Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is AMD Dead Yet?

Posted by kdawson on from the pining-for-the-fjords dept.

TheProcess writes "Back in February 2003, IBM predicted that AMD would be dead in 5 years (original article here), with IBM and Intel the only remaining players in the chip market. Well, 5 years have passed and AMD is still alive. However, its finances and stock price have taken a serious beating over the last year. AMD was once a darling in this community — the plucky, up-and-coming challenger to the Intel behemoth. Will AMD still be here in 5 years? Can they pose a credible competitive threat to Intel's dominance? Do they still have superior but unappreciated technology? Or are they finally old hat? Can they really recover?"

20 of 467 comments (clear)

  1. Why did they buy ATI? by ookabooka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was wondering if anyone could explain to me why they purchased ATI. They spent oodles of money to R&D the new quad core architecture to really be a seamless 4 core proc that shared caches etc. Intel just slapped two dual cores together and shipped that. Turns out that in benchmarks for consumer programs, intel's stuff works quite well. AMD's cache sharing and topology of memory access that seems better for true multithreaded applications is irrelevant and occasionally a hinderance when you're running multiple single threaded programs. So they spend oodles on R&D and may not see that much of a return until apps can utilize it better. . .Then they go off and buy ATI? Wouldn't it make sense to hang onto money a bit more than just purchase another company? Could that move end up dragging ATI down too?

    --
    If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    1. Re:Why did they buy ATI? by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What they originally wanted to do was merge with nVidia, it made sense at the time because nVidia was producing the best chipset for AMD CPUs. Anyway the communications between the 2 companies went sour, so AMD, still hot to do something picked the number 2 choice, ATI.

      Now a merger between nVidia and AMD would have produced a powerful company. nVida has 3DFX tech, Telsa, chipsets and the 2 companies had already done a lot of joint work on the original X-BOX design (intel was a late entry). AMD brought CPU tech, flash and some other tech into the mix. However it was not meant to be.

      So buying ATI was just a plan B, and not really optimal.

      The Intel Core architechture is impressive. It's powerful enough over the Athlon that they can take shortcuts. Gives them more headroom for later, whereas the Athlon is reaching its maximum efficiency of instructions per clock so they have to be more thoughtful with their engineering.

      --
      Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    2. Re:Why did they buy ATI? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They spent oodles of money to R&D the new quad core architecture to really be a seamless 4 core proc that shared caches etc. Intel just slapped two dual cores together and shipped that. Turns out that in benchmarks for consumer programs, intel's stuff works quite well. AMD's cache sharing and topology of memory access that seems better for true multithreaded applications is irrelevant and occasionally a hinderance when you're running multiple single threaded programs.

      When you are designing architectures for 7 or so years out, you need a powerful crystal ball, but no such thing exists. AMD just guessed wrong about the nature of future applications. Intel guessed wrong with the Itanium also. Maybe the common thread is you have to fit existing apps instead of the other way around. But, betting against app change has risk also.

      Perhaps AMD should focus on the low end rather than guess what the high-end app technology of the future will look like. This may be a better bet for them because they cannot absorb the kinds of gambles that Intel can, being a smaller company. Thus, if they focus on the low-end, they don't have to predict the future of the high-end apps, reducing their risk. They just have to make existing apps run faster and/or cheaper. This would essentially force Intel to be the pioneer (of app change guessing) and take the arrows so that AMD doesn't have to. Of course there are the arrows of internal technology changes, but at least having to guess what *apps* of the future will be like is out of their court.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Why did they buy ATI? by Beliskner · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Then they go off and buy ATI? Wouldn't it make sense to hang onto money a bit more than just purchase another company? Could that move end up dragging ATI down too?
      That's because their plan is to merge the CPU and GPU into one unit. This is an advance that even Intel does not appear to be planning
      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    4. Re:Why did they buy ATI? by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      AMD's opening of the ATI graphics card specs is what reinterested me in both companies. I had been buying Intel for quite some time now, but I'm going back to AMD because of the openness. Yes, Intel is open as well, but I've had much better results pushing AMD chips to the limits of temperature and I found them much more reliable when overheated than Intel. The fact that they are slightly less expensive is nice, too.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    5. Re:Why did they buy ATI? by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When you are designing architectures for 7 or so years out, you need a powerful crystal ball, but no such thing exists. AMD just guessed wrong about the nature of future applications. Intel guessed wrong with the Itanium also. Maybe the common thread is you have to fit existing apps instead of the other way around. But, betting against app change has risk also.

      The problem is that the low end is probablly only a couple of years behind the high end. So if you try and stick to the low end you still have to design architectures 5 years or so out and each low end CPU makes far less profit than each high end CPU so you find it even harder to cover those R&D costs.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    6. Re:Why did they buy ATI? by aminorex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm sure you're right about being able to beat AMD to the market -- but would anyone care? A fusion product that did not incorporate competitive 3d graphics and GPGPU capabilities would be about as interesting as SiS graphics on your motherboard -- i.e. it would only be of interest at the low-margin bottom-feeding end of the market. But a fusion product that incorporates quad R600+opteron and lets you run double precision vector kernels over HyperTransport at 4Gb/sec would quickly take over the Top 500 list, as well as eating nVidia's lunch by obsoleting the very concept of a "video card". It's not so much Intel's lunch money that is in danger here as nVidia's. But even so, that's a big chunk of high-end market that Intel will be effectively priced out of, because they have no competitive solution.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  2. Re:AMD did it to themselves by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And they went with trusted computing. That was the last straw for me. I would have continued to buy from them despite the flaws listed in parent post, if they just continued to build computers that I could trust.

