Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Not Trying To Get Its Chips Into Low-Cost Tablets

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the not-interested dept.

AMD 87

jfruh (300774) writes "While Intel is going after low-end Android tablets in a big way chipmaking x86 rival AMD is taking a more judicious approach, looking to focus on the high end. 'This idea of contra revenue is foreign to us,' said AMD's CEO, referring to Intel's strategy of selling chips at a loss to boost market share. But will Intel's vast resources keep AMD in its niche?"

cancel ×

87 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

1st post (1, Funny)

thecoolbean (454867) | about 3 months ago | (#46804813)

from a low end tablet

Re:1st post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46804837)

Reply from 2004 PC using AMD chip

reply from 2077 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46805029)

using fusion powered yotta 3000.

Re:reply from 2077 (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 3 months ago | (#46807447)

using fusion powered yotta 3000.

I'm a wishin it was fission...

all of creation opposes WMD on credit cabals (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46804845)

nothing to speculate about whatsoever.. momkind (r)evolutionay new clear options, no bomb us more mom us,,, feed the millions of innocent starving diaper addicts,, free the innocent stem cells etc... wildly popular,,, see you there

The idea of making a profit... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46804869)

...is pretty foreign to AMD.

Re:The idea of making a profit... (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 3 months ago | (#46804987)

The idea of throwing money away to press AMD out of the market is foreign to AMD.

Re:The idea of making a profit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46807077)

for every quarter since AMD's founding, take the cumulative profits for all previous quarters to that point, minus the cumulative expenses for all previous quarters to that point (basically AMD's "net worth" over time), has AMD ever been in the black? if so, when was the last time? throwing money away is not so foreign to AMD as some might like to believe (hope)...

Re:The idea of making a profit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46810573)

The thing is, AMD makes it's money from the ATI (GPU) parts, not the CPU parts.

AMD has a guaranteed seat at Apple's table as long as they produce compelling GPU parts, even if their CPU parts are such disasters. I kinda wish AMD had not forgotten it's lesson learned from the AMD/Cyrix "weak FPU" days when they decided to put a weak FPU into the APU chips, thereby torpedoing the performance of every A-series chip. This was dumb thinking and whoever made that engineering decision should have been called on it.

Like, every time I go to consider parts, AMD's offering is decisively "middle ground", not the best performer, but not the worst performer, but the most energy-sucking model in it's performance range.

RCA agrees (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46804879)

They're making enough money on their high-end televisions. Let Sony have the low end radio market....

Re:RCA agrees (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 3 months ago | (#46805743)

How do you expect AMD to compete on price when they no longer have fabs hence their manufacturing costs will be higher than Intel's? Especially if Intel starts dumping product. It would not be the first time.

AMD is making enough money from consoles now that they do not need to go against them head on. I think their idea of making ARM chips for server designs is a lot more sensible than competing with the likes of Samsung or Qualcomm.

Re:RCA agrees (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 3 months ago | (#46805987)

Even w/ their fabs, AMD was nowhere near Intel. Intel is by now 3 generations ahead of AMD in process geometry, so it wouldn't make sense for AMD to even try to compete w/ Intel on price. They are better off finding which markets they can be profitable in, and play there.

For servers, they'd do better to look @ other established architectures, such as MIPS or SPARC, rather than ARM. Since we're not talking Windows now, but rather, either Linux or BSD, that would make a lot more sense in terms of supporting legacy apps.

Re:RCA agrees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46809831)

AMD is fabless.

Re:RCA agrees (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 3 months ago | (#46815561)

Doesn't matter - there are no fabs that come even close to Intel.

Re:RCA agrees (2)

arfonrg (81735) | about 3 months ago | (#46805991)

I never understood the ARM server angle.... There are plenty of existing server architectures that work fine now, why add another oddity? If the answer is: x86 is too bloated and ARM can be smaller/faster/better, I just went through sheer HELL with a set of Itanium HP severs (which were supposed to be smaller/faster/better) and it taught me to NEVER buy/recommend buying any 'minority' architecture. x86 might be inefficient but, it's supported by everything I want.

Re:RCA agrees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46806701)

Are you being held back by lack of drivers? Do you have an unsupported binary that you just have to run? That would be the only reasons to stay with x86. Use the source, Luke, and don't stay stuck in the '90s. BSD and Linux work across a multitude of arches and don't behold you to a single vendor in either hardware or software.

Beta Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46806907)

"Are you being held back by lack of drivers? Do you have an unsupported binary that you just have to run? That would be the only reasons to stay with x86."

Or because, you know, x86 provides the best price/performance in the server space.

Re:Beta Sucks (0)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 3 months ago | (#46808443)

x86 provides the best price/performance in the server space.

