BF2S Forums [news] AMD Must Double Processor Market Share to Survive

I think AMD was in trouble when Intel started spitting out the Dual Core processors.  It is only a matter of time before AMD goes the way of HD-DVD....ok, maybe not to that extreme but they are definitely in trouble. 

Future - AMD will cease to be a CPU company but continue to produce GPUs.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

For all our sakes, you had better hope it doesn't happen.

oh it will

I think if they go it will be a shame. I say this because Intel may cease to stop there current rate of research into producing faster chips.

killer21 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

For all our sakes, you had better hope it doesn't happen.

A Microsoft-esque monoply you mean?

Yes.  The last thing we want is one major CPU company.  Intel is not some benevolent entity.  They are a corporation that is out to make money.  Without at least one competitive company we will see CPU progress slow, and prices remain relatively high.

02fxnmaurer wrote:

wat were amd thinkin though seriousli ...the phenoms are shit ....and with the nehalems just round the corner...do they expect to have any market share at all ??!?!?!

there is always someone who buys them. *looks around bf2s*

but yeah AMD is in more than big trouble atm... The GPU division keeping the boat floating...

edit: I like the way how Intel pretty much tells us what to expect a long time before product releases. I used to have AMD Athlon 64 which was good cpu at that time but after having C2Ds and C2Qs I won't be looking back anytime soon.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2008-05-06 10:22:30)

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

killer21 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

For all our sakes, you had better hope it doesn't happen.

A Microsoft-esque monoply you mean?

Yes.  The last thing we want is one major CPU company.  Intel is not some benevolent entity.  They are a corporation that is out to make money.  Without at least one competitive company we will see CPU progress slow, and prices remain relatively high.

That's the way it always used to be. Before the Athlon (K7) AMD weren't a good option, the K6s were okish, but weren't very competitive. It wasn't a big deal back then, why should it be now.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

killer21 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

For all our sakes, you had better hope it doesn't happen.

A Microsoft-esque monoply you mean?

Yes.  The last thing we want is one major CPU company.  Intel is not some benevolent entity.  They are a corporation that is out to make money.  Without at least one competitive company we will see CPU progress slow, and prices remain relatively high.

That would never happen. They're different markets with completely different driving forces and dynamics.

Windows XP is as good at being Windows XP as it was when it came out, barring service packs. The operating system needs for the vast majority of people and corporate entities aren't very dynamic, meaning that Microsoft can get away with milking consumers for 5-7 years for the same product.

Processing will always advance, if not to cater to the individual end-user applications, which is an innovative dynamic, then to cater to the need for raw processing power to cope with the sheer force of a constantly and very rapidly growing Internet, and that's a quantitative dynamic. Intel could perhaps hinder the former slightly, but they cannot hinder the latter, as they're competing with a bunch of different platforms on a bunch of different architectures in that market segment.

Luckily, innovations in x86 architecture doesn't just benefit servers - it benefits desktop processors as well. It makes business sense to streamline production, and create desktop versions of efficient server processors with high yields and cheaper processes, and anything that makes business sense for a technologically malevolent or apathetic monopoly is going to happen. Both the advantageous and the disadvantageous, seen from the consumer's point of view.

mikkel wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

killer21 wrote:

A Microsoft-esque monoply you mean?

Yes.  The last thing we want is one major CPU company.  Intel is not some benevolent entity.  They are a corporation that is out to make money.  Without at least one competitive company we will see CPU progress slow, and prices remain relatively high.

That would never happen. They're different markets with completely different driving forces and dynamics.

Windows XP is as good at being Windows XP as it was when it came out, barring service packs. The operating system needs for the vast majority of people and corporate entities aren't very dynamic, meaning that Microsoft can get away with milking consumers for 5-7 years for the same product.

Processing will always advance, if not to cater to the individual end-user applications, which is an innovative dynamic, then to cater to the need for raw processing power to cope with the sheer force of a constantly and very rapidly growing Internet, and that's a quantitative dynamic. Intel could perhaps hinder the former slightly, but they cannot hinder the latter, as they're competing with a bunch of different platforms on a bunch of different architectures in that market segment.

Luckily, innovations in x86 architecture doesn't just benefit servers - it benefits desktop processors as well. It makes business sense to streamline production, and create desktop versions of efficient server processors with high yields and cheaper processes, and anything that makes business sense for a technologically malevolent or apathetic monopoly is going to happen. Both the advantageous and the disadvantageous, seen from the consumer's point of view.

In a textbook world, maybe.  However, as noted already, we need only look back at recent history to see that this is false.  Intel's progress was far slower in coming, and the prices of their chips quite a bit higher until the Athlon cam along and provided real competition.  It was after that point that progresses in chip design started advancing faster, and prices dropped.  The fact is, this is why intentional monopolies are not allowed to exist.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Yes.  The last thing we want is one major CPU company.  Intel is not some benevolent entity.  They are a corporation that is out to make money.  Without at least one competitive company we will see CPU progress slow, and prices remain relatively high.

That would never happen. They're different markets with completely different driving forces and dynamics.

Windows XP is as good at being Windows XP as it was when it came out, barring service packs. The operating system needs for the vast majority of people and corporate entities aren't very dynamic, meaning that Microsoft can get away with milking consumers for 5-7 years for the same product.

Processing will always advance, if not to cater to the individual end-user applications, which is an innovative dynamic, then to cater to the need for raw processing power to cope with the sheer force of a constantly and very rapidly growing Internet, and that's a quantitative dynamic. Intel could perhaps hinder the former slightly, but they cannot hinder the latter, as they're competing with a bunch of different platforms on a bunch of different architectures in that market segment.

Luckily, innovations in x86 architecture doesn't just benefit servers - it benefits desktop processors as well. It makes business sense to streamline production, and create desktop versions of efficient server processors with high yields and cheaper processes, and anything that makes business sense for a technologically malevolent or apathetic monopoly is going to happen. Both the advantageous and the disadvantageous, seen from the consumer's point of view.

In a textbook world, maybe.  However, as noted already, we need only look back at recent history to see that this is false.  Intel's progress was far slower in coming, and the prices of their chips quite a bit higher until the Athlon cam along and provided real competition.  It was after that point that progresses in chip design started advancing faster, and prices dropped.  The fact is, this is why intentional monopolies are not allowed to exist.

Chip design hasn't advanced faster. If anything, it's slowed down.

The thing that has gone faster is development of more cost effective fabrication methods, such as increases in wafer size. Which could just as easily be accountable for the price drops.

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

guess were the CPU division is going to take the money soon? yeah... sucks..

In all honesty, I would do the same.  They are fighting a losing battle if they continue to try and go up against Intel and their great processors.  They are probably better served trying to take on Nvidia vice Intel or help ATi anyway...

Last edited by killer21 (2008-05-06 11:40:21)

Unless AMD comes up with something huge, they're done in the CPU market. They should stick to graphics with ATi and focus on making the Radeons better.