AMD Throws in the Towel: No More CPUs (APUs and GPUs Only)
192 replies, posted
[QUOTE=be;43063935]Solid sure, but inferior to Intel by quite a bit.[/QUOTE]
People say this, but I've never seen any difference in AMD / Intel on a real application scale.
And if you really need performance, even the latest Intel CPUs aren't the best, you're looking at the old W5xxx series in Dual CPU configurations.
Well, it's nice to know I got a Fusion setup before they faze out FX, assuming this is true.
[QUOTE=Swilly;43063523]Which I don't want because those have issues in of themselves.[/QUOTE]
They're never going to replace a dedicated graphics card, but by putting it in the CPU die they reduce costs of the motherboard and improve performance of the GPU (Can share the same memory bus as the CPU)
For somebody who never plays games, or has a normal laptop, stuff like this is really good.
Nvidia just got the biggest opening they've been waiting for.
It's no secret they want a slice of the processor pie, but as a GPU + CPU hybrid.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;43062779]Intel are better anyway..[/QUOTE]
They are.
They're also more greedy too.
[QUOTE=Novangel;43062863]Prices aren't the only problem now, Intel has less reason to keep making better desktop chipsets now.[/QUOTE]
the u.s. government, and Moore's law are two very compelling reasons, the consumer has been part of Moore's law for only a fraction of its growth, I doubt this will affect it in any way
[QUOTE=ahmedsalaam69;43062949]Monopolies are never permanent. Another competitor will come along if investors see it as worth their time. But then again, I'm a satisfied Intel user as my experience with AMD has been quite lackluster.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, getting into the CPU market requires ASS tons of money.
[QUOTE=Del91;43064230]The thing is, getting into the CPU market requires ASS tons of money.[/QUOTE]
Huge list of potential market entrants, some already make processors.
Nvidia
Apple
Amazon
The list goes on and we won't see a monopoly for long I don't think.
[QUOTE=Brandy92;43064154]Nvidia just got the biggest opening they've been waiting for.
It's no secret they want a slice of the processor pie, but as a GPU + CPU hybrid.[/QUOTE]
They'd either have to work with ARM, or make a new architecture, since IIRC x86 is legally allowed to be manufactured by AMD and Intel in the US.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;43063434]You guys do know what APUs are, right? They're a CPU + GPU on the same die
i.e. what Intel has been making for the last ~3 years or so.
Basically, AMD are no longer making just CPUs, now when you buy one you get a GPU included so that it doesn't have to be bundled on the motherboard.[/QUOTE]
Unless I'm mistaken isn't that the same idea as Intel's newer processor lines with the integrated HD graphics chips?
[QUOTE=Brandy92;43064281]Huge list of potential market entrants, some already make processors.
Nvidia
Apple
Amazon
The list goes on and we won't see a monopoly for long I don't think.[/QUOTE]
Amazon already works closely with Intel, I don't see them starting up a division... But Amazon takes risks so you never know. I think IBM is someone who could make a move here.
[QUOTE=ief014;43062744]this can be very bad news, are there even any other x86-64 PC* CPU manufacturers besides intel?[/QUOTE]
The three players left in the x86 game are Intel, AMD and VIA.
The reason that there isn't a prolific market of x86 manufacturers is because Intel holds most patents regarding the x86 architecture. In order for another manufacturer to make x86 processors, they'd have to buy at least one license (probably more) from Intel at Intel's terms.
The reason AMD and VIA can make x86 processors is because AMD started out as a second source for Intel processors since way back in the day. They clean room reverse engineered Intel's processors and went to court with Intel numerous times over the rights to make x86 processors. VIA can make x86 processors because they bought Cyrix (who was another second source for Intel CPUs) and had a license to make x86 processors.
The other players that died in the mid 90s could make CPUs because they had a relation to one of the three players, or because they reverse engineered an x86 processor and had their own (inferior) compatible design. Some notable ones being IDT, Rise and Transmeta.
So essentially AMD could sell it's CPU division to another big player and they would receive the licenses to said x86 technologies?
[QUOTE=Brandy92;43064402]So essentially AMD could sell it's CPU division to another big player and they would receive the licenses to said x86 technologies?[/QUOTE]
AMD has a bunch of cross licenses with Intel (they invented x86_64 as we know it and a few versions of SSE.) And I'm not sure how that would play out if AMD spun off their CPU business. I know it would likely be an ugly no holds barred legal battle though (kinda like everyone vs. Apple.) Intel would probably try to buy the patents from AMD to avoid anyone else getting them.
I know that if I were Intel, I would have thrown AMD a bone years ago. Them being the only player in the game in this day and age could mean the end of the x86 architecture as we know it. Unlike back in the 90s where there was a massive race to be the top performer when desktop rigs were king, the market today is eroding. Mobile computers, tablets and cell phones are increasingly taking market share away from the iconic desktop computer, which x86 doesn't really have a place in.
I'm not looking forward to Intel further jacking up the prices of their CPUs, which will undoubtedly happen. "Mainstream" CPUs will probably be pushed lower and lower on the performance scale while the middle range will be in the hundreds of dollar range and the top tier at or above their $1000 current price point.
[QUOTE=ahmedsalaam69;43062949]Monopolies are never permanent. Another competitor will come along if investors see it as worth their time. But then again, I'm a satisfied Intel user as my experience with AMD has been quite lackluster.[/QUOTE]
Not if the costs of entry are high. No competitor will enter the x86-64 market, because the costs of starting up a fabrication plant, that can produce any sort of competing product are insane.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;43062779]Intel are better anyway..[/QUOTE]
They are, and not many disagree with you, but the fucking price of them man jesus
[QUOTE=DogGunn;43064488]Not if the costs of entry are high. No competitor will enter the x86-64 market, because the costs of starting up a fabrication plant, that can produce any sort of competing product are insane.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention the R&D.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;43064488]Not if the costs of entry are high. No competitor will enter the x86-64 market, because the costs of starting up a fabrication plant, that can produce any sort of competing product are insane.[/QUOTE]
You don't necessarily need to have your own fab plant, you can use another company like TSMC and go fabless. The only downside to this is that you're limited to their production schedule and capacity.
