[Serious] If AMD went bankrupt tomorrow... what would happen to x86 CPUs?

[AtenRa]

The whole [redacted] point is that they would compete. Come on man, think a little.
Suddenly the lowest cost x86 computers increase in price, and then no one thinks to make some more development investment in ARM software? Really?

All it would do is give fuel to Google's fire, as well as Samsung etc, and also Windows on ARM.
It's not like Intel can do whatever the hell they want, we are already moving away from needing x86, Intel raising prices would just make it happen faster, hence THEY CAN'T.

I have said that Intel will EOL low-end Haswell Celerons and Pentiums and replace them with ATOM based SKUs at the same price. So the price of entry level Celeron will remain the same in the x86 Windows market as of today BUT you will only get ATOMs performance at the price of Haswell. You dont raise the low-end prices, you just decrease the performance and you maximize your profits by lowering your OPEX, Marketing and lengthening your SKU replacement time tables.

You also release ATOM based Chromebooks that are cheaper for you and very competitive in performance with ARM SKUs.

 

[AtenRa]

This has to be the most naive statement i've ever seen here. Every day people buy chromebooks for general use, and this includes students and every day joes who just want a computing device for email, web, youtube, basic productivity (think google docs, etc), and video. For which a chromebook does fine. Oh yeah, some of those chromebooks use Haswell celeron CPUs.

You're nuts if you don't think chromebooks compete with notebooks. Believe it or not, new computing users do not give a crap about Windows or x86. What they care about is applications that do what they need to do. And, Android and chrome OS both have apps that do 99.9% of what the "average" users need to do. There is NO windows loyalty in the new era of computing. I know plenty of people personally that use a chromebook as their primary and only computing device in the home and at school. Could they have gotten a windows notebook instead? Yeah, they could have gotten a truly piece of garbage notebook for 300-400$ but they got a chromebook instead . You wouldn't believe the number of students who use chromebooks. This is a very real competitor to low end x86 notebooks, whether you realize it or not. X86 and windows means JACK nowadays.

The market boils down to computing device or not a computing device. That's where chromebooks fit in, and like I said, there are so many students and regular people who buy those things for their ONLY computing device. It will do everything they need so where does a need for x86 fit in? X86 doesn't mean crap, nor does windows. If AMD wants to compete they should get chips in chromebooks just like intel has. But AMD doesn't have as good of a mobile CPU as intel does in PPW. They can cling to graphics performance all they want but they don't have balanced performance. It's always, generally speaking, decent graphics with questionable CPU performance or okay cpu performance with terrible battery life/performance per watt. And balanced performance with great performance per watt is what is needed for low end notebooks and chromebooks.

People that want to buy Windows based products will continue to buy them, People only goes to Chromebooks because of the low price. If you had both at the same price people would chose the one with Windows installed.

$199 Chromebooks directly compete against $199 Tablets, not against $400-500+ x86 windows Laptops.

 

[mrmt]

This has to be the most naive statement i've ever seen here. Every day people buy chromebooks for general use, and this includes students and every day joes who just want a computing device for email, web, youtube, basic productivity (think google docs, etc), and video. For which a chromebook does fine. Oh yeah, some of those chromebooks use Haswell celeron CPUs.

Just anecdotal evidence, but my wife is going the Google route, and she ditched her windows notebook for a Chromebook + Office 365.

 

[blackened23]

People that want to buy Windows based products will continue to buy them, People only goes to Chromebooks because of the low price. If you had both at the same price people would chose the one with Windows installed.

$199 Chromebooks directly compete against $199 Tablets, not against $400-500+ x86 windows Laptops.

What's funny is that Microsoft sees Chromebooks as a real threat to their Windows business because so many people buy chromebooks as their primary and only computing device. Now you will chastise chrome OS but for what MOST people do, chrome OS has every application that the average joe would ever need. Office 365, productivity apps, apps for school, browsing, video watching, youtube, content consumption, you can do all of that on a chromebook. And they're fairly snappy as well. There is no windows loyalty except to those who have used windows for 10 years (not specifically, but you get the idea). New computing users DO NOT care. They want a computing device. Computing. Device.

And on that note, chromebooks have long been the #1 seller and the new students of this era? The new folks who don't have an existing computing device? They don't care about windows. Don't give a crap. I'm sorry but it's true.

