Moody AMD lashes out at Intel

...and they should do it politely.

GO AMD!
Since Jan 2000 I found out there is a world except Intel Inside and that their CPUs don't just "forget" what they were doing. Long pauses on intel anyone than a sudden rush of apps? That the CPU forgetting what the hell its doing. (i could go into technical stuff but cant be arsed).

AMD Deserves Respect. When Intel was claiming entire solution to (less than advertised) computing was simply MORE SPEED. AMD Was Advancing Notion that Quality Guts in Cpu would be winning solution. Design got better & better, then sprung second core. However, in selling to Canadian firm, eastern company Cooked its own goose, excepting if gpucpuUltee'pu does indeed bring fresh blossoms of technolgy. After Bulldozer or its NAFTA Counterpart, pieces will be in better order to understand.As Mouth shifts focus to other end, like going from Worm to ?Clam
AMD Needs Hard Shell. Funny that peoples whom tripled oil cost last year, complain about mere 20% loss in '8, due to market shifts, yet What We Want Is AMD To Design first TRUE ?Quad. Qaudrapu. Also AMD Might be wise to sell complete bundle, from case thru memory, AMD Stamped on it & Sold Exclusively by AMD, even if parts are others. true AMD Computer. STeWie Drashek

because at the rate they're going it's going to be licking intel's tail soon for money to stay afloat. AMD/ATI, a second rate company most years that does serve a purpose from time to time (see: 9700, 9800, 4870, 486DX4's, A64) to keep innovation moving forward. HOWEVER, it's in a precarious position the rest of the time because it is truly second best. Even now with the 4870, it's second best (or third now) for single gpu chip cards.

This leads to the underdog scenario which does pay off in customer loyalty, but also to rampant fanboi syndrome.

Alex you need to learn what you are talking about. From Socket A to Socket 939 AMD had a better Chip. It is now playing catch up to Intel but the thing to remember that AMD is a design firm. More so than Intel. Core i7 has all the features of AMD processors. Intel just used another name for it. Itel has always just slapped things together while AMD always ENGINEER there products. So if AMD is second rate that must make Intel either 3 or 4 rated.

don't forget to add some other innovative products AMD/ATI came up with in history: Original Athlon, Radeon 8500, X1K series (the historical switch over into more shader power dominated graphics). Oh, and thanks to AMD, we have nearly all forgotten about that bloody netburst engineering miracle at 'tel.

From the sound of these comments you'd think that AMD invented the microprocessor... oh, that was Intel.

AMD spent the last millenium reverse engineering Intel's chips. It is true that Intel has copied some of AMDs good ideas in the last 6 or so years, but in the grand scheme of these 30 year old companies, that is a blip on the radar. Also, it appears that the trend has been revesed and AMD is back to following Intel's lead (netbook platforms).

Does anyone remember what intel said about 64bit x86 architecture? THEY WILL NOT DO IT!!! why? cus they had the Mighty Itanic!

what heppened? they bowed to the master and copied AMD64 hence why the 64bit intel chips are called iAMD64!!! HAHA u dumbasses. And then again with i7 but the guy above covered that.

Netbooks!!! bloody NETBOOKS? thats ur one-up-manship? the little pieces of crappy lappies with a chip the Atom (ant) which cant even do video playback let alone anything resembling PC use!

Go hang your head in shame for being on a geeky site and mentioning NETBOOKS like they are good. run along now before Neo comes to atomise your Atom.

Sorry but Intel didn't invent the microprocessor either. I believe Fairchild Semi did and even the single chip 4bit CPU that won IBMs business was BOUGHT FROM A NAVY GUY.

While Sylvie Barak is my favorite beautiful journalist on the INQ, in this case she got it wrong. AMD's CEO Dirk Meyer did not lash out at Intel nor did he claim that netbooks would fizzle out. An analyst asked Dirk Meyer whether a letter questioning the terms of AMD's Fab Co. spin-off being sent around to analyst by Intel would lead to a delay in closing the Asset-Smart transaction. Dirk's reply was that the agreement with Intel was not an issue and would not delay the closing of the transaction which is slated to close on February 10. In regards to the netbooks, Dirk said that he believes that the term netbook would eventually go away and we would just see a continuum of laptops with different form-factors and features across a spectrum of prices. However, he did not imply that AMD would take over nor that Intel would lose out. The tone of the Earnings Conference Call was very sombre, in the sense of extremely serious. No need to argue over what was said, simply go listen to the 1 hour long Call for yourself at http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/InvestorRelations/0,,51_306_643,00.html

The 44.4% stake was AMD's original stake, this was revised when ATIC re-valued the investment and AMD ended up with somewhere around a 35% stake.