Not if you pay for your electric bills. Or have no need for floating point in your (web)servers. Or if you consider security part of performance.

Re:RCA agrees (1)

arfonrg (81735) | about 3 months ago | (#46811745)

I INHERITED some HP/UX servers migrating from PA-RISC to Itanium. A COMPLETE disaster. This is what happens when people are promoted above their capability and moved into IT management but, I digress.

EVERYTHING was a problem. They had custom binaries in which the original authors were long gone on PA-RISC (no idea where the source was, and Aries barfed), drivers gave me headaches (looking at you printers), changes in base commands. Just a horrible experience.

From now on out, when I get asked to spec something, I'm going with the most vanilla, common solutions (e.g. Linux on x86 and exclude java where I can).

Re:RCA agrees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46806835)

Itanium is a stupid example. Intel themselves never got the compilers to work with it properly (so that they changed the architecture quite a bit). Also they are an obvious dead-end, so nobody really supports them anymore, and in contrast to PPC they are not affordable to ordinary so there aren't even enthusiasts keeping it alive.
Or to put it differently: your problems with Itanium are not just because it's a different architecture, but because it is the crippled - unloved step-child - dead horse of architectures, and in some ways that's being kind to it.

Re:RCA agrees (2)

unixisc (2429386) | about 3 months ago | (#46807825)

I agree. Itanium, which was once paraded as the ultimate platform for all OSs - every brand of Unix one could conceive (Solaris, HP/UX, Monterrey, BSD), Linux, NT and so on, just fizzled. It turned out to be the hottest, biggest and costliest chip there in the market. Even supercomputers rarely use that CPU, it's that bad!!! I pity the former VAX owners who were forced to go to it.

But otherwise, the GP is right in that ARM as a new platform for servers just doesn't make sense, when there are so many alternatives w/ legacy software that can be leveraged. SPARC for one. MIPS for another. In fact, since a lot of CPU patents are expiring this year, it's just perfect for AMD to pick one, say SPARC, and just run w/ it. At worst, it should run some Solaris software, as well as some BSDs; at best, it would run the BSDs, Linux and on top of that, they could have Solaris VMs running.

Or do MIPS, and run legacy Irix, Ultrix, and other VMs on top of a similar configuration. Still a better option than ARM. And AMD wouldn't have to do much more than take an existing SPARC or MIPS design, shrink it, maybe add some more cache, and then start shipping.

Re:RCA agrees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46807393)

Honestly, I think they'd have better luck throwing cat cores at the server problem....Especially once they bake HSA into them and offload FPU ops.

Re:RCA agrees (1)

turgid (580780) | about 3 months ago | (#46808207)

I just went through sheer HELL with a set of Itanium HP severs

Those with half a clue were predicting that 15 years ago. That's why they call it "itanic."

Re:RCA agrees (1)

arfonrg (81735) | about 3 months ago | (#46811785)

Well, the CIO who decided on this was the CFO (with no IT experience) who was the acting CIO.

Re:RCA agrees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46810655)

Different markets.

ARM servers are decisively micro-server's designed to compete against "was always a bad idea" Virtualization implementations. Which is cheaper to use, 1 physical core that burns 135 watts (Xeon) full time because of the VM overhead or one ARM core that uses 1 watt? Given you will need 8 times as many ARM cores to reach the same performance, but that's the point. Hosting providers like dreamhost would drool over the prospect of giving substandard-performance VM's for only a few dollars that they could then upsell additional ARM cores.

ARM servers are all about NOT virtualizing things that don't make sense. Every time I see a cloud vendor, I look at the costs and think "who in their right mind would pay for this crap instead of just buying the hardware?" Because unless you have extremely tall peaks and near-zero valleys for CPU time needs, cloud's are 100x more expensive than owning the hardware.

Re:RCA agrees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46807123)

AMD lost money on the fabs due to depreciation of the equipment... let a multi-billion dollar assembly line sit idle while you debug manufacturing problems... bye-bye value...

Re:RCA agrees (2)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 3 months ago | (#46810091)

Actually the major problem AMD had was they bought ATI above market price just before the stock tanked with the economic crisis.

They had little choice left but to sell the fabs to ATIC after that.

Re:RCA agrees (1)

arfonrg (81735) | about 3 months ago | (#46805921)

+1 Insightful to parent!

Remember Oliver North (4, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about 3 months ago | (#46804939)

'This idea of contra revenue is foreign to us,'

So they won't be selling weapons to Iran then

Re:Remember Oliver North (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 3 months ago | (#46805643)

'This idea of contra revenue is foreign to us,'

So they won't be selling weapons to Iran then

But.. but.. why not? The revenue *is* foreign, which means they don't have to comply with US laws. Wasn't that the original justification by Col North?

