News - As PC market shrinks AMD likens Intel/Nvidia to beached whales

[wasabi]

The next gen console wins suggest otherwise to be honest. They are all delivery critical.

True - but the widespread reports of MS having to underclock the XBO to avoid another overheating fiasco like the 360...

Concentrating all the heat into one spot, especially if your tech is a bit behind the curve in power draw terms is cheap but second rate.

But yeah, the APU makes sense if you're building a device to meet a pricepoint. To me the tradeoffs simply aren't worth it in the world of PCs, but each to their own. At least it keeps Intel on their toes.

Before the usual dumb fanboy comments kick in - read my system specs at the side.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

But yeah, the APU makes sense if you're building a device to meet a pricepoint.

Which is the whole point. They are CPUs for a general purpose budget system.

I had the A6 3670K and the Core i3 2100:

http://forums.hexus.net/hexus-reader...ew-thread.html

That was a sub £70 A6 3670K against a £90 Core i3 2100. The same goes with the A8 5600K against the Core i3 3220,etc.

True - but the widespread reports of MS having to underclock the XBO to avoid another overheating fiasco like the 360...

Thats why the XBox One GPU has been recently increased in clockspeed,right??

Moreover,the PS4 does not seem to be having any issues despite having a similar CPU section and a much bigger GPU section. The CPU section is Jaguar based for BOTH consoles and as multiple reviews have indicated AMD has actually been conservative with the TDP,and the core is different to that for their AM3+ line.

However,there is probably one reason why the XBox One SOC might have more issues being fabbed when compared to the PS4.

The relatively large amount of ESRAM which takes up a huge amount of transistors(I think it is comprises over a billion transistors). This is not found in the PS4 or general PC parts.

Edit!!

The ESRAM takes up 1.6 to 2.1 billion transistors alone:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/x...laystation-4/3

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/05/22/m...with-xbox-one/

MS wanted that in the design,unlike Sony. That is the part which looks to be problematic as it needs decent yields and a high enough clockspeed.

However,in both cases,having a single chip makes the motherboard simpler and cheaper,and means only one cooling system is needed to cool the whole shebang. Also by combining the CPU and GPU and other parts into one chip it means easier communication between the two.

It also makes shrinking the chip potentially easier - the XBox 360 currently has the CPU and GPU combined instead of two separate chips which the original had:

http://www.techspot.com/news/40061-n...d-cpu-gpu.html

We have had coolers for 250W TDP and higher graphics card for years,so cooling is within the realms of what can be done reliably.

[crossy]

Of course AMD offers better prices, they add some games, but if we strip all that, they are left with nothing. Intel or nVidia products almost always outperform theirs.

Untrue - there are circumstances where an AMD cpu or GPU will outperform an Intel/NVidia equivalent. For example, I've seen real-world (i.e. not synthetic) benchmarks that are very highly threaded so my "naff" old Phenom II will beat an IB i7 - 6 cores beating the i7's four. I was a self-confessed NVidia loyalist (never bought an AMD graphics card), but the 7970 I've now got can hold it's head up when doing BF3, Bioshock Infinite, Far Cry 3, etc

People buy Mercedes or BMW not because they add stereo, but because they offer better quality and performance and they pay more for it because it's worth.

Marketing PR - check the quality/reliability surveys e.g. What Car 2013. Mercedes does make the top 10, but BMW doesn't. Looking at the vehicles list, you'll see that the best Mercedes is the B-class at #9 and the best BMW is the 5 series at #25. Skoda FTW!

I'll buy nvidia GPUs till either they or I seize to exist (which ever comes 1st). As for CPU I will buy AMD or Intel depending who will make CPU that will considerably beet my current 1075T without costing me an arm and a leg

Fanboy! Oh and my 1090T beats your 1075T...

Intel/Nvidia all the way and I'm all for extra eye candy like PhysX. Whose AMD?

Hmm, I think I'd rather have a cross-platform physics package.

