AMD on the Rise, but is the Company Poised to Fall

[Capper]

Paul (One4yu2c) has a really nice entry up in his blog over at MaximumPC, make sure you get over, check it out, and give a brother a DIGG!!!!

Out of 25 chip suppliers, AMD now ranks 8th according to market research firm iSuppli, a significant leap from 15th just two years ago. And thanks in part to the ATI acquisition, sales are on the rise too, nearly double from last year. Even Dell has broken their longstanding embargo, with some of their configurations now sporting AMD inside. And with Barcelona on the horizon, their quad-core future looks bright. Perhaps one day we’ll see a Green Man Group ad campaign?
But not all numbers look rosy for AMD. It’s been quite some time since the underdog was, well, an underdog, but suddenly it’s an Intel Core 2 Duo world. Need advice on a new build? Go Intel. Wondering which processor chews through the benchmarks faster? It’s Intel. Want to run two nVidia videocards in SLI? Yep, Intel can do that too, and unlike nVidia’s previous chipset attempts for big blue, 680i/650i based boards are winning the hearts of overclockers.

AMD on the Rise, but is the Company Poised to Fall?- Maximum PC

[One4yu2c]

Thanks for the linkage love, Capper!

I'm heading up the News blog for MPCs recently revamped site, and HL Software Editor Chris Adcock (Mantabase) is spearheading the Modding blog. We'll each be contributing about 2 pieces/week, so when you get caught up with your HardwareLogic content (and yes, that's a prerequisite), give a peek and see what we're bantering about. Here's what we've got so far:

Introduction - Paul
Gigabye Says Goodbye...to Asus! - Paul
Commodore Comes Back - Paul

The Hardest Mod - Mantabase

[Computer-Ed]

You know I am not sure how much of this article I agree with. While AMD is not on top right now they are not close to dead. Pure dollar to Dollar performance I think AMD actually has faster chips. What I mean is if you spent the EXACT same cash for a chip for each processor I think AMD is ahead. However that lead is not by much and the C2D is an overclocking machine.

The big thing for AMD right now is the world is waiting to see if the ATI merger will flop or explode. If AMD can HURRY and get an R600 on the shelves and it delivers as promised then they can recover nicely, especially if their new CPUs deliver as well.

However AMD NEEDS something big soon or it could find itself in a hole it cannot climb out of.

[One4yu2c]

Originally Posted by Computer-Ed

You know I am not sure how much of this article I agree with. While AMD is not on top right now they are not close to dead[...]However AMD NEEDS something big soon or it could find itself in a hole it cannot climb out of.

That's pretty much what I wrote, minus the part where I wasn't sure if I agreed or disagreed with myself.

Make no mistake, AMD is up against a much bigger challenge than what they've been faced with in the past when Intel was pre-occupied with Netburst. And the numbers back this up, as they've posted a "$611 million net loss in Q1", a result that AMD's Chief Financial Officer laments is "disappointing and unacceptable."

Originally Posted by Computer-Ed

Pure dollar to Dollar performance I think AMD actually has faster chips. What I mean is if you spent the EXACT same cash for a chip for each processor I think AMD is ahead.

Benchmarks would prove otherwise, unless we're talking about selective benchmarking. I can spend $240 on AMD's top of the line 3.0GHz 6000+, or $235 on Intel's mid-range 2.4GHz E6600 and they'll trade benchmarks all day long (LINK). And that's a major point of my blog post above, is that in addition to pushing a better architecture this time around (one in which Intel's 2.4GHz chip can run neck and neck with AMD's 3.0GHz), Intel's also competing on the pricing front (I can pick up a highly overclockable E4300 for just $135, which takes the steam out of AMD's slashes). And this comes after AMD's recent aggressive price slashes. They'll cut prices even more, but so will Intel, and Penryn is right around the corner too.

[Capper]

I'd tend to say AMD is in real trouble, from a financial and performance standpoint. Aside from the things Paul mentioned I'll say that AM2 and socket 1207 were relative failures in that AM2 was mostly a lateral switch as compared to an actual upgrade over s939 (move to DDR2, no real performance boost). Socket 1207 was an awful attempt at Quad Core, and I think thats being generous.

As to performance, Paul is being kind, an FX60 will take a few benchmarks against the E6600, but its not even close to being an even split, and considering the pricing....yech. now, like all processors in a relative price range, you can overclock and tweak a processor to get better performance....but straight up, right now at least, INTEL is wiping the floor with AMD (and I've always been an AMD fan).

