amd near death?

[g.l.amour]

"Intel Announces A New Semi-Stepping for PIVs but look closer, and you can see preparations for a possible "There can only be one" price war, which to AMD would be a deathmatch."

deep linking is impossible on www.overclockers.com but u can find that story as +/- their first newsitem. seems like a very plausible scenario, judging the common info he is deducting it from.

not to be overly amd fagboy, but i would hate to c it happen like that. but if i think rationally about it, amd is in a pretty harsh situation right now. the pr rating has almost a 800+ difference between the soon to come top intel 3GHz cpu. if u look at top overclocks at www.vr-zone.com the fastest clocked amd is at +/- 2700MHz (i know, incredible) and the fastest clocked intel is at 4000MHz(or more, not even sure, but definetely 4000MHz).
amd needs a 3000+ fast, and that is barely enough to bridge the now existing gap. they can't even get the 2400/2600+ out at the moment.

what are your thoughts about this topic. try to not judge on your maybe optimistic feelings about amd, but try to go for the facts as they are right now.

[bigben2k]

AMD's got a long future.

They do need to make some design changes, specifically in addressing this heat issue. Intel has a big edge with this right now. No, I don't mean that Intels run cooler, I mean that Intels can handle the heat: AMDs can't survive without a heatsink, making them a poor choice for critical applications.

AMD did land a contract with HP, and that will secure them for many, many years to come.

What's going to be interesting is that AMDs 64 bit solution will be backward compatible to 32 bits, where the Intels won't be. That means that lots of people will be prefering AMD, as they make a transition to 64 bit apps, which for some reason, always takes many, many years (been there, done that).

AMD will have a problem, sort of, if they can't keep up with Intel's processor speeds. AMD would fall behind, as a lower speed CPU manufacturer, but isn't it where it's at right now? They seem to be doing OK to me...

[jtroutma]

Honestly, I dont want AMD to have to "play dirty" just to remain competative to Intel. I hate the fact that Intel (in my own words) "skewed" the processor speeds in their favor.

If we, the enthusiasts/powerusers, can get the word out to the general public that you dont need a 4Ghz intel becuase a 2.6ghz AMD is just as fast, the world would be a much better place. Then AMD can survive without having to be (in my own words again) "deceptive" to the general public in order to get/stay ahead of the competition.

ALL OF THIS IS MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION!!!

:)

[HelpImNewbish]

The PR rating system was an attempt to do that. To get less informed users to realize that they perform the same or better at lower clock speeds, AMD figured it would be better to put up a smoke screen.

An AMD 2600 performs on par with a p4 2600, does it not?

AMD also figured that enthusiasts would know the real clock speeds, but since we are also smart enough to know that they perform just as good at lower speeds, that we wouldn't care, and we don't.

The problem is when you talk to Joe Blows at computer stores, they'll say stupid things like an "AMD 1600". I can never tell what they really mean.

[g.l.amour]

well, u guys are right about all that. buuut amd is losing money big time. and if intel makes their low end processors dirt cheap (i mean cheap northwoods) then they will put the hurt on amd big time. then they would have all the flags taken, heat issues, customer trust, the very low end with celies, and the middle ground with dirt cheap northwoods to take all the xp'z, and the top end where they seem to have no competition from amd. if they can make amd lose a couple hundred million dollars for the next few quarters, amd could have an immensily bad time until they can release the bartons and the hammers.

ben is right about the hp deal, that might mean some sort of saviour, we will know that very fast, when the quarterly results pop up. but i feel that if intel play it "right", the supposed pricewar could finish amd off, on a couple of quarter's time. ok there are other examples of not too well performing cpu's. but via has alot more happening than just c3 processors. motorola, same story. alpha and ibm are in another league alltogether.

anyway, i sincerely hope that amd can start playing it a little more offensive soon. where is the time where amd beat intel to the 1 GHz race...

[jtroutma]

I just finished reading that article over at OCers.com and the author did bring up a really good point: IF Intel decides to "make their move" on AMD, the antitrust people will take notice. THAT in and of itself could spell BIG trouble for Intel. Granted, that has not stoped Gates from owning the world however Intel is not necessarily Microsoft and Intel is NOT the only main choice out there.




Shesh, this makes me ashamed that I ever considered myself an Intel fan boy :rolleyes:

[bigben2k]

Maybe a bit of history might help here...

