Slashdot Mirror
AMD Announces A Shift In Focus From PC Processors
slughead writes "Forbes Magazine is reporting that AMD will no longer compete with Intel to make faster, smaller, and more efficient processors. Just as Mac users would be worse off if Windows didn't exist, Intel users will be much worse now that AMD will no longer compete. You see, there's this thing called demand, and when there are no competing products in a market, a good or service will always increase the price to the economic equilibrium, unless forced not to by the state (forget that right now, communists!!). In English: you're going to get less new technology, and higher prices on existing technology." On the other hand, AMD is definitely not exiting the chip business -- they're just trying to branch out from chips for microcomputers.
penis burning devices
I really don't see anywhere in the article where it actually says that "AMD will no longer compete with Intel to make faster, smaller, and more efficient processors."
There's something else called supply which is what actually changes when a more aggressive supplier enters the market, moving the equilibrium price to a new spot on the same demand curve. As long as you're handing out patronizing lectures on microeconomics...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
AMD will probably still have the best bang for your buck desktop processors but they wont be as fast, and that is all right with me. I never buy the absolute fastest cpu as I do not like to pay out my ass for the litte bit of extra performance that is not absolutely necessary.
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
It seemed that AMD couldn't make money even when the Athlon was the hottest thing going (literally and sales-wise), simply because the PC market is so driven by price. It takes far more R&D costs to come up with a processor that can compete with the latest from Intel, and the profit per unit is probably abysmal.
To compete with Intel, they were finding that they had to compete in every area, in order to please the OEMs it was courting. They had to make a mobile chip, they had to make a low-cost chip, and a multiprocessor-capable chip, and now they're hard at work on a 64-bit chip. All of which will sell a fraction of what Intel will sell but with similar R&D costs.
It's just another example showing that it's very hard to compete against an entrenched monopoly.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
Their president said that they're branching out into different markets, and Forbes went on the comment that this is a shift away from an emphasis solely on the PC market. But nobody said that AMD is going to stop making chips for PCs.
I don't see this as necessarily being a bad thing. The consumer computer processor market is a funny market today--the fabs cost billions to construct, the research costs millions and these chips are some of the most complex things ever created--and you can get then for $50 basically.
What's the point of every home user having a 3.0GHz processor? I'm not saying "640k should be enough for anyone" but at the moment, few applications (minus gamers) even need a 1ghz processor to shine--processors will no doubt continue to improve but until some radical paradigm shift in computing, it won't be that big a deal (memory, 3d cards, bandwidth are where I see the possibilities for a lot of improvement).
Let AMD get into market where the r&d is lower, and the margins are higher, this sounds like a good thing to me.
I'm an AMD fan...
I didn't know AMD fans could post on slashdot. How is your neighbor Mr. Heatsink?
Sadly, the AMD 64 bit processor has now slipped to "the first half of 2003". It was supposed to ship in Q4 2002 not so long ago. I wonder if it will ever ship. This is bad. Intel's Inanium is not a place you really want to go.
AMD's prices are just *dirt* chip, this is why they aren't making any money. An 800mhz PIII chip costs 89$, on pricewatch (which I would never buy from by the way). 87$ buys you an Athlon 2100 cpu, which is just about 1ghz faster then the intel part. AMD's processors are an amazing value, but AMD has to have trouble making a profit on them.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
I think this is in the best business interests of AMD. I am a software developer by trade, and gamer by hobby. For years I was on the bleeding edge of technology (and paying a hefty sum for the bragging rights). I used to dabble in overclocking/custom cooling and really "pushing the preformance" on my machines. But the truth is, right now, as a software developer (VS.net[C#/C++], Java, Perl, Python) and a gamer (Worms, Warcraft III, Natural Selection), I simply feel no pressing need to upgrade my system.
In the days of 3.06Ghz HT boxes and 64bit processors... my systems are meek by comparison... My primary machine is a Sony Viao Laptop 1.0Ghz (AMD) with 512 + 40gig IDE (15.1 inch screen). My gaming machine is a 1.7Ghz (P4) with 1024 + 120gig WD (Special Edition). Yet despite my primary machine being 1/3rd the fastest(and more so if you count the advantage of HT) in the industry -- I feel no pressing need to upgrade.
