Are You Being Duped by the Intel Innovation Spin?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
AMD’s Pat Moorehead has a must read blog entry posted today that actually uses a quote from Kyle (yes, our Kyle) to help demonstrate the position AMD currently finds itself in. While this blog post poses the question “are you being duped by the ‘Intel Innovation’ spin” the article is more of an open invitation to discuss your opinions on the recent EU ruling against Intel and how you feel it impacts the market.

The EU ruling against Intel was an exciting day for consumers and the entire technology ecosystem. For my part, I spent the day giving press interviews and interacting with the Community over Facebook, Twitter and various tech site boards. Based on all these conversations, there was one common thread I feel I must address and examine. Unfortunately but understandably, it’s based on an argument that serves Intel’s world view. “AMD needs to innovate, not litigate.” Also worded as, “When AMD has a product lead, it gains all the share it deserves.”
Click to expand...
 
Meh. It seems like he's saying, "Everyone rips on AMD for not being as innovative as Intel... but... but look at these reviews! See? We're good!"

I had a 3800+ X2 when it came out and that little guy was great - it overclocked well and is still running in another computer. But no way I'm going Phenom over C2Q or i7. I think AMD is great for a budget computer, but I can't see any reason for someone to go that route if they want to overclock or use it for multi-threaded applications.
 
You can't really rip AMD for being behind on product development when they can't make the money to develop new products even when they ARE out ahead.

The truth is they were beating Intel in the P4 era so Intel used illegal means to keep them down long enough to regain their lead. That is what the fine is for and that is why some take a dim view on Intel now. Sure Intel is in the lead now, they friggen cheated.
 
I think AMD is trying to dupe people with the Victim Spin. The EU ruling against Intel involved the Netburst era, when AMD arguably did have a performance advantage. AMD sat on K8 during that time milking consumers without actually developing something new. This continued until Core 2, when AMD still had nothing new but price cuts on K8 parts. Could they have "innovated"? Absolutely, but Ruiz thought it would be a fantastic idea to bend his company over by purchasing ATI. Fast forward 2 years (even after Penryn) and Phenom II is something that finally competes decently with Core 2 parts. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel did not sit around waiting (following the tick-tock) and introduced Nehalem which keeps them dominating the high end market. Its tech is above and beyond anything AMD has right now, so Intel can rightfully say they've brought innovative products to the table.
 
I think Intel is "winning" because if you think of who sales lots of PC's (nerds, geeks) they really only care about who is ontop of the winning bracket. Even if say AMD was right behind, which I know they aren't it still wouldn't matter. Who is ontop is who nerds are going to recommend and right now that is Intel. Basically ever since Conroe came out Intel has been kicking AMD's ass.

I'm a big fan of AMD, but even I admit that my next build will be an I7. It's not that much more than the AMD system and you get way more performance. Now the thing is though most customers don't need an I7. I mean most people go on the internet, check email, user word,powerpoint, outlook etc.. and that's pretty much about it. This kind of user does not need an I7

What I mean by this is basically nerds sell PC's who see the I7 ontop thus sell mainly Intels due to that reason. Even though AMD's quad cores are still very good for all standard users. Now of course if you're a geek or like to multi task like no other then sure an I7 is for you, but the normal person just doesn't need it.

I still think AMD is slacking a little bit, but hey if you're in debt by millions of dollars I understand the situation. Hopefully AMD will be back ontop of benchmarks again, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. I hope they do though mainly just so then prices stay low. I never buy the highest end machine, I always spend around 1500 or so for a box and I have my limits on what I'll pay for a CPU. Usually its always led me to an AMD processor and I've always been happy. My current CPU is a Phenom II 940 OC'd to 3.8ghz and I couldn't be happier.