So on that note, it's hilarious that you don't consider chromebooks a real competitor but Microsoft sees Chromebooks as a huge threat to their windows business.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/13/why-chromebook-sales-have-microsoft-worried.aspx

Microsoft is clearly worried about chromebooks. But according to you, they shouldn't be. I gotta say. I have used a Haswell chromebook and it was pretty snappy for what it did. The alternative is buying a 400$ garbage subnotebook with 6 hours of battery life and a platter HDD. I think the market has spoken as to their preference. Why buy a sluggish platter HD notebook that has a marginal experience when the Haswell chromebook offers a good experience for the average joe? Now don't get me wrong, I love windows but if I get a windows machine it isn't going to be a marginal one. I like quality. I'd get a macbook air or a quality ultrabook. This is aside from the point that you are 100% wrong that chromebooks are not competing with windows. That has to be a joke. Microsoft considers it a huge threat that is eating into their windows business. But according to you, not a competitor.

I'm not trying to bash windows here, because I like and use windows. But, I can recognize the shift in the market. The market truly does not have Windows loyalty. They just want a computing device that does what they need to do. For most people, the chromebook meets their needs. Period. So how does MS react? They did the proper thing by reducing their licencing fees and Intel did the correct thing by getting Haswell chips into chromebooks and getting full android / chrome OS compatibility across their entire product line. MS made the semi-smart move because they realize that chrome OS is a competitor. They cannot charge exorbitant fees for Windows as they have in the past. Yet Chrome OS and chromebooks is still a danger to their business. Make no mistake of that.

I guess where this is going is, maybe AMD needs to make the smart move. Intel did. They have Haswell chips in Chromebooks. Perhaps AMD should get their chips into chromebooks. Problem? Their APUs do not have balanced performance, which is a real issue for AMD. It's always decent graphics with poor CPU, or decent CPU with poor performance per watt and poor battery life. They need a balance of all of these things to break into the chromebook market, not to mention that they need chrome OS and android compatibility. Bluestacks is a joke that doesn't even work properly. Maybe AMD will realize this, their ARM license won't come to fruition for a long time. Besides which, ARM SOCs aren't a pre-requisite for chrome OS and android. Google OS's work with x86 CPUs, they worked with intel for full compatibilty. Perhaps AMD should do the same. That would be the smart move for AMD to be a better long term player. They have to recognize that windows isn't the be-all end-all.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I have said that Intel will EOL low-end Haswell Celerons and Pentiums and replace them with ATOM based SKUs at the same price. So the price of entry level Celeron will remain the same in the x86 Windows market as of today BUT you will only get ATOMs performance at the price of Haswell. You dont raise the low-end prices, you just decrease the performance and you maximize your profits by lowering your OPEX, Marketing and lengthening your SKU replacement time tables.

You also release ATOM based Chromebooks that are cheaper for you and very competitive in performance with ARM SKUs.

Isnt both AMD and Intel doing that already due to the demand for higher performance/watt? Seems like its some sort of prediction you make that already came true when AMD is around, even cheered on by AMD that is doing the same thing.

We can even turn it around and say that competition is giving you silvermont/kabini celerons/pentiums/althons. Race to the bottom.

 

[AtenRa]

What's funny is that Microsoft sees Chromebooks as a real threat to their Windows business because so many people buy chromebooks as their primary and only computing device. Now you will chastise chrome OS but for what MOST people do, chrome OS has every application that the average joe would ever need. Office 365, productivity apps, apps for school, browsing, video watching, youtube, content consumption, you can do all of that on a chromebook. And they're fairly snappy as well. There is no windows loyalty except to those who have used windows for 10 years (not specifically, but you get the idea). New computing users DO NOT care. They want a computing device. Computing. Device.

And on that note, chromebooks have long been the #1 seller and the new students of this era? The new folks who don't have an existing computing device? They don't care about windows. Don't give a crap. I'm sorry but it's true.

So on that note, it's hilarious that you don't consider chromebooks a real competitor but Microsoft sees Chromebooks as a huge threat to their windows business.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/13/why-chromebook-sales-have-microsoft-worried.aspx

Microsoft is clearly worried about chromebooks. But according to you, they shouldn't be. I gotta say. I have used a Haswell chromebook and it was pretty snappy for what it did. The alternative is buying a 400$ garbage subnotebook with 6 hours of battery life and a platter HDD. I think the market has spoken as to their preference. Why buy a sluggish platter HD notebook that has a marginal experience when the Haswell chromebook offers a good experience for the average joe? Now don't get me wrong, I love windows but if I get a windows machine it isn't going to be a marginal one. I like quality. I'd get a macbook air or a quality ultrabook. This is aside from the point that you are 100% wrong that chromebooks are not competing with windows. That has to be a joke. Microsoft considers it a huge threat that is eating into their windows business. But according to you, not a competitor.

