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

Quote:

---

AMD's VP of Sales, Roy Taylor, also reckons CUDA and PhysX are dead in the water.

---

Read more.

Whilst AMD's APU's are palatable, they are no match for an Intel/Nvidia combination.

Psssst... no one mention mobile. Just imagine if AMD hadn't of sold their mobile graphics unit to Qualcomm. AMD could of been what Snapdraggon is today. I know AMD are planning ARM CPU's, but these are intended for servers. Come on AMD, you need to speed up your product releases and get back into mobiles and tablets. I still have a lot of love for you from the Athlon 64 days.

Market competition is healthy, I disagree with the comments about dead or dying proprietary standards, because the open standards (with all the combined might of anyone who's not Nvidia behind it) are not competitive enough at present.

The man says some things that interest me, however, I find that for comments to sound more than simply 'sour grapes' their company should innovate more and talk less.

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?

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.

APUs are a nice idea that AMD are making a complete hash of delivering. Thirsty as hell on power so killing their usefulness in mobile, too slow to game, problems with stuttering in crossfire. Their strategy of deliberately not going head to head with the big boys means they have a relatively weak niche product range nowadays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

APUs are a nice idea that AMD are making a complete hash of delivering.

---

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

I've still never seen a good example of PhysX. Corpses are like six rubber-bands tied to five rocks, and wholly unrealistic. Vehicles are all moving in slow motion through an invisible soup, and they spin like balloons underwater. PhysX is just a line on a specifications list, not a badge on the front of the box.

Wish nVidia would learn how to do game bundles. AMD certainly beats them there, with the value-added element. Who the Hell wants Splinter Cell Blacklist? Offer some real games, nVidia! But nVidia has been doing that crap for ages; still got a game around here called 'Shelf Combat Planar Commandos' or something that shipped with my Ti 4600. Time nVidia released some well-known titles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

APUs are a nice idea that AMD are making a complete hash of delivering. Thirsty as hell on power so killing their usefulness in mobile, too slow to game, problems with stuttering in crossfire..

---

APUs are brilliant; dirt cheap for the cpu and gpu they provide and considering how they perform I wouldn't say they are that thirsty. They are sufficient for the vast majority of users unlike intel that are overkill on processing for most people. I'm no fanboy my HTPC is APU but my gaming rig is intel + nvidia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MustardCutter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

APUs are a nice idea that AMD are making a complete hash of delivering. Thirsty as hell on power so killing their usefulness in mobile, too slow to game, problems with stuttering in crossfire..

---

APUs are brilliant; dirt cheap for the cpu and gpu they provide and considering how they perform I wouldn't say they are that thirsty. They are sufficient for the vast majority of users unlike intel that are overkill on processing for most people. I'm no fanboy my HTPC is APU but my gaming rig is intel + nvidia.

---

True words! I'm hoping the A10 Kaveri will have better CPU performance than my current 955 and in crossfire outperform my current GTX 660 OC. With any luck it will xfire with a 9970. Though I will only buy an apu if there is no 8 core steamroller...

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.
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.
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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deividast

I'll buy nvidia GPUs till either they or I seize to exist

---

So you're a fan rather than buying based on actual performance :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deividast

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.

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

All im seeing is fanboys. As for cpu, i choose what will perform as i want for a decent amount of time. When amd had the athlon 64, its what i used as it did what i wanted. (Lasted a while too) then i went to intel. Next cpu will be another intel, i5 haswell. It will perform how i want for the next few years (i upgrade every couple of generations). I would have chosen amd if everything was fully multithreaded, but those days have yet to arrive and we still need aingle core performance.

As for the gpu side, i do prefer nvidia. Always have. Tried the odd ati/amd card but i just didnt like the drivers layout or een the general look of the cards (that not quite valid these days with asus and the directcu2 coolers on both nvidia and amd cards). Am i a fan boy? Yes and no. Its a preference. Yes i agree that AMD have great value on the gpu cards with the game bundles(old nvidia cards used to come with decent games. I had TES:morrowind gold edition with one many years ago), however i do enjoy physx. Makes warframe look pretty cool. Im happy with my choices. Each to their own.

(If everything had the same extras it wouldnt give competition or choice.)

Well that didn't take long: back to the 'the expensive stuff I bought for my PC must be better than the cheaper stuff' fanboyism.

Irony is, that while Intel do stand by their stuff (SB chipset recall, the problem they had with those Sandforce SSDs, and so on going all the way back to original Pentium DIV bug) and are willing to reach into their (admittedly rather deep) pockets to put things right, that other company with legions of fans behaves rather differently...

When Nvidia caused millions of laptops and desktops to fail due to them being somewhat negligent at choosing the correct solder (JHH was famously quoted as saying that 'we are a software company' right around that time which might explain how much he values basic electronic and electrical engineering), they were rather less generous at reaching into their pockets and just paid out the minimum the lawsuits would let them get away with. (Like for example, people who had bought a $1500+ gaming laptops were a $300 laptop as a settlement - and yes this is all in dollars since only the US was part of that settlement).

But the most amazing thing was that such a major defect problem got so little publicity. Personally I or people I know had a number of parts affected by this (two 8800GTs, 8400M, nForce motherboards etc.) and I haven't bought any Nvidia stuff since then nor am I likely to in the near future...