But yeah, the APU makes sense if you're building a device to meet a pricepoint. To me the tradeoffs simply aren't worth it in the world of PCs, but each to their own. At least it keeps Intel on their toes.

Quite correct - that's why builders such as HP like them. Especially as you can deliver a system that's got reasonable cpu performance/watt and good graphics performance. Last PC I bought for a relative was an A10 powered Pavilion and it's got more than enough power to run DX10 games like NFS:HotPersuit, Saints Row 3, Just Cause 2

[george1979]

I'm reading quotes from Taylor and all I can imagine is a bitter/angry man, because his company can't beat the competition... Of course AMD offers better prices, they add some games, but if we strip all that, they are left with nothing. Intel or nVidia products almost always outperform theirs. In my opinion nvidia and intel don't need to give extra stuff just to attract clients. It should be all about the primary product not about what we can get extra.

So you don't believe in value for money , competition , choice.... AMD offer a cheaper option to people who don't have deep pockets, but offer a perfectly good performance to price ratio , whats that called....Wait... Oh yes, Value.

People buy Mercedes or BMW not because they add stereo, but because they offer better quality and performance and they pay more for it because it's worth.

And that's tosh woddle too. People who have the money to buy a BMW or Mercedes are buying a brand over anything else. 99% of ladies who buy one of these cars does not care (or probably know ) how powerful or reliable it is. Companies that use BMW's don't care about how fast they are, its all about branding with those two examples. Only a small percentage would buy for power or reliability.

Agreed - also Mercedes haven't been that reliable for years anyway

[Namor]

"Radeon HD 7990 "Malta" Prices Slashed to $699, Targets GTX 780"

well well well.

[wasabi]

BMWs and Mercs are a bad example.

More like buying a VW (Intel) vs a Dacia (AMD).

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

BMWs and Mercs are a bad example.

More like buying a VW (Intel) vs a Dacia (AMD).

Meh,I think only dorks really care about how good their CPU or GPU brand is. At least with cars there are some social aspiration aspects to branding still,although with more and more companies producing cheaper models,even more exclusive brands are loosing their social aspiration aspects somewhat.

In fact some brands like Skoda were considered low end crap for decades,but now are considered quite a good brand. Mercedes and BMW are not really that "high-end" or exclusive anymore with the loads of cheaper models they sell now,and they are not necessarily the best in all price ranges.

Then you only look at the Japanese companies whose products were considered low end econoboxes for decades in the west. Not any more.

TBH,the success of the iPad put paid to the idea the average person really cares whats inside their consumer device.

Trust me, go into any local club and shout "I've got dual Nehalem Xeons" and all of the girls will practically collapse on the spot at the thought of your e-penis.

[wasabi]

Meh,I think only dorks really care about how good their CPU or GPU brand is.

The success of the iPad put paid to the idea the average person really cares whats inside their consumer device.

Rather the point though. AMD bashing Intel being beached whales in the 'post-PC' era - seriously? Intel are making inroads into the phone market (Asus Fonepad, RAZR i). As are Nvidia (Tegra). But then there are all the AMD phones / tablets - oh, wait....

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Rather the point though. AMD bashing Intel being beached whales in the 'post-PC' era - seriously? Intel are making inroads into the phone market (Asus Fonepad, RAZR i). As are Nvidia (Tegra). But then there are all the AMD phones / tablets - oh, wait....

IBM targets different markets,does that make them a failure??Nope. Intel has bashed AMD in the past too and so has Nvidia.People forget this. Roy Taylor(the chap the quotes are from) worked for Nvidia marketing as its head and started the TWIMTBP programme,and with any marketeer of course they will make their products seem the best and the competitors not as good. Its kind of the point of them.

AMD is a small company, only slightly larger than Nvidia, and yet they target a far more diverse market. Intel is like 10 to 12 times larger and has significant debts of its own(billions of dollars) and considerable money tied into its fabs which are both a boon and a massive liability.

