How much is AMD behind.

[Lepton87]

Looking at the benchmarks something struck me, current AMD's flagship processor can't beat a 4 year design from Intel. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=45
4 years really is a lot of time in the IT field. How pathetic is that? How many more years will it take AMD to finally catch up to Nehalem? It looks like they are 5 years behind their competitor. Just imagine that 7970 couldn't beat a GTX280.

 

[nonameo]

AMD really is way behind. Fortunately most people don't need very much CPU power anymore. What AMD needs is a more efficient design and access to current process tech. Shooting for the beefiest CPU isn't going to get them anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Homeles]

It looks like they are 5 years behind their competitor.

They are.

Just imagine that 7970 couldn't beat a GTX280.

GPUs don't work that way.

 

[inf64]

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/863-22/moyennes.html

Wow look at that graph. 2600K is just barely ahead of that same Nehalem design you used in your comparison(2600K is 6% ahead of 975x while clocking higher). Amazing "progress" huh?

 

[Stuka87]

You cannot compare GPU's to CPU's. Entirely different technology.

And if you compare top end enthusiast CPU's, AMD is way behind. However, this is a small market. Low-mid range is where most money is made. Here AMD is competitive, but they need to get their efficiency to be better. Unfortunately they are stuck with a foundry that cannot match Intel in any way as far as technology goes. This is what hurts AMD the most. I have no doubt they would love to make a 22nm CPU, but the foundry they are stuck with has just finished transitioning over to 32nm. Who knows when they may make it to 22nm.

 

[Lonyo]

Fortunately for AMD, good enough is, well, good enough, for most people at least.
If it was the GPU market, they would have been crushed already, but we've got to the point where the focus isn't on pure computational power anymore for significant markets, and in some of the markets where it is more of a focus, you can get extra computational power by throwing more cores at the problem, so while AMD is behind, it doesn't actually matter all that much.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

You do realize you are comparing processors that launched at $1000 and $250 right?

 

[ninaholic37]

Looking at the flyers, >50% of the laptops/desktops on sale at Future Shop and Best Buy here are AMD... so I'd say they're doing ok either way.

 

[Homeles]

And if you compare top end enthusiast CPU's, AMD is way behind. However, this is a small market. Low-mid range is where most money is made. Here AMD is competitive, but they need to get their efficiency to be better.

The thing is, AMD's way behind in the low end as well. They're only able to compete by drastically lowering their profit margins.

Unfortunately they are stuck with a foundry that cannot match Intel in any way as far as technology goes. This is what hurts AMD the most. I have no doubt they would love to make a 22nm CPU, but the foundry they are stuck with has just finished transitioning over to 32nm. Who knows when they may make it to 22nm.

GloFo's 28nm process is up and running. Still, GloFo's 32nm process has the same quality as Intel's 45nm process.

You do realize you are comparing processors that launched at $1000 and $250 right?

You do realize you missing the point entirely? The OP's argument has absolutely nothing to do with pricing.

 

[Lepton87]

You do realize you are comparing processors that launched at $1000 and $250 right?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=434

comparing it to i920 does not make it look any prettier for AMD it still gets trashed in games.

I would say it puts AMD in an even worse light. It goes to show that you could have spent the same amount of money on a CPU 4 years ago and still have it perform in the same ballpark.

 

[Beavermatic]

I give AMD about another 3 years. And I'm not joking.

Sadly, they will drag a great graphics company, ATI, down with them.

I went from Intel, to AMD during the "Athlon 64" era, then back to Intel. So I'm no Intel fanboy. And It upsets me... because once they do go under, Intel and Nvidia will price gouge the heck out of graphics cards and GPUs.

Best we can hope for is they sell of their ATI graphics division... which isn't likely, because it's the only thing keeping them afloat.

And this is coming from someone who has never owned ATI, but respects them.

 

[IlllI]

When I got my i5 2500k, my first thought was: I don't think I'll ever need anything more powerful. How many of us normal, average-joe consumers use 100% of a CPU all the time these days?

 

[Homeles]

I give AMD about another 3 years. And I'm not joking.

They actually would have made a decent profit last quarter, had they not paid $703M to sever ties with GloFo.

I personally only see AMD doing great in the future. They're just going to struggle for a while.

 

[Edgemeal]

Looking at the flyers, >50% of the laptops/desktops on sale at Future Shop and Best Buy here are AMD... so I'd say they're doing ok either way.