Re:Remember Oliver North (2)

rotorbudd (1242864) | about 3 months ago | (#46806449)

No, they won't be selling ARMs to Iran.

Re:Remember Oliver North (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46808175)

Damn ARMs dealers...

Re:Remember Oliver North (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 3 months ago | (#46811555)

The market for second hand is about collapse now you can 3D print them [slashdot.org]

The low end tablet market is sewn up (4, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 3 months ago | (#46804983)

by those selling ARM. So why should AMD compete ?

Low end can become high end (2)

sjbe (173966) | about 3 months ago | (#46805189)

The low end tablet market is sewn up by those selling ARM. So why should AMD compete ?

Because low end products have a way of supplanting high end products in time. PCs replaced most mini-computers even though initially they were inferior products. When was the last time you used a mini-computer? If AMD only competes at the high end of the market they run the risk of being slowly crushed as ARM chips become more capable over time. Intel recognizes this threat and is attempting to address it directly instead of pretending it doesn't exists. Even if they do stay at the high end of the market, it's unclear what if any advantage they have that will allow them to remain a product of choice there. Intel and others are perfectly capable of producing high end products too and Intel has a cost advantage over AMD as well.

Stuff like this is a big part of why AMD has remained something of an also-ran all these years.

Re:Low end can become high end (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 3 months ago | (#46805387)

your anaolgy does not work. PCs and mini-computers were fundementally different, applications written for one would, generally, not work on the other. When low end tablets become more powerful: AMD has the products to just slot in and take advantage. AMD has both x86 & ARM chips -- it even has one that does both!

The other thing to worry about is business relationships with the tablet vendors. AMD sells to many of them, so no problem there.

No, AMD is not locking itself out of this market.

Re:Low end can become high end (1)

InvalidError (771317) | about 3 months ago | (#46805553)

your anaolgy does not work. PCs and mini-computers were fundementally different, applications written for one would, generally, not work on the other.

Same goes for PCs and tablets but that is not preventing people from shifting significant chunks of their everyday computing from their PCs to their phones and tablets. The more powerful mobile devices become, the more applications will get adapted to them and the fewer reasons people will have to stick to conventional PCs just like how companies shifted the bulk of their workloads from minis to micros as micros became both more capable and much cheaper.

It is almost exactly the same pattern.

Waiting is dangerous strategy (2)

sjbe (173966) | about 3 months ago | (#46806193)

PCs and mini-computers were fundementally different, applications written for one would, generally, not work on the other.

They are both computers and the functions they serve are no different at all That's like saying a PC and a Mac are fundamentally different because their software was incompatible. The mere fact that software written at the time for one wouldn't work on the other could not be less important. What is important is the job they did. PCs gradually took over all the jobs we once used mini-computers for and the companies that built to those products went away. DEC was bought by Compaq, etc. Companies that come late to the party on the new technology often (though not always) have a hard time catching up. Intel underestimated the growth of mobile chips and now is scrambling to catch up to ARM and it isn't clear if they will succeed. And if Intel is having a hard time I can't see AMD having an easier time of it.

When low end tablets become more powerful: AMD has the products to just slot in and take advantage.

Several flaws with that reasoning. 1) Other companies have competing products already and AMD would have to provide a compelling reason to switch from their competitors who already are in place. Displacing an existing customer relationship is difficult at the best of times. 2) AMD products generally do not have any significant and lasting technological advantage over their competitors. 3) AMD is not the lowest cost producer (that would be Intel) and really cannot compete effectively on price. Intel can easily undercut them on price at almost any time and still make money doing it. 4) What is good enough now will not be good enough in a year and AMD's competitors products will improve in the mean time. Waiting for the market to come to them is a VERY dangerous strategy.

No, AMD is not locking itself out of this market.

There is a very good chance that they are. Given their sadly pathetic track record I'd inclined to be doubtful of their chances until shown evidence to the contrary. AMD has mostly made good products but they generally always seem to be a step behind the curve

Re:Waiting is dangerous strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46810711)

Intel won't succeed in getting their x86 parts into tablets. This is a fundamental problem with x86.

Intel knows it will hit the wall with the next die shrink, so everyone is going to HAVE TO ABANDON x86 once the performance/price catches up. An ARM core at the same die size as an intel core, will certainly outperform it and use less power. That's the truth. We just haven't quite hit the wall yet, and Intel has no where to go but to get it's terrible celeron/i3 and intel-graphics parts into as many devices as possible before that happens so people will succumb to sunk-cost fallicies and not ditch x86.

Microsoft saw the writing on the wall, that's why they made Windows run on ARM. Too bad they had to royally screw it up with Windows 8/RT. We're not going to see this go away, what we're going to see at some point is everyone concede that x86 can't be improved anymore and everyone will either switch to ARM or try to engineer something else with new materials.