Look at Qualcomm. They have hardly any debt(under $70 million),over $30 billion in cash(more than Intel) and are making more and more profits each year. Its funny how the the tech news seems to give them little coverage,especially considering they are a significant threat to Intel. So is Apple with its massive piles of cash and Samsung too. Samsung can design and build every part of a phone or tablet. It even has its own fabs.

The thing is Intel needs decent profit margins to drive forwards its investment in fabs,and to keep a decent stock price. However,the problem is the ARM model means they are competing with everyone from Qualcomm to a little Chinese startup with 30 people and miniscule profit margins.

Nvidia has not done that well with Tegra and its their professional graphics card sales which comprise a major part of their profits(and probably their most stable area) So in the end they will focus on what they need to do well in,like AMD will. It seems Nvidia is looking to license some of its own GPU IP for the mobile market now. People are way too negative about AMD and its better they focus on what they can do better than trying to overextend themselves,and even if it means they need to accept smaller margins,and compete in fewer areas.

Moreover,if you look at the AMD roadmaps they have ARM based SOCs,except AMD has waited for the first 64 bit ARM core to be the basis of their offering. AFAIK,it will be the first 64 bit ARM SOC to be released(supposedly,but we will need to wait and see though).

[3dcandy]

For the majority of people I know who have PC's an AMD APU is plenty powerful enough for their current and future needs as most of them are NOT gamers. They can't really tell the difference in the tech, and I reckon an SSD or storage solution is more pertinent to help them see tangible speed difference for what they use their pc's for. Most of the time the most taxing graphical useage is silly Facebook games...really pushing the current tech - NOT!

[deividast]

I'm reading quotes from Taylor and all I can imagine is a bitter/angry man, because his company can't beat the competition... Of course AMD offers better prices, they add some games, but if we strip all that, they are left with nothing. Intel or nVidia products almost always outperform theirs. In my opinion nvidia and intel don't need to give extra stuff just to attract clients. It should be all about the primary product not about what we can get extra.

So you don't believe in value for money , competition , choice.... AMD offer a cheaper option to people who don't have deep pockets, but offer a perfectly good performance to price ratio , whats that called....Wait... Oh yes, Value.

I believe that everybody has a right to choose, but if you want pure performance the choise is quite clear (Intel+nVidia). If you want something that will do your day-to-day tasks like e-mail, FB, MS Office and so on with some solitaire or minesweeper on a side, you might want to choose AMD's APU it will do the job. And if you wan to get something good under budget you have to mix and match, make compromises.

People buy Mercedes or BMW not because they add stereo, but because they offer better quality and performance and they pay more for it because it's worth.

And that's tosh woddle too. People who have the money to buy a BMW or Mercedes are buying a brand over anything else. 99% of ladies who buy one of these cars does not care (or probably know ) how powerful or reliable it is. Companies that use BMW's don't care about how fast they are, its all about branding with those two examples. Only a small percentage would buy for power or reliability.[/QUOTE]

I have no money. I earn like 350 euros a month, yet I still buy brand items that I believe in. There some brands that have a great name, but I won't even look to their side because i'm dissapointed in them (samsung being one of the biggest). I have an iPod and it's been serving me for 8 years now, so yeah I bought brand that served me good and will continue to serve me in a future. Before I bought my Sony headphones I had to throw away many failed products that had names like Phillips, Logitech and more. I'll never buy another Razer product because 1st ever mouse I bought from them failed me in a 1st year. But nvidia never failed me. 1st ever GPU made by Daytona served me ~5 years even without cooling (fan didn't work) and it never stopped working. 1st Celeron CPU outlived 3 fans and MB (8 transistors blew). Everything I buy brand, I buy because I know it will serve me good thever it's my shoes, clothes or my PC components and if brand fails me, I abandon it.
And my friend for example bought some cheap brand speakers and in a 2 years he ruined 5 soundcards till he realised were the problem lies (he changes entire PC and only speakers were the same).

Of course AMD offers better prices, they add some games, but if we strip all that, they are left with nothing. Intel or nVidia products almost always outperform theirs.