I just don't think AMD deserves all the shit that people throw at them. Especially when Intel has millions of dollars and their integrated GPU is a POS!!! I know they are trying to fix this now, but seriously they have tons of money and only seem to do innovation when its absolutely necessary, not just because they should. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
 
amdownzintel said:
Especially when Intel has millions of dollars and their integrated GPU is a POS!!!
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that Intel pushed for performance first on those GPUs. I think the primary design criteria was efficiency; doing what was necessary at minimal power loss. This approach was also taken with Atom.
I know they are trying to fix this now, but seriously they have tons of money and only seem to do innovation when its absolutely necessary, not just because they should. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
Click to expand...
You might see it that way, but like I said, while Intel was dominating with Core 2, they weren't sitting around; there was Penryn and the entirely new microarchitecture Nehalem. Intel has also recently invested ~6-7 billion dollars in new fabrication facilities, will have a 6 core 1366 part out in Q4 2009 - Q1 2010, and Beckton in Q1 2010, all while being on top. They aren't waiting for AMD to play catch-up.
 
lol, what a crock. I would go above and beyond the mountains to find an AMD chip if they were superior. The whole scapegoating thing going on as an excuse for AMD not releasing good products is lame.

Everyone is in agreement that this has been going on for the last 5-8 years, so how come after all AMD's success during the P4 era are they now unable to market or produce good processors?
 
Ockie said:
lol, what a crock. I would go above and beyond the mountains to find an AMD chip if they were superior. The whole scapegoating thing going on as an excuse for AMD not releasing good products is lame.

Everyone is in agreement that this has been going on for the last 5-8 years, so how come after all AMD's success during the P4 era are they now unable to market or produce good processors?
Click to expand...

Because they made too many bad decisions. They bought ATI then dumped ATI's high end lines right away. They now regained them but they forever dumped the best thing ATI had going for them, their ATI All-In-Wonder line which were the absolutely best cards out there for video editing afficiendos. They aren't innovating at all in the CPU market, none of their offerings even come close to Intel's low end sector of the C2D.
 
That EU ruling was mostly about the time before Core 2... back then AMD was often the leader in terms of performance for long periods at a time. They were also innovating with things like the integrated memory controller, the first dual-core CPU on a single die, and x86-64. This innovation continued even after AMD lost the performance lead, with the Phenom being the first true quad core die and using a tri-level cache long before Nehalem came out.

Maybe if Intel hadn't used the tactics they did, AMD would have had made more money that they could have used for R&D when it came to the Phenom. Then maybe the initial fiasco with the low clockspeeds and TLB bug would never have happened. Who knows?

But AMD can't blame all its problems on Intel. Clearly the company was severely mismanaged in many ways between ~2005 - 2008. That's the biggest reason why they're still struggling today.
 
Ockie said:
lol, what a crock. I would go above and beyond the mountains to find an AMD chip if they were superior. The whole scapegoating thing going on as an excuse for AMD not releasing good products is lame.

Everyone is in agreement that this has been going on for the last 5-8 years, so how come after all AMD's success during the P4 era are they now unable to market or produce good processors?
Click to expand...

AMD doesn't care what you will or wont buy. You don't matter. Dell, HP, Acer, etc... matter. The reason they didn't produce anything good after their success is it wasn't a real success. Sure their chips were faster, but companies were banned from buying them by intel. They didn't make enough money to keep up with intel's R&D.
 
Hard to say AMD was the "leader" during the P4 fiasco era. Intel still by far had the market share, AMD still wasn't turning a profit, and still 99/100 consumers would say "whats AMD?" if they walked into a PC store looking for a computer. Sure, they held a strong spot as far as competitive performance, but not in market presence.
 
Why mention the dv2 as proof as a game changing laptop. It's not a really great netbook in the mobility field at all (read battery life/heat output).
 
SonicTron said:
Hard to say AMD was the "leader" during the P4 fiasco era. Intel still by far had the market share, AMD still wasn't turning a profit, and still 99/100 consumers would say "whats AMD?" if they walked into a PC store looking for a computer. Sure, they held a strong spot as far as competitive performance, but not in market presence.
Click to expand...

Um the whole "market presence" thing is exactly what the suit is about. Why do you think AMD didn't have better market presence even when they had better products?
 
