Rumor: AMD in more trouble? Kills off Kaveri, Steamroller and Excavator?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for SolidPandaG
#1 Posted by SolidPandaG (218 posts) -

As always, obligatory links:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2284186&page=3

Should note: AMD has denied the rumor and S/A has posted as such, though this could just be damage control to--once again--keep the stock from completely sinking. AMD cancelling this turd architecture would be one of the more logical moves their CPU division has made in the past few years if true, and possibly a step in the right direction from this black mark era.

The world wasn't ready for this arch and AMD should've known better than to play market manipulator, as they simply don't possess the marketshare to affect it in the same way Intel does.

I say, "good riddance Faildozer, we hardly knew ye and I'm damn glad your old, decrepit ass is coming to an end."

This insightful post was churned out quickly thanks to the awesome processing power of my Intel 2500K.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#2 Posted by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

As always, obligatory links:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2284186&page=3

Should note: AMD has denied the rumor and S/A has posted as such, though this could just be damage control to--once again--keep the stock from completely sinking. AMD cancelling this turd architecture would be one of the more logical moves their CPU division has made in the past few years if true, and possibly a step in the right direction from this black mark era.

The world wasn't ready for this arch and AMD should've known better than to play market manipulator, as they simply don't possess the marketshare to affect it in the same way Intel does.

I say, "good riddance Faildozer, we hardly knew ye and I'm damn glad your old, decrepit ass is coming to an end."

This insightful post was churned out quickly thanks to the awesome processing power of my Intel 2500K.

SolidPandaG

Nothing to see here

storm-troopers+move+along.jpg

Avatar image for superclocked
#3 Posted by superclocked (5864 posts) -
Oh lord, anyone that wants AMD out of the game is an idiot. Intel is already spoon feeding us technology as it is, and it would be much worse without any competition.. Also, Vishera core Opteron CPU's perform better in high traffic servers than Ivy Bridge core Xeon CPU's, which proves that it's a better CPU for highly multi-threaded apps. And AMD isn't trying to compete in the gaming sector anymore anyway. They're main focus atm is the server and mobile markets...
Avatar image for V4LENT1NE
#4 Posted by V4LENT1NE (12901 posts) -

Well its execution may be poor, but its a change from the ionusX threads saying how Intel or Nvidia have messed up recently, so I guess we can call this balance?

Avatar image for Bishop1310
#5 Posted by Bishop1310 (1274 posts) -

As always, obligatory links:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2284186&page=3

Should note: AMD has denied the rumor and S/A has posted as such, though this could just be damage control to--once again--keep the stock from completely sinking. AMD cancelling this turd architecture would be one of the more logical moves their CPU division has made in the past few years if true, and possibly a step in the right direction from this black mark era.

The world wasn't ready for this arch and AMD should've known better than to play market manipulator, as they simply don't possess the marketshare to affect it in the same way Intel does.

I say, "good riddance Faildozer, we hardly knew ye and I'm damn glad your old, decrepit ass is coming to an end."

This insightful post was churned out quickly thanks to the awesome processing power of my Intel 2500K.

SolidPandaG



If AMD does drop out of the cpu game then have fun pay $500 bucks for your next intel cpu you fan boy. If you knew anything about how the real world works, you would understand why AMD went ahead with this arch. You introduce a technology that is much different then your counter parts in hope of swinging the market, and completly changing the game. AMD failed in doing so. Do you even understand how many companies make bad business decisions only to have to retract their first strat and go another way? Happens every day, I work in it, I see it. AMD is not dropping out of the CPU game, the Aseries chips are doing just fine, and Intel's attempt counter it have failed, the HD4000 is a joke. Scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years. If we see another flop then it's safe to say AMD will be done in the cpu market.

Avatar image for kraken2109
#6 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

tumblr_mbcqe3TzBx1qml34n.gif

hemad

Avatar image for Yagnav
#7 Posted by Yagnav (6107 posts) -

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

As always, obligatory links:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2284186&page=3

Should note: AMD has denied the rumor and S/A has posted as such, though this could just be damage control to--once again--keep the stock from completely sinking. AMD cancelling this turd architecture would be one of the more logical moves their CPU division has made in the past few years if true, and possibly a step in the right direction from this black mark era.

The world wasn't ready for this arch and AMD should've known better than to play market manipulator, as they simply don't possess the marketshare to affect it in the same way Intel does.

I say, "good riddance Faildozer, we hardly knew ye and I'm damn glad your old, decrepit ass is coming to an end."

This insightful post was churned out quickly thanks to the awesome processing power of my Intel 2500K.

Bishop1310



If AMD does drop out of the cpu game then have fun pay $500 bucks for your next intel cpu you fan boy. If you knew anything about how the real world works, you would understand why AMD went ahead with this arch. You introduce a technology that is much different then your counter parts in hope of swinging the market, and completly changing the game. AMD failed in doing so. Do you even understand how many companies make bad business decisions only to have to retract their first strat and go another way? Happens every day, I work in it, I see it. AMD is not dropping out of the CPU game, the Aseries chips are doing just fine, and Intel's attempt counter it have failed, the HD4000 is a joke. Scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years. If we see another flop then it's safe to say AMD will be done in the cpu market.

Well said. The A series curb stomp the HD4000's. Not sure but I don't think "gaming" is where the money is at for AMD and Intel both.
Avatar image for SolidPandaG
#8 Posted by SolidPandaG (218 posts) -

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

As always, obligatory links:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2284186&page=3

Should note: AMD has denied the rumor and S/A has posted as such, though this could just be damage control to--once again--keep the stock from completely sinking. AMD cancelling this turd architecture would be one of the more logical moves their CPU division has made in the past few years if true, and possibly a step in the right direction from this black mark era.

The world wasn't ready for this arch and AMD should've known better than to play market manipulator, as they simply don't possess the marketshare to affect it in the same way Intel does.

I say, "good riddance Faildozer, we hardly knew ye and I'm damn glad your old, decrepit ass is coming to an end."

This insightful post was churned out quickly thanks to the awesome processing power of my Intel 2500K.

Bishop1310



If AMD does drop out of the cpu game then have fun pay $500 bucks for your next intel cpu you fan boy. If you knew anything about how the real world works, you would understand why AMD went ahead with this arch. You introduce a technology that is much different then your counter parts in hope of swinging the market, and completly changing the game. AMD failed in doing so. Do you even understand how many companies make bad business decisions only to have to retract their first strat and go another way? Happens every day, I work in it, I see it. AMD is not dropping out of the CPU game, the Aseries chips are doing just fine, and Intel's attempt counter it have failed, the HD4000 is a joke. Scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years. If we see another flop then it's safe to say AMD will be done in the cpu market.

