Former Head of AMD Sheds Light on Fight with Intel in New Book

25

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

shawn Harris

Irregardless whether or not AMD survives. There is a future that every PC builder has to consider. Are we going to be better off with no choice but Intel as the only source of PC parts?. Also will Intel still decide that they have to be innovative or just slowly come to stop?.As i see it, the more choices that we have, whether they be from Intel, AMD, or some other PC part maker, the better. Just look at the high level of performance that is the latest PC today, that came about because of the choices that could be made and that has driven PC parts suppliers to be creative and innovative. Also it's just smoke and mirrors as to who is better, just consider what choices you can make as to what pc you will build and use for the next long while. After all you and you alone determine what kind of PC future there will be.

avatar

limitbreaker

i just pre ordered this book on amazon, i hope it's a good read.
Thank you Paul.

avatar

TrollBot5000

I haven't been on maxpc in some time but I thought I'd stop by see how things are going. Yeah it seems that AMD falls under the underdog catergory which appeals to a great deal of people and I understand that but when it comes down to which company to build around it just boils down to the fact that Intel just makes better chips. I don't want a machine that I know is drawing more power and running hotter just because I want to support the underdog. Yes there is a bang of buck aspect but who would want a chip that draws say 95w or more and based on 35/45nm technology vs a current Intel chip that runs at 77w and 22nm soon to be 10nm for 4th gen i chips. Just seems like AMD is always playing catchup. I will buy this book when it comes out as should everyone who wants to know the whole story. Yes I'm sure there are going to be plenty of things in it obviously from the title that paint Intel in a bad light and although I may agree and don't condone Intel's dirty dealings it still isn't going stop me from choosing the company that produces the best chips. That title belongs to Intel which I feel is difficult to argue these days. How could anyone argue that AMD is making superior chips to Intel at the present time. Not what they've done in the past or possibly in the future but right now. You couldn't pay me to build around AMD today.

avatar

QUINTIX256

Nevermind this debate has been had on every "AMD struggles against Intel" article, and has little to do with the Intel marketing shenanigans actually relevant to the article at hand...

The way people discuss electricity and heat when complaining about AMD's desktop parts is as if it cost $20/kWh. Well guess what? Outside of our custom-built-desktop niche, in areas where perf/watt really matters, namely in laptops and datacenters, AMD is doing just fine. Also, let's not forget that AMD is far more conservative than Intel when it comes to estimating _peak_ thermal displacement.

What matters most to the very, very few of us who actually install our own motherboards and cpus* is perf/dollar, not perf/watt. If you want price-is-no-object performance, get a workstation class motherboard with multiple sockets and put Opterons or Xenons in them.

*John Fruehe, while still working at AMD, once posted that less than 1 in 20 costumers update their ram.

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

Hi. I don't post here, except when my employer, Intel, tells me there's an article in the media that requires a little sabotaging. So I'm here (quite by accident, mind you) to say that AMD chips will give you Squirrel AIDS. Do not buy any device sporting an AMD chip or video solution, unless you want to die a agonizing death from Squirrel AIDS. Buy Intel chips, instead, to live a long, healthy life and save the polar bears, too.

avatar

Chronologist

This is the problem with AMD fans. For the best possible performance, there is no denying it is Intel and Intel only. And don't start on that the whole "but no one needs that much power", or "my AMD rig can still play games decently" etc etc. It's like telling Michael Schumacher Ferraris are a bad idea because Beamers are "good enough". The statement "It's good enough" itself should NEVER be anywhere in a company's philosophy.

And don't get me wrong. If AMD comes out tomorrow with a new lineup of CPU's capable of going toe-to-toe with Intel processors, I would have absolutely ZERO reservations in buying AMD. But as Trollbot5000 has clearly said, Intel chips are the superior processors

avatar

limitbreaker

What matters is what's best for the budget and as it stands as fact right now, for midrange you're better off with AMD's Top of the line. When it comes to raw power the 8350 flat out beats the i5 and personally I'm not ready to sacrifice performance to get 2% more fps in games. Yes that's right... Games aren't the only thing a PC can do. It doesn't stop there either, the motherboard prices heavily favor AMD also. At the end it all depends on budget and unless im ready to step up to lga 2011, AMD just has too much appeal for mid/low range. I like AMD but don't mistake your selfs into thinking that anyone who buys AMD is doing it because they are biased in any way. I never recommended the 8150 but I have recommended the phenom II and I would easily recommend the 8350 because they are just that good for the price. And please don't reply by stating that you save 2$ a year on electricity because its not a valid argument for a desktop PC.

avatar

TrollBot5000

not all of us are budget minded though. Granted I'm not rich by any means but I do know enough about cpus to know that Intel is the way to go if you want the best overall performance regardless if you have to spend 50-100 more bucks than you would on an AMD chip. That price difference doesn't matter to me at all but I understand it does to a good deal of people. Yes the 8350 is by no means a bad chip in fact in this youtube vid I'm about to link it comes out on top for the most part but the point is is that it takes AMD's top of the line 8 core chip to pull ahead of what Intel is doing with 4. Again I'll reiterate that speaks volumes about Intel's superiority over AMD. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE Logan's benchmarks sum it all up. the 3570k and 3770k still won out on Crysis 2 vs the 8350 but for the other things the 8350 pulled ahead but again thats my point. AMD always has to throw their absolute best to compete with Intel. When I make these comparisons I look at it from the perspective of lets see how AMD's current quad core goes toe to toe with Intel's quad core and etc etc with 6 or 8 cores. Another pattern I notice is that yes AMD does temporarily come out on top with their best chip but they always get knocked off of that pedestal with Intel's next release thus repeating the same cycle of AMD playing catchup once again. Intel for life mothafucka!! J/k. Logan said what I said. Don't be a fanboi get the best. but in this case like I said the 8350 won't be the best for very long.

avatar

limitbreaker

I never said that AMD is better than Intel, I have no doubt that Intel has better tech and because of how slowly AMD is improving, Intel has yet to release a lga2011 with 8 core other than the xenon which is very expensive and has a locked multiplier. They could easily make an ivy bridge CPU with 8 core but they don't. I don't care if AMD is using 8 cores to achieve what Intel does with 4 cores and hyper threading. What I care about is the performance/cost.

avatar

TrollBot5000

yeah and you're definitely not alone. I get it totally. "because of how slowly AMD is improving" is exactly right. going back to the subject of this article about this book I'm sure Intel is partially to blame for that but I guess we'll have to wait and see what this tell all book says. Yeah like I said I don't hate AMD and the 8350 is a very promising chip so I'm not knocking it at all. When the day comes to where AMD is really truly neck and neck with intel again clock for clock core for core, nanometer for nanometer, wattage for wattage consistently then I would consider going back to AMD but that just isn't the case at the moment.

avatar

TrollBot5000

let me see if I can grasp what you're getting at. Ok so what I'm thinking is that you're implying that I work for intel and only popped up to praise intel and bash amd? If that's the case and I'm leaving some margin for error on my part but if that is in fact what you're implying then you should re-read what I wrote. I get your sarcasm douche but you failed miserabaly. I'm just another power user like the rest of the maxpc readers. No money from intel in my pocket although that wouldn't be such a bad thing since I could use the dough. AMD chips just flat out don't perform as well. Look at the benchmarks. It takes AMD six cores to even compete with what Intel can do with four. higher power draws, older gen nanometers, etc. I'm not an Intel or AMD fanboi I just use what's best and that sure as shit isn't AMD right now. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

avatar

mbreslin

We should not forget that it was AMD that got Intel off it's Pentium IV butt and into both 64-bit and dual-core CPUs. Intel would have probably sat on its butt for much longer with regard to both technologies. AMD brought out 64-bit CPUs well before Intel did, and also real multi-core CPUs years before Intel. And their competition brought down CPU prices. While I haven't used AMD processors in about five years, I am thankful for what they've done.

avatar

dgrmouse

It seems peculiar to me that you're attributing Intel's success to AMD, and AMD's success to AMD. I guess it will be no surprise when you later ascribe AMD's failures to Intel's actions.

I'm so tired of hearing how AMD is saving the world from tyranny by virtue of competition. Competition did not keep hard drive prices from becoming artificially inflated, nor GPU prices, nor gas prices, etc.

avatar

Formedras

Well... a good chunk of AMD's failures ARE a result of Intel's actions. Not all, of course. But AMD's failure to gain a real foothold in the OEM market is directly due to Intel's anti-competitive bullshit, and that in and of itself spawned a lot of bad decisions at AMD.

avatar

AFDozerman

He never attributed Intel's success to AMD, but simply gave credit where credit is due. AMD has kept the flames to Intel's ass and kept them honest. Intel would have had no motivation to even try without AMD.

avatar

Peanut Fox

It's a bit insulting to imply that Intel engineers would have just sat around in lawn chairs all day had AMD not been in the picture. It's also silly to give AMD credit for something they didn't do. They didn't design Intel silicon. Both companies certainly leaned on each other, and it's clear that both entities effected the pricing of their competitors products, but I feel like AMD is put on a pedestal for just existing and nothing more.

So now that Intel has held a steady lead on AMD for quite some time, does ARM gain accolades not for design, but just being in the market?

avatar

AFDozerman

They have already proven that they are affected strongly by AMD's actions. When reviewers started bashing the original bulldozer, the first thing that happened was intel prices on SB shot up. This pattern is repeated throughout their histories both ways.

avatar

Chronologist

THINK about this in an economic standpoint.

What did you want Intel to do? Slash prices of their CPU's and undercut AMD even more?

Intel was helping AMD stay afloat by raising prices. Intel would much rather move fewer chips, than risk anti-monopoly ligation that could potentially cost them millions of dollars, if not a few billion.

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

Intel extorts vendors to prevent them using AMD hardware. That pretty much sums up how AMD fell behind.

Now go back to your cubicle and kick a kitten through a fan or something.

avatar

Peanut Fox

So AMD didn't keep Intel honest or provide any competition then. Cool. You've proven my point.

My issue is give AMD credit for their chip design, and for at times offering a better product. Saying they're only there to compete with Intel shorts both companies.

avatar

TrollBot5000

+1

avatar

AFDozerman

He never attributed Intel's success to AMD, but simply gave credit where credit is due. AMD has kept the flames to Intel's ass and kept them honest. Intel would have had no motivation to even try without AMD.

avatar

Chronologist

That really isn't true. What do you call a 80+ percent market share? What do you call their tick-tock cycle supported by their fabs worldwide that cost billions of dollars each, and need to be upgraded every 2 years? What do you call the Ultrabook initiative? What do you call their plans for a TV-cable service?

Intel doesn't do anything because of AMD. AMD exists only for legal purposes in Intel's eyes. Without AMD, there would be anti-monopoly issues that Intel doesn't want. Without those laws hanging over Intel's head, there would be no AMD.

Additionally, Intel does a great job reinvesting the money into the company to fund their innovations. Why do you think their current stock price is only $21 at the time of writing? They don't give the money they earned through a 80 percent market share to shareholders; they use the money to keep the ball rolling at a blazing pace. I don't see any kind of slacking at all coming from Intel; the aforementioned tick-tock cycle falls right on with Moore's Law.

avatar

TrollBot5000

+1

avatar

firefox91

Sounds like a real exciting read. This book is going to sell like 12 copies.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.