The bottom line is, nowadays I don't feel like I am waiting for my system todo what I ask it too-- and until that feeling returns due to more powerful [or more bloated] software, I don't think I will be running out to buy a machine based on CPU.
If AMD is cheaper, cooler and does everything I need to in a smarter way (sound like Transmeta's plan anyone?), they will get my bucks.
ya gotta wonder with all the rumors of Apple sending out AMD boxes running OS X if all the rumors were wrong to conclude x86 was involved at all....
Maybe AMD is 'branching out' by manufacturing PPC chips for Apple. No evidence is conclusive but this will definitely add fuel to the rumor fire around the AMD/Apple connection.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
For those too lazy to click though, here's a sample quote:
It says nothing about "not competing with Intel". What a load of sensationalist crap.
Slashdot.
Tabloid News for nerds.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Jumping to Conclusions.
When there are no competing products in a market, the door is wide open for competition. As the equilibrium price rises (out of lack of competition), the barrier to entry lowers. As the barrier is lowered, competing firms will surface. These firms will fight it out until one "wins" by forcing the others out of business. Then there are no competitors in the market, and the door is wide open for competition...
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
I've been waiting for YEARS to get me an AMD branded toaster oven. Wonder if it'll use Athlons as the heating elements?
"They do run hotter, but so what? (and how else will I heat my server room in the wintertime?)"
So what?! I moved a couple of months ago, and they don't have AC here. Guess what? I've had to take my computer down a couple of times because the CPU overheated. Your 'so what?' means I don't have a reliable machine until I find a way to make it run cooler.
I'm kicking myself for not getting a P4. Lightwave runs better on it anyway.
"Derp de derp."
AMD will put compatibility ahead of sheer speed. The press release mentions embedded devices, but also demos of 64-bit game and database software. AMD is emphasizing that its 64-bit processor has better backward compatibility than Intel's with 32-bit software, even though its 64-bit mode is slower. This looks to me like a bid for industry support for its x86-64 architecture, hardly a concession of the PC market.
May I remind you that Intel is not exclusively in the chip market either. Intel spread to new concepts in computing years ago and are better of for it (e.g. From their site: Consulting Services, Compilers, Performance Analyzers, Threading Tools, Training Center, LANDesk* Software etc...) While most of these are certainly related to the PC chip industry it is not nearly as narrow as AMD.
In doing what Intel did years ago, they are actually increasing their competitiveness. In fact a quick look at Intel's (INTC) financials confirm just that.
Hats off to AMD. for keeping capitalism and competitiveness alive.
I hate people that dont have a sig
"That would just result in you having a PC that got slower and slower with out telling you untill it was crawling along.. Intels P4 thermal managment just underclocks the CPU until the temp is safe or the PC is so slow you cant work on it any more."
a.) Nobody's complaining about P4's overheating to begin with.
b.) I'd rather my computer slowed down than making a constant whining noise until it just turns off all together.
Intel handles overheating much better than AMD. Ironic since AMD's the king of running too hot.
In fact before AMD started hounding Intel in the x86 market they made a wide range of processors and chips! I do electronic repair work for the military and I see plenty of older and newer boards with chips from AMD, Motorola, and TI. Not too many from Intel.
I understand the vision they have about future computing, if you try to shove a AMDXP or PIV in ever piece of hardware you will limit your capabilities greatly. There are times when a RISC processor will do a better job then a chunking x86.
Sure their stock took a hit, but those damn investors always freak out when change is in the air.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
Unless the temperature in your house is regularly exceeding 100F
Let me tell you as someone who knows quite a bit about heating and cooling -- that's not entirely true. One or two degrees in the case can equate to one or two more degrees in the case
Because the inside of a computer is generating heat, that generated heat has to go somewhere in order for the system to stay cool. In most cases that heat is dispersed out of the case. The cooler the ambient temperature, the easier that heat flows out. Quite simply, cooler air takes heat off of a heatsink easier than than warmer air, even if the difference is only a few degrees.