This is important as not only is their language about outsourcing CPU's in the x86 cross-license, but there is also language saying for any CPU production to be considered AMD controlled had to have at least a 30% equity stake by AMD, and a majority voting right. While it still meets these terms (apparently), this gives AMD no additional wiggle room to re-value the spinoff. It also means AMD will need to provide relative ( 30%) matching capital investments in the near term or their equity stake could easily drop below 30%. So the dream of being out of the capital investment game is not quite there yet...as AMD needs to keep pouring in enough money to keep their stake over 30%.

And I'm not sure why the outrage - Intel has crosslicensed IP with AMD; who has in turn sold off a 65% stake in their fabs which could violate the terms of the agreement. Is it not reasonable for Intel to ask if AMD is still within the boundary conditions and not simply "take AMD's word for it"?

Remember when AMD said they wouldn't compete in the netbook area. Now they are parsing words by competing in the "ultramobile/light segment". AMD's major problem has been their incompetent marketing team and their inability to foresee and plan for markets. By the time AMD gets any traction in this segment, Intel will likely have over 1BILLION in revenue in this area and will be coming out with a system on a chip design that should blow away the power consumption on the NEO (though the NEO will be more powerful). Once again AMD is reacting and doing so shortsightedly - they are matching a solution based on an archaic 945chipset which is responsible for the majority of the power consumption and will be replaced in ~1year. Then what? Will AMD cut clocks further to get power down? How much blood are they going to try to keep squeezing out of the K8 stone? I mean look no further than dual cores and notebooks... for all the talk about 45nm K10, these are all mainly still K8's. AMD just doesn't get the market aspect of things - the best THEORETICALLY designed solution is not always the best market solution.

(see comment title)

Mention the Intel Timna processor, with both integrated graphics AND memory controllers and was on the production line way before AMD had any inkling of an idea of fielding IMC or "Fusion":

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Timna/

Something similar has been produced long before Intel, anyone remember Cyrix MediaGX series ? It had graphics, audio, sd-ram bus, audio and PCI controller all built in CPU back in the days of the ol' pentiums.

They're done with rearranging the deck chairs. They've lost over SIX BILLION in the last two years pushing garbage. They took on both Intel AND Nvidia. They lost BIGTIME!

Wait, lets make it a Federal law to underclock and undervolt Intel CPU's so AMD can be competitive.

Why don't you AMD boys admit they had a great company and blew it?

Sorry fella's, AMD is going belly up.

SPARKS

How about the fact that AMLOL's processors have sucked more than the NASA/Porsch designed Kirby vacuum motors?

At least, in the last SIX YEARS.

That IS the time frame you're talking about, right?

You should read this article for a change before lashing out @ AMD for being a loser company.

http://www.seawiser.com/tech/?p=151

This is just a Satan Clara (did u convenintly forget that term, Sylvie dear?) leagle manuver 2 apply leaverage on AMD so they chill out on the antitrust lawsuit. U kno, Qwid pro Qwo, or sumpin lik dat.

"Core i7 has all the features of AMD processors. Intel just used another name for it."

So is that why i7 beats the heck out of everything AMD??? Don't comment on things about which you know nothing. Having an IMC was a _natural_ thing after FSB started becoming a bottleneck, same as having a small L2 and big L3, or whatever other similarities you think are there.

This is 2009 dude. Go out and buy a cheap Allendale and you'll instantly see how it can defeat so many AMD CPU's.

Read what pepole are finding out the Great Intel processors.

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=338993

And the Name of Core i7 should tell you why Intels processors are faster than AMD's. The intergated memory controller and SMT just add a small margin to it.

Intels reasoning behind smaller cache = cheaper processor to make + with memory controller on die you have less Space for cache at any level. I think that is the main reason behind less cache on all AMD processors. As AMD has shrunk in die, size of the cache has gone up.

Tri channel memory controller doesn't offer much improvement, but the fact remains that Intel processors perform better than AMD's. Compare generation-wise. AMD has just started to catchup with Core 2 Quads, which are already a year old. There's less cache because you don't need more L2 when you have lots of memory bandwidth. Instead, they concentrated on making the L2 faster. Intel's L2 is much faster than AMD's. If they had gone for a bigger L2, it would have been slower and the penalty in case of a cache miss would have been greater. They've optimized the cache sizes and latency tradeoffs well. AMD is still a generation behind. And about what people are finding about i7's... I know many people who own one and they say they're great, the most powerful beasts they've ever seen. Please at least use Intel's processors once and you'll know they're great, both in terms of power consumption and performance. Once DDR3 becomes mainstream, the platform will be much cheaper as well.