I'm not trying to bash windows here, because I like and use windows. But, I can recognize the shift in the market. The market truly does not have Windows loyalty. They just want a computing device that does what they need to do. For most people, the chromebook meets their needs. Period. So how does MS react? They did the proper thing by reducing their licencing fees and Intel did the correct thing by getting Haswell chips into chromebooks and getting full android / chrome OS compatibility across their entire product line. MS made the semi-smart move because they realize that chrome OS is a competitor. They cannot charge exorbitant fees for Windows as they have in the past. Yet Chrome OS and chromebooks is still a danger to their business. Make no mistake of that.

I guess where this is going is, maybe AMD needs to make the smart move. Intel did. They have Haswell chips in Chromebooks. Perhaps AMD should get their chips into chromebooks. Problem? Their APUs do not have balanced performance, which is a real issue for AMD. It's always decent graphics with poor CPU, or decent CPU with poor performance per watt and poor battery life. They need a balance of all of these things to break into the chromebook market, not to mention that they need chrome OS and android compatibility. Bluestacks is a joke that doesn't even work properly. Maybe AMD will realize this, their ARM license won't come to fruition for a long time. Besides which, ARM SOCs aren't a pre-requisite for chrome OS and android. Google OS's work with x86 CPUs, they worked with intel for full compatibilty. Perhaps AMD should do the same. That would be the smart move for AMD to be a better long term player. They have to recognize that windows isn't the be-all end-all.

We are talking about PC products, not windows vs android. That being said, Chromebooks are only a threat to entry level Laptops at $300-350. Higher priced Laptops of $400 and above offer significant higher performance than 1.4GHz Chromebooks.

 

[AtenRa]

Isnt both AMD and Intel doing that already due to the demand for higher performance/watt? Seems like its some sort of prediction you make that already came true when AMD is around, even cheered on by AMD that is doing the same thing.

We can even turn it around and say that competition is giving you silvermont/kabini celerons/pentiums/althons. Race to the bottom.

As of now you have the choice of entry level Haswell Celerons/Pentiums at very low prices. In the situation that AMD doesnt exists, those low End Haswell Celerons and Pentiums are gone too.
There is a big difference between having both in the market and having only the low Power low performance ATOMs.

 

[ShintaiDK]

As of now you have the choice of entry level Haswell Celerons/Pentiums at very low prices. In the situation that AMD doesnt exists, those low End Haswell Celerons and Pentiums are gone too.
There is a big difference between having both in the market and having only the low Power low performance ATOMs.

You are making an argument that will already materialize even with AMD here. And AMD is driving it hard too due to their abandonment of the big core. And thats the result of competition, not monopoly. Competition in this case gives us the race to the bottom.

Its simply nonsense to claim Intel will do it if AMD goes away. When AMD as well is the key driver for this to happen TODAY. AMD already moved Kabini into AM1 for both Athlons and Semprons.

 

[AtenRa]

You are making an argument that will already materialize even with AMD here. And AMD is driving it hard too due to their abandonment of the big core. And thats the result of competition, not monopoly. Competition in this case gives us the race to the bottom.

Its simply nonsense to claim Intel will do it if AMD goes away. When AMD as well is the key driver for this to happen TODAY. AMD already moved Kabini into AM1 for both Athlons and Semprons.

AMD provides both AM1 socket SKUs as well FM2/+ SKUs at the same prices. You want low power ?? you go with AM1. You want more performance ?? you go with FM2/+.
Same with Intel, you want low power ?? you go with ATOM. You need more performance ??? you go with Haswell.

Im sure you know all of that so why pretend the situation is different ?? Both AMD and Intel provides both solutions as of now, and economics only dictates if Intel was alone they would only provide the one they would make more profit and that is not the Haswell die.

ps: AMD havent abandon their Big-Core, SteamRoller and Excavator next year are Big-Cores and in 2016 a new mArch for Big-Cores are coming. I know you like to FUD but everyone here knows a new mArch is coming to replace Excavator in 2016.