Pricewise, you can compare CPU to CPU, and things are fairly even, but again, in addition to the points Paul mentioned (INTEL will be announcing a fairly significant price cut tomorrow), consider the supporting hardware options and their relative value.....many i965, i975, 680i, and 650i motherboards will support INTELs new 1333FSB processors....and AMD's new Barcelona will require another upgrade (to AM3), and while it may be fairly faster than Core 2 Duo or even a lot faster......only those who HAVE to have the best of the best, and those diehard AMD fan bois are actually going to migrate over at this point as Core 2 Duo has just become so well established.

[Dr. V]

until AMD actually releases something along with Intel that can plateau for awhile, like no insane amount of chips all the time being released, and if AMD is actually better during this (hopefully) 4-5 year plateau period (we're talking quad cores by this point) then yeah, ill migrate.

if not, then ill be more than content keeping my P5B Deluxe which im pretty sure will be able to support 1333mhz fsp chips, and just stick a quad core in there. saves me time and cash. only if its WORTH my time and cash will i go to AMD. if the enhancements (if any) arent significant enough, then no way.

i think at heart im an AMD fanboy, but im also a realist. best overall chip based on its cost/speed/performance. intel wins. for now anyways.

dont forget, when quad core becomes more mainstream, AMD will be crapped again with its AM3s, cuz it seems like the intel Quads will rip the AM3s apart...an early prediction said somewhere. or what if the era of AM3 vs Core 2 Quad is that plateau era and AMD is better? that'd be a sight to see. and hello AMD i come back for thee.

using AM3 in context, ive made the assumption of AMD's barcelona quad core will run on the AM3 socket.

[qazwsx]

Unfortunately AMD probably isn't going to make alot more money unless they actually release a new product (processor) instead of making faster current products. I think overclocking partly to blame for this. They keep releasing faster products for higher prices but people just buy the slower version and clock it to meet the faster ones speed. I think they need a new processor but not for a high price. A decent low price one would probably be the best bet.

Really hope they can pull it back together in the CPU market. They do make good processors and keep other companies prices down as well. AMD's are really great priced CPU's

If the core 2 wasn't so cheap (and getting cheaper) I would have built an AMD system but I was looking for upgrades. The last AMD I had was a old 1 Ghz AMD athlon and it was cooler than my Pentium D and preformed well, but after 5-6 years it started to freeze the computer up more and more and now its just gathering dust.
(this is just my opinion)

Also, why have the core 2 prices droped so much lately? not so long ago the 1.83 ghz version was £110 but now you can pick one up for £87. Whats with the price fall?

[Dr. V]

it was a public price drop on April 22nd, well announced as well.

thing is theyre getting ready to get rid of all their Core 2 Duos asap cuz theyre releasing the bigger guns soon. also, this makes them THAT MUCH MORE appealing against AMD.

[One4yu2c]

In keeping with ongoing coverage, here are some clippings over at DailyTech:

Intel Wipes Out AMD's 2006 Marketshare Gains in One Quarter

The price war that is waging between Intel and AMD paid off handsomely for Intel in the first quarter, according to the latest numbers from Mercury Research. Intel managed to capture 80.5 percent of the PC processor market for Q1 2007.

The strong performance by Intel in Q1 represents a whopping six percentage point increase from the 74.4 percent share that the company held during Q4 2006. The increases per segment come in at eight percent for the desktop market, four percent for the notebook market and seven percent for the server market[...]Intel erased all of AMD's 2006 gains and pushed the company back under the 20 percent threshold. Analysts for JP Morgan reported that "Intel's superior products and aggressive pricing took their toll on AMD. We expect AMD to lose additional share during (the second quarter)."...

AMD's Large Debt Mounting Up Fast

Friday, AMD announced that it will offer Convertible Senior Notes to investors in an attempt to raise roughly $2.2 billion. However, unlike common stock purchases, Convertible Senior Notes put AMD further into debt -- in this case, another $2.2 billion USD. Using Convertible Senior Notes, investors profit since the notes can be converted to common stock once AMD is performing well...

[qazwsx]

Am I right in thinking that this happened to Intel (but not quite a bad) before the core 2 duo hit?

Intel made the core 2 which was a blow to AMD and then threw in the EE and then the quad core and all at lowish prices. AMD have got to throw a punch back with something new.

Also doesn't AMD own ATI? if I'm right the 8800 cards also hit them there as well.