AMD Wants To Stop Being Known As The “Cheaper Solution”

[TurtleCrusher]

Check the IDC chart again and then reconsider your reply.

Read your own linked chart and reconsider your ignorance. That's for semiconductor R/D and expenditures alone. They make a lot of their income from other products not classified as semiconductors.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The other divisions is not going to fund a sinkhole just for someones hopes. And starting from scratch, when do you think the first Samssung x86 CPU would arrive and at what R&D cost? 2020 and how many billions down the drain? Assuming that Samsung is even willing to touch x86 at all. And how long would it take for Samsung to build up any volume that wouldnt ruin the hopes of future profit completely?

Always do the financial bit first. No company is going to do it pro bono.

 

[senseamp]

Plenty of x86 license holders that are not willing to make any CPUs. Its an illusion to think companies stand in line to throw billions down an empty hole.

Only one way to find out.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I've never seen someone be so glaringly negative towards anything except who they are being paid by, be it investments or shills.

If Apple can do it for their phones, so can Samsung in x86. You know that. You're so doom & gloom about everything non-Intel. You know it's possible, and just like all the thread crapping you've done in the Zen/390/FX/ARM threads, you're clearly scared. Why would someone go so far out of their way taking smack and being so negative about something they'd never own and would never affect them? All the negative posts won't change reality that many consumer devices will be powered by high end products from the likes of Samsung, Apple, Mediatek, AMD, and Qualcomm. The process advantage is shrinking, despite what your investor reports say. The consumer market in just over a year will likely be a "changing of the guard."

 

[VirtualLarry]

I've never seen someone be so glaringly negative towards anything except who they are being paid by

You said it. I haven't seen so much paid posting since Trollolo.

 

[Enigmoid]

If Apple can do it for their phones, so can Samsung in x86. You know that.

Sure Samsung can and Shintai said that. He said, however, the the ROI would be hugely problematic and a tremendous barrier to considering such an action.

You aren't listening to him.

Edit: While I frequency disagree with what Shintai says never confuse negativity with realism.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

When your company has tremendous output of associated assets and sees another avenue of consistent profitability, there's almost no reason why Samsung/Apple (or even TSMC) wouldn't scoop in.

Even if it happened today, Samsung would literally only accelerate AMDs next bench of high end products since the cost of using the fab would be minimal.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Sure Samsung can and Shintai said that. He said, however, the the ROI would be hugely problematic and a tremendous barrier to considering such an action.

You aren't listening to him.

Edit: While I frequency disagree with what Shintai says never confuse negativity with realism.

Or with a reaction to the outlandish hype for a certain company that seems to take a life of its own on these forums.

 

[CHADBOGA]

The consumer market in just over a year will likely be a "changing of the guard."

In what way?

 

[DrMrLordX]

In what way?

It involves men in silly hats strutting around while eating some beef or drinking gin or . . . something.

 

[USER8000]

Or with a reaction to the outlandish hype for a certain company that seems to take a life of its own on these forums.

The problem is I think too many hardware enthusiasts are bored,as things in the CPU and GPU arena have started to slow down in the last 5 years down,to a shift in focus from companies,technical and financial limitations of others and so on. So instead people grasp at the smallest tidbit of information from companies and either big it up or denigrate it depending on what brand they prefer.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The problem is I think too many hardware enthusiasts are bored,as things in the CPU and GPU arena have started to slow down in the last 5 years down,to a shift in focus from companies,technical and financial limitations of others and so on. So instead people grasp at the smallest tidbit of information from companies and either big it up or denigrate it depending on what brand they prefer.

In other words, you protect the hype. Despite of 10 years of dissapointments of reality vs hype.

Its about people being realistic instead of living in a dreamworld.

Hype is what destroys, not create. And alot of techsites seems to live on the rumourmill gossip crowd that is willing to believe anything.

 

[darkfalz]

AMD isn't the "cheaper solution" to me. My athlon 500MHz was faster than a P3 550, and my athlon xp 1900+ was the fastest box at my college. And they held a lead for many years after.

They still have a niche, and may play second fiddle these days, but anyone who only knows them as the "cheaper option" doesn't know much about PCs.

From 2006 onwards it's true, and that's a long time now. AMD has been playing catch up since the Core 2.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Despite of 10 years of disappointments of reality vs hype.
Its about people being realistic instead of living in a dreamworld.

Sounds like Intel's foray into "mobile". LOL.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, Intel has made some major strides, and I'm looking forward to CT devices. (H.265 supported!)

Just that, Intel's vision of x86 displacing ARM in smartphones, seems a bit unlikely to me. The strength of x86, was always in the arena of being able to run Windows' desktop applications, which obviously doesn't apply to a smartphone.

 

[cbn]

Sounds like Intel's foray into "mobile". LOL.

