[Motley Fool] 3 Reasons AMD is Falling Apart Before Our Eyes

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
That's my point. Without competition, Intel is just competing with itself and it causes stagnation. They can release 5% iterations endlessly and steadily creep up the price. Intel's focus has been mobiles & notebooks for so long because nothing challenges them on desktops.

Without AMD GPUs to force NV to excel & innovate, what is stopping them from doing a similar stunt as Intel has been doing for the past few generations? Nada.

There are different ways to innovate. One of those ways is to be more power efficient while provided the same, or a little more performance than you had before. But Intel is releasing these little 5% improvement Ticks and Tocks because you bought a Sandy, and Ivy, and a Haswell one right after the other. Maybe if you and a million others didn't do that, then Intel might have a reason to up the performance to entice people to buy. Just my 2 cents.
With AMD and Nvidia though, being restricted on 28nm has hampered them but so far Nvidia still pulled off quite a feat with Maxwell. It remains to be seen if 390/X can pull off the same trick.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,162
984
126
The faith some of you have that a monopoly wouldn't jack their prices up because it competes with itself... Laughable. They'd stagnate for a generation (year), then start pumping out high margin, extremely low assembly cost products that perform 5% faster than previous products at much higher prices. Shelf life for modern video cards is 4 years before the hsf/paste/vrms give way, then they're absolutely forced to be upgraded.
 

lilltesaito

Member
Aug 3, 2010
110
0
0
The faith some of you have that a monopoly wouldn't jack their prices up because it competes with itself... Laughable. They'd stagnate for a generation (year), then start pumping out high margin, extremely low assembly cost products that perform 5% faster than previous products at much higher prices. Shelf life for modern video cards is 4 years before the hsf/paste/vrms give way, then they're absolutely forced to be upgraded.

I am sure that the budget to R&D will not be cut, while they are not raising rates also with the same 30-50% increase of performance.
 

boozzer

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2012
1,549
18
81
if you want a monopoly, you shouldn't be on this forum. RnD would not be cut? same 30 to 50% increase? I don't think even a 3 year old is that naive. just look at how bad the cpu market has become, you would think they would understand it without someone pointing out the obvious. 5 to 10% would become the damn norm, you monopoly supporters want this???????????????? 980 is only 15% faster than a 290x you know. and that is with competition.

If you support monopoly, either you own stock in the company or work for it, or you are something so bad I don't think I can name without the mod hammer hitting me.
 

lilltesaito

Member
Aug 3, 2010
110
0
0
if you want a monopoly, you shouldn't be on this forum. RnD would not be cut? same 30 to 50% increase? I don't think even a 3 year old is that naive. just look at how bad the cpu market has become, you would think they would understand it without someone pointing out the obvious. 5 to 10% would become the damn norm, you monopoly supporters want this???????????????? 980 is only 15% faster than a 290x you know. and that is with competition.

If you support monopoly, either you own stock in the company or work for it, or you are something so bad I don't think I can name without the mod hammer hitting me.

I was joking, because others think that nothing would happen. While I think all those things would change and is why I put the confused face up. I am really hoping that the 390x brings something and that I will want to get it. But who knows.
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
The Titan X is priced at $1000. That's what Nvidia will launch a card at if there's no close competition from AMD. If the R9-290 series wasn't around to provide at least some competition for the 980/970, I bet Nvidia would have launched the 980 at $1000 and gotten away with it. Does anyone want that? I don't want that.
 

Riceninja

Golden Member
May 21, 2008
1,841
3
81
if AMD goes out of business i'm jumping over to consoles. not gonna be paying to play this monopoly game.
 

Erenhardt

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2012
3,251
105
101
200mmsq will be the top end then - the new Titan u, the most efficient gpu ever! Driver locking features on previous generation, after new generation launch. Performance crippling of last generation in drivers after next release. SUPPORT.

There are many more ways to make people upgrade their gpu's than cpu's it is not even funny.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,162
984
126
It's absolutely clear who are the brand loyalists or people with vested interests in specific companies rather than who are consumers and enthusiasts alike.
 

hungtran

Member
Jan 7, 2014
75
0
0
This is economics 101 stuff. Monopolies will price higher and produce less quantity than if in a competitive environment for a greater producer surplus. The notion that somehow there'll be greater value to consumers in a monopolistic environment is so warped it's funny. That's like saying it's more democratic to live under a dictator than an elected government.
 

