGPU market is gonna continue to shrink further.That is how it works, in every industry.
So what you're saying here is that the Samsung panels used in some of those Apple products IIRC till last year were made by LG ? Not being sarcastic here but if it is true then I'm truly astonished !Right, but their industries don't really overlap (and in fact, LG is a panel manufacturer for Samsung monitors) and Intel is 10 times bigger than AMD in revenue.
Well 2.5~3 times isn't equalish, this is what the situation is in 2013.
Lets just take that inane comparison out of the equation, now say the x86+dGPU market is 60 billion $ with Intel having 50 billion $ in sales, AMD 6 billion $ & Nvidia+Via having the rest of it.
What I'm saying is ~ if AMD is immediately taken out of the equation the total market left will be worth 54 billion $ but from what I gather the rest of you are saying that Intel + Nvidia + Via will make up for this shortfall over a period of time right ? I however do not think that the overall market will expand in value terms & if & only if Nvidia + Intel lower their prices drastically, atleast for the lower end, will we see the market expand beyond 54 billion $ let alone the 60 billion $ mark !
If this isn't what is being said here then I'd like to know what is ?
How is that a valid comparison, jeez ? With the number of vehicles being equal, they'll go to the one gas station left but you won't see desktop/laptop users replenishing their aging AMD parts with Intel, will they ! The right analogy will be with say two car manufacturers ~ if one of them goes under then the rest of the prospective buyers may choose to go with the one manufacturer left, provided it fits their budget, or go the public transportation way !
AMD is too small compared to the big ARM manufacturers, or even with Nvidia, and they gave up their fabs, so they aren't an interesting customer for top tier foundries (TSMC) and can't afford to finance themselves.
Easy there, just because you've been proven wrong doesn't mean you have to throw a tantrum !Are you litterally just blind on facts?
Go look up revenue for both companies.
There's a less than 10% difference taking in Samsungs revenue.
230 bill vs 211 bill.
wtf?
How is that a valid comparison, jeez ? With the number of vehicles being equal, they'll go to the one gas station left but you won't see desktop/laptop users replenishing their aging AMD parts with Intel, will they ! The right analogy will be with say two car manufacturers ~ if one of them goes under then the rest of the prospective buyers may choose to go with the one manufacturer left, provided it fits their budget, or go the public transportation way !
I guess the price argument is still valid for those who prefer a brand(AMD) over the other(Intel) one & the small differential is the deciding factor. I'll reiterate, say if a consumer was gonna buy a 400~500$ AMD laptop but that model is not on sale anymore he may go for an equally priced Intel laptop or he/she goes for an ARM tablet instead ! So that piece of the market where AMD was present & Intel wasn't is a potential loss of sale now to ARM.People *are* already switching from AMD to Intel regardless of prices, and this shift is happenning *also* in the bottom market, as you can verify by the freefall in AMD market share. It's hard to sustain a price argument when the price difference isn't worth a domino's pizza in most cases.
If you aren't even willing to accept that the traditional x86 market is contracting(in absolute $ terms) then I've got nothing to say cause I don't deal with fallacies! Then again your argument is flawed, like alot of others, simply because the worldwide car market is growing but the computing market isn't & since Intel/AMD don't just cater to NA/Europe so really I can't see what you're trying to pull off here ?What about the auto industry? It's close to saturated in the United States, yet auto makers still have an advertising and commercial presence here. If an automaker failed, others would fill that gap, because cars still break down and new ones are improved. Even a car from the 70s will still drive, but you don't see very many of those. Computers will inevitably break down and require replacement as well, or people will want more features.
I'm sorry, but a contracting market doesn't mean anything. It is not our assumptions that are wrong but yours.
That won't really speed up progress... it'd slow it down. There are already billions being put into materials science research -- IBM in particular has made some great discoveries. Also, in order to do higher quality research more quickly, you need faster computers. If Moore's Law hits a wall today, that will mean that tomorrow's graphene (or whatever super material it ends up being) computers will be delayed significantly.I can't wait for moore's law to hit a wall and break down. The faster the better. I want the world to be forced into a technological revolution. Its funny how we consider silicon transistors as being so important, and they are. But they are just something that we did for a short while and they seem to be just a small step in our inevitable evolutionary direction. I see this as a natural stage in human evolution, not computer evolution, and the faster it happens the better.
I think it was around 15 years ago when my father told me that CPUs were not going to get much faster because they were getting to small that they almost to atoms in size. Since that time it seems that some way we have found to make processors faster and smaller.
Heh.It is now thought that current technology can eventually be shrunk to as low as 0.08 microns.
I see graphene taking off if & when we hit that wall because node shrinks won't bring any substantial benefits, not to mention internal heat dissipation issues, also the fab investment(s) won't give that much of a return ! So when the physical limits to improving chips are reached only then we'll see a move to graphene because it;ll be that much more economical(eventually) but more importantly we'll have more room for improvement in terms of computing performance.That won't really speed up progress... it'd slow it down. There are already billions being put into materials science research -- IBM in particular has made some great discoveries. Also, in order to do higher quality research more quickly, you need faster computers. If Moore's Law hits a wall today, that will mean that tomorrow's graphene (or whatever super material it ends up being) computers will be delayed significantly.
The single biggest roadblock to innovation is lack of funds, even for a giant like Intel it is hard to see where they'll recoup these investments from ? If they can get a nice chunk of the mobile/tablet market in the next couple of years I'd expect them to continue with that tick-tock otherwise its hard to see how full/half node shrinks will be achieved on time without a steady & growing revenue stream like the one ARM sits on top of !Well, Intel is aiming for 5 nm or so in less than a decade. That strikes me as incredibly aggressive, and probably not realistic. Not only will process technology innovations be needed, the geometry of the transistors is going to have to keep changing, because I doubt we can scale gate thicknesses down that much.
Yes, if they can't get the right volume, they are toast. That's why they are so keen on mobile. The volumes they need are there.
I guess the price argument is still valid for those who prefer a brand(AMD) over the other(Intel) one & the small differential is the deciding factor. I'll reiterate, say if a consumer was gonna buy a 400~500$ AMD laptop but that model is not on sale anymore he may go for an equally priced Intel laptop or he/she goes for an ARM tablet instead ! So that piece of the market where AMD was present & Intel wasn't is a potential loss of sale now to ARM.
Yes & I still stand by that argument but I guess the impact on the whole computing ecosystem will be minimal however at the same time that void in the x86+dGPU market will never be filled ! I can't say if the impact will be x or y but seeing as how mobiles/tablets are eating up the lower end of the market, that's bread & butter for AMD, I do not see Intel+Nvidia filling in the shoes of AMD unless they go for drastic price cuts.This discussion first started because you estimated that the impacts of AMD demise in the x86 market would be immense, in your own words. I think that you are now starting to see that there wouldn't be any huge disruption in the market, some would migrate to ARM, some to Intel, and everything will be business as usual. So from a production POV, nothing to be seen here.
From a marketing POV... AMD brand lost its halo long time ago. You might find a fanboy here and there that wouldn't buy anything but AMD for their builds, but those are like dinossaurs in extinction. Even in the sanatorium called AMD Zone you can find arch-fanboys complaining that some of their fellow fanboys switched to the evil empire. If AMD went under and someone really needed x86 or at least the performance levels x86 can deliver, most would to the sensible thing and buy Intel processors.