I'm looking forward to finally owning a x86 Windows 10 phone (Maybe Broxton).....but then that "Continuum/Universal App thing". (re: If using phone docked and working in "desktop mode", I don't want my programs to be limited to those from app store only. )

 

[Phynaz]

Havent you noticed already ??? AMD is not a PC CPU only company anymore.

After 2016 they could be profitable and make more Revenue than today even without selling a single CPU in the PC Desktop market.

Could be? Sure, nothing's impossible.

They could also call me up and offer me a $10M signing bonus to become their CTO.

Both of the above are just as likely to happen.

 

[MrTeal]

From 2006 onwards it's true, and that's a long time now. AMD has been playing catch up since the Core 2.

Even during their heyday from 2003-2006 when they were notably superior, AMD was still known as the cheap or value solution. That might not have been the case here, but in the broader population that knows what a computer is but doesn't read tech forums AMD was the value brand even when they were the better performer.

To get out of value brand mode, AMD not only has to make Zen extremely competitive vs Intel, but they have to do a much better job of selling themselves to the people who call the whole case a CPU.

 

[Headfoot]

The only strategy that I can see realistically working for Zen

Servers:
Offer more cores per socket at modern single-thread (~sandybridge level) via either IPC or turbo or both, use this to get selected where per-socket software licensing is by far the most expensive part of the system purchase (Enterprise ERP, Oracle/SAP stuff). This is what a few high end RISC vendors do, AMD would utilize this strategy but stay in x86 which should be a large enough niche to make a few billion.

Desktop:
Offer the low end server chip at the mainstream desktop and offer more cores at modern single thread (~sandybridge) at the same price as intel mainstream (4c/8t) and essentially undercut the Intel HEDT line.

I don't see trying to beat Intel on IPC or Single Core performance as a viable. Better to be a fast follower, shamelessly utilize Intel's single thread techniques without having to put up as much R&D $$$ as Intel did to discover in the first place, and focus on having more cores in the same space. Their only recent server success was with Magny Cours years back at the time having a great per-socket core count. But they went nowhere with it and lost what they had gained quickly.

Sandybridge level single core performance of course being the absolute minimum as anything less than that and its too much of a trade off for desktop and many server applications.

 

[AtenRa]

Could be? Sure, nothing's impossible.

They could also call me up and offer me a $10M signing bonus to become their CTO.

Both of the above are just as likely to happen.

Q4 2014 Enterprise Embedded and Semi-Custom
Revenue = 577M
Income = 109M

Q1 2015 Enterprise Embedded and Semi-Custom
Revenue = 498M
Income = 45M

With more Semi-Custom deals in 2016 and increase of Enterprise and Embedded Revenue from ZEN servers and new SoCs APUs, i wouldn't be surprised to see the EESC group to have more than 60% of the entire AMD Revenue and largely impact the profitability of the company.

 

[exar333]

At this point in time its a huge marketing thing too. AMD is entrenched in the minds of consumers as the cheap value brand. Even if AMD released very competitive products they have to turn around the mind of the market (see how many people you still see on internet forums who refuse to use AMD graphics because of driver problems 10 years ago) something that is really really hard to do quickly and cheaply.

I had no problem dropping $200-450 for AMD CPUs back in the days of their A64/A64 X-2 fame. Many others happily dropped $999 on the FX series as well...

If the performance is there, people (including me) would buy it up.

 

[exar333]

I've been happy with the "cheaper solution" for the last decade. They were able to fit a nice price/performance segment.

AMD needs to continue being AMD, not be Intel

The last decade, except for 2005 and the first half of 2006 (before Conroe) has provided cheap CPUs to people but done little for AMD as a company. They have lost billions...

Its just not possible to spend the money needed to stay competitive in the x86 market and sell your products for peanuts, especially when they cost MORE to produce and sell for ~1/2 the ASP.

I LOVE AMD, but most of the last decade they skated on the performance of their A64 CPUs and just kept cutting the prices, until Intel pretty much cornered the market with close to the same price options.

They need to get their performance back and earn some higher prices for their products. Gone are the days of 'mainstream' CPUs at $400-800, but its a LOT more palatable to sell small-die CPUs at $150-350 vs. bigger-die CPUs at $70-180.

 

[raghu78]

The only strategy that I can see realistically working for Zen

Servers:
Offer more cores per socket at modern single-thread (~sandybridge level) via either IPC or turbo or both, use this to get selected where per-socket software licensing is by far the most expensive part of the system purchase (Enterprise ERP, Oracle/SAP stuff). This is what a few high end RISC vendors do, AMD would utilize this strategy but stay in x86 which should be a large enough niche to make a few billion.

Desktop:
Offer the low end server chip at the mainstream desktop and offer more cores at modern single thread (~sandybridge) at the same price as intel mainstream (4c/8t) and essentially undercut the Intel HEDT line.