The difference between a 72 degree room and a 75 degree room can be enough to take an otherwise rock solid system and turn it into something that crashes non-stop. Given just a little more heat, It may become too unstable to even post all the time.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
and it sounded like marketing-speak. however, I think some concern is warranted, particularly when you read between the lines (which always requires a bit of interpretation and speculation, but still...)
A shift away from the PC market could mean that they will no longer be trying so hard to compete with intel. The comptetition has arguably been good for BOTH companies, and even better for consumers. Isn't that what is often argued here, that competition against microsoft (in the form of linux, OS X, etc) would be a Good Thing (TM)? Improve quality? Lower price? yes?
I think we are justified in asking the question, and being concerned about this move. I'll repeat my call to the AMD employees that read this site... more information, please. Don't be shy... the worst you can be is an Anonymous Coward!
I love your nick, by the way...
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Forbes Magazine is reporting that /. reader slughead recently failed his 2nd grade reading comprehension test. Even more astounding is /. editor Timothy failed to do his homework - err job function.
Come on people.
The reason so many x86 based servers run Intel CPU's is that Intel has managed to keep AMD out of the major PC manufacturer's server lines. Take any server oriented AMD based system (w/ a Mobo from, say, Tyan or Serverworks) and compare its stability with the stability of a comparable Intel system. Result: both tend to be rock solid. I worked in a testing lab for a maker of RAID systems and storage contollers. We rarely saw a difference in overall stability between AMD and Intel based server platforms.
Again, verbatim from my site:
Attention Slashdoters:
Don't get all your news from Slashdot
I should really start out by saying that I have never owned and Intel chip, my PC is an AthlonXP. I'm about to attempt to put an end to any dispute, and I'm going to use Forbes as my main source (because I think the man might know a thing or two about money, because he's got a lot more than me).
After the PC market's recent downturn, AMD was facing tough times. However, unlike Intel, AMD has little diversity in chip manufacturing. Recently, Intel announced their 3ghz processor with hyperthreading (a way of fooling software into running more efficiently). So AMD cut 15% of their employees shortly after.
Not that anyone needs to be reminded, but when a company cuts jobs, it doesn't just mean that they will have less employees, it also means that they will pay taxes. In addition to their current financial problems, just 5 days ago, AMD converted $300m of debt into stock, which will hurt their economic standing in the future, and by extension, the present (the news left AMD's stock in shambles at $5.90).
Converting debt into stock on such a large scale has consequences. Like, for instance, S & P could cut your credit rating. Of course, when the S & P does that, you have to convert more debt into stock.
Just a bad time for PC CPU mfg.ers? Well Intel's doing great, so how about that?
So whether the article said it directly or not (I read it 5 times and I think it pretty well did), AMD will not be competing in the PC market for a while. Their 64bit chip might help bridge the gap between 32bit and 64, but it has to come out first, and then it has to beat Intel's benchmarks on 32bit applications (which I could presume it will not). It will beat it in UT2003 though, hopefully that'll be enough!
Latewire
contrary to what a lot of the above posts say, there _is_ a hint that AMD will be withdrawing (to what degree, who knows) from the processor market. but i think the most interesting part of the article is where it mentions that AMD will be raising $300 million in convertible notes.
what does that mean? it means they're not really retreating. i think it means that they're going to be broadening their efforts; they'll stop focusing so much on processors for PCs, and dedicate some resources to other places.
they did very well with their flash memory division for a while (nevermind how it's doing now). that shows that they are able to succeed in areas other than the PC processor market. this gave them a taste for pursuing interests besides processors. additionally, their bitter struggle to compete with intel, and it _is_ bitter and brutal, led them to realize that in order to truly succeed as a company, they're going to have to work on multiple fronts instead of tying their success on one admittedly difficult marketplace war.
in short: nevermind the hype about AMD retreating. focus on the interesting aspects of the article. focus on the fact that they're taking a risk in raising $300 million and lowering their credit rating. then think about _why_ they're doing it.