But you'd still have to invest untold billions in R&D and licensing with Intel. if you don't have the licensing, you can forget the rest.
An apu is really just a cpu with integrated graphics. Maybe I'm [I]technically[/I] wrong, but in form and function, it's just like a cpu.
AMD is smart for doing this because tablets and all-in-one PCs are the future and the apu is an appropriate processor for those platforms.
I think it would be neat if Nvidia stepped into the cpu game, making a direct competitor to Intel. Nvidia already has the the R&D to make chips.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;43064678]An apu is really just a cpu with integrated graphics. Maybe I'm [I]technically[/I] wrong, but in form and function, it's just like a cpu.
AMD is smart for doing this because tablets and all-in-one PCs are the future and the apu is an appropriate processor for those platforms.[/QUOTE]
An APU is just a bunch of CPU cores placed on the same die as an IGP.
But APUs aren't suited for the mobile market because they run hot and are power hungry. You can get them down to a somewhat low thermal and power envelope, but not without crippling performance even further.
I'm pretty damn sure what AMD calls APU's are actually just a CPU and a GPU die in one package.
Most of Intel's top processors have also been that for a while.
Intel still calls theirs for processors because AMD probably owns the trademark for the whole APU thing.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;43064291]Unless I'm mistaken isn't that the same idea as Intel's newer processor lines with the integrated HD graphics chips?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, exactly. My i5 has a GPU built into it that I've never used.
[QUOTE=Van-man;43064740]I'm pretty damn sure what AMD calls APU's are actually just a CPU and a GPU die in one package.
Most of Intel's top processors have also been that for a while.
Intel still calls theirs for processors because AMD probably owns the trademark for the whole APU thing.[/QUOTE]
Intel used McM on their first gen i3/i5/i7, not sure about other lines.
[img]http://cdn.cpu-world.com/Images/uploaded/0000/48/L_00004864.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=code_gs;43062754]Won't Intel be forced to separate in the U.S. because of monopoly laws?[/QUOTE]
This is now a natural monopoly. They are allowed as long as they do not abuse it. If they do, Intel will have lawsuits thrown in their faces and forced to create a competitor.
[editline]4th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;43063828][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System[/url]
It'd be more than likely a subject to hearings, and if they do split up intel, we might see an innate increase in viable alternatives.[/QUOTE]
[IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/OxykVz9.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
So much for that breakup.
Isn't the Nvidia overheating joke wearing a little thin? I've never had a problem with those cards, and I never understood where the stereotype came from.
Though one time during a power surge my OCZ PSU literally caught fire.
[QUOTE=archangel125;43065192]Isn't the Nvidia overheating joke wearing a little thin? I've never had a problem with those cards, and I never understood where the stereotype came from.
Though one time during a power surge my OCZ PSU literally caught fire.[/QUOTE]
One of their drivers caused massive overheating. It was pulled and fixed. AMD fanboys ran with it. Not like their drivers are any better.
It's not a monopoly and AMD isn't really withdrawing from CPU production - this is just sensationalist news at it's best. They're only going to manufacture CPU's with their 'AMD APU' architecture from now on - like the [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113331]A-series APU's[/url] they've been marketing for a couple years now. They're abandoning traditional CPU architecture to focus entirely on their 'APU' architecture. That's all.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Accelerated_Processing_Unit[/url]
[QUOTE=jordguitar;43065208]One of their drivers caused massive overheating. It was pulled and fixed. AMD fanboys ran with it. Not like their drivers are any better.[/QUOTE]
Their laptop GPU's in the 8x00 era easily went bonkers and made the soldering balls connecting the gpu chip to the board fucked.
[QUOTE=jordguitar;43065208]One of their drivers caused massive overheating. It was pulled and fixed. AMD fanboys ran with it. Not like their drivers are any better.[/QUOTE]
I actually had the issue with several different versions of Nvidia driver on my Nvidia GPUs. I don't remember the driver versions, but it'd stick the fan speed down to like 23% and disable the fan slider (you could set it to anything, but it didn't do anything.)
I had to work around it by using Rivatuner and cranking the fan speed up and keep it at 45-60% based on load.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;43065225]It's not a monopoly and AMD isn't really withdrawing from CPU production - this is just sensationalist news at it's best. They're only going to manufacture CPU's with their 'AMD APU' architecture from now on - like the [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113331]A-series APU's[/url] they've been marketing for a couple years now. They're abandoning traditional CPU architecture to focus entirely on their 'APU' architecture. That's all.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Accelerated_Processing_Unit[/url][/QUOTE]
Ending the entire AMD FX line and the old Phenom II line is effectively withdrawing from CPU production because that's a HUGE market to be lost.
[QUOTE=Van-man;43065363]Their laptop GPU's in the 8x00 era easily went bonkers and made the soldering balls connecting the gpu chip to the board fucked.[/QUOTE]
It started becoming a problem in the 7000 series and reached its peak in the 9000 series.
I got an old AMD laptop with a Geforce 7000M at a junk store that was dead and I managed to fix it by remelting the solder balls on the GPU with a heatgun. It's not an elegant fix but it usually works.
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;43062871]Sweet time for PowerPC to make a comeback!
[editline]4th December 2013[/editline]
...guys? Hello?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Altivec sure is a nice feature.
My iMac G4 actually loaded and played large animated gifs faster than vanilla Chrome on my iMac 2007.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.