  3. Darling of the community! by kingmetal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hope that AMD soon becomes the darling of the community once again, it's because of them that I recently got back into PC gaming. I had totally given up on gaming on the PC, I had bought a gen1 X2 4200 and AM2 motherboard right before the Core 2 Duos came out and I was cursing my bad luck ever since - until I realized that the real holdup in my system wasn't the processor, but my aging 6600GT. In fact, even though I had bought my AM2-based system almost 2 years ago (or longer! I can't remember when the platform launched) I still had a fairly recent system that could actually support even the newest AMD chips. The real kicker came when I bought my Ati Radeon HD3850. This thing, in my oppinion, should be getting just as much press as the 8800GT. For someone like me, spending $180 on a graphics card is a whole lot more reasonable than spending $250+ on an 8800GT just for performance gains in games like Crysis. My housemate dropped over $1000 on a new Intel Quad-core based rig with an 8800GT in it and my system keeps pace with his very well under almost all scenarios. There is a difference, sure, but considering my entire rig probably cost less than $500 (exluding monitor), I'd say I'm doing pretty well. AMD is doing a great job at catering to people like me who were about to be console-only gamers because keeping up to date on the PC side was getting expensive. AMD offers an affordable upgrade path at a lower performance point - but it's good enough to make my Xbox 360 jealous! I'm proud to say that I'm still an AMD fan. Will an X2 5000+ Black Edition beat a comparably clocked Core 2 Duo? No! But look at the price! I'd say the price to performance ratio is way up there!

    1. Re:Darling of the community! by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Back in the Netburst era, you didn't HAVE to be an AMD fanboy to know that the Pentium 4 totally sucked in every meaningful way compared to anything by AMD. Now that Intel's rejoined the rest of the sane universe, it's not as clear-cut anymore. They're still (usually) a little cheaper than Intel, but it's harder to draw a clear line between them and definitively say one is better than the other. Personally, I still tend to favor AMD, but if I were shopping for a notebook and one with core2duo happened to be massively on sale that particular week, I wouldn't avoid it like the black death the way I WOULD have bent over backwards to avoid the wretched quasi-mobile version of the Pentium 4.

  4. Re:Don't think so. by Bender_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the past, AMD had an architecture advantage over Intel and Intel had a slight process technology advantage.

    Now the situation is different:

    -Since the introduction of the Core 2 Duo Intel has the better architecture (minus memory controller though).
    -Intel is smoking the rest of the industry with 45nm high-k/metal gate in therms of process technology. Compared to what has been published by IBM about their hkmg technology IBM/AMD has a long way to go to catch up.

    And let me say this: Intels technology is extremely clever, they did one fundamentally different thing (gate first) against conventional wisdom which took them onto an entirely different path. Getting the fundamental flaws out of this approach enables a flurry of additional optimizations that IBM/AMD will not be able to apply in their technology. (full metal gates, not using any exotic materials for the gate)

    The only disadvantage for intel could be higher cost/lower yield associated with the hkmg process. However they have the benefit of scale (in therms of volume) on their side. In addition they went go through the painful hkmg transition two years earlier and hence things will be much easier for them at the 32nm node. IBM/AMD will be in even more trouble than they are now. I predict that Intel will have a very quick 32nm ramp around the time IBM/AMD managed to get their 45nm hkmg process to manufacturable yield.

  5. Free Software friendly by that_itch_kid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'll admit I don't know much about the matter, but they seem to be fairly Free Software friendly, in terms of their releasing of documentation for both their CPUs and the ATI GPUs.

    Does anyone have any detailed information on this? Perhaps the Free Software community can support AMD's openness by buying AMD hardware, *and letting them know this is the reason*.

  6. I inadvertently switched to Intel... by vistic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... when I deliberately switched to Mac.

    Before I switched to using Macs, I would always build my own PC's from components, and I always chose an AMD processor (starting with the 450 MHz AMD K6-III).

    Until Macs start coming with AMD chips, I doubt I'll buy another one any time soon.

  7. Not if I can help it... by NerveGas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've built a very good number of machines for people lately with Abit micro-ATX boards, with built-in graphics (d-sub and DVI). Throw in a 2.4 GHz X2 and 4 gigs of memory, a hard drive, and a burner, and the hardware comes to something like $300. Good, fast, and CHEAP.

        One of the offices was broken into lately, and the thieves bypassed the "wimpy" micro-ATX cases and stole big, heavy machines... which happened to be older, slower stuff.