 

[Homeles]

ps: AMD havent abandon their Big-Core, SteamRoller and Excavator next year are Big-Cores and in 2016 a new mArch for Big-Cores are coming. I know you like to FUD but everyone here knows a new mArch is coming to replace Excavator in 2016.

We know about Excavator, but everything after that is completely unknown at this point. It's impossible to say whether or not AMD will move away from "big cores."

I don't think they will, but we're years out at this point.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I guess where this is going is, maybe AMD needs to make the smart move. Intel did. They have Haswell chips in Chromebooks. Perhaps AMD should get their chips into chromebooks. Problem? Their APUs do not have balanced performance, which is a real issue for AMD. It's always decent graphics with poor CPU, or decent CPU with poor performance per watt and poor battery life. They need a balance of all of these things to break into the chromebook market, not to mention that they need chrome OS and android compatibility. Bluestacks is a joke that doesn't even work properly. Maybe AMD will realize this, their ARM license won't come to fruition for a long time. Besides which, ARM SOCs aren't a pre-requisite for chrome OS and android. Google OS's work with x86 CPUs, they worked with intel for full compatibilty. Perhaps AMD should do the same. That would be the smart move for AMD to be a better long term player. They have to recognize that windows isn't the be-all end-all.

Beema and Mullins Chromebooks? I like that idea.

 

[blackened23]

Beema and Mullins Chromebooks? I like that idea.

Nice idea in theory, but not happening.

First, AMD is avoiding the question of beema/mullins performance per watt and obviously, battery life. In actual designs. Instead, they prohibit reviewers from testing battery life. If they're prohibiting reviewers from testing it, do they have something to hide? Or no? Since these chips are low end SoCs, will they match the battery life of ARM SOCs? That's the only way in which they can compete since chromebooks are using either ARM SOCs or Haswell CPUs (depending on model you buy). They either need to beat Haswell CPU performance and battery life or beat ARM SOC battery life. #1 definitely not happening, #2 highly doubtful.

Oh and the much bigger stop sign: AMD isn't chrome OS compatible. Or android compatible. Intel is, and has numerous chromebook/box designs. AMD has bluestacks emulation (works for android, not for chrome OS) which is a hilarious joke that is barely functional even for android, but none of their chips support chrome os or android.

So I think it is safe to say, not happening. There are a plethora of Haswell chromebooks, though.

I am genuinely perplexed as to why AMD did not pursue native chrome OS and android compatibility. I'm guessing it's a case of their software engineers not having the manpower and/or being asleep at the wheel, but i'm not sure. I kinda feel like AMD just doesn't give their software engineers enough manpower or money. For AMD it seems to be all marketing and less of the important stuff. Whatever the case, compatibility could be such a huge boon for them, but they tied themselves to MS. Why, I don't know. In the meantime, they can't do anything until their ARM licensed products come to fruition in 2015, which is well past the window of opportunity; SOCs for low end devices are quickly becoming a commodity.

 

[shady28]

That's not what people are arguing against; the argument is that we're close enough to a monopoly, that there isn't much of a difference from where we're at now, and from where we'd be if AMD ceased to exist. I.e., we've already got monopoly pricing.

Long term, ARM starts to encroach on Intel's territory.

That's an even more plainly false perspective, and frankly one that describes a mindset where the only player is Intel.

Before the Xbox one / PS 4 AMD had 14.3% of the x86 market. Currently they have almost 17% (due to Xbox one/ PS 4). Intel actually "owns" 82.8% of the x86 market - niche players own .2 - .3 %. AMD is not a niche player/

And that is absolutely not a monopoly. If we start getting over 95% Intel, then we can reasonably talk about monopoly.

 

[NostaSeronx]

ps: AMD havent abandon their Big-Core, SteamRoller and Excavator next year are Big-Cores and in 2016 a new mArch for Big-Cores are coming. I know you like to FUD but everyone here knows a new mArch is coming to replace Excavator in 2016.

ARM 64-bit Roadmap:
2H 2014 - Cortex A57
2H 2015 - Low Power Cortex A57 (Skybridge)
2H 2016 - ARM K12

x86-64 Roadmap:
1H 2015 - Excavator (Skybridge)
1H 2016 - Excavator+
1H 2017 - ARM K12's sister x86-64 core

That is if there are no delays that might happen.

 

[mrmt]

We know about Excavator, but everything after that is completely unknown at this point. It's impossible to say whether or not AMD will move away from "big cores."

I don't think they will, but we're years out at this point.

Yeah, the company that cannot afford to develop chipsets is going to develop a big core worth of note...

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140604PD204.html

AMD said to outsource chipsets R&D to ASMedia

Monica Chen, Taipei; Joseph Tsai, DIGITIMES [Wednesday 4 June 2014]

AMD reportedly is planning to outsource its PC chipset R&D to ASMedia Technology, a subsidiary of Asustek Computer, to save costs and the cooperation is expected to greatly benefit ASMedia's revenue performance, according to sources from the upstream supply chain.

(...)

 

[NostaSeronx]

Yeah, the company that cannot afford to develop chipsets is going to develop a big core worth of note...

AMD with the next-generation platforms will have the Northbridge and Southbridge integrated. The GPP/UMI that use to go the southbridge will be going to a external switch for SATA Express, Ethernet, and USB.

 

[mrmt]

AMD with the next-generation platforms will have the Northbridge and Southbridge integrated. The GPP/UMI that use to go the southbridge will be going to a external switch for SATA Express, Ethernet, and USB.

Yeah, and that means subpar sata express, ethernet and usb. I can't wait for the benches.

 

[Enigmoid]

Nice idea in theory, but not happening.

First, AMD is avoiding the question of beema/mullins performance per watt and obviously, battery life. In actual designs. Instead, they prohibit reviewers from testing battery life. If they're prohibiting reviewers from testing it, do they have something to hide? Or no? Since these chips are low end SoCs, will they match the battery life of ARM SOCs? That's the only way in which they can compete since chromebooks are using either ARM SOCs or Haswell CPUs (depending on model you buy). They either need to beat Haswell CPU performance and battery life or beat ARM SOC battery life. #1 definitely not happening, #2 highly doubtful.

Oh and the much bigger stop sign: AMD isn't chrome OS compatible. Or android compatible. Intel is, and has numerous chromebook/box designs. AMD has bluestacks emulation (works for android, not for chrome OS) which is a hilarious joke that is barely functional even for android, but none of their chips support chrome os or android.

So I think it is safe to say, not happening. There are a plethora of Haswell chromebooks, though.

I am genuinely perplexed as to why AMD did not pursue native chrome OS and android compatibility. I'm guessing it's a case of their software engineers not having the manpower and/or being asleep at the wheel, but i'm not sure. I kinda feel like AMD just doesn't give their software engineers enough manpower or money. For AMD it seems to be all marketing and less of the important stuff. Whatever the case, compatibility could be such a huge boon for them, but they tied themselves to MS. Why, I don't know. In the meantime, they can't do anything until their ARM licensed products come to fruition in 2015, which is well past the window of opportunity; SOCs for low end devices are quickly becoming a commodity.

Not to mention that the biggest advantage that beema and mullins have over the competition is their igp, which unfortunately is much less useful on ChromeOS than windows.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Yeah, and that means subpar sata express, ethernet and usb. I can't wait for the benches.

Naw, man, AMD's gonna come back because Jim Keller's heading up the chip team. It only takes one man on a shoe-string R&D budget to take down Chipzilla

 

[Homeles]

That's an even more plainly false perspective, and frankly one that describes a mindset where the only player is Intel.

Before the Xbox one / PS 4 AMD had 14.3% of the x86 market. Currently they have almost 17% (due to Xbox one/ PS 4). Intel actually "owns" 82.8% of the x86 market - niche players own .2 - .3 %. AMD is not a niche player/

And that is absolutely not a monopoly. If we start getting over 95% Intel, then we can reasonably talk about monopoly.

Of course it's not a monopoly -- but it's not far off from one.

Given the almost strictly bipartisan nature of this forum... your opinion is unsurprising.

 

[Enigmoid]

That's an even more plainly false perspective, and frankly one that describes a mindset where the only player is Intel.

Before the Xbox one / PS 4 AMD had 14.3% of the x86 market. Currently they have almost 17% (due to Xbox one/ PS 4). Intel actually "owns" 82.8% of the x86 market - niche players own .2 - .3 %. AMD is not a niche player/

And that is absolutely not a monopoly. If we start getting over 95% Intel, then we can reasonably talk about monopoly.

The "x86 market" in that context is little unclear. Consoles do not compete with other x86 devices for the most part (gaming PCs maybe). Sure consoles are nice but they are not competing with much of the competition.

Its like comparing "John Deere" and "internal combustion engine market". Sure all their products use the internal combustion engine but they do not compete in the automotive market.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Long term, ARM starts to encroach on Intel's territory.

That would depend on several factors.

ARM is pushing its way into the server sector where Intel has ~94% market share by volume. If AMD dies off, Intel's server strategy can remain unchanged (they tend to release server/workstation products on a slower cadence than desktop parts anyway) while they raise prices/cull products for consumer-grade products. ARM would be attacking Intel on a front where they would have almost no incentive to change prices/chip lineups without AMD as a part of the picture.

If ARM is to threaten Intel in the server room, then it will happen with or without AMD (not counting AMD's own ARM-Opterons . . . not sure how much of an impact those have or will have on the market). Thus far, ARM hasn't really made a big splash there. That could change.

I don't see ARM attacking the desktop market with or without AMD simply because the desktop market is looked-down-upon by so many right now. In truth, if someone could convince Microsoft to stab Intel in the back and release Windows 9 for ARM, then scads of ARM-based AiO PCs could hit the market, and people could ditch x86 without necessarily losing access to their precious backwards-compatibility (they'd need emulation/virtualization to run older Windows apps, but that could be done for anything that was not too processor-intensive). But, that's a long shot. Without MS porting Win9 to ARM, you've got Linux and . . . Linux? Unless people want ChromeOS AiO desktops?

(yes, I know ChromeOS is based on Linux, but whatever)

 

[Arachnotronic]

I don't see ARM attacking the desktop market with or without AMD simply because the desktop market is looked-down-upon by so many right now. In truth, if someone could convince Microsoft to stab Intel in the back and release Windows 9 for ARM, then scads of ARM-based AiO PCs could hit the market, and people could ditch x86 without necessarily losing access to their precious backwards-compatibility (they'd need emulation/virtualization to run older Windows apps, but that could be done for anything that was not too processor-intensive). But, that's a long shot. Without MS porting Win9 to ARM, you've got Linux and . . . Linux? Unless people want ChromeOS AiO desktops?

Oh, you didn't hear? Microsoft tried to release Windows 8 for ARM...how'd that work out?

 

[Fox5]

Nice idea in theory, but not happening.

First, AMD is avoiding the question of beema/mullins performance per watt and obviously, battery life. In actual designs. Instead, they prohibit reviewers from testing battery life. If they're prohibiting reviewers from testing it, do they have something to hide? Or no? Since these chips are low end SoCs, will they match the battery life of ARM SOCs? That's the only way in which they can compete since chromebooks are using either ARM SOCs or Haswell CPUs (depending on model you buy). They either need to beat Haswell CPU performance and battery life or beat ARM SOC battery life. #1 definitely not happening, #2 highly doubtful.

Oh and the much bigger stop sign: AMD isn't chrome OS compatible. Or android compatible. Intel is, and has numerous chromebook/box designs. AMD has bluestacks emulation (works for android, not for chrome OS) which is a hilarious joke that is barely functional even for android, but none of their chips support chrome os or android.

So I think it is safe to say, not happening. There are a plethora of Haswell chromebooks, though.

I am genuinely perplexed as to why AMD did not pursue native chrome OS and android compatibility. I'm guessing it's a case of their software engineers not having the manpower and/or being asleep at the wheel, but i'm not sure. I kinda feel like AMD just doesn't give their software engineers enough manpower or money. For AMD it seems to be all marketing and less of the important stuff. Whatever the case, compatibility could be such a huge boon for them, but they tied themselves to MS. Why, I don't know. In the meantime, they can't do anything until their ARM licensed products come to fruition in 2015, which is well past the window of opportunity; SOCs for low end devices are quickly becoming a commodity.

AMD did provide some funding to the Android x86 project. There are Android drivers available from AMD...
ChromeOS should be super easy for AMD to support though. It's just a normal Linux distro.

 

[jhu]

The "x86 market" in that context is little unclear. Consoles do not compete with other x86 devices for the most part (gaming PCs maybe). Sure consoles are nice but they are not competing with much of the competition.

Its like comparing "John Deere" and "internal combustion engine market". Sure all their products use the internal combustion engine but they do not compete in the automotive market.

Depends on what part of the country

Ma! Git mah racin' tractor!