Untrue - there are circumstances where an AMD cpu or GPU will outperform an Intel/NVidia equivalent. For example, I've seen real-world (i.e. not synthetic) benchmarks that are very highly threaded so my "naff" old Phenom II will beat an IB i7 - 6 cores beating the i7's four. I was a self-confessed NVidia loyalist (never bought an AMD graphics card), but the 7970 I've now got can hold it's head up when doing BF3, Bioshock Infinite, Far Cry 3, etc.

OMG!!! 7970 is such a bad example. It costs twice as much as GTX 760 (at least in my country) and is only about 7-10% faster. Ofc., it's a year difference between them, but even so it still considering the price difference the winner is clear. And if I'd buy 2 gtx760's I could get gtx780 performance at a price of 7970's and would still beat it (add better drivers to a mix and it's pretty smart buy).

I'll buy nvidia GPUs till either they or I seize to exist (which ever comes 1st). As for CPU I will buy AMD or Intel depending who will make CPU that will considerably beet my current 1075T without costing me an arm and a leg

Fanboy! Oh and my 1090T beats your 1075T... [/QUOTE]

I had limited budget and my Phenom 9650 had TLB problems and needed a constant registry editing since MB BIOS fix didn't work. So without upgrading MB and with budget i bought 1075T wich still runs nicely but can be easily be outperformed by descent gaming CPU (list is longer on intel's side than on AMD's). Those APU's can't handle a descent discrette GPU.

[Hardware_Elite]

In terms of raw performance it's true, intel & nVidia is a win... but at a rather large cost.
On the cost to performance side, AMD are a lot easier on the wallet. Why else did both mainstream nextgen consoles go for the AMD APU design?

Because Nvidia wanted nothing to do with it. They made barely any profit with the PS3. The ONLY reason why AMD is priced where they are is because they can't compete that well with Intel and they know it. On the graphics end though, it's close but a $30 difference for Nvidia over AMD is hardly a bad thing. For example, steam did their little survey last week, Intel and Nvidia is still in the lead.

[Hardware_Elite]

Pretty much what I'd expect a Sales VP to say, i.e. "We're number 1, everyone else sucks, woohoo!"

Salesdroid slagging aside, he's got a point about the non-desirability of CUDA and PhysX - single vendor standards for GPGPU and in game physics are a real boneheaded idea. Open (as in "multi vendor") standards are preferable for all but the die hard fan boys.

I'll also give some kudos for the AMD bundles - they're pretty generous and make the NVidia equivalents look pretty poor. When I bought my XFX 7970 I ended up with a bundle of eight games, and some were A-list titles like Far Cry 3 and Bioshock Infinite.

But I can't see Intel and NVidia giving up the ghost anytime in the near future. In fact, even as an AMD cpu loyalist, I'll say that the discrete cpu's don't appear to be as good as the Intel equivalents. And I'm giving serious consideration to jumping to Intel for my cpu for the first time since I got a 486DX.

I'm a big fan of Intel CPUs. Of course, I say do it, jump. Why? Every single CPU that AMD has released is beaten out by the "Intel equivalent" which basically means Intel does just as much or more with half the cores and slower clocks. AMD fans like to throw us the "bang for the buck" argument. Truth be told, you don't need an i7 for gaming. and i5 for $200 beats out the FX-8350, and they are the same price. The i3 series do as much as the quad cores, and the i5 series (and i7) beat out the AMD 8 cores.

[crossy]

I believe that everybody has a right to choose, but if you want pure performance the choice is quite clear (Intel+nVidia). If you want something that will do your day-to-day tasks like e-mail, FB, MS Office and so on with some solitaire or minesweeper on a side, you might want to choose AMD's APU it will do the job.

