Slashdot Mirror
AMD Not Trying To Get Its Chips Into Low-Cost Tablets
jfruh (300774) writes "While Intel is going after low-end Android tablets in a big way chipmaking x86 rival AMD is taking a more judicious approach, looking to focus on the high end. 'This idea of contra revenue is foreign to us,' said AMD's CEO, referring to Intel's strategy of selling chips at a loss to boost market share. But will Intel's vast resources keep AMD in its niche?"
They're making enough money on their high-end televisions. Let Sony have the low end radio market....
'This idea of contra revenue is foreign to us,'
So they won't be selling weapons to Iran then
by those selling ARM. So why should AMD compete ?
The low end tablet market is sewn up by those selling ARM. So why should AMD compete ?
Because low end products have a way of supplanting high end products in time. PCs replaced most mini-computers even though initially they were inferior products. When was the last time you used a mini-computer? If AMD only competes at the high end of the market they run the risk of being slowly crushed as ARM chips become more capable over time. Intel recognizes this threat and is attempting to address it directly instead of pretending it doesn't exists. Even if they do stay at the high end of the market, it's unclear what if any advantage they have that will allow them to remain a product of choice there. Intel and others are perfectly capable of producing high end products too and Intel has a cost advantage over AMD as well.
Stuff like this is a big part of why AMD has remained something of an also-ran all these years.
Okay, Intel chips tend to outperform AMD on a clock-for-clock and core-for-core basis. So Intel has the high end pretty firmly locked in.
And Intel's going after the low end as well.
So where does that leave AMD?
Pretty much with whatever leavings Intel chucks their way?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
PCs and mini-computers were fundementally different, applications written for one would, generally, not work on the other.
They are both computers and the functions they serve are no different at all That's like saying a PC and a Mac are fundamentally different because their software was incompatible. The mere fact that software written at the time for one wouldn't work on the other could not be less important. What is important is the job they did. PCs gradually took over all the jobs we once used mini-computers for and the companies that built to those products went away. DEC was bought by Compaq, etc. Companies that come late to the party on the new technology often (though not always) have a hard time catching up. Intel underestimated the growth of mobile chips and now is scrambling to catch up to ARM and it isn't clear if they will succeed. And if Intel is having a hard time I can't see AMD having an easier time of it.
When low end tablets become more powerful: AMD has the products to just slot in and take advantage.
Several flaws with that reasoning. 1) Other companies have competing products already and AMD would have to provide a compelling reason to switch from their competitors who already are in place. Displacing an existing customer relationship is difficult at the best of times. 2) AMD products generally do not have any significant and lasting technological advantage over their competitors. 3) AMD is not the lowest cost producer (that would be Intel) and really cannot compete effectively on price. Intel can easily undercut them on price at almost any time and still make money doing it. 4) What is good enough now will not be good enough in a year and AMD's competitors products will improve in the mean time. Waiting for the market to come to them is a VERY dangerous strategy.
No, AMD is not locking itself out of this market.
There is a very good chance that they are. Given their sadly pathetic track record I'd inclined to be doubtful of their chances until shown evidence to the contrary. AMD has mostly made good products but they generally always seem to be a step behind the curve
Okay, Intel chips tend to outperform AMD on a clock-for-clock and core-for-core basis. So Intel has the high end pretty firmly locked in.
Interesting to see how this changes. On straight up single threaded workloads, AMD is unlikely to pull even. However, the nanosecond latency with HSA can prove iteresting. So far about the only benchmark actually written for that architecture was the libreoffice calc one. We got to see AMDs APU destroy everything Intel has to offer on that one by a vast margin.
Not everything will work with HSA, but far more things than GPGPU due to the low latecy and large memory space.
SJW n. One who posts facts.