Is there a way to mark this whole thing as a Troll?
1. Make great chips
2. Sell them low
3. ???
4. ????
5. ?????
6. ??????
7. well?....
Table-ized A.I.
Also, I don't think it's fair to assume Intel's primary domain is purely in PC Chips. Their work in Communications chips is nearly as important, and is becoming more so. I think they're trying to develop it into a stronger market force in the next few years.
All circuits busy.
Didn't AMD just mention that it planned to surpass Intel as the world's number 1 chip maker?
And I quote:
AMD BOSS HECTOR RUIZ says AMD is "dead serious" about ousting Intel to become the number one player in the "computational processor market".
"We're not just trying to be a good number two," he said.
Ruiz claimed its "competitor" had done "everything possible" to keep it from competing in new segments of the market but, despite Intel's best efforts, AMD was on course to make significant progress in a number of areas.
Surely AMD didn't change its entire business direction and core corporate strategy in a matter of days. It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding, and seeing as how the Forbes article quoted not one single comment from AMD brass stating that they "will no longer compete with Intel", I think it's Forbes, and the story submitter.
I seem to recall rumors back when AMD was kicking ass that Intel planned to leave the PC CPU business to pursue more "long term profitable measures." Well, what sure doesn't seem to be the case.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
Yes--I agree that AMD is making a smart move. The only segments of the PC market that are going anywhere are the budget PC market (think under US$500), the mobile market (notebooks, tablet PCs, etc) and new form factors and "non-pc" consumer devices(ultra-compact desktops, set-top boxes like PVRs and game consoles). These all have a few common elements: the edge goes to the one who can produce low-cost, low-power, low-heat designs. The high-end desktop/workstation market is flat at best (and most likely in decline). Few in the market for a new PC are geeks who want to compile their Linux kernels faster than all their friends or render sophisticated 3D videogames at framerates higher than their eyes can perceive them (or most monitors can display them).
BUT---hold on a minute. Who said AMD was just going cheap. I got the idea that they were diversifying their market strategy. Until now, their marketing has been very unsophisticated to be polite. Hell, in an effort to win a petty pissing match over who is the king of the crap-pile they have gone so far as to give their processors "model numbers" instead of labelling them by clock speed. Joe blow on the street gets very confused when you try to explain what the 2100+ means on his "Athlon XP 2100+" (no it isn't REALLY a 2.1 GHz chip--it's only 1.733GHz but it's just as good...huh?). time to shape up.
Now, AMD is promising to get a bit smarter in selling their bleeding edge technology. Why languish in a stagnant high-end PC market with razor-thin profits against a giant comptetitor? Instead of trying to find, retain and support thousands (millions?) of geeks and "keep-up-with-the-joneses" types, each with 1 to maybe 8 processors each, perhaps it would be better for business to land a deal with hundreds of customres like Cray, or NASA, or JPL, or governments and big corporations, who each need thousands of processors to meet their needs?
Big customers don't need their hands held--they order in volume, making production runs easier to manage and cheaper and margins higher. They engineer and support their own products. These big guns are also much better at showcasing the latest technology. Think about it. What would be more impressive to the average person (and the mainstream press):
* If AMD powered supercomputers rendered the latest CG animated hit movie, an AMD-powered cluster of servers made Google search 500% faster, or predicted storm movements on Jupiter or repeatedly beat Kasparov at chess...etc
* AMD scored higher on some obscure benchmark on Andtech and Tom's Hardware, the pizza-faced kid next door got his 3D gam to go 120FPS at 32-bits and some insanely high resolution (ultimetely more a testament to his video card's performance anyways), and the computer salesman made and Athlon XP system boot faster than a similar but higher priced P4 system
I'd say the former would garner more respect and a higher profile than the latter.
Motorola did the same thing a few years ago and that's why IBM is now Apples only source of PPC.
I bet there are a lot of motherboard engineer that will be looking for work when this happens.