If you want "pure performance" then sure Intel Extreme processors would be my choice too. I was an NVidia loyalist - up until my current card - so if I was shopping with a lottery win, then sure GTX Titan would get slapped in alongside that X chip. But in the real world - rent, car, food, etc to pay for - you've got to make compromises and Intel's IGP looks a heck of a lot more "compromised" than AMD's. So if you weren't planning to put in an external graphics card then you'd be quite foolish to choose Intel for a PC to also be used for games. From the recent Hexus Richland APU review, that processor was only 5% behind an i3-3225 in Bioshock @1080p when using a 780 GPU, but remove the external GPU and the AMD APU benched at TWICE the i3's rate.

People who have the money to buy a BMW or Mercedes are buying a brand over anything else. Only a small percentage would buy for power or reliability.

Urm, I'm confused, last time you said "People buy Mercedes or BMW not because they add stereo, but because they offer better quality and performance and they pay more for it because it's worth.". Personally (having owned a Merc) I'd agree with what you're saying now, although if you offered me an M3 or M5 then I definitely wouldn't turn it down!

OMG!!! 7970 is such a bad example. It costs twice as much as GTX 760 (at least in my country) and is only about 7-10% faster. Ofc., it's a year difference between them, but even so it still considering the price difference the winner is clear. And if I'd buy 2 gtx760's I could get gtx780 performance at a price of 7970's and would still beat it (add better drivers to a mix and it's pretty smart buy).

Over here a 760 is around £200, and a 7970 is around £300 (although there seem to be quite a few that are cheaper now). I seriously considered a 780 when upgrade time came around, because there was only about a 10% price hike for staying with good ole NVidia rather than running a risk with those wierdo AMD folks. Problem was that for every benchmark that showed the 780 romping home there was another that showed that then 7970 was at least holding it's own, if not coming out on top. Then again, I will cheerfully admit that this was about the time the 780's came out, so it's very likely that NVidia's drivers were - ahem - less than perfect.

No what swung it for me were the power draw figures (the 7970 claims to draw less power in "office" mode) and more importantly that "Reloaded" bundle. For someone with a limited budget as I have (and you as well), the idea of getting six decent games with the card was a big incentive. Basically as AMD intended. On the other hand the 780 came with some tokens for a free-to-play game that I didn't like the look of anyway.

I'm sorry but anyone who says that AMD's product lines have no merit is fooling themselves. There's only a certain number of people who buy purely on best-bang-for-the-buck, and the sales figures don't seem to bear that out.

Oh, and I'm not much bothered by the relative difference between 780 and 7970 - from what I saw that only really hits once you get above 1080p res, especially multimonitor, and I don't do that, so my 7970 is "good enough". At 1080p res the cards seem to be pretty even. And what's to say that AMD's next GPU iteration won't leapfrog the 780 - seems to be the way things happen for quite a while!

[crossy]

I'm a big fan of Intel CPUs. Of course, I say do it, jump. Why? Every single CPU that AMD has released is beaten out by the "Intel equivalent" which basically means Intel does just as much or more with half the cores and slower clocks. AMD fans like to throw us the "bang for the buck" argument. Truth be told, you don't need an i7 for gaming. and i5 for $200 beats out the FX-8350, and they are the same price. The i3 series do as much as the quad cores, and the i5 series (and i7) beat out the AMD 8 cores.

I did a couple of highly multithreaded benchmarks here (proper stuff like mp3 and mp4 ripping) and the i5 got thoroughly trounced by my crappy old AMD hexacore - tried both Handbrake and Nero for the MP4 rips to eliminate any poor implementation issues.

Downside, (and one of the main reasons why I'm considering a move from PhenomII to Haswell i7), is that gaming seems to favour few, more powerful, cores which is where Intel seem to have had the edge for a considerable time.

[kalniel]

I'm a big fan of Intel CPUs. Of course, I say do it, jump. Why? Every single CPU that AMD has released is beaten out by the "Intel equivalent" which basically means Intel does just as much or more with half the cores and slower clocks.

If you're talking currently, sure, but don't forget the reverse used to be the case when multi-die high frequency Intel parts were thrashed by slower, cooler and smarter AMD chips. That's why only only worth considering what's currently on the table and not making generic statements across time