Question is, how deep does the water in the well run for AMD before it completely dries out? Practices you're describing work fine for companies with massive R & D budgets like Intel. AMD? Not so much. They can't afford anymore screwups so your quote of "scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years" isn't as simple as you make it seem.

As for your HD4000 argument? Irrelevant for someone like me since I use discrete cards in both my desktop and laptop machines. The HD series is good enough to do most things on: running Youtube videos, flash, etc. No self respecting gamer will use integrated GPU to run games.

At the end of the day, this argument revolves around AMD's poor business decisions (ie. selling handset division to Qualcomm, overbidding for ATi, Faildozer fiasco, and so on), they're many and it's really a surprise that a company this incompetently run and managed has been able to thrive for so long. Only a matter of time before they're just another ARM manufacturer. My only hope is they don't drag the ATi division down with them in the process.

Avatar image for msfan1289
#9 Posted by msfan1289 (1044 posts) -

i did see a jump in performancewhen i changed from my PII x 4 (Phemon II x4 955) to my FX 8120

In photoshop before it took seconds for Photoshop to open, now when i double click on it opens up right away, same can be said for Softimage and Unity 3d, both programs also took about 30 seconds to open now it opens up right away.


and on top of i have the same RAM being use when i had my PII x4 which is 16GB so nothing in my system was changed, as well as i never formatted the OS either.

my PII x4 was OCed to 3.8GHz and my FX 8120 is OCed to 4.1GHz couldn't ask for a good CPU and i paid $159 early this year for the FX 8120 when Newegg had a sale on it.

Avatar image for Bishop1310
#10 Posted by Bishop1310 (1274 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

As always, obligatory links:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2284186&page=3

Should note: AMD has denied the rumor and S/A has posted as such, though this could just be damage control to--once again--keep the stock from completely sinking. AMD cancelling this turd architecture would be one of the more logical moves their CPU division has made in the past few years if true, and possibly a step in the right direction from this black mark era.

The world wasn't ready for this arch and AMD should've known better than to play market manipulator, as they simply don't possess the marketshare to affect it in the same way Intel does.

I say, "good riddance Faildozer, we hardly knew ye and I'm damn glad your old, decrepit ass is coming to an end."

This insightful post was churned out quickly thanks to the awesome processing power of my Intel 2500K.

SolidPandaG



If AMD does drop out of the cpu game then have fun pay $500 bucks for your next intel cpu you fan boy. If you knew anything about how the real world works, you would understand why AMD went ahead with this arch. You introduce a technology that is much different then your counter parts in hope of swinging the market, and completly changing the game. AMD failed in doing so. Do you even understand how many companies make bad business decisions only to have to retract their first strat and go another way? Happens every day, I work in it, I see it. AMD is not dropping out of the CPU game, the Aseries chips are doing just fine, and Intel's attempt counter it have failed, the HD4000 is a joke. Scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years. If we see another flop then it's safe to say AMD will be done in the cpu market.

Question is, how deep does the water in the well run for AMD before it completely dries out? Practices you're describing work fine for companies with massive R & D budgets like Intel. AMD? Not so much. They can't afford anymore screwups so your quote of "scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years" isn't as simple as you make it seem.

As for your HD4000 argument? Irrelevant for someone like me since I use discrete cards in both my desktop and laptop machines. The HD series is good enough to do most things on: running Youtube videos, flash, etc. No self respecting gamer will use integrated GPU to run games.

At the end of the day, this argument revolves around AMD's poor business decisions (ie. selling handset division to Qualcomm, overbidding for ATi, Faildozer fiasco, and so on), they're many and it's really a surprise that a company this incompetently run and managed has been able to thrive for so long. Only a matter of time before they're just another ARM manufacturer. My only hope is they don't drag the ATi division down with them in the process.



I agree 100% that AMD doesn't have the cash to throw at R&D like intel does. I'll be honest intel's business is ran much stronger than AMD's at this time. Another thing to consider tho is companies will run at losses, for months, even years while investing a lot into R&D. What I predict will happen is AMD will either run at a loss for the next few years, a large loss, more then what it's been doing, devolope a new cpu, and give one more kick at the can. Their job now is to try and sell this to investors. Their trying to keep the stock price high because I have a feeling we'll see them sell off a portion or the business to try and finance a new CPU. With all the rumors about the next gen consoles having AMD chips (to keep costs low) AMD can't really afford to drop out of the game. There is large amounts of money in that market for them. I being a fan of AMD would like to see them put more time and effort into the APU. I don't think we're too far away from having a APU that would allow us to not need another dedicated card, and play high end games.

Either way, AMD out of the picture would be a HUGE problem for us consumers. We need the competition to keep prices low. Even if you are an intel fan you should hope AMD stays in the game.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#11 Posted by ronvalencia (25410 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

As always, obligatory links:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2284186&page=3

Should note: AMD has denied the rumor and S/A has posted as such, though this could just be damage control to--once again--keep the stock from completely sinking. AMD cancelling this turd architecture would be one of the more logical moves their CPU division has made in the past few years if true, and possibly a step in the right direction from this black mark era.

The world wasn't ready for this arch and AMD should've known better than to play market manipulator, as they simply don't possess the marketshare to affect it in the same way Intel does.

I say, "good riddance Faildozer, we hardly knew ye and I'm damn glad your old, decrepit ass is coming to an end."

This insightful post was churned out quickly thanks to the awesome processing power of my Intel 2500K.

SolidPandaG



If AMD does drop out of the cpu game then have fun pay $500 bucks for your next intel cpu you fan boy. If you knew anything about how the real world works, you would understand why AMD went ahead with this arch. You introduce a technology that is much different then your counter parts in hope of swinging the market, and completly changing the game. AMD failed in doing so. Do you even understand how many companies make bad business decisions only to have to retract their first strat and go another way? Happens every day, I work in it, I see it. AMD is not dropping out of the CPU game, the Aseries chips are doing just fine, and Intel's attempt counter it have failed, the HD4000 is a joke. Scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years. If we see another flop then it's safe to say AMD will be done in the cpu market.

Question is, how deep does the water in the well run for AMD before it completely dries out? Practices you're describing work fine for companies with massive R & D budgets like Intel. AMD? Not so much. They can't afford anymore screwups so your quote of "scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years" isn't as simple as you make it seem.