Jakalwarrior said:
AMD doesn't care what you will or wont buy. You don't matter. Dell, HP, Acer, etc... matter. The reason they didn't produce anything good after their success is it wasn't a real success. Sure their chips were faster, but companies were banned from buying them by intel. They didn't make enough money to keep up with intel's R&D.
Click to expand...

While you are correct. Keep in mind that most vendors do allow AMD into the arena, but their market share is still shrinking. Even back then when they weren't in the major brand desktop systems, they were still being supplied in server systems.

Secondly, if they were not allowed, explain their market share increase? In particular their once upon a time server market dominance with the Opteron line?
 
Am I the only one that finds these words by Kyle to be funny:
"Now all AMD needs is a better processor and it will be set"

Having this on your blog is like saying:
"We can beat them (Intel) on performance, so we will just whine..."
 
Fendrix said:
Meh. It seems like he's saying, "Everyone rips on AMD for not being as innovative as Intel... but... but look at these reviews! See? We're good!"

I had a 3800+ X2 when it came out and that little guy was great - it overclocked well and is still running in another computer. But no way I'm going Phenom over C2Q or i7. I think AMD is great for a budget computer, but I can't see any reason for someone to go that route if they want to overclock or use it for multi-threaded applications.
Click to expand...

werd. honestly though, anymore intel has better value even in the budget sector. an e5200 + a cheap lga775 board can be had for a total of $99, and it can overclock to 3.5ghz easily, even more. there is nothing amd has that can even touch that performance for that price.
 
Phenom being the first true quad core
Click to expand...

Drop this "true" BS a quad core is a quad core is a quad core, PERIOD, i hate this "AMD has the real /native dual / quad core", so what Intels are fake? they are doing some pretty good ass kicking for having "non-native" multi-core processors. :rolleyes:
 
SonicTron said:
Hard to say AMD was the "leader" during the P4 fiasco era. Intel still by far had the market share, AMD still wasn't turning a profit, and still 99/100 consumers would say "whats AMD?" if they walked into a PC store looking for a computer. Sure, they held a strong spot as far as competitive performance, but not in market presence.
Click to expand...

prtzlboy said:
Um the whole "market presence" thing is exactly what the suit is about. Why do you think AMD didn't have better market presence even when they had better products?
Click to expand...



How many AMD commercials do you see on TV?

Me, i dont think i have ever seen 1 single AMD commercial on TV, seen a couple ad's in magazines sure, but TV, or radio... nope. nadda...
 
Honestly, I don't think AMD is THAT far behind Intel, when all things are said and done. I don't mean this in terms of sales, market share, revenues and such, but in terms of technologies and innovations. I'm sure AMD has a lot of things in the works that are not made public, solely for the reason that they lack the means of marketing these.

I remember back when AMD, in terms of speed, was as close as ever to Intel. After a while, I remember hearing that Intel had just bought out a few manufacturing plants, which killed AMD's ability to mass produce certain chips. Since then, I've seen AMD struggling to get back into the game.

I'd say that AMD lost the means to offer competitive products on a large scale. The logistics are probably too big of a hinderance for AMD, and thus why we don't see the AMD's presence on the cutting edge market.

I guess I'm saying that AMD is Intel's victim, in more ways than the reasons cited by the EU.
 
what i would like to see:
both companies get product shit right

if it has 4 cores, say it has 4 quares. dont call it a duo or core 2 duo blah blah.

lol. and make some innovations! hardocp.com has posted stuff 3 years ago that never even emerged.

where is amd's Z cache that was suppose to be in MB's, like 10mb+ .. .that was years ago...
 
ku1185 said:
Honestly, I don't think AMD is THAT far behind Intel, when all things are said and done. I don't mean this in terms of sales, market share, revenues and such, but in terms of technologies and innovations. I'm sure AMD has a lot of things in the works that are not made public, solely for the reason that they lack the means of marketing these.

I remember back when AMD, in terms of speed, was as close as ever to Intel. After a while, I remember hearing that Intel had just bought out a few manufacturing plants, which killed AMD's ability to mass produce certain chips. Since then, I've seen AMD struggling to get back into the game.