Gikaseixas

Platinum Member
Jul 1, 2004
2,836
218
106
This is economics 101 stuff. Monopolies will price higher and produce less quantity than if in a competitive environment for a greater producer surplus. The notion that somehow there'll be greater value to consumers in a monopolistic environment is so warped it's funny. That's like saying it's more democratic to live under a dictator than an elected government.

Well said
Don't understand why people want others to think it will be ok
 

ocre

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2008
1,594
7
81
That's my point. Without competition, Intel is just competing with itself and it causes stagnation. They can release 5% iterations endlessly and steadily creep up the price. Intel's focus has been mobiles & notebooks for so long because nothing challenges them on desktops.

Without AMD GPUs to force NV to excel & innovate, what is stopping them from doing a similar stunt as Intel has been doing for the past few generations? Nada.

So your saying that intel has been perfectly capable of producing chips with much higher gains but just didn't because of their monopoly? That's a really bold conclusion.

I am not getting into what nvidia might or might not do with a monopoly but I just think it is naive to say that intel is just holding back due to the lack of AMD competition.

There are so many other possibilities and indications of such. It seems pretty clear to me that intel has run up to a wall and is trying to climb over it rather than leap. Just because your a chip maker, it doesnt mean you are in complete control. Not hardly. Just look at netburst: prescott, the P4, pentium D. Very talented and capable engineers made decisions that turned out to be completely the wrong way to go. But, they really really believed this was the path future. Don't be so naive, this is all uncharted territory. Look at the original phenom or bulldozer. These were thought up by brilliant minds. But it turns out that building a completely new and better x86 architecture isn't so easy at all. Intel had to turn to backwards to scramble out the core 2 duo. It was built up from the core/pentium M which goes back to the pentium 3.

But from turning back they were able to move forward. You may know well about the back pedal that gave us the core2. But do you realize that Nehalem was a direct descendant in the evolved lineage. Intel brought in two important changes, hyper threading (which they were already implementing in the P4) and they finally got their own on chip memory controller (which was an AMD concept). From there on, sandy, ivy and haswell are all fundamentally based off the same old core technology. Its minor evolution from the architectural standpoint. Intel was heavily invested in fabrication process carrying them into the future. As a matter of fact, their plan on moving forward since the core 2 was tick rock. But this formula has hit a major snag.

If you really look at what has been happening, its clear that the node shrinks are not bringing the future that everyone thought. This is not an intel issue, it is industry wide. Intel is actually working thru the quicksand where other fabs have completely cancelled multibillion dollar nodes. But I just look at the products and you can see there is a clear issue. Focusing on intel alone, they hit a wall. Their last impressive new node was 32nm. It had a large drop in power consumption and really moved the bar in max clocks. As a matter of fact, 22nm not only failed to move the bar on max clocks, it actually seems to have dropped the ceiling. When it comes to what your average overclocker should expect, the bar did drop. Its clear that intel's 22nm node failed to move the max clocks, it is not even debatable. But now we have broadwell to examine. It is basically a shrink of haswell, and after so so much of a delay............its looking like the upper tier products won't be making it at all. Do you really think this is because of no competition from AMD? It is the node. Their 14nm is even worse than the 22nm results. Its a real issue and one that I find extremely scary.

If you look at real world power consumption, the upper tier intel 22nn chips use about as much power as their 32nm chips did. Not a lot of difference, especially when overclocked. Combine that with the fact that haswell cannot catch sandy when it comes to realistic user overclocks, it is a disaster. This node wasnt able to move enthusiast further. Its just clear as day. Then we have 14nm, currently it is looking like an even worse outcome.

You cannot say this is all the result of a lack in effort. The improvements we do have are because of improvements to the architecture. But with a tick tock path, intel is driving forward in a car on two flats. It is just a terrible situation. Intel has dumped billions and billions into advancing their world class nodes. This was part of their path forward. The snag is so real, now we see tsmc dumping their 20nm HP. It is a real problem that everyone will struggle with.

Intel is now fully dependent on the architecture to bring them higher. And if you look back throughout the history of chips, big changes there rarely happen. They are few and far between. Node shrinks played a major role in moving us forward in CPU performance. But clearly, things have hit a major snag.

It sucks, sucks bad. But saying that intel CPUs haven't advanced in top performance is a result of a monopoly.....that is like blaming AMD. There is clearly something much bigger going on. And now we are seeing it happen with gpus. And of course, I expect people to blame that on AMD too. That is just crazy.