"Sorry fella's, AMD is going belly up."

We all better darn well hope that they don't because if they do, competitive pressures on Intel will go to ZERO and the progression of CPU tech will slow significantly! As an example, take the Atom CPU where they have little competition right now:

Future Intel Atom chip is a yawner--by design

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10142450-64.html

intel have the right to be scrutinising this company. im sorry but they do - AMD license a lot of sensitive intel intellectual property and intel have the right to control their IP as per the agreements. plus people drop this copy crap. AMD wouldnt even exist today if it wasnt for intel in the very first place, never the other way round. so dont be idiots AMD fanboys

...Congratulations! You have just won the prize for "Stupidest Person on teh Intarweb!"

Isn't AMD taking Intel to court - why wouldn't Intel want to mitigate the outcoming by raising this issue.

Intel's actually working on an Atomic Timna with an integrated 945 chipset - it'll reduce board space and allow for four layer boards.

AMD has a rather signficant credibility gap in notebooks to catch up on. More often than not AMD notebooks are second-tier products from consumer laptop divisions. The effect is sort of like watching a filler episode of Anime made by Korean animators.

The root cause is that before the ATI buyout AMD didn't give any thought to actual platform development.

With the 780G AMD has a nice notebook chipset, but no wireless to call their own, and no CPU that's quite as power efficient as a Penryn. If they can fix the last two and got higher quality notebooks around them, they'd finally be able to compete.

If the roles were reversed, If AMD was first and then intel came along- Would they be just as brutal?

The clear fact that it looks like they ARE NOT allowed to license it outside of amd. Losing control over the foundry operation appears to be that. So, AMD essentially hosed themselves when they became complacent with their chips.

It boils down to politics and you better believe this is going to become a heated debate.

Currently Intel has ever right to tell them no if they are going to break their contract.

The 1st Microprocessor with a memory controler on dice was the i80386SX, please be accurate in your claims ...

Francois

Charley had better get writing some more puff pieces.. or haven't they given him enough inducements this month?

Kudos! I thought it was Timna:

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Timna/

Again, "The Imitator" gets the credit of another INTC invention.

Thanks! You taught this old dog a thing or two! And to think my, old i386 had an IMC and I never knew it! Whoops!

SPARKS

...when Intel has to fork over Billions for their violations of anti-trust law. The years of Intel illegal attempts to eliminate all competition should result in Billion dollar fines in the U.S., U.K. and Asia.

Sylvie is always slow to report good news about AMD but fast to bash AMD and post hype about Intel. This unscrupulous behavior speaks volumes... Sylvie is the one who is sour grapes.

You NEED the "other" guy. Without him you will get slow development, higher prices and screwed all over the place. For Intel lovers, you need AMD, and vice versa. For NVidia lovers, you need AMD/ATI, and vice versa. I love when it's really close, or one guy gets ahead, then the other guy, and there is new tech being pushed out the door, because WE, the ordinary joe's, win. So long as there is no price fixing ala NVidia-ATI in the cae that DELL/HP etc are bringing, lol.

I agree, competition is good for us consumers. It drives the prices low and fuels innovation. Intel had to recently lower its core 2 prices because of AMD (finally) launching a competitive product.

Who else remembers the days when Texas insturments is where it was at!! That was this shiz-nit. TI helped intel and other chips companies more than alot realised. So take that all you AMD AND INTEL FANBOI's

Folks are missing the point and equating needing competition with needing AMD. At some point if AMD is not a viable competitor they need to be put down, in order to allow other competition.

Stop equating competition with NEEDING AMD to survive. This could be ARM on the low end, Cell on the high end, or other architectures outside of the x86 world. The problem as always is people dictating or wanting a specific outcome. (An affliction that the US gov't severely suffers from these days)

Ive always have an Intel processor in the computers ive bought but I cant say i hate or dislike AMD. While Intel is all about POWER and stuff, AMD is targeting people who just want a computer. Go out there and you will find AMD based computers economical and plz dont tell me they suck..coz they can do anything that a normal person requires a computer to do. While i might still always get Intel, yet I respect what AMD does and stands for. Every company has its ups and downs. Intel was a shame with Pentium 4...but that didnt mean we had to just blow them away. Give AMD some time and let it grow ppl.

You guys are a tough crowd. Business 101, anyone. This is all about a value chain. Intel makes the profit - profit means R&D - R&D means good tech - Intel licences IP to AMD - AMD makes good product .... and, here's where the wheels come off. What is it exactly that is stopping AMD making money? Anyone?