As for your HD4000 argument? Irrelevant for someone like me since I use discrete cards in both my desktop and laptop machines. The HD series is good enough to do most things on: running Youtube videos, flash, etc. No self respecting gamer will use integrated GPU to run games.

At the end of the day, this argument revolves around AMD's poor business decisions (ie. selling handset division to Qualcomm, overbidding for ATi, Faildozer fiasco, and so on), they're many and it's really a surprise that a company this incompetently run and managed has been able to thrive for so long. Only a matter of time before they're just another ARM manufacturer. My only hope is they don't drag the ATi division down with them in the process.

Funny, both Wii U and Xbox 360 has IGP setup.

Intel HD 4000 is relevant since IGPs dominates the PC GPU market. If AMD and Intel increases the PC's GPU baseline, then the X86 PC platform would be stronger for playing games.

IF AMD exits X86 CPU market, then the X86 instruction set's long term prospects would be questioned. Unless Intel changes it's solo busines model, ARM presents existential danger to X86.

PS; Texas Instruments has exited ARM mobile phone/tablet market i.e. can't handle the heat.

Avatar image for jhcho2
#12 Posted by jhcho2 (5008 posts) -


I agree 100% that AMD doesn't have the cash to throw at R&D like intel does. I'll be honest intel's business is ran much stronger than AMD's at this time. Another thing to consider tho is companies will run at losses, for months, even years while investing a lot into R&D. What I predict will happen is AMD will either run at a loss for the next few years, a large loss, more then what it's been doing, devolope a new cpu, and give one more kick at the can. Their job now is to try and sell this to investors. Their trying to keep the stock price high because I have a feeling we'll see them sell off a portion or the business to try and finance a new CPU. With all the rumors about the next gen consoles having AMD chips (to keep costs low) AMD can't really afford to drop out of the game. There is large amounts of money in that market for them. I being a fan of AMD would like to see them put more time and effort into the APU. I don't think we're too far away from having a APU that would allow us to not need another dedicated card, and play high end games.

Either way, AMD out of the picture would be a HUGE problem for us consumers. We need the competition to keep prices low. Even if you are an intel fan you should hope AMD stays in the game.

Bishop1310

AMD's Bulldozer failed because people don't learn to manage thier expectations. You want an APU which can do away with dedicated GPUs? Dream on. The way that can happen is when an APU performance matches that of a separate CPU/GPU setup. There is a reason why a graphics card is so damn big. And to expect the operation of something that size to be bundled up into something the size of a mere CPU, and to be able to perform regular CPU operations at the same time....is clearly mismanaging expectations. APU performance will improve no doubt, but it will never chase the dedicated setup. After all...it's 'dedicated'. Two things to perform two tasks, as opposed to one thing performing two tasks.

Avatar image for jakes456
#13 Posted by jakes456 (1398 posts) -

No need for AMD in the industry anymore. The last 2 generations of CPUs were just pathetic. They haven't been relevant since 2008.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#14 Posted by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

No need for AMD in the industry anymore. The last 2 generations of CPUs were just pathetic. They haven't been relevant since 2008.

jakes456

says the troll.....

One of the main reasons why AMD fell behind Intel was of Intel's shady monopolistic buy outs and decisions. Intel was fined billions for these actions. Without AMD in the x86 market Intel will have a real monopoly and can charge what ever they what. You would see there current type of lower end cpu's (i3's) in the $200+ range, their mid ranged(i5's) in the $300+ range and their higher end(i7's) in the $500+ range and their enthusiast processors in the $750-1000 range.

Avatar image for James161324
#15 Posted by James161324 (8315 posts) -

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

As always, obligatory links:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2284186&page=3

Should note: AMD has denied the rumor and S/A has posted as such, though this could just be damage control to--once again--keep the stock from completely sinking. AMD cancelling this turd architecture would be one of the more logical moves their CPU division has made in the past few years if true, and possibly a step in the right direction from this black mark era.

The world wasn't ready for this arch and AMD should've known better than to play market manipulator, as they simply don't possess the marketshare to affect it in the same way Intel does.

I say, "good riddance Faildozer, we hardly knew ye and I'm damn glad your old, decrepit ass is coming to an end."

This insightful post was churned out quickly thanks to the awesome processing power of my Intel 2500K.

Bishop1310



If AMD does drop out of the cpu game then have fun pay $500 bucks for your next intel cpu you fan boy. If you knew anything about how the real world works, you would understand why AMD went ahead with this arch. You introduce a technology that is much different then your counter parts in hope of swinging the market, and completly changing the game. AMD failed in doing so. Do you even understand how many companies make bad business decisions only to have to retract their first strat and go another way? Happens every day, I work in it, I see it. AMD is not dropping out of the CPU game, the Aseries chips are doing just fine, and Intel's attempt counter it have failed, the HD4000 is a joke. Scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years. If we see another flop then it's safe to say AMD will be done in the cpu market.

As much as people may like to think that will happen, we will see an upward shift in price in cpu's but nothing extereme. Markets are controlled by consumer demand, and do to the price point of many retial pc's they can't jack up pricex

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#16 Posted by ronvalencia (25410 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]
I agree 100% that AMD doesn't have the cash to throw at R&D like intel does. I'll be honest intel's business is ran much stronger than AMD's at this time. Another thing to consider tho is companies will run at losses, for months, even years while investing a lot into R&D. What I predict will happen is AMD will either run at a loss for the next few years, a large loss, more then what it's been doing, devolope a new cpu, and give one more kick at the can. Their job now is to try and sell this to investors. Their trying to keep the stock price high because I have a feeling we'll see them sell off a portion or the business to try and finance a new CPU. With all the rumors about the next gen consoles having AMD chips (to keep costs low) AMD can't really afford to drop out of the game. There is large amounts of money in that market for them. I being a fan of AMD would like to see them put more time and effort into the APU. I don't think we're too far away from having a APU that would allow us to not need another dedicated card, and play high end games.

Either way, AMD out of the picture would be a HUGE problem for us consumers. We need the competition to keep prices low. Even if you are an intel fan you should hope AMD stays in the game.

jhcho2

AMD's Bulldozer failed because people don't learn to manage thier expectations. You want an APU which can do away with dedicated GPUs? Dream on. The way that can happen is when an APU performance matches that of a separate CPU/GPU setup. There is a reason why a graphics card is so damn big. And to expect the operation of something that size to be bundled up into something the size of a mere CPU, and to be able to perform regular CPU operations at the same time....is clearly mismanaging expectations. APU performance will improve no doubt, but it will never chase the dedicated setup. After all...it's 'dedicated'. Two things to perform two tasks, as opposed to one thing performing two tasks.

APUs (from Intel Ivybridge and AMD Llano/Trinity) has impacted low end "dedicated" GPUs e.g. Intel HD 4000 IGP destroyed Radeon HD 5450 GPU.

AMD's Bulldozer failed to compete against AMD's old K10.5 CPUs.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#17 Posted by ronvalencia (25410 posts) -

No need for AMD in the industry anymore. The last 2 generations of CPUs were just pathetic. They haven't been relevant since 2008.

jakes456

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Titan-Supercomputer-Machine-Sequoia-Computer,19065.html

http://www.dailytech.com/AMDs+New+Piledriver+Opterons+Claim+to+Match+Intels+Performance+at+Half+the+Price/article29118.htm

AMD is relevant for keeping Intel Xeons in check.

Avatar image for SolidPandaG
#18 Posted by SolidPandaG (218 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

As always, obligatory links:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/19/amd-kills-off-big-cores-kaveri-steamroller-and-excavator/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2284186&page=3

Should note: AMD has denied the rumor and S/A has posted as such, though this could just be damage control to--once again--keep the stock from completely sinking. AMD cancelling this turd architecture would be one of the more logical moves their CPU division has made in the past few years if true, and possibly a step in the right direction from this black mark era.

The world wasn't ready for this arch and AMD should've known better than to play market manipulator, as they simply don't possess the marketshare to affect it in the same way Intel does.

I say, "good riddance Faildozer, we hardly knew ye and I'm damn glad your old, decrepit ass is coming to an end."

This insightful post was churned out quickly thanks to the awesome processing power of my Intel 2500K.

James161324



If AMD does drop out of the cpu game then have fun pay $500 bucks for your next intel cpu you fan boy. If you knew anything about how the real world works, you would understand why AMD went ahead with this arch. You introduce a technology that is much different then your counter parts in hope of swinging the market, and completly changing the game. AMD failed in doing so. Do you even understand how many companies make bad business decisions only to have to retract their first strat and go another way? Happens every day, I work in it, I see it. AMD is not dropping out of the CPU game, the Aseries chips are doing just fine, and Intel's attempt counter it have failed, the HD4000 is a joke. Scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years. If we see another flop then it's safe to say AMD will be done in the cpu market.

As much as people may like to think that will happen, we will see an upward shift in price in cpu's but nothing extereme. Markets are controlled by consumer demand, and do to the price point of many retial pc's they can't jack up pricex

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Finally, someone sane, who actually understands how the economics would work, as opposed to people regurgitating what a few economics textbooks dealing strictly with theory tell us.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#19 Posted by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

If AMD does drop out of the cpu game then have fun pay $500 bucks for your next intel cpu you fan boy. If you knew anything about how the real world works, you would understand why AMD went ahead with this arch. You introduce a technology that is much different then your counter parts in hope of swinging the market, and completly changing the game. AMD failed in doing so. Do you even understand how many companies make bad business decisions only to have to retract their first strat and go another way? Happens every day, I work in it, I see it. AMD is not dropping out of the CPU game, the Aseries chips are doing just fine, and Intel's attempt counter it have failed, the HD4000 is a joke. Scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years. If we see another flop then it's safe to say AMD will be done in the cpu market.

SolidPandaG

As much as people may like to think that will happen, we will see an upward shift in price in cpu's but nothing extereme. Markets are controlled by consumer demand, and do to the price point of many retial pc's they can't jack up pricex

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Finally, someone sane, who actually understands how the economics would work, as opposed to people regurgitating what a few economics textbooks dealing strictly with theory tell us.

if AMD were to exit the market tomorrow Intel cpu's price would only inflate some. However their next line of processors coming would be 50%-100 more expensive of what we seen today with their low/medium and high tier cpu's. Again doubling the price isnt extreme, he's talking about triple or quadrupling the prices. But you would see for example an medium tier cpu(ie i5) go from $200-250 to $300-350 easily, and then cpu's with unlocked multiplers and HT would be much more expensive then the ratio is today. and i7 like cpu's would be $500+ easily.

Also why do people always forget how companies work in this market.... O it was 5 years ago when Intel released their first quad core based cpu's back in late 2006 early 2007. And they were $800+, because AMD had no quad core cpu on the market... while their C2D based cpu's where under $200... Prices on the C2Q didnt start to fall below the $530 until late 2007,early 2008 and when AMD released their Phenom 1 X4's spring of 2008 intel did another price cut a month later to compete with AMD on the price. When a company has no competition they can charge what ever they want to a degree.

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#20 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

If AMD does drop out of the cpu game then have fun pay $500 bucks for your next intel cpu you fan boy. If you knew anything about how the real world works, you would understand why AMD went ahead with this arch. You introduce a technology that is much different then your counter parts in hope of swinging the market, and completly changing the game. AMD failed in doing so. Do you even understand how many companies make bad business decisions only to have to retract their first strat and go another way? Happens every day, I work in it, I see it. AMD is not dropping out of the CPU game, the Aseries chips are doing just fine, and Intel's attempt counter it have failed, the HD4000 is a joke. Scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years. If we see another flop then it's safe to say AMD will be done in the cpu market.

SolidPandaG

As much as people may like to think that will happen, we will see an upward shift in price in cpu's but nothing extereme. Markets are controlled by consumer demand, and do to the price point of many retial pc's they can't jack up pricex

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Finally, someone sane, who actually understands how the economics would work, as opposed to people regurgitating what a few economics textbooks dealing strictly with theory tell us.

Your lack of knowledge of Business and Economics is hilarious.

Monopolies are price makers, not price takers.

Avatar image for superclocked
#21 Posted by superclocked (5864 posts) -

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

[QUOTE="James161324"]

As much as people may like to think that will happen, we will see an upward shift in price in cpu's but nothing extereme. Markets are controlled by consumer demand, and do to the price point of many retial pc's they can't jack up pricex

GummiRaccoon

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Finally, someone sane, who actually understands how the economics would work, as opposed to people regurgitating what a few economics textbooks dealing strictly with theory tell us.

Your lack of knowledge of Business and Economics is hilarious.

Monopolies are price makers, not price takers.

Exactly.. As I've said in the past, anyone that wants AMD out of the CPU business is an idiot. I for one do not want to pay $1000 for Intel's next high end, unlocked CPU...
Avatar image for SolidPandaG
#22 Posted by SolidPandaG (218 posts) -

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Finally, someone sane, who actually understands how the economics would work, as opposed to people regurgitating what a few economics textbooks dealing strictly with theory tell us.

superclocked

Your lack of knowledge of Business and Economics is hilarious.