I think, I hope , gpus aren't as hard to move forward as x86. What I mean is, i hope we can still get major architectural changes. Intel is promising that with skylake. But I really wouldn't bet on a major shift up in top performance. Looking back, it seems that these major shifts are extremely rare.

Its just time to face the facts. We have really hit a snag and its gonna take a major shift in new technology for us to see the huge jumps in performance everyone wants to see. Its not AMD or the lack of their competition. Its just the bleak truth
 

Gikaseixas

Platinum Member
Jul 1, 2004
2,836
218
106
I am not getting into what nvidia might or might not do with a monopoly but I just think it is naive to say that intel is just holding back due to the lack of AMD competition

That's your opinion, let's not present it as a fact
IMO Intel would be forced to make bigger performance increases if they had a much more competitive AMD to battle against. A stronger AMD would push Intel, a weaker AMD is not a threat to the pole position
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
That's your opinion, let's not present it as a fact
IMO Intel would be forced to make bigger performance increases if they had a much more competitive AMD to battle against. A stronger AMD would push Intel, a weaker AMD is not a threat to the pole position

And your position is the obvious one. It's the reason there are laws against monopolies in the 1st place.
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
Let's be real about Intel: They HAVE had competition that they've worried about, have applied themselves to innovating so they can better compete. But that competition hasn't been AMD, it's been ARM. It's the reason Intel's innovations have been focused on low power consumption and temperature, because they NEEDED to go in that direct to counter the rise of ARM.
 

Black Octagon

Golden Member
Dec 10, 2012
1,410
2
81
Ocre: what about the price creep since Sandy? Regardless of whether the incremental performance gains were deliberate or a reflection of the wider industry, it was Intel who chose to charge more and more for gamer cpus each generation.

If you read Silverforce's post again, you'll see he gave this phenomenon equal weight to the lacklustre performance increases. You haven't really addressed it.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
There have been plenty of instances where companies have been broken up simply because they were a monopoly. Or where mergers weren't allowed because they would have created monopolies.
 

Gikaseixas

Platinum Member
Jul 1, 2004
2,836
218
106
And your position is the obvious one. It's the reason there are laws against monopolies in the 1st place.

It was to illustrate how a monopoly would affect prices. I agree with you 100%, monopolies have no place in today's economic environment
 

Dribble

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2005
2,076
611
136
I would say a bigger problem would be lack of focus on us, the desktop enthusiast. We are simply not a focus for these companies any longer - that's why Intel has gone nowhere, because they are focusing on lower power and competing with arm. The growth markets are not desktop or even PC's in general.

Without AMD nvidia wouldn't raise prices, instead they'd go for higher margins on the desktop by releasing cards that are cheaper to make (i.e. smaller chips). You could argue that AMD is already barely competing as nvidia is already able to get away with using smaller xx104 chips competing with whatever AMD's top chip is.
 

Spanners

Senior member
Mar 16, 2014
325
1
0
But Intel is releasing these little 5% improvement Ticks and Tocks because you bought a Sandy, and Ivy, and a Haswell one right after the other. Maybe if you and a million others didn't do that, then Intel might have a reason to up the performance to entice people to buy.

Really? You think Intel CPU performance has been stagnating (relatively speaking) because too many people have been buying unnecessary upgrades and that millions of people did? Not that AMD haven't released anything vaguely competitive since 2009? I don't agree.

So you're saying that Intel has been perfectly capable of producing chips with much higher gains but just didn't because of their monopoly? That's a really bold conclusion.

I would say Intel has had some room to move on frequency and price. Ivy Bridge 4C was 160mm2 (vs 216mm2 for SB) if AMD had hit it out of the park with Bulldozer, not driven into a parked car, then I'd say it's safe to bet the consumer would have had a cheaper or faster clocked Ivy part or both. Hard to divine if that competition would have meant a fundamentally better product but it's not insanity to speculate it may have.

Everyone should be hoping for at least a modestly competitive AMD for obvious reasons.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
I would say Intel has had some room to move on frequency and price. Ivy Bridge 4C was 160mm2 (vs 216mm2 for SB) if AMD had hit it out of the park with Bulldozer, not driven into a parked car, then I'd say it's safe to bet the consumer would have had a cheaper or faster clocked Ivy part or both.

This is something people forget. Intel makes tiny dies in comparisons to our top end GPUs and they've been getting smaller. A die shrink at the same size would result in much more performance gains than our rubbish 5%.

But Intel doesn't NEED it. Nobody pushes them on the PC segment for them to make larger dies. Instead, they make them smaller, jack up the price each gen, making margins & profit go up and up.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |