AMD seems to have lost its way

[Capmaster]

This is a copy of a topic I posted on my own forum

Closing the Gap With Intel or Drawing Attention To It?

Four cores and a little less than a month ago, Intel brought quad-core processing power to the desktop PC with the release of the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 processor, which combines two dual-core Core 2 Duo dies in a single CPU package. This fast-tracked product release only heightened the pressure on AMD, which had yet to ship its own four-core solution -- or rather, either of its two solutions.

The latter is AMD's native four-core processor design, which the company promises will have none of the compromises involved in the QX6700's squeeze-two-chips-into-one-socket approach, but which won't be available until well into 2007. By contrast, AMD's first quad-core platform simply makes different compromises than Intel's: It squeezes two chips onto one motherboard. It shipped last week under the name Quad FX.

Formerly referred to as both 4x4 and Quadfather, Quad FX isn't a conventional multicore processor so much as a multi-multicore approach. It does supply the four CPU cores in one system needed to meet the basic quad-core definition, but takes us back in time to the early days of desktop symmetric multiprocessing (SMP), when -- at great cost and with little performance benefit -- two single-core CPUs were slapped onto the same motherboard.

Unfortunately for AMD, the Quad FX goes a long way in the opposite direction, offering up the most power-hungry desktop systems ever. Real system power usage is roughly double that of the Core 2 Extreme QX6700, and triple that of the fastest Core 2 Duo. To give a better idea of how power-hungry the Quad FX is, AMD outfitted its test rigs with 1,000-watt power supplies. No, that is not a typo.

Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight

Let's be upfront about this -- everyone assumed that Quad FX would outperform the equivalent quad-core release from Intel, in this case the Core 2 Extreme QX6700. After all, why release it otherwise?

What people forget is that the Quad FX platform was intended to remedy AMD's dual-core processors' slower performance than Intel's -- to compete against the Core 2 Duo, rather than the multitasking monster that is the Core 2 Extreme. Pushed into the benchmark arena, Quad FX falters in the majority of tests. Even the fastest Quad FX system, powered by dual 3.0GHz Athlon 64 FX-74 processors, finds itself between a rock and a hard place, being annihilated by the 2.93GHz dual-core Core 2 Extreme X6800 in single-threaded gaming tests and multitasked to death by the 2.66GHz quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX6700.

http://hardware.earthweb.com/chips/article.php/3648156

These new releases aren't gonna cut it for AMD

Has Intel left AMD in their dust for good? I hope not. Competition is the best thing for us. With one company pulling away, and then resting on its achievements, we all suffer. We need the companies to remain hungry and competitive.

Here's hoping AMD gets a sudden attack of mental health and realizes they're losing the ballgame in the bottom of the 9th, and they'd better do something quick Else they'll be kicked to the curb by Intel like they were in the '90s :P

[oldandinthe way]

Here is a perspective of age.

In the dark and distant past - the 1970s, AMD was a manufacturing powerhouse. They were the "second-source" for many key silicon components. In those days a product which was "sole-source" - only made by one vendor, would not be included in the designs. Generally they used the original chipmakers designs and produced the chips extreemely cost effectively and reliably.

When they produced their own design for chips they often disappointed introducing compatibility problems which were difficult and expensive to remedy. One such chip was their replacement for the Intel DMA chip in 8088 based PCs.

The success and quality of AMD's CPU designs in the 1990's was surprising to many old-timers who had little respect for AMD's design talent.

While AMD engaged Intel in a processor speed race, they allowed their manufacturing expertise to deteriorate. This may partially be due to inadequate capital to support both development and manufacturing upgrades.

Intel recognized that the speed race would eventually lead to a price war. While developing their multiple core products they continued to refine their manufacturing capabilities. Intel improved manufacturing yields and increased their wafer sizes, providing themselves with a significant cost advantage over AMD.

AMD is now once again in the position where they must outperform Intel to continue their growth and that is a tough path. As Capmaster indicated they don't appear to be succeeding at it.

They appear to have recognized the difficulty and have attempted to expand their support chips (in part by acquisition) and, of course, triggered a price war they cannot win.

DISCLOSURE - I am an Intel shareholder.

[Capmaster]

Thanks oldandinthe way

I, too, am an old timer and remember the cutthroat competition during the 486-era as a result of Intel not being able to patent the name "486". Recall three major players - Intel, AMD and Cyrix. All three were competing for the 486 CPU market, and the designs advanced at a head-spinning rate, with the progression from the DX to the SX, and then the DX2. I seem to recall the clock speeds topping out at 133 MHz - something they had said earlier would never happen.

Competition - what a great thing it is!

I wasn't aware of AMD's role in chipset devices in the pre-mesozoic days of the 8088. It does explain a few things. I'm intimately familiar with the "sole source" restrictions and can easily see how a company would get a boost because of it. Thanks for the insight

[Soopafresh]

I've been quite the AMD proponent for the past 3 years, but the E6xxx series from Intel is just a powerhouse. Too bad you really can't use DDR1 RAM with them, although I've heared some mobos have been customized to work with DDR and the E6300