Monopolies are price makers, not price takers.

Exactly.. As I've said in the past, anyone that wants AMD out of the CPU business is an idiot. I for one do not want to pay $1000 for Intel's next high end, unlocked CPU...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116877&Tpk=i7%203970x

Intel. Essentially. Exists. As. A. Monopoly.Right. Now.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#23 Posted by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Your lack of knowledge of Business and Economics is hilarious.

Monopolies are price makers, not price takers.

SolidPandaG

Exactly.. As I've said in the past, anyone that wants AMD out of the CPU business is an idiot. I for one do not want to pay $1000 for Intel's next high end, unlocked CPU...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116877&Tpk=i7%203970x

Intel. Essentially. Exists. As. A. Monopoly.Right. Now.

And what do you think is going to happen to all those cpu's that intel is competing with from AMD? hmm keep the same prices to be competitive ? no they will be inflated, and a new generation without AMD would offer intel a bigger profit ratio. You will see price hiking, why do people like you always forget how companies work in this market.... O it was 5 years ago when Intel released their first quad core based cpu's back in late 2006 early 2007. And they were $800+, because AMD had no quad core cpu on the market... while their C2D based cpu's where under $200... Prices on the C2Q didnt start to fall below the $530 mark until late 2007,early 2008 and when AMD released their Phenom 1 X4's spring of 2008 intel did another price cut a month later to compete with AMD on the price. When a company has no competition they can charge what ever they want to a degree. Like with the intel six cores and or E series.

There was no reason to sell the C2Q's at $800+ but they did, when C2D prices where competitive to AMD's Athlon X2's.

Avatar image for ionusX
#24 Posted by ionusX (25757 posts) -

thread should be retitled

fact: solidpanda is a sucker for yak farmers

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#25 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22285 posts) -

Anyone remember when the Pentium 2 first came out? The top-end 300mhz P2 with 100mhz bus was around $1000. The mid-range P2-266 with 66mhz bus was a bit over $500. I can't remember the cost of the lowest-end one (P2-233). It was high enough that I considered teh P2-266 instead. When Intel's the only performance alternative in town, you suck it up and buy.

edit:

Oh. Those are 1997 prices.

Avatar image for Yagnav
#26 Posted by Yagnav (6107 posts) -

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

If AMD does drop out of the cpu game then have fun pay $500 bucks for your next intel cpu you fan boy. If you knew anything about how the real world works, you would understand why AMD went ahead with this arch. You introduce a technology that is much different then your counter parts in hope of swinging the market, and completly changing the game. AMD failed in doing so. Do you even understand how many companies make bad business decisions only to have to retract their first strat and go another way? Happens every day, I work in it, I see it. AMD is not dropping out of the CPU game, the Aseries chips are doing just fine, and Intel's attempt counter it have failed, the HD4000 is a joke. Scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years. If we see another flop then it's safe to say AMD will be done in the cpu market.

SolidPandaG

As much as people may like to think that will happen, we will see an upward shift in price in cpu's but nothing extereme. Markets are controlled by consumer demand, and do to the price point of many retial pc's they can't jack up pricex

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Finally, someone sane, who actually understands how the economics would work, as opposed to people regurgitating what a few economics textbooks dealing strictly with theory tell us.

.........And you understand economics how ? ......by not reading economics textbooks and playing rollercoaster tycoon I presume, yes ?
Avatar image for V4LENT1NE
#27 Posted by V4LENT1NE (12901 posts) -

thread should be retitled

fact: solidpanda is a sucker for yak farmers

ionusX

Yeah lets take a lot at some of your threads kissing AMDs ass.

http://uk.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29308057/sweet-mother-of-moses-ln2-8350-8-core-result-will-make-you-sht-urself

http://uk.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29303279/rumor-piledriver-slams-the-overclocking-barrier-down-can-hit-5ghz-on-water

Or some of your Nvidia hating threads.

http://uk.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29311793/nvidia-mobile-drivers-failing-in-windows-8-pro

http://uk.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29300702/gtx-650ti-review-is-in..-the-curse-of-the-50s-continues Your even more pathetic than SolidPanda is..

This is like the last thread you should be commenting on, the irony is to much.

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#28 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Your lack of knowledge of Business and Economics is hilarious.

Monopolies are price makers, not price takers.

SolidPandaG

Exactly.. As I've said in the past, anyone that wants AMD out of the CPU business is an idiot. I for one do not want to pay $1000 for Intel's next high end, unlocked CPU...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116877&Tpk=i7%203970x

Intel. Essentially. Exists. As. A. Monopoly.Right. Now.

No a duopoly is very different than a monopoly

Avatar image for ronvalencia
#29 Posted by ronvalencia (25410 posts) -

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116877&Tpk=i7%203970x

Intel. Essentially. Exists. As. A. Monopoly.Right. Now.

SolidPandaG

AMD doesn't have a CPU that competes in Intel's i7-3970X (6 core with 12 threads) Extreme Edition segment, hence +$1000 charge.

Avatar image for msfan1289
#30 Posted by msfan1289 (1044 posts) -

AMD is fine for anyone who is looking to not pay a lot. like i said before i did see a big jump in performace from my Phemon II x4 @ 3.8GHz to a FX-8120 @ 4.1GHz and i couldnt be more happy at all. all my programs load up fast, i can play any game on the market on high ( i have a GTX 570) so i dont see what is the big deal at all.

Avatar image for achilles614
#31 Posted by achilles614 (5293 posts) -

[QUOTE="jakes456"]

No need for AMD in the industry anymore. The last 2 generations of CPUs were just pathetic. They haven't been relevant since 2008.

04dcarraher

says the troll.....

One of the main reasons why AMD fell behind Intel was of Intel's shady monopolistic buy outs and decisions. Intel was fined billions for these actions. Without AMD in the x86 market Intel will have a real monopoly and can charge what ever they what. You would see there current type of lower end cpu's (i3's) in the $200+ range, their mid ranged(i5's) in the $300+ range and their higher end(i7's) in the $500+ range and their enthusiast processors in the $750-1000 range.

How is Intel going to pay for it's fabs when consumers don't end up purchasing enough chips due to (supposedly) higher prices and their current chips being good enough? [spoiler] serious question [/spoiler]
Avatar image for AdamPA1006
#32 Posted by AdamPA1006 (6422 posts) -

I dont want to see AMD go. They have provided great processors at fantastic price points recently. The new FX series is great, and I'm still loving my Phenom II X6. Also the Radeon graphics family is still performing.