Plain and simple, they lost. And its a shame, because they came into the game losing (post-K6, beginning Athlons). At the peak, less than 6 months ago, they were the favorite chip among hobbyists, and really had the better, cheaper, faster chip. They were winning (in the way that it counts, at least to me).
What a shame, especially when they realize that Intel can beat them in the areas they are focusing on too.
are "fast enough" for consumers, at least for the time being, and are looking at a PC marketplace in the near future where MOST (typical users) will be satisfied with their PC experience for several years to come. With a shrinking market for NEW PC cpus they should logically look elsewhere to sell their product, elsewhere being other consumer markets, whatever they may be.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Intel isn't exactly betting the farm on the PC market, either. Although Itanium isn't quite as do-or-die for Intel as the Hammer series is for AMD, they both know full well that making CPU's for PC's will be a shrinking part of their revenues. Making chips for servers is the market they are both shooting for. The margins are much higher and the market is actually growing at a good clip, unlike the PC market.
So I guess this may be bad news for folks who want really cheap bleeding-edge performance on their desktops. But business users don't need any more performance on the desktop than they already have, and even gamers are increasingly looking toward GPU's and not CPU's as the most important factor for performance in their systems. Intel and AMD are laying their bets in the server room.
Given that AMD already has the technology in hand to deliver more bang-per-buck than Itanium and with a smooth and solid migration path, this may be the most sensible move they've made in years.
My first PC was 386 SX 16. It had Intel CPU of course. Then I bought 386 DX 40, then AMD 486 DX (DX4? something like that) 100, then Cyrix 6x86 166+, then K6-2 500, then Athlon XP 1800. As you see I haven't used Intel for a long time.
If AMD is going to increase prices and stop active development - there is a place for a new competitor. You probably don't remember Cyrix CPUs from pentium times. Thanks to Cyrix - Intel and AMD put new CPUs faster on market. Of course they also created very aggresive marketing (I still hear "Cyrix is unstable" sentence). If AMD stop now - whole market will slow down.
We need Transmeta in Desktop PC. Is it possible?
what about Crusoe? what's the status of the Crusoe processor and why don't they take advantage of this opportunity and jump into the market?
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
eWeek has another write up...
I don't think AMD is leaving the x86-compatible CPU market anytime soon. I think AMD was just unfortunate that the current market conditions won't allow for the company to be profitable in the CPU market; what AMD wants to do is expand into building other specialty products that will better insulate itself from market conditions. If you look Intel's wide range of products they are heavily into networking, specialized-market RISC CPU, and so on.
The thing is that AMD--unlike previous competitors in the field like Cyrix--has demonstrated that can produce CPU's that are very competitive performance-wise against Intel's products. The Athlon XP 2800+ --which should ship any time now--has proven it can keep up with the Pentium 4 2.8 GHz CPU in most benchmark tests. Intel can't sit on its laurels with the new Pentium 4 3.06 GHz CPU that has the Hyperthreading functionality; they very well know that the Barton-core Athlons due the first quarter of 2003 will probably keep up with the Pentium 4 3.06 GHz, because the new Athlons will not only sport 512 KB L2 cache on the CPU die but also other changes to the main CPU core to improve performance.
Yes, I can't really understand why AMD would pull out of potentially the most lucrative area of the chip market, having gained an extremely tough-to-gain foothold there!
/., well for us 1GHz is plenty.
They aren't pulling out of the PC processor market, they are saying that demand for high end processors is weak and the cost of R&D to produce 5GHz+ chips may not be made back. So they are changing their focus away from competing with Intel on the very top end. When the market picks back up and suddenly everybody is demanding enough processing power to run their own simulation of a thermonuclear detonation, then AMD will spend more R&D money on top end processors. They won't stop producing Athlons, they will stop investing huge chunks of money into making faster chips.