IBM, back when they were designing the IBM PC, were trying to find a manufacturer/supplier for a processor. They approached Intel, and got presented with the 8088: IBM turned it dow.

According to IBM policy, they are not allowed to purchase a product that comes from a single manufacturer, because it leaves the door wide open for price gouging, as IBM would become dependant on that part.

So Intel licensed the technology out, and a handful of companies came out with their own functional processors (isn't free enterprise great?). IBM bought in.

Today, out of all the people that were licensed, only one still exists: AMD.

Of course Intel doesn't have to license its technology anymore, because IBM isn't the only PC manufacturer. And that's why we've got the SSE2 issues, with the benchmarks.

AMD fought long and hard with Intel, just to be able to come out with their 486, but by the time the courts granted AMD the licensing right, it was too late. So AMD came out with their own processors.

In the ongoing licensing fight, Intel eventually no longer allowed AMD to use the same socket, and that's why we now have different mobos.

Microsoft however, likes AMD. They will support the whole line of AMD CPUs, no matter what AMD does with them.

Also, this year, AMD annouced a tech-for-mfg deal, where a chip plant in Japan will be producing AMD chips, and they'll get some technology in return. This is significant. AMD had a long history of supply problems, where if they were asked if they could deliver a huge quantities, to the likes of HP, their answer was: probably.

The thing is, "probably" doesn't cut it in the PC business. So AMD got itself a deal, and a huge production capacity.

Why didn't AMD just put up a new fab? Well, these things cost a huge amount of money, and to put it simply, although AMD could have done that, it would have been a serious financial strain. Intel on the other hand, owns many fab plants around the world.

The playing field is leveling off, bit by bit. AMD will get there, but it's going to be a long road, and Intel will fight them every step of the way.

[g.l.amour]

well one should of course not be ashamed for using one component over the other.
in the long run i think intel has played it as fair as can be. they have made some good money in the top end, and pretty much let amd have the lower segment of the market. problem is that at the prices they are currently selling their top of the line cpu's, amd is still not making any money off them. and with all the delays, help does not even seem to be under way. we can only hope that as the article suggests, a white knight comes around and pumps a couple of billions in amd, so they can increase their engineering and research skill. had amd had the same research budget as intel we would prolly allready be seeing clawhammers at 2000-2500MHz.

my personal reason for liking amd, is they have given overclockers a lot of fun by letting them tamper with multipliers. overclocking intel gets u incredible results but is sooo boring. but the price i have payed is a burnt cpu and motherboard recently. on intel's i have never had that. as ben points out, one could remove the heatsink off an intel (witnessed it alot at work already) and a normal user wouldn't even notice it. when u bench u would c half the usual score, thats it. i hope amd can keep making one of my hobbies that much fun. getting a new amd chip means weeks of fun, figuring the performance sweet spot. lets try that mult and that fsb, nono, lets go for another combi... means 2 x fun over intel.

[bigben2k]

Right on.

Intels may not be fun, but maybe that's because they're designed for the serious users, and that's where the money is.

If AMD would make their Athlon MPs as safe to use as Intels, they would give them a run for their money. Right now, Athlon MP are just for the hobbiest.

[g.l.amour]

indeed, frequent visits to these boards might make one forget that most ppl use their pc as a tool, instead of being bent over your case half the time using tools on the pc.

not saying that we are only soldering away on our pc's without doing anything else. but for a really serious user, any time lost maintaining their pc is a reason to search for a maintenance free solution.

to be honest, i wouldn't even bother with amd and aircooling, been there done that, experienced the headaches. and i can imagine a serious CAD designer not wanting to put up with a 6-7k rpm monstercooler to cool down their top of the line xp 2200+.

what would make em turn the tides?
-a foolproof shut down system in case of overtemp
-throttling for if temps get up too high
-a heatspreader maybe for evading the chipped cores frustration
-performance

of which i think performance is not even the most important one.

imagine this. u r selling 15k prebuilt pc, they have to be shipped from the manufacturing place about 400km away by roadtransport. a certain % can and will have fan failures, from the start, detached heatsinks and the likes. so u can understand why most of the ppl in similar situation are choosing intel over and over again.

[icel0rd]

Um, last I read, AMD had fixed the thermal meltdown issue on their CPUs after the Tom's Hardware video. Once the generally uninformed user population read the article and saw the video, they cringed and AMD knew they had to do something quickly.