Avatar image for LordEC911
#33 Posted by LordEC911 (9972 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="jakes456"]

No need for AMD in the industry anymore. The last 2 generations of CPUs were just pathetic. They haven't been relevant since 2008.

achilles614

says the troll.....

One of the main reasons why AMD fell behind Intel was of Intel's shady monopolistic buy outs and decisions. Intel was fined billions for these actions. Without AMD in the x86 market Intel will have a real monopoly and can charge what ever they what. You would see there current type of lower end cpu's (i3's) in the $200+ range, their mid ranged(i5's) in the $300+ range and their higher end(i7's) in the $500+ range and their enthusiast processors in the $750-1000 range.

How is Intel going to pay for it's fabs when consumers don't end up purchasing enough chips due to (supposedly) higher prices and their current chips being good enough? [spoiler] serious question [/spoiler]

Cut R&D on the desktop market. Focus on minimilized performance gains on upcoming architectures to stretch life expectancy in desktop market.
Focus process R&D on competitive volume markets, server/mobile/handheld. Tune to ultralow power/voltage.

Basically, how the Tick/Tock works... we would be seeing about 4-6micro Ticks before a Tock. Rinse & repeat, your current 5-6year roadmap just turned profitable for the next two decades. Plus with server designs being tweaked for future desktop products, they could effectively save those designs and recycle when needed for the desktop.

Edit- Since I haven't had time to look over their 10-Q filing, I just did so. They could potentially cut their R&D in half, also doing the same to marketing/general/administrative, that would cut their total OE in half. Would there be a loss in sales/revenue? Yes, probably a slight hit but that is happening anyway.

Avatar image for achilles614
#34 Posted by achilles614 (5293 posts) -

Cut R&D on the desktop market. Focus on minimilized performance gains on upcoming architectures to stretch life expectancy in desktop market.
Focus process R&D on competitive volume markets, server/mobile/handheld. Tune to ultralow power/voltage.

Basically, how the Tick/Tock works... we would be seeing about 4-6micro Ticks before a Tock. Rinse & repeat, your current 5-6year roadmap just turned profitable for the next two decades. Plus with server designs being tweaked for future desktop products, they could effectively save those designs and recycle when needed for the desktop.

Edit- Since I haven't had time to look over their 10-Q filing, I just did so. They could potentially cut their R&D in half, also doing the same to marketing/general/administrative, that would cut their total OE in half. Would there be a loss in sales/revenue? Yes, probably a slight hit but that is happening anyway.

LordEC911
If Intel focused on minimal performance gains they would see lower sales than now. Modern CPUs have a very long life these days and if the speed increase isn't there people will see no justification in spending money on it. I'm having trouble seeing that as being beneficial to Intel.
Avatar image for Bishop1310
#35 Posted by Bishop1310 (1274 posts) -

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

If AMD does drop out of the cpu game then have fun pay $500 bucks for your next intel cpu you fan boy. If you knew anything about how the real world works, you would understand why AMD went ahead with this arch. You introduce a technology that is much different then your counter parts in hope of swinging the market, and completly changing the game. AMD failed in doing so. Do you even understand how many companies make bad business decisions only to have to retract their first strat and go another way? Happens every day, I work in it, I see it. AMD is not dropping out of the CPU game, the Aseries chips are doing just fine, and Intel's attempt counter it have failed, the HD4000 is a joke. Scrap this plan, get a new arch going, release a new CPU in 2 to 3 years. If we see another flop then it's safe to say AMD will be done in the cpu market.

SolidPandaG

As much as people may like to think that will happen, we will see an upward shift in price in cpu's but nothing extereme. Markets are controlled by consumer demand, and do to the price point of many retial pc's they can't jack up pricex

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Finally, someone sane, who actually understands how the economics would work, as opposed to people regurgitating what a few economics textbooks dealing strictly with theory tell us.

Oh okay so when every other market such as the gaming market, video editing markets, video processoing markets, start pushing us all into needing new processors do you honestly think intel is going to say, you know, people won't buy our processors at a high price even though we're the only current option on the market? you're a moron. The CPU market gets pushed by soooo many other markets they we NEEED to upgrade roughly every 4 to 5 years, or we simply can't use the new features and tools out there. Prices are the way they are now because of AMD being another option for people. When we don't have another option and are forced to upgrade using intel we will pay what they want us to pay...

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#36 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="jakes456"]

No need for AMD in the industry anymore. The last 2 generations of CPUs were just pathetic. They haven't been relevant since 2008.

achilles614

says the troll.....

One of the main reasons why AMD fell behind Intel was of Intel's shady monopolistic buy outs and decisions. Intel was fined billions for these actions. Without AMD in the x86 market Intel will have a real monopoly and can charge what ever they what. You would see there current type of lower end cpu's (i3's) in the $200+ range, their mid ranged(i5's) in the $300+ range and their higher end(i7's) in the $500+ range and their enthusiast processors in the $750-1000 range.

How is Intel going to pay for it's fabs when consumers don't end up purchasing enough chips due to (supposedly) higher prices and their current chips being good enough? [spoiler] serious question [/spoiler]

A companies #1 goal is maximize profit. Not maximize revenue. Foundries are expensive, if they can sell half as many units at twice the price they will jump over that because they just cut half of their production cost while maintaining the same revenue.

Avatar image for godzillavskong
#37 Posted by godzillavskong (7904 posts) -
[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Finally, someone sane, who actually understands how the economics would work, as opposed to people regurgitating what a few economics textbooks dealing strictly with theory tell us.

superclocked

Your lack of knowledge of Business and Economics is hilarious.

Monopolies are price makers, not price takers.

Exactly.. As I've said in the past, anyone that wants AMD out of the CPU business is an idiot. I for one do not want to pay $1000 for Intel's next high end, unlocked CPU...

Indeed. I don't have anything against Intel but I also don't wanna see either exit the market and then watch as the prices increase. If AMD were to exit where would you turn if you wanted to by a CPU besides Intel?
Avatar image for DieselCat18
#38 Posted by DieselCat18 (2965 posts) -

These threads are so F*****G sad...as are you Panda. Don't you have a rock to slide back under ?

*+

Avatar image for SolidPandaG
#39 Posted by SolidPandaG (218 posts) -

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

[QUOTE="James161324"]

As much as people may like to think that will happen, we will see an upward shift in price in cpu's but nothing extereme. Markets are controlled by consumer demand, and do to the price point of many retial pc's they can't jack up pricex

Bishop1310

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Finally, someone sane, who actually understands how the economics would work, as opposed to people regurgitating what a few economics textbooks dealing strictly with theory tell us.

