AMD is it playable at this level?

Quote from tradestrong:


But anyways, my point is being missed. AMD had the superior architecture FOR OVER A DECADE. They couldn't capitalize on that fact. They couldn't market their chips effectively to the masses, they couldn't produce them efficiently (defects have always been a major problem for them) and they couldn't keep up with Intel's R&D efforts.
More...

Praising for monopoly; Intel had done some very sinister things back then; threating their own suppliers; etc... and discredit AMD's designs on 64bit; then later; it has to adapt within its own design; Anyway; AMD is falling again on its flawed (TLB bug) "quad-core" processors.

AMD will have to stay low for the rest of year. Luckly; Intel wouldn't have much room to grow either; the entire semi-sector is weak.
 
With all its faults and benefits what will be the play on this stock over the short term. It looks to me that its on its way to making a new low. Yet I don't see how the FTC would allow INT so be the sole supplier of chips to the world. Is there a white knight on the horizon for them?
 
The sovereign wealth fund of china should buy this company and solve our problems. :D A china run AMD would kick ass... ROcket this stock to $65 within the year!
 
Quote from number22:

Praising for monopoly; Intel had done some very sinister things back then; threating their own suppliers; etc... and discredit AMD's designs on 64bit; then later; it has to adapt within its own design; Anyway; AMD is falling again on its flawed (TLB bug) "quad-core" processors.

AMD will have to stay low for the rest of year. Luckly; Intel wouldn't have much room to grow either; the entire semi-sector is weak.
More...

AMD is now launching chips based on B3 stepping that have fixed the TLB issue:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3272
 
i havent seen any good releases out of amd lately

intel core2duo destroyed amd

amd's acquistion of ati was lackluster at best, nvdia still dominating with their 8xxx and 9xxx graphic cards.

Integration of ati and amd into an all-in-one solution is progressing slowly and without much fanfair. The potential is huge, i dont understand why amd is not pursing this much more aggressively. Right now the only all-in-one chips use the intel graphic accelerator which cant handle any of today's 3d apps/games.
 
Quote from tradestrong:

Intel and AMD are not separated by just a "20 nanometer" difference. Up until 2004, AMD had a superior architecture. Intel had the CISC instruction set and AMD had a RISC architecture.

Intel with the Pentium IV had serious problems with how their frontside bus was a complete disaster in terms of memory latency. AMD had the on chip memory controller. Intel had real problems with power consumption.

AMD had the superior architecture and the superior processor and were even starting to get long-time Intel supporters like DELL to switch over to AMD chips. AMD had a massive technological advantage over Intel. If they had the cash and the ability to aggressively market their chips, they would have been able to send Intel falling. But they didn't.

And all this time, Intel was creating a whole new architecture. They were building a brand new platform. They then released the Core2Duo and the Centrino platform. This is basically a reusable mobile platform with phenomenal intelligent power management. Along with this, the new architecture gives Intel a large advantage in terms of architectural design. The new platform not only matches AMD in terms of a more intelligent instruction set and on chip controller, but it also provides hyper threading and large memory caches.

So, there is much more to a chip design that just "how many nanometers" a design is. AMD doesn't have the ability to fund its R&D anymore. They have no cash. They had their chance and they blew it. AMD *could* survive, but it won't surpass Intel in technological superiority again until it finds a way to eliminate its cash problem. Without this fix, AMD is not going to be a very successful company for many years to come.
More...

"AMD had a massive technological advantage over Intel. If they had the cash and the ability to aggressively market their chips, they would have been able to send Intel falling. But they didn't."

what ever happened to the old business theorem build a better mouse trap and people will beat a path to your door. AMD is not exactly an unknown.
could someone add to this story?

thx.
 
Quote from zdreg:

"AMD had a massive technological advantage over Intel. If they had the cash and the ability to aggressively market their chips, they would have been able to send Intel falling. But they didn't."

what ever happened to the old business theorem build a better mouse trap and people will beat a path to your door. AMD is not exactly an unknown.
could someone add to this story?

thx.
More...

There were a number of reasons. First of all, as another poster pointed out, Intel did do some predatory practices. They did threaten their suppliers to not sell AMD components. They also slashed the prices on their chips to below cost because they knew AMD wouldn't be able to compete at those price levels due to the continous cash problems AMD has had throughout its life.

Secondly, Intel was great at marketing. Intel would market how *fast* their processors were. How many of you went to the store and looked at Intel's cpu clock speeds at "4Mhz" vs. AMD's "2Mhz" and thought...well the Intel chip must be faster? The truth is that for the layperson who doesn't understand digital design, they would have jumped all over the faster chips. The fact of the matter is that this was a complete scam by Intel. Those who know how digital systems work knew that because AMD had much shorter pipelines in their design, their chips didn't need to smoke the house to achieve the same performance. But Intel drove this "CPU speed" down people's throats while AMD tried to educate the public on why clock speeds didn't matter. Kind of hard to do when 99% of all people have never taken a digital systems class in their life and I wouldn't expect them to understand it without the background.

But let's not fully blame Intel here. AMD was its own worst enemy. Why couldn't they get massive investment when they clearly were ahead of Intel? Where was their management in fixing their cash flow problems.

Secondly, AMD has been synonomous with poor quality. Their quality control has been horrible and they've always had problem with defects. Where was management and their process control in trying to weed out these problems?

so, in essence, Intel and AMD both effectively and equally were responsible for AMD not being able to overtake Intel while all along, the poor AMD engineers designed a superior piece of technology.
 
You would say AMD is a takeover candidate at these levels.

However, will their x86 license with INTC still be valid after a takeover?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top