Why can't AMD compete with Intel?

[ZaO]

This has been bugging me for a while now. I see plenty of people and articles saying that AMD can't keep up with Intel. But I don't really see much info on why this is. They seem to do just fine with their graphics cards. Are they actually not capable of making better desktop Cpu's, or is there some other reason why they can't/don't? I just don't get it. I feel like if Amd just released some good desktop chips that would compete price and performance wise with Intel, and didn't produce loads of heat, they would be able to climb back up the ranks again. What's the problem, Amd

[watercooled]

Well a couple of reasons to start with - Intel are over ten times the size of AMD, and whereas Intel are mostly CPU-focussed, AMD has to further split its resources between CPU and GPU to compete with the similarly-sized Nvidia.

Then, of course, are the monopolistic tactics used by Intel to bully others out of the market, like offering 'incentives' to manufacturers who shunned AMD products. This was obvious back in the Athlon days, when AMD had the clearly superior product, but Intel still held on to a massive majority of the market share. Intel were fined for this, but arguably the settlement didn't even come remotely close to covering the long-term damage done to competition.

And it wasn't just AMD they've treated like that; Nvidia were also pushed out of the chipset market for example, which was previously a big market for them, and were refused an x86 license.

Of course there are a load more reasons, but you can start to see why things are the way they are...

[JackBeePee]

And it's a shame it is that way. I've actually never used an AMD CPU, but if there were any that suited my needs I definitely would (I use their graphics cards, and hey, they're great!) I feel like there really isn't enough competition with CPUs and I don't know what would happen if AMD stopped making them/went bust.

[mynameissi]

In the new consoles (PS4/Xbox One) don't they both have AMD processors?
That was a huge boost.
Intel overall have better quality processors, but amd are cheaper and run cooler
Wouldn't ever get an AMD processor though

[CookieM]

In the new consoles (PS4/Xbox One) don't they both have AMD processors?
That was a huge boost.
Intel overall have better quality processors, but amd are cheaper and run cooler
Wouldn't ever get an AMD processor though

Why wouldn't you get an AMD CPU?

Generally the AMD CPU at the same cost as an Intel will out perform it, until you hit AMD's flagship and Intel just carries on going (with cost and performance)

[DanceswithUnix]

I think the tactics that Watercooled talked about have left AMD in a corner.

Look at the Intel die size, their CPUs are massive, even on a smaller process. So AMD need to either make massive CPUs in which case they can no longer win on price, or somehow leapfrog Intel in manufacturing technology which isn't going to happen any time soon.

So I think that they can't compete with Intel on being Intel with the fastest x86. Not for now. They can compete with cost, efficiency & graphics performance. That should make them pretty good in laptops, yet all I seem to see are bottom of the range machines with what I would class as tablet CPUs in them. That does make me wonder if the dirty tactics are still in place.

Edit to add: Quad core with graphics, 1.3GHz, 4 (yes four) dollars. http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/35361-$4-allwinner-chips-power-$60-tablets
In general processors are a commodity, Intel is in a very odd position and I don't see how it can last. I think AMD are playing it right in not competing for that single thread top end. When I bought my 8350 the difference seemed to be about 20% between that and an i7 in anything I cared about which given the lower cost was fine by me.

[shaithis]

While all the above certainly does not help, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot at the moment with their lack of a proper CPU. Take the FM2 chip and remove the GPU and replace all that silicon with either larger or more cores. It would go a long way to resolving some of the disparity.

[krazy_olie]

CPU wise they've been rather trumped since 2006 when core2 came out.
Combination of reasons why, bad management, size of intel...

[jimbouk]

I feel like if Amd just released some good desktop chips that would compete price and performance wise with Intel, and didn't produce loads of heat, they would be able to climb back up the ranks again.

? They do. Not at the top end, but middle to low end they've very competitive. Factor in the generally lower motherboard costs explains why I've gone AMD for the last couple of builds.

Intel can keep their £200+ CPU for all I care, people don't need them in the real world.

[kalniel]

While all the above certainly does not help, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot at the moment with their lack of a proper CPU. Take the FM2 chip and remove the GPU and replace all that silicon with either larger or more cores. It would go a long way to resolving some of the disparity.

The Opterons are proper CPUs, and they're beaten by Intel's equivalents too.

[DanceswithUnix]

While all the above certainly does not help, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot at the moment with their lack of a proper CPU. Take the FM2 chip and remove the GPU and replace all that silicon with either larger or more cores. It would go a long way to resolving some of the disparity.

2 more cores and some L3 cache, the equivalent of an FX6350. I think they could do that in a 100W power budget easily enough.

Given the socket format I think they should leave minimal graphics support in there so that servers don't need plug in graphics card.

[DanceswithUnix]

The Opterons are proper CPUs, and they're beaten by Intel's equivalents too.

But if you are talking top end Xeon, then I would rather have a Power 8 chip.

[Dooms]

As was pointed out in my mATX thread... AMD WHERE ARE OUR mATX BOARDS?!?!?!?!

Smaller form gaming PC's have taken off big but there is just no options if you want to use a high end AMD chip

[ZaO]

Ah some great points made here. It's those dirty games I've heard of Intel and Nvidia playing that makes me want to go with Amd more. I think I prefer Amd as a company. I hadn't properly considered how much that would be affecting them now.. But I really hope they don't drop out of the competition here. It would be really sad, even for people that prefer to buy Intel chips. Because the Intel Cpu's will probably raise in price even more, once they lose competition!

I remember Amd being better in the single core days. But it just seemed to go slowly downhill once we got into the dual cores.

And yeh - I should've been a bit more clear with my opening post. As what I mainly meant was high performance Cpu's. Ones that gamers will want to run.

But still, like someone else mentioned, I just don't get why they can't release a really decent desktop Cpu right now. Even if they just made one model. Something for the enthusiasts. And something that runs on a socket that has an upgrade path (Am3 is probably not a good choice). I did see that they recently released an overclocked version of one of the FX chips. But that thing uses a lot of power compared to the Intel equivalent. I'm sure it's not as easy as just simply saying "ok, let's make it!". But I just think it'd save them if they could get something together. But I'm sure their business guys have this all figured out! I hope they stick around and give Intel something to really worry about in the next year. They can't let this sit too long...

[TooNice]

That should make them pretty good in laptops, yet all I seem to see are bottom of the range machines with what I would class as tablet CPUs in them.

I am not sure if this is still the case in 2014, but when I bought my current laptop, there was one thing that swayed me to the green team: Optimus. AMD simply didn't have a solution as elegant at the time. Now I know this is about AMD vs Intel, not AMD vs nVidia, but unless AMD is willing to let a manufacturer with their CPU while using nVidia's GPU/Optimus.. assuming that is feasible, then I may have to stick with Intel laptops.

[kalniel]

I'm sure it's not as easy as just simply saying "ok, let's make it!". But I just think it'd save them if they could get something together.

It wouldn't at all, unfortunately - us enthusiasts are basically just fan service, we're a drop in the ocean compared to the markets which actually sell in any volume. Intel can afford to throw us a bone because they got the spare profit, but AMD have to try and compete in the markets that will make them lose less money, first and foremost, hence servers (margin) and low power chips (volume).