I don't see trying to beat Intel on IPC or Single Core performance as a viable. Better to be a fast follower, shamelessly utilize Intel's single thread techniques without having to put up as much R&D $$$ as Intel did to discover in the first place, and focus on having more cores in the same space. Their only recent server success was with Magny Cours years back at the time having a great per-socket core count. But they went nowhere with it and lost what they had gained quickly.

Sandybridge level single core performance of course being the absolute minimum as anything less than that and its too much of a trade off for desktop and many server applications.

SB IPC with lower max frequency due to an inferior Samsung 14nm process vs Intel's high performance CPU optimized 14nm FINFET process means AMD can forget HEDT market. If Zen cannot get to Haswell IPC then they can just forget getting even 5-10% of the HEDT market.

In servers maybe if they offer similar MT performance per socket (through more cores ) at comparable power levels they might make a dent. But still Intel is going crazy with core counts and I doubt AMD can do large dies like Intel (> 600 sq mm). AMD can try dual dies on a single socket but I think Intel's single die beasts would have better performance in cache sensitive applications.

If AMD are serious about gaining server and HEDT share matching Haswell IPC is necessary to make even a slight dent.

 

[TuxDave]

At this point in time its a huge marketing thing too. AMD is entrenched in the minds of consumers as the cheap value brand. Even if AMD released very competitive products they have to turn around the mind of the market (see how many people you still see on internet forums who refuse to use AMD graphics because of driver problems 10 years ago) something that is really really hard to do quickly and cheaply.

Yeah, I had the same idea. It's part engineering and part marketing. After listening to hundreds of business executive meetings I think the standard recipe is as follows:

Step 1) Engineering makes one CPU SKU that's faster across the board even if it costs $1500.
Step 2) Marketing jumps on top of that and starts pushing the message "AMD is faster than Intel"
Step 3) Consumers make the conclusion that if AMD is faster than Intel at the top SKU, that must apply for all lines and is now willing to pay more for AMD.
Step 4) Sales starts using improved sales figure to indicate that "it's selling better, therefore the product must be better"

...

PROFIT!

 

[Arachnotronic]

Yeah, I had the same idea. It's part engineering and part marketing. After listening to hundreds of business executive meetings I think the standard recipe is as follows:

Step 1) Engineering makes one CPU SKU that's faster across the board even if it costs $1500.
Step 2) Marketing jumps on top of that and starts pushing the message "AMD is faster than Intel"
Step 3) Consumers make the conclusion that if AMD is faster than Intel at the top SKU, that must apply for all lines and is now willing to pay more for AMD.
Step 4) Sales starts using improved sales figure to indicate that "it's selling better, therefore the product must be better"

...

PROFIT!

Going to be hard for AMD since Intel could just bring down a high core count Broadwell/Skylake-EP chip, unlock it, and sell it for $1500.

This is the advantage of having the HEDT and mainstream platforms separate -- if Intel ever needs "moar cores" it has a bunch of Xeons that it can rebrand "Extreme Edition."

 

[SlowSpyder]

If it's so easy why didn't AMD engineers do it before?

What part of my post suggested it was 'so easy'? Getting 40% more IPC from Haswell, I think we could all agree that'd likely be quite a challenge for Intel. AMD is going with a different architecture because what they released didn't perform well for what the market wanted. I don't think jumping 40% in IPC will be as difficult for AMD as it would for Intel. I'm not suggesting it is as easy as flipping a switch, just that people are making a big deal out of that number and it probably isn't unrealistic given the starting point.

Actually, they are phasing out the cpus that power the two top end consoles, and I am not sure what having GCN in consoles has to do with Zen cpu performance.

If you are talking about dgpus, I think they have a good chance to gain back a fair amount of market share. It just depends on whether they introduce a new lineup of more efficient cards. If they only introduce one or to top end monsters and the rest of the lineup is rebrands, they are screwed, no matter how much the AMD fans on these forums will love a top end powerhouse and will tout price/performance for the rebrands. They need a whole new lineup with more efficient cards top to bottom, no matter how much some people like to deride efficiency.

As far a Zen, even if it is a technically successful product, at least until 2017 or later, they are betting the farm on servers, because by not including an igpu, they are ceding basically the entire consumer and enterprise market to intel except for high end desktop users.

Look at the thread subject. AMD has a marketing opportunity there, that's all I'm saying. They power all the consoles graphics and two of the consoles CPU's. They could market themselves as a premium option and get a lot of attention with that, I think.

But they need better products. Hawaii was good, if not power hungry. But it is a bit long in the tooth now, time for some new parts. The FX obviously didn't do well, but regardless of any positives it has, it too is old and really needs a replacement as it never was a big hit. I think they have an opportunity to market to gamers and grab some attention to their products. But before they can stop being thought of as the value / cheap option, they need something people really want.