For most people like myself who only use their computer for 3D gaming, software development, video & image editing, writing papers, checking email, talking on IRC and reading
Much of this is a response to the fact that they're asking for a $300million note, and the market they are in is depressed.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Here is the actually press release from AMD. Theres nothing in there that says they are stopping consumer chips (infact, they talk about the 64bit chip, and unreal). they do mention that they are 'branching out' Microsoft branched out from Operating systems (everything from keyboards, to chairs, to crappy networking hardware) but they still make the same great os!
I guess that people just miss the point that nowhere in the linked story does AMD ever say they're going to stop producing PC chips, it says that they are seeking to diversify. This is a good thing. It certainly doesn't say that they aren't bailing on the market, but it's pretty obvious that they're not going to bail on the PC market so soon after developing the Athlon XP and the Hammer.
Then again, it's 5am, I could be reading a story about chickens taking over New Zealand and not about AMD market share.
If there is a God, you are an authorized representative. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
If I remember correctly, Intel just released its 3.0 GHz chips. If I were AMD, and I wanted Intel to slow down a bit, I'd want them comfortable and happy in their current position so they didn't have quite the same sense of urgency about developing newer, better, faster technology.
;)
In fact, I might just start off with such a press release. I might continue by quietly starting up subsidiary firms, owned by the AMD corporate head office, and moving people and tech over to those companies, while making a big show about how the AMD CPU processor focus is being back-burnered, production factories are being retooled for different things, the corporate vision is changing (frequently), etc... All the signs of a firm that is visionary, bold, courageous - in other words, about to show up at fuckedcompany.com.
And when Intel was sitting pretty, regaining market dominance and feeling pretty good about its position vs. "former competitor" AMD, AND the market is starting to boom and demand is increasing, AMD could release something that blows Intel's doors right off.
Yes, it's risky. Long term profit in the face of a short/medium bear market usually is.
With Transmeta still trying to push into the PC CPU market I'd think AMD backing off a little would be good news for them. Two names is about all most customers can keep track of. This will let the Transmeta name have a chance at becoming known outside the geek society. If the recent news of Transmeta's new much faster and even more effecient CPU is true and that CPU is cheap and faster (and more energy/heat effecient) than a 1.8Ghz Intel CPU then they might grab some decent market share.
Just to make a wild prediction I'd say handheld wireless devices will be a big boom over the next decade or so.. faster CPU's probably will matter less than extending battery life. If they can make them cheap enough and so that they don't need massive cooling then they also should work well for parallel designs.. for the power users.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
it's not a troll, i remember paying $700 for a p200 (just the chip) the day it came out oh so many years ago and now i would have to pay someone to come throw away the same machine (if i stil had it anyway)
and i worked at the store i bought it from
AMD is saying that besides desktop chips, they are also moving into workstation and server chips. How exactly is this "pulling out from competition with Intel"...? Quite the contrary, they will now be competing not only with the Pentium and Celeron, but also with the Xeon and Itanium (and with chips from Sun, HP, etc.). And judging from the support they're getting before even releasing the Hammer, I'd say their future looks quite bright indeed.
I'm sorry for the rant, but for the last couple of years Slashdot has become a swamp. Half the articles are from someone pushing their personal agenda ("Microsoft sucks", "Apple rules", "Person X is a bastard", etc.), and the other half are simply wrong. The readers then comment on the Slashdot "news items" without even bothering to read the original articles (thus propagating the ignorance) and finally the moderators mod things as "interesting" or "insightful" without bothering to see if they're even remotely true.
RMN
~~~
First of all, AMD does have diversity in chip manufacturing. They make flash memory.
Second, cutting employees doesn't mean you pay less taxes. The pre-tax charge that you link you has nothing to do with taxes. This pre-tax charge is a one-time expense associated with the restructuring. It mostly represents the severence pay they'll be giving people.
I've read your story submission (which slaughters any reasonable economic theory) and this. You shouldn't try to write about finance until you get an education.
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
AMD has a very effective roadmap ahead for Athlon, where it basically goes head to head with Celeron. Athlon is smaller and faster there. Hammer is expected to debut at 3400+ ratings and Opteron is expect to hit 4000+ and higher in 2003. Besides being faster, these chips will have native 64 bit capability which P4 lacks. They will smoke P4 across the board, and have a smaller die size to boot.