I'd say that AMD lost the means to offer competitive products on a large scale. The logistics are probably too big of a hinderance for AMD, and thus why we don't see the AMD's presence on the cutting edge market.

I guess I'm saying that AMD is Intel's victim, in more ways than the reasons cited by the EU.
Click to expand...

AMD is way behind....like 2011 way behind.
And in regards to Intel/AMD...I still remeber the drity, cheapassed way AMD got handed a x86 lincense...but the masses seems to wanna forget about that one...no way AMD could act rotten, eh?
 
MrGuvernment said:
Drop this "true" BS a quad core is a quad core is a quad core, PERIOD, i hate this "AMD has the real /native dual / quad core", so what Intels are fake? they are doing some pretty good ass kicking for having "non-native" multi-core processors. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. "You mean the real quad core is performing worse than the 'fake' ones? I'll take a fake one please."

Doesn't matter what technology they use, as long as it's "better" for the same price.
 
ku1185 said:
After a while, I remember hearing that Intel had just bought out a few manufacturing plants, which killed AMD's ability to mass produce certain chips. Since then, I've seen AMD struggling to get back into the game.
Click to expand...
What? Please elaborate since that never seems to have happened.

AMD is struggling now because 1) K10 was very late and very underwhelming and 2) due to financial problems related to Hector buying ATI. No matter how much you love ATI, it has only left AMD with huge amounts of debt and hasn't cumulatively earned AMD one cent. The interest payments each quarter are higher than the single quarter where the graphics division earned a profit.

In good times, AMD bragged it was selling everything it could make. Even more recently, AMD bragged that it didn't need to advertise because Intel's ads created demand for all manufacturers. AMD was and probably still is run terribly. All that's left now is a thin shell, with a net value below $0 and still shrinking.
 
AMD was ahead for YEARS. Anyone still seriously believes the P4 was a good competitor when the Athlon could almost stand up to Intel's next generations of CPU's? Well, the whole point is that due to the anti-competitive practices AMD did not gain from their technological superiority, so did not have the same resources as Intel to continue developing at the same pace.
I was buying AMD when Intel had the P4, but people who custom-build PC's are the minority. Dell etc are the volume sellers.
 
Many of you guys here need to get some perspective. Intel forced AMD to "lost a turn" several times over the last eight years. Lose enough turns and you get behind. Lose enough turns and you miss opportunities. Lose enough turns and you can go from okay to bad and from bad to worse very quickly. The fact that AMD had to go through that and STILL is putting out great products astounds me. Give credit where credit is due, and lay blame where blame is due. Intel choked AMD illegally, you can't argue with the three separate legal sources, testimonies from OEM's that did admit to Intel doing this, let alone just the common sense. If you think this is just about AMD being whiny then you are the worst kind of enthusiast. A mindless zealot.
 
OldPueblo said:
Many of you guys here need to get some perspective. Intel forced AMD to "lost a turn" several times over the last eight years. Lose enough turns and you get behind. Lose enough turns and you miss opportunities. Lose enough turns and you can go from okay to bad and from bad to worse very quickly. The fact that AMD had to go through that and STILL is putting out great products astounds me. Give credit where credit is due, and lay blame where blame is due. Intel choked AMD illegally, you can't argue with the three separate legal sources, testimonies from OEM's that did admit to Intel doing this, let alone just the common sense. If you think this is just about AMD being whiny then you are the worst kind of enthusiast. A mindless zealot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and lets forgot all about the x86 lincense right...just like mindless zealots, eh?
 
OldPueblo said:
Did you have a point to make relevant to this discussion?
Click to expand...

That AMD only came to be where they are today but dubious methods...and thus have forfeitted the right to whine...look into how they got their x86 license...innovators my *beeep*
 
MrGuvernment said:
Drop this "true" BS a quad core is a quad core is a quad core, PERIOD, i hate this "AMD has the real /native dual / quad core", so what Intels are fake? they are doing some pretty good ass kicking for having "non-native" multi-core processors. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

From a technology standpoint, a native quad core is more advanced than just slapping two separate dual cores together. There are other advantages too, like not having to rely on the FSB for inter-core communication, and the shared L3 cache has a huge advantage over the split L2 caches of a multi chip module. This did help the Phenom (or Barcelona-based Opteron, rather) to remain fairly competitive with Intel in the server space because it scaled better under certain workloads. The fact remains that AMD was first to market with a native quad core CPU, even if they didn't have the performance lead, which means they were innovating. It was clearly the right thing to do as Intel also went down that route with Nehalem. Imagine how much the Phenom would have sucked if it was just two X2s slapped together.
 