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  8. Re:Don't think so. by steevc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For instance the AMD Athlon X2 64-bit dual core chip i use, is quieter, less power hungry and more powerful than its intel-equivalent. I thought all chips were pretty much silent. It tends to be the cooling fan that makes the noise, but using less power should allow for a quieter fan.

    I've used several AMD processors (couple of Durons and now an Athlon X2). I chose them on a value for money basis. I never buy the fastest chips that command a heavy price premium, so the arguments over who has the top chip of the moment are irrelevant to me. I considered an Intel for my current PC, but the price difference was minimal and I know the AMD-based chipsets a bit better so I knew it should work for me. I do like to support the underdog, but not if it exceeds my budget.

    Even in the last few years I have met people who consider AMD to be inferior or less reliable than Intel chips. Intel's marketing millions must be doing something for them, but I find their jingle intensely annoying when it crops up in the middle of an ad.
  9. Re:AMD did it to themselves by shtarker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Or for processors that can still run x86 instructions, how about VIA?

  10. For me, this story crossed a line. ATI excellence. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FRAUD ALERT? First, for me this story crossed a line. It looks like stock manipulation. Was KDawson paid to post this story? Who at Slashdot or its parent company has recently sold AMD stock short, betting that the price will fall? Are any Intel employees involved?

    I would like to see a statement added at the end of this Slashdot story that KDawson took no money for this story, and that no one at Slashdot or its parent company took money or will benefit from a drop in price of AMD stock. I'm not accusing anyone of anything; I am just concerned that this story is worded in a way that seems sleazy and possibly fraudulent to me.

    Second, in response to the parent comment. ATI is the premier video CPU provider now. nVidia is so lame that there is an entire web site devoted to fixing nVidia driver issues: LaptopVideo2Go. I spent hours trying to get one of my laptops, which has an nVidia chip, to work correctly with an external monitor. It works well now, but I could never have done the work without the help of LaptopVideo2Go.

    Third, Intel is suffering from very bad management. For example, see the comment I posted to an earlier Slashdot story, responding to someone saying, "Intel's behavior regarding the OLPC is reprehensible."

    Fourth, AMD seems to be the more technologically dedicated company. Intel has a history of dumb mistakes. For example, see this December 2000 article about the Pentium 4, which calls Intel "Chipzilla": Pentium 4 Linux problem all Chipzilla's fault, apparently. Quote: "Intel... failed ... through dumbness rather than malice."

    I seem to remember that the entire Pentium 4 architecture was abandoned in favor of the Pentium 4 Mobile architecture, which is what Intel is shipping now.

    Both AMD and Intel make VERY sophisticated processors. It's amazing that a product that is so tiny it is affected by quantum physics is cheap enough for everyone to own. When one is temporarily ahead, it is simply silly to say that the other is dying.

    Stock prices are often affected by hysteria. This is especially true of prices of technical stocks, which are often owned by people who don't really understand the technology of the company they partly own.

  11. Intel mistakes: CPU development is VERY difficult. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone thinking that Intel can always be ahead of AMD should read the history of the Pentium 4 on Wikipedia. Two quotes:

    "Finally, the thermal problems were so severe, Intel decided to abandon the Prescott architecture altogether, and attempts to roll out a 4 GHz part were abandoned, as a waste of internal resources."

    "The original successor to the Pentium 4 was Tejas, which was scheduled for an early-mid-2005 release. However, it was cancelled a few months after the release of Prescott due to extremely high power consumption (a 2.8 GHz Tejas consumed 150 W of power..."

  12. Shorting AMD stock: NASDAQ figures by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People are selling AMD stock short, betting it will go down. To make money, they need the price of AMD stock to drop.

    Often a company's stock price reflects market manipulation rather than any sensible estimate of the true value of the company. This Slashdot story is very likely to drive the price down, as short sellers want. Check the price after the market opens.

    When AMD integrates ATI video with AMD CPUs, the resulting combination is likely to be very competitive. AMDs technical prospects seem good to me, although I have not done a thorough analysis. Remember that we are no longer in a CPU speed race; CPUs are fast enough now for the average user.

  13. There are more obvious questions ! by icckleblackcat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The simple fact that one of the biggest differences is made by having a multi-core processor when running modern Operating systems rather than raw processor speed should yield one obvious comment:

    The cheapest Dual-Core processors I can quickly find :

    • Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 S775 2.2GHz 2mb Cache 800FSB: £77.99
    • AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 AM2 2.2GHz: £45.04

    The performance is within a hairs breadth of each other... and yes, when coupled with a modest graphics card they both do just fine in all but the latest bleeding-edge 3D games.

    In other words, for normal home or business computing with light to moderate gaming - there is an obvious choice. Even with more demanding gaming, thats £30 more to throw at your graphics card which will make far more difference - or £30 more memory (2 GB !!!).

    With this sort of thing going for them, and the higher-end really matching Intel in the price/performance stakes I suspect theres life there yet... quite a bit of it.

    As far as graphics goes, everyone is happy to compare ATI with nVidia - but the only choice when it comes to on-chip graphics is not "ATI v nVidia" but "ATI v Intel"... you have looked at Intel graphics lately right ?