If AMD can execute (every sign is they can) they should take off during any tech recovery. Believe me, when Hammer starts selling like hot cakes, the CEO will sing a whole different tune! :-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Wow, XP 2100 and P4 1.7 run at the same clock - look at the diff in price (well, the XP runs 33MHz faster, even)
arg. Don't you know that an Athlon and a Pentium with the same clock speed are not the same speed!! Clock speed is just one variable in CPU speed.
You notice how it says XP 2100? That means it's equivalent to a P4 2.1 gigahertz! (Actually, it's faster than a 2.1 gig.)
Don't go bashing something you don't know anything about.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Back in the day, AMD was a chipfab. Intel made processors, but most of them were contracted out to independent companies, who could do a better job. Then one day, AMD realized that with their efficient factories, they could make a pretty good 486 clone. Intel sued, and in the end, AMD was forced to [a] stop directly copying Intel, and [b] use a different name.
The rest of the story's history. AMD started making the K5 and K6; then they made the K7, their first processor to not be compatible with Intel-standard mobos (remember when every processor used Socket 7?) And their custom architecture, in the end, almost netted them 25% of the chip market.
Then, for whatever reason, AMD started doing badly. And they said to themselves, maybe competing with Intel isn't such a good idea after all.
I expect AMD to release Barton and the like, simply because they're already developed. I expect them to release Opteron and future x86-64 processors, but only with cache/speed/price configurations designed for servers, because there's still money in people switching from proprietary Unix to Linux. I expect Apple to soon make an announcement that AMD is its new supplier; whether that means AMD buys Motorola's desktop PPC chip business, or whether it simply becomes a fab for Apple/IBM-produced designs, I have no idea. But I don't expect AMD to announce any new desktop x86 processors from now on. If this article means anything, it's that Barton's it.
AMD is thinking on the right track.. they are essentially saying that they will expand their market because there IS something as 'too fast' (for the workstation market, anyway)..
/w 128mb ram is more than enough for web-browsing, email, and an instant messager and fast enough to use any bus architectures required to access your devices such as cameras, pdas, mp3 players. Why should people upgrade if there is no need? Sure, there may eventually be a need for real-time digital editting in Grandmom's computer.. but it isn't needed yet.. so why should Grandmom buy a computer that can do that??
Sure, chips will keep increasing in speed.. but they can't increase so drastically their uses drastically overshadow the uses of their target audience.
A 400mhz Celeron
Computer purchases will slow down considerably in the next few years (and it has already begun) until there is a new 'killer app' that requires something more..
Perhaps when we finally have 3d capable desktop software, we may begin seeing more upgrades... and even more when 3d capable screens are available (holographic 'screens'!).
The point is that the consumer market has been leveling while the chip speed as been flying higher.. there isn't any money in doing R/D if nobody is buying the product! So they want to start looking into other markets, the markets of which the consumers are shifting their eyes to. Digital Cameras, PDAs, Wireless networking, etc.
AMD is standing on one leg, they need another foot otherwise they may topple once the chip market levels. Intel has already done it, they are making wireless equipment and webcameras... they know that when the chip-market is doing poorly, they have a little leg to stand on.
Or at least it's to the point where there's no point to it all, except for the people who just have to buy an $75,000 Lexus, because they perceive it as being better than a $25,000 Toyota. Sure, it may be better but it isn't three times better, nor is it worth the higher maintenance costs and poorer fuel efficiency. But you really can't argue with those people anyway.
Here's where we stooped to: Intel reports a 9% increase in raw clock speed, which translates to a 4% increase in synthetic benchmark performance, and the power consumption increases by 15% at the same time. Great. Or NVidia ships a new graphics card that requires an external power supply and has all these great features that are effectively worthless, because it's just barely getting to the point where a game can require hardware T&L--something that's several generations old--and still make a small profit. Never mind all the stuff in later generation cards. Unless you're John Carmack, there's no incentive for developers to support this stuff, especially when an entire game console costs half as much as new video card.