There was a design issue due to lack of communication for whatever reason with mobo makers if memory serves me correct, and AMD had since made detailed design info available to resolve the thermal meltdown issue.

Am I wrong here? I'd swear the thermal meltdown issue was fixed going forward, but I'm not going to gamble my CPUs to test it. I just wanted to mention that because I know that the overheating issue was addressed.


Ice

[bigben2k]

The overheating issue is not resolved.

What AMD did was impose a design restriction on mobos, where the mobo must have some form of OCP, because AMD isn't ready to do it on its own. (btw, don't believe Tom had anything to do with it). So OCP will shut down your PC, if the CPU overheats. What happens to the data? gone.

Throttling is good/bad. It's one approach to the problem. There are others. The advantage is that the PC doesn't shut down. The disadvantages is that you may not know that there is a problem, and only end up cursing at your PC for running so slow! Also, it seems like the throttling may lower the maximum performance, by keeping the CPU up some 95% of the time (example).

What AMD would need to do is implement a serious standard in its MP line, so that AMD can start competing with Intel on the server level. The Athlon chip can beat a P4, especially for an app server. Then again, AMD may not be quite ready to take on Intel at that level.

[icel0rd]

Cool. Thanks for the clarification. I knew AMD did send out some sort of specification to mobo makers, but I wasn't sure exactly what it was.

Even though my AMD chips run hot, I still prefer them to Intel chips. The price to performance ratio rocks (at least for now). I do however agree that something should be done to prevent burnup. I think that throttling and alarming should be done together so that you get the best of both worlds.

Maybe the way to do it is throttle the CPU when it exceeds your specification and the system speaker should squeal when it happens so that you know your PC is running sub-optimally. If throttling doesn't cool it down to a safe temperature, the system should should down.

wait a sec... I guess I'm suggesting the use of motherboard monitor... lol


-Ice-

[bigben2k]

The problem is that MBM might not be able to respond fast enough, and besides, who wants a software solution? It takes from the CPUs processing power, plus it's kinda redundant to have the CPU monitor how hot the CPU is running... To top it off, it doesn't cover the boot sequence, nor multiple OS.

If someone could come up with a way to mod a mobo, to drop the FSB by half (or something very low, like 33, or even 10 MHZ), as part of an OCP, that might do it. Intel 486 used to run nicely at 25 or 33 base clock (3 to 4 multiplier), and cooling it was optional, although much preferred.

The sound alarm is useless: what if you're not there? We do need some kind of notice though, like the "engine light" on the dash.

Intel won't let you access the throttling status bit. They're afraid of what we'd find out about the P4...

[Can O' Beans]

Well since there are apps that can adjust FSB while in windows for most systems, you should be able to build an interface and hook that up to a thermistor/digital thermometer/thermal switch.

It would be better on the hardware level, so just need to find out what bus would allow this change to the bios the easiest.

For example, you could have a small PCI card that had a connection for a thermistor.

I don't know enough on that level of hardware interfacing, but it should be able to be done.

[bigben2k]

It's starting to sound like the boys and I are gonna have to get together... pHaestus? Brian? Are ya'll up to this?

[Brians256]

Actually, the problem is that the on-board diode does not respond quickly enough to prevent damage (even if you cut the power) if you remove the HSF. This is what I remember reading about the AMD proc.

Also, the AMC proc cannot reduce heat enough to run without a HSF even if it drops the FSB. There are issues with dropping the FSB and so forth that aren't simple. I think that there are refresh issues with on-chip registers such that the CPU requires a minimum operating frequency.

The temp monitoring circuit is simple, though.

[bigben2k]

Ok, so what could we do? Drop the multiplier?

[gmat]

just to answer to the initial topic. AMD does not live off CPUs. They are well known chip manufacturers and make a *big* living off flash RAMs, xPROMs and other microelectronics. They were a world leading flash ram manufacturer long before making x86 clones.
The CPU branch is quite like the 'formula 1' branch of auto industry. Costly, money hungry, unrewarding, and a fierce competition. But it helps them develop new technologies and get a hold on markets they wouldnt get by another way.
So dont underestimate the underdog :p

As far as performance goes, ppl look at their wallet first, compare the price of a P4+RDRAM and a XP+DDR and make their decision. Currently AMD CPUs are big winners. Winds may turn, who knows.