Oh okay so when every other market such as the gaming market, video editing markets, video processoing markets, start pushing us all into needing new processors do you honestly think intel is going to say, you know, people won't buy our processors at a high price even though we're the only current option on the market? you're a moron. The CPU market gets pushed by soooo many other markets they we NEEED to upgrade roughly every 4 to 5 years, or we simply can't use the new features and tools out there. Prices are the way they are now because of AMD being another option for people. When we don't have another option and are forced to upgrade using intel we will pay what they want us to pay...

This is the state of your "duopoly in name":

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226580/AMD_gains_x86_processor_market_share_on_Intel_in_Q1

"Intel's market share in the first quarter this year dropped to 80.2% from 81% in last year's first quarter. AMD's market share rose to 19.1% from 18.2%, according to Mercury Research."

This is dating back to April. So just to recall, AMD actually gained a slight market share thanks to mobile division shipments and that got them to an astounding... (drum roll please)...

19.1%! Amazing. In light of all the negative news surrounding AMD now, one has to dread their current percentage for Novemeber. At this rate, this company will be filing for Chapter 11 sometime early to mid next year if they don't get their crap together.

Your post conveniently mentions sectors that need constant CPU upgrades but fails to regard the average user who primarily uses the desktop for the web, Facebook, Youtube, etc. These are the people who buy a prebuilt machine from Best Buy as opposed to putting it themselves, they're the ones who make up a majority of consumers. Do you think Intel will want to shoot itself in the foot by jacking up CPU prices to such a degree that they'll dissuade these people from upgrading, especially since a 2006 Conroe is still more than adequate for performing those said tasks? Why would Intel want to hurt its own sales?

Gummi actually made a rare but logical point (shocking, I know): it's about profit maximization, not revenue maximization. Go into most offices in downtown and if it's not a high tech, engineering firm, chances are they're still running P4's or (if they're lucky), Conroes. Why? Because they're good enough for what they need to do. Intel wants to give these people, and the average user, an incentive to upgrade and going the small sales, high margins route does the exact opposite.

Avatar image for GummiRaccoon
#40 Posted by GummiRaccoon (13793 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Finally, someone sane, who actually understands how the economics would work, as opposed to people regurgitating what a few economics textbooks dealing strictly with theory tell us.

SolidPandaG

Oh okay so when every other market such as the gaming market, video editing markets, video processoing markets, start pushing us all into needing new processors do you honestly think intel is going to say, you know, people won't buy our processors at a high price even though we're the only current option on the market? you're a moron. The CPU market gets pushed by soooo many other markets they we NEEED to upgrade roughly every 4 to 5 years, or we simply can't use the new features and tools out there. Prices are the way they are now because of AMD being another option for people. When we don't have another option and are forced to upgrade using intel we will pay what they want us to pay...

This is the state of your "duopoly in name":

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226580/AMD_gains_x86_processor_market_share_on_Intel_in_Q1

"Intel's market share in the first quarter this year dropped to 80.2% from 81% in last year's first quarter. AMD's market share rose to 19.1% from 18.2%, according to Mercury Research."

This is dating back to April. So just to recall, AMD actually gained a slight market share thanks to mobile division shipments and that got them to an astounding... (drum roll please)...

19.1%! Amazing. In light of all the negative news surrounding AMD now, one has to dread their current percentage for Novemeber. At this rate, this company will be filing for Chapter 11 sometime early to mid next year if they don't get their crap together.

Your post conveniently mentions sectors that need constant CPU upgrades but fails to regard the average user who primarily uses the desktop for the web, Facebook, Youtube, etc. These are the people who buy a prebuilt machine from Best Buy as opposed to putting it themselves, they're the ones who make up a majority of consumers. Do you think Intel will want to shoot itself in the foot by jacking up CPU prices to such a degree that they'll dissuade these people from upgrading, especially since a 2006 Conroe is still more than adequate for performing those said tasks? Why would Intel want to hurt its own sales?

Gummi actually made a rare but logical point (shocking, I know): it's about profit maximization, not revenue maximization. Go into most offices in downtown and if it's not a high tech, engineering firm, chances are they're still running P4's or (if they're lucky), Conroes. Why? Because they're good enough for what they need to do. Intel wants to give these people, and the average user, an incentive to upgrade and going the small sales, high margins route does the exact opposite.

$1.2B cash

$120 million loss per quarter

Just cut $ millions in redundant positions

Will be bankrupt in 1.5 to 6 months

how to math

Also I like how you used the profit maximization example of a producer and turned into an example about elasticity of demand for office equipment.

The demand for processors has become more elastic, mostly because a C2D is just as capable as an i7 at word, but p4s are totally antiquated.

Still doesn't change the fact that currently the HHI of x86 market is like 6800, which means there is still competition keeping prices in check, intel currently cannot charge the $500+ they would like since AMD is around.

The barriers to entry however, will make it impossible for any other company to enter the x86 market at this point, and rooting for AMD to fail is rooting for a monopoly.

Avatar image for LordEC911
#41 Posted by LordEC911 (9972 posts) -

[QUOTE="LordEC911"]

Cut R&D on the desktop market. Focus on minimilized performance gains on upcoming architectures to stretch life expectancy in desktop market.
Focus process R&D on competitive volume markets, server/mobile/handheld. Tune to ultralow power/voltage.

Basically, how the Tick/Tock works... we would be seeing about 4-6micro Ticks before a Tock. Rinse & repeat, your current 5-6year roadmap just turned profitable for the next two decades. Plus with server designs being tweaked for future desktop products, they could effectively save those designs and recycle when needed for the desktop.

Edit- Since I haven't had time to look over their 10-Q filing, I just did so. They could potentially cut their R&D in half, also doing the same to marketing/general/administrative, that would cut their total OE in half. Would there be a loss in sales/revenue? Yes, probably a slight hit but that is happening anyway.

achilles614

If Intel focused on minimal performance gains they would see lower sales than now. Modern CPUs have a very long life these days and if the speed increase isn't there people will see no justification in spending money on it. I'm having trouble seeing that as being beneficial to Intel.

People still need new computers... Our population is only going to continue to grow.
Every single little day to day operation needs a computer now.

There was a time when I would only use 1 computer a day. I use at least two different computers at work, desktop at home, my laptop, work laptop, work phone and my phone. What about the people with tablets. What about the families? I realize I may not represent the average person/consumer but it seems like we are moving more and more towards disposable computers. I just got a new system at work and I get a new work laptop next year, been in this position just over a year.