AMD needs to do much better in notes and server,
as of Q1 2012 AMD marketshare was,
Desktop: 43%
Notebook: 16%
Server: 5.5%

Overall AMD only had a 19.1% share of the x86 market.

 

[nyker96]

I personally put amd at 2 years behind intel at this point.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

I personally put amd at 2 years behind intel at this point.

I agree as well

 

[khurios2000]

i7 870 vs FX-8150

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=107

i7 870 launch date Q3 2009

 

[nismotigerwvu]

The thing is, AMD's way behind in the low end as well. They're only able to compete by drastically lowering their profit margins.
GloFo's 28nm process is up and running. Still, GloFo's 32nm process has the same quality as Intel's 45nm process.

You do realize you missing the point entirely? The OP's argument has absolutely nothing to do with pricing.

Yes, in terms of uarch they are quite behind, but the pricepoint of the CPU does matter in these conversations. It would be like comparing this chip to a i3 2100 and then saying SB was a failure.

 

[helppls]

When I got my i5 2500k, my first thought was: I don't think I'll ever need anything more powerful. How many of us normal, average-joe consumers use 100% of a CPU all the time these days?

I remember saying that about my core 2 duo E8400 four years ago. And I compile code and run processor-heavy apps regularly. I still can't justify upgrading, but I probably will next yearish when Haswell pops out. I consider it a testament to [Intel] CPU development that I can skip 2 full tick-tocks and a halving of the process size without needing to upgrade.

 

[Yuriman]

Yes, in terms of uarch they are quite behind, but the pricepoint of the CPU does matter in these conversations. It would be like comparing this chip to a i3 2100 and then saying SB was a failure.

Some more comparison:

i7 870 -> 296mm^2 on 45nm
FX-8150 -> 315mm^2 on 32nm

Bulldozer is a lower performing chip with a larger die size on a smaller process. I guarantee it's a more expensive chip to manufacture, so if it's selling for less, AMD is just cutting profits.

 

[IntelUser2000]

deleted

 

[nenforcer]

I think AMD will surpass Nehalem performance this fall with the release of the AMD FX-8350 processor.

Their idle power performance is neck and neck with Intel while the load power usage is slightly higher than Intel.

The real problem comes when you try and overclock an AMD FX processor to be competitive with a modern Intel design and the power usage just goes through the roof.

AMD FX processors are finally priced accordingly to their performance, with the "high" end FX-8150 costing only $200.

That is where it should have been priced upon launch last fall.

 

[Abwx]

What is funny on theses benchs is that they start with a set
of Sysmarks wich show Intel s nehalem under a favourable light ,
and of course they are at the top of the page , giving a first
impression that will generaly stay as the main impression...

I dont understand why Anand stick with those since AMD officialy
claimed that BAPCO , wich is an Intel s subsidiary , didnt make
a neutral bench.

Would he keep using it if it was the other way around , that is ,
that Intel would be the one saying that it s not an honnest bench..??..

Indeed , when looking at Sysmark 3D and comparing with the 3DSmax
and CInebench tests we can clearly see the discretanpcy , while the rest
of the benchs show that this Nehalem SKU is not better than a BD.

 

[Arkadrel]

Intels Ivy Bridge is 22nm.
AMDs bulldozer is 32nm.



I understand why your compaireing a i7 965x vs bulldozer.
both are 32nm technology, both have 8 threads.
The i7 965 extreme is 130watts TPD.
The BD FX-8150 is 125watts TPD.

So in a sense your right, a 4year CPU intel has is faster than the current 8 thread bulldoer.
It only uses a tiny bit more power than the current BD does.

However much of that (performance of 4yo cpu vs BD) just comes down to processor node technology. It just means Intel has fab's that are 4years ahead of everyone else, not nessarly that they make better designs.

That and the "software" suit that anandtech uses to compair stuff is oooold.
Old software usually isnt optimised for multi-threading that well, which is where AMD puts alot of its design stratagie when it makes cpu's. That puts Intel in a good light when you look at those graphs here on Anandtech with compaire X intel cpu vs Y amd CPU.


also your thread stinks of flame-bait / troll material, or at the very least a captain-obvious like alert.
And watch me get infraction for saying this, playing right into OP's agenda.

 

[JimmiG]

The I7 965 Extreme launched at $999, the FX 8150 at $245. AMD gave up the high-end market long ago.

The more worrying thing is that even at the sub-$200 level, AMD is having trouble competing. Their dies are larger (cost more for AMD to manufacture), use more power, are less overclockable and often don't perform any better than the Intel equivalent.