Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Nov 2012 22:24 UTC
AMD "Advanced Micro Devices has hired JPMorgan Chase & Co to explore options, which could include a potential sale, as the chipmaker struggles to find a role in an industry increasingly focused on mobile and away from traditional PCs, according to three sources familiar with the situation." Woah. Bad news for competition in the x86 space.
Thread beginning with comment 542492
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Could somebode explain me
by dsmogor on Wed 14th Nov 2012 11:24 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

how come could AMD exist and be successful in pre-Athlon times when it only produced chips that performed worse than Intel's but were price competitive and now after it has developed (relatively) much better stuff in CPU, innovated interconnects, has leading GPU tech it struggles.
In addition while PC market is on the verge of slide down it's still much larger than it was then.

Edited 2012-11-14 11:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Could somebode explain me
by silix on Wed 14th Nov 2012 14:41 in reply to "Could somebode explain me"
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

how come could AMD exist and be successful in pre-Athlon times when it only produced chips that performed worse than Intel's but were price competitive and now after it has developed (relatively) much better stuff in CPU, innovated interconnects, has leading GPU tech it struggles.
In addition while PC market is on the verge of slide down it's still much larger than it was then.

both Phenom's and Bulldozer's have higher TDP but lower IPC and real world performance (especially the second, with its statically partioned multithread architecture - static partioning is generally a bad idea btw) than Core's, this makes current FX's chips that few people would want to buy...
AMD really should have fixed their architecture's weaknesses asap, and churned out new models like there's no tomorrow (since their competitor hasnt rested on its laurels either) - instead it seems they've even taken some sort of development pause, like a sabbatical...

plus, they had a much better management back then...
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/10/15/amd-is-imploding-because-managem...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Could somebode explain me
by r_a_trip on Wed 14th Nov 2012 15:31 in reply to "Could somebode explain me"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

It could be a perception problem. AMD makes good silicon, but in comment threads on the net you find a lot of vitriol against AMD. If you read some threads, you'd believe Intel made something near sentient with the Core architecture and AMD went back to 486 with Bulldozer.

AMD makes good performers with very reasonable pricing, but since they don't take the performance crown (Intel does with a much higher price tag), you have a lot of people proclaiming that AMD sucks and they are getting an Intel part.

I wonder though if they really go for the part that squarely beats AMD in performance and pay the premium for it, or they go for a cheaper part that could have been equally filled performance wise by an Intel or and AMD and then bask in the idea that they got a chip from the company that makes the fastest chips (just not the particular chip they actually bought).

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Could somebode explain me
by Chrispynutt on Wed 14th Nov 2012 16:23 in reply to "Could somebode explain me"
Chrispynutt Member since:
2012-03-14

1) Because when AMD sold the K6 and K6-2 a PC that would work at all was relatively more expensive than it is now and saving a £100+ was a big deal. Saving £20-30 at the low-end isn't now.
2) The margins are so tight that the small companies making mainstream PCs have left. The big guys tend to favor Intel for everything. Only when the Athlon 64 was leagues ahead did AMD become a must have.
3) AMD keeps investing and hoping they will have an architecture to at least draw level with this years Intel release. By failing to do so their CPUs that would be premium products and earn them profits/pay bills have to be sold at knockdown prices to keep their hand in the game and survive another year.

The same in true in video cards market, if you don't have the full range or halo products no one notices you at all. Nvidia and AMD are very close and competitive. Everybody else S3, Matrox, etc have died a death.

It's only because AMD is willing to make no money to prolong death that they are still in the game at all.

It is a shame as I would love to give them a crack.

Edited 2012-11-14 16:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

As far as AMD goes, I still think their biggest mistake was not building their own chip sets. Most chip sets were full of bugs. I remember I bought one of the first thunderbird motherboards with a Via chip set. It had known (after several months) problems with geforce 2, sound blaster live, was unstable as hell.

As time went on, all of my AMD systems died at some point and I threw them away. I have only had 1 or 2 Intel systems ever actually die on me. Usually I get rid of them due to uselessness. None of this is recent, but consumers have a long memory. Now it basically comes down to Intel always having the top performing hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Could somebode explain me
by zima on Thu 15th Nov 2012 06:42 in reply to "RE: Could somebode explain me"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The same in true in video cards market, if you don't have the full range or halo products no one notices you at all. Nvidia and AMD are very close and competitive. Everybody else S3, Matrox, etc have died a death.

Technically those two aren't dead (yet?) - Matrox making some niche products ( www.matrox.com is there to check), S3 as a GFX component of Via chipsets.

Reply Parent Score: 2