JimmiG said:
From a technology standpoint, a native quad core is more advanced than just slapping two separate dual cores together. There are other advantages too, like not having to rely on the FSB for inter-core communication, and the shared L3 cache has a huge advantage over the split L2 caches of a multi chip module. This did help the Phenom (or Barcelona-based Opteron, rather) to remain fairly competitive with Intel in the server space because it scaled better under certain workloads. The fact remains that AMD was first to market with a native quad core CPU, even if they didn't have the performance lead, which means they were innovating. It was clearly the right thing to do as Intel also went down that route with Nehalem. Imagine how much the Phenom would have sucked if it was just two X2s slapped together.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is that non-native quad cores (Intel) still can beat the "real" native quadcore...so much for PR-fluff...welcome real world performance.

Perhaps AMD should focus less on PR and more on performance...
 
Atech said:
That AMD only came to be where they are today but dubious methods...and thus have forfeitted the right to whine...look into how they got their x86 license...innovators my *beeep*
Click to expand...

Something tells me the "x86 license story" isn't what you think it is. And even then, that has nothing to do with their innovation covering all the years afterwards.
 
OldPueblo said:
Something tells me the "x86 license story" isn't what you think it is. And even then, that has nothing to do with their innovation covering all the years afterwards.
Click to expand...

Using IMB to wrestle a x86 lincense from Intel isn't innovative.
Buying up NexGen isn't innovative.
They didn't invent the IMC.

But try and explain that to today teen that grow up around the Athlon age and thinks that was the nnormal lay of the land...when it isn't.

I still think AMD does to much PR(-whine) and to little actual work.
 
Atech said:
Using IMB to wrestle a x86 lincense from Intel isn't innovative.
Buying up NexGen isn't innovative.
They didn't invent the IMC.

But try and explain that to today teen that grow up around the Athlon age and thinks that was the nnormal lay of the land...when it isn't.

I still think AMD does to much PR(-whine) and to little actual work.
Click to expand...

You are right AMD has done absolutely nothing of note the last eight years.
 
Atech said:
Using IMB to wrestle a x86 lincense from Intel isn't innovative.
Buying up NexGen isn't innovative.
They didn't invent the IMC.

But try and explain that to today teen that grow up around the Athlon age and thinks that was the nnormal lay of the land...when it isn't.

I still think AMD does to much PR(-whine) and to little actual work.
Click to expand...

Since X86 became THE desktop instruction set. The ONLY desktop instruction set, what would have happened if Intel had been allowed a monopoly of that? We would be much better off right? right? with the 4.5 Ghz P8 netburst architecture we would be using right now.
I'm sorry if you think Intel should have sole ownership of the desktop computer instruction set, the rest of us think it would be a bad idea. So AMD had to wrestle their way into being allowed to exist. Darn them! lets shut them down and pick up the soap for intel!
 
Steve, Now I think its the time to throw that party we were talking about in Facebook. Uh and Kyle has to bring the Hat.
 
For some reason i'm craving bitter almond flavored Flavor Aid.
 
Funny thing is that non-native quad cores (Intel) still can beat the "real" native quadcore...so much for PR-fluff...welcome real world performance.
Click to expand...

Nehalem beats Yorkfield etc. though, Native quad core is more efficient by far and enhances performance significantly, which is one of the reasons the Phenom II is competitive at all today. It's also the reason Barcelona was very competitive up until the launch of Nehalem, because the performance of Intels non-native quads tanked under certain conditions. It's not just PR, it was AMD innovating and coming out with new technology before Intel, even if the package as a whole failed to live up to the expectations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top