Intel only moved to 50+% graphics with an extremely dense 14nm node. AMD is doing that since the first APU on the 32nm node.
APUs and SoCs seem like the ideal solution for the laptop market, where total power consumption is king and thermal limits mean that the bandwidth bottleneck is not so pronounced..
Actually they also did it with Haswell GT3.
Of course the major difference is that Intel also offers CPU heavy die. It would be like if AMD offered a 3/4 module APU with a tiny cut back GPU alongside their current offerings... which I know plenty of people on this forum would like to see.
...
I get a perverse joy at reading so many delusional posts that appear on that site.
...
You know quad core Broadwell is coming, right? Just checking.With broadwell, Intel transforms in to a "GPU manufacturer" and people here hopping for a GPU-Less APU from AMD. :whiste:
Funny that all Broadwell Mobile APUs so far (unless im missing something) are only Dual Cores and 2+3 iGPU die area makes it a GPU with two CPU cores.
You know quad core Broadwell is coming, right? Just checking.
Old news...
With broadwell, Intel transforms in to a "GPU manufacturer" and people here hopping for a GPU-Less APU from AMD. :whiste:
Admission of trolldom much? - you should put that in your sig.
For Mobile ?? you have a link ??
Would OEMs be interested in it though.
Given the money Intel has tossed at GPUs, very poor. The return on investment is horrid but luckily for Intel their CPUs are strong. If Intel had about the same CPU performance as AMD their products would be terrible. Put another way, Intel highly subsidizes their GPU development from the success of CPUs, AMD doesn't have this luxury.
AMD just losing more and more money means less money for product development which means continued dwindling revenues. I do not want to see the graphics division dragged down with the failures of AMD's executives.
You mean the 3/4 module APU with tiny iGPU NTMBK mentioned in post #301?
Can you fit that in a laptop? AMD's worst mistake is spending way too much on ATI, but the second worst is making a desktop focused chip (Bulldozer) at a time when the market was heading mobile and then of course totally bungling it.
That is a fair point. Intel's ROI on graphics certainly took a hit with the Larrabee fiasco (although they are successfully pivoting that into Xeon Phi).
However I would frame your statement, one that I agree with by the way, a little differently.
My perspective on this topic is that AMD overextended themselves in ways that ultimately led to undermining their strategic vision and efforts. Ultimately they had no business attempting to make the giant leap they made, it wasn't financially sound or prudent for them to take such a large risk versus pursuing risky strategic plans that they could afford in the event it didn't pan out.
That is what Intel does. Yes the absolute dollar volume on their risky projects (McAfee, Itanium, Larrabee) might be larger than AMD's, but at the same time the risk was contained and small enough as to never put the entire livelihood of the company (and its shareholders) at risk of collapsing the way AMD's risk appetite did.
Intel takes risks, sometimes large risks, but doesn't over-reach or over-extend themselves in taking those risks. AMD did the opposite and their shareholders have paid the price ever since.
Very true. Here is AMD's annual R&D expenditures, having peaked in 2008 at $1.85B and since steadily declined to $1.1B in 2014.
^ AMD is now operating at the same R&D budget level they had in 2004, 10 years ago, when all they had to focus those R&D dollars on was the K8 and K10.
Now compare AMD's R&D to Intel's R&D budget:
Intel isn't contracting, which bodes well for their shareholders and their customers.
Intel is large, so we expect that, but perhaps what is even more striking is to look at Nvidia's R&D budget versus AMD's:
Not only has AMD's R&D contracted, but they investing in future products to a lesser extent than even Nvidia
What's more troubling is that AMD doesn't seem to "admit" that they need to downsize their investments. They still plan to play in PCs against Intel, in servers with both ARM/X86 (against Intel and the hordes of better-funded ARM players), and in GPUs against the increasingly-powerful NVIDIA.
They even feed their investors a line of BS about how they're "protecting R&D" when you can very clearly see in the financials that R&D spend is taking a big whack.
It is proof that they know how critical and imperative a healthy R&D pipeline is to their future and for the shareholders. Otherwise they'd paint a product roadmap narrative that wasn't filled with aspirations of what they aim to accomplish with their stretched ever-more-thinly R&D dollars.
I suspect it is just one big scramble inside, which is why we see so much turnover in management as well as the abrupt transitions in those management changes (Rory gone in a snap meeting with BoD, etc). Lots of chaos, perfect for entropy creation but not so great for getting PV work done.
Pressure-Volume, it was a play on the first-law of thermo versus the second-law
I just want a clear desktop roadmap. They need to come clean on how their R&D pipeline has been affected. If they could tell people "Okay, we're doing X, Y and Z. We're no longer doing A, B, and C. We expect X, Y, and Z to bring in D revenue, we expect to earn E profit." And if there is no end to their woes in sight, they need to just file for bankruptcy already, restructure, tear up that WSA, and target on a market that they can actually profit in.What's more troubling is that AMD doesn't seem to "admit" that they need to downsize their investments. They still plan to play in PCs against Intel, in servers with both ARM/X86 (against Intel and the hordes of better-funded ARM players), and in GPUs against the increasingly-powerful NVIDIA.
They even feed their investors a line of BS about how they're "protecting R&D" when you can very clearly see in the financials that R&D spend is taking a big whack.
AMD needs to focus, IMHO.
And if there is no end to their woes in sight, they need to just file for bankruptcy already, restructure, tear up that WSA, and target on a market that they can actually profit in.
That is a fair point. Intel's ROI on graphics certainly took a hit with the Larrabee fiasco (although they are successfully pivoting that into Xeon Phi).
However I would frame your statement, one that I agree with by the way, a little differently.
My perspective on this topic is that AMD overextended themselves in ways that ultimately led to undermining their strategic vision and efforts. Ultimately they had no business attempting to make the giant leap they made, it wasn't financially sound or prudent for them to take such a large risk versus pursuing risky strategic plans that they could afford in the event it didn't pan out.
That is what Intel does. Yes the absolute dollar volume on their risky projects (McAfee, Itanium, Larrabee) might be larger than AMD's, but at the same time the risk was contained and small enough as to never put the entire livelihood of the company (and its shareholders) at risk of collapsing the way AMD's risk appetite did.
Intel takes risks, sometimes large risks, but doesn't over-reach or over-extend themselves in taking those risks. AMD did the opposite and their shareholders have paid the price ever since.
Very true. Here is AMD's annual R&D expenditures, having peaked in 2008 at $1.85B and since steadily declined to $1.1B in 2014.
^ AMD is now operating at the same R&D budget level they had in 2004, 10 years ago, when all they had to focus those R&D dollars on was the K8 and K10.
Now compare AMD's R&D to Intel's R&D budget:
Intel isn't contracting, which bodes well for their shareholders and their customers.
Intel is large, so we expect that, but perhaps what is even more striking is to look at Nvidia's R&D budget versus AMD's:
Not only has AMD's R&D contracted, but they investing in future products to a lesser extent than even Nvidia