While life expetancy of your average computer is a good 7-10years, at least, with minimal maintenance in the corporate world you are lucky if it lasts 3 years simply because they already have it worked into the budget.

In the consumer world, it seems like more people buy computers not because what they have is "slow" or "lacking performance" but because there is something new out or because it looks better or because it's smaller/bigger. For example; every single Apple product out there.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#42 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6680 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Finally, someone sane, who actually understands how the economics would work, as opposed to people regurgitating what a few economics textbooks dealing strictly with theory tell us.

SolidPandaG

Oh okay so when every other market such as the gaming market, video editing markets, video processoing markets, start pushing us all into needing new processors do you honestly think intel is going to say, you know, people won't buy our processors at a high price even though we're the only current option on the market? you're a moron. The CPU market gets pushed by soooo many other markets they we NEEED to upgrade roughly every 4 to 5 years, or we simply can't use the new features and tools out there. Prices are the way they are now because of AMD being another option for people. When we don't have another option and are forced to upgrade using intel we will pay what they want us to pay...

This is the state of your "duopoly in name":

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226580/AMD_gains_x86_processor_market_share_on_Intel_in_Q1

"Intel's market share in the first quarter this year dropped to 80.2% from 81% in last year's first quarter. AMD's market share rose to 19.1% from 18.2%, according to Mercury Research."

This is dating back to April. So just to recall, AMD actually gained a slight market share thanks to mobile division shipments and that got them to an astounding... (drum roll please)...

19.1%! Amazing. In light of all the negative news surrounding AMD now, one has to dread their current percentage for Novemeber. At this rate, this company will be filing for Chapter 11 sometime early to mid next year if they don't get their crap together.

Your post conveniently mentions sectors that need constant CPU upgrades but fails to regard the average user who primarily uses the desktop for the web, Facebook, Youtube, etc. These are the people who buy a prebuilt machine from Best Buy as opposed to putting it themselves, they're the ones who make up a majority of consumers. Do you think Intel will want to shoot itself in the foot by jacking up CPU prices to such a degree that they'll dissuade these people from upgrading, especially since a 2006 Conroe is still more than adequate for performing those said tasks? Why would Intel want to hurt its own sales?

Gummi actually made a rare but logical point (shocking, I know): it's about profit maximization, not revenue maximization. Go into most offices in downtown and if it's not a high tech, engineering firm, chances are they're still running P4's or (if they're lucky), Conroes. Why? Because they're good enough for what they need to do. Intel wants to give these people, and the average user, an incentive to upgrade and going the small sales, high margins route does the exact opposite.

they might not do that but i have a feeling they will start selling dual core computers with integrated graphics for $800-$100 and quad cores for $1500 with integrated or low end graphics. I think you don't understand what a monopoly is. I.E., microsoft and their over priced operating systems. Look at apple, they are slowly dropping their prices on their products since they're starting to get a nice arse whooping by google and android. AT&T used to be a monopoly and nobody likes them even now. In canada we have a triopoly called Rogers/Bell/Telus that basically conspire to keep prices high. Only recently were foreign telecom providers been allowed to compete and sure enough prices have slowly started becoming more competitive. Before that a phone plan would cost you around $100 a month, now its down to $50-60

Avatar image for Bishop1310
#43 Posted by Bishop1310 (1274 posts) -

[QUOTE="SolidPandaG"]

[QUOTE="Bishop1310"]

Oh okay so when every other market such as the gaming market, video editing markets, video processoing markets, start pushing us all into needing new processors do you honestly think intel is going to say, you know, people won't buy our processors at a high price even though we're the only current option on the market? you're a moron. The CPU market gets pushed by soooo many other markets they we NEEED to upgrade roughly every 4 to 5 years, or we simply can't use the new features and tools out there. Prices are the way they are now because of AMD being another option for people. When we don't have another option and are forced to upgrade using intel we will pay what they want us to pay...

blaznwiipspman1

This is the state of your "duopoly in name":

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226580/AMD_gains_x86_processor_market_share_on_Intel_in_Q1

"Intel's market share in the first quarter this year dropped to 80.2% from 81% in last year's first quarter. AMD's market share rose to 19.1% from 18.2%, according to Mercury Research."

This is dating back to April. So just to recall, AMD actually gained a slight market share thanks to mobile division shipments and that got them to an astounding... (drum roll please)...

19.1%! Amazing. In light of all the negative news surrounding AMD now, one has to dread their current percentage for Novemeber. At this rate, this company will be filing for Chapter 11 sometime early to mid next year if they don't get their crap together.

Your post conveniently mentions sectors that need constant CPU upgrades but fails to regard the average user who primarily uses the desktop for the web, Facebook, Youtube, etc. These are the people who buy a prebuilt machine from Best Buy as opposed to putting it themselves, they're the ones who make up a majority of consumers. Do you think Intel will want to shoot itself in the foot by jacking up CPU prices to such a degree that they'll dissuade these people from upgrading, especially since a 2006 Conroe is still more than adequate for performing those said tasks? Why would Intel want to hurt its own sales?

Gummi actually made a rare but logical point (shocking, I know): it's about profit maximization, not revenue maximization. Go into most offices in downtown and if it's not a high tech, engineering firm, chances are they're still running P4's or (if they're lucky), Conroes. Why? Because they're good enough for what they need to do. Intel wants to give these people, and the average user, an incentive to upgrade and going the small sales, high margins route does the exact opposite.

they might not do that but i have a feeling they will start selling dual core computers with integrated graphics for $800-$100 and quad cores for $1500 with integrated or low end graphics. I think you don't understand what a monopoly is. I.E., microsoft and their over priced operating systems. Look at apple, they are slowly dropping their prices on their products since they're starting to get a nice arse whooping by google and android. AT&T used to be a monopoly and nobody likes them even now. In canada we have a triopoly called Rogers/Bell/Telus that basically conspire to keep prices high. Only recently were foreign telecom providers been allowed to compete and sure enough prices have slowly started becoming more competitive. Before that a phone plan would cost you around $100 a month, now its down to $50-60



Panda this is how the world's consumer economy has ran forever. Take a look back at the early cpu's and the prices people had to pay for them.. Before there was a bit of competition in the market. Trust me we will see prices go up if AMD crashes and burns like you want.. You won't be happy in 5 years when its time for a new CPU and amd isn't around..

Avatar image for kraken2109
#44 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

Panda do you work for intel?

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#45 Posted by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

Panda do you work for intel?

kraken2109
he's too disturbed to work for them