Re:Waiting is dangerous strategy (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 3 months ago | (#46816131)

Intel wanted to abandon the x86 architecture for the longest time - the Itanium being their last attempt @ it. By going w/ a 64-bit CISC, AMD pretty much put paid to that strategy, and what was worse for Intel, got to define a new instruction set that Intel had to follow

Essentially, the x86 ain't gonna die unless and until Windows dies. Windows is not gonna die unless and until desktops & laptops get fully replaced by tablets. Honestly, I don't see that completely happening.

Re:Low end can become high end (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 3 months ago | (#46808503)

PCs and mini-computers were fundementally different,

Unix users seem to disagree. Leaving aside that we spell it "fundamentally", I seem to be able to run the same software on my PC with *BSD, that I ran on my PDP11 with BSD with no significant problems. Hell, I can even read the same tapes written with tar. (I admit I have no drivers for DECtape on my PC, and my LA36 died some years ago but I am truely greatful for both "problems".)

Re:Low end can become high end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46813313)

s/greatful/grateful/

Re:Low end can become high end (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 3 months ago | (#46805543)

I think the "it works for apple" is the new MBA group-think disease perhaps? (IE: we'll focus on the high-end, and let the peasants duke it out for the scraps). Works for a style/fashion based product, but hardware is quickly becoming a commodity, and a total race to the bottom.

Re:Low end can become high end (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 3 months ago | (#46805775)

AMD only had a profit when they started focusing on the server market. That target guided their whole designs for the K7, K8 years. This is one of the reasons why they went for x86-64 in the first place.

Later they saw they had to compete in the low power laptop market as well and focused on that instead. It has not worked very well profit wise.

Re:Low end can become high end (1)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | about 3 months ago | (#46805599)

I still use mini computers (PDP-11) at work you insensitive clod. Though a couple run in emulation on Windows XP PC's. . .

Re:Low end can become high end (1)

arfonrg (81735) | about 3 months ago | (#46806089)

PDP emulated on XP? Wow, legacy on legacy. Now, you need to virtualize the XP on a Linux box and you'll be full on nerd-cool!

Re:Low end can become high end (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 3 months ago | (#46807869)

Or an RSX-11 VM on XP Mode on Windows 7.

Re:Low end can become high end (1)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | about 3 months ago | (#46809529)

There are PCI cards to replace some of the PDP I/O so the PDP emulator needs to run on the host OS. Also because of licensing it needs to run on HP hardware (since HP bought Compaq that bought DEC). The vendor now supports Windows 7 so we are working to migrate to that.

We are more interested in keeping a stable system(and slowly make progress in migrating the application away from PDP) than making a full on nerd cool Beowulf cluster in mom's basement.

Re:Low end can become high end (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 3 months ago | (#46805617)

Intel has been placing bets in a number of mobile Linux projects for some years now - including Android, Meego, Tizen, Firefox OS, Chrome OS. They have cash to burn in competing with ARM but so far haven't emerged triumphant in anything but a niche.

Intel's biggest enemy in consumer electronics is themself. It has maintained 2 separate product families - Atom (budget energy conscious) vs Core (performance). At what point, in competing with ARM, does Atom become good enough for all but the most high-end of workstations? In which case people simply stop buying $1500 Core i7 laptops because a $400 hybrid tablet/netbook running Windows 8.x with an Atom does all the average business user could ever need...

So AMD are somewhat safe to wait-and-see so long as Atom remains only a peripheral competitor to Snapdragon, Tegra, Exynos and Apple A7. The greater fear would be that the Windows market will diminish as iOS and Android gain market share over traditional PCs, in which case even MS has a problem!

Re:Low end can become high end (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 3 months ago | (#46805937)

Bay Trail is growing fast. Amazon hasnt been able to keep the Bay Trail NUCs in stock for months. The Dell Venue 8 is selling so well they stopped offering discounts on it. Atom is ready for some workstation loads now. Hell I've done handbrake conversions on my Bay Trail NUC.

Re:Low end can become high end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46807481)

The AMD a4-5000 directly competes with bay trail though. Not sure on cost, though.

And power margins are...marginal...for desktop use. the kabini chip is 15 watts under completely max load, and averages 8-10 under most normal load.. Desktop bay trail isn't much better that i've seen, going from a power meter.

Re:Low end can become high end (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 3 months ago | (#46807233)

The Windows market can only diminish on the desktop. On tablets & phones, even though Windows 8 is good for it (while on Atom/Fusion), it's presence is virtually non existent.

Just that I don't yet see Linux taking over that market. Not even Android nor ChromeOS. Maybe the BSDs, if they get a major commercial backer.

Re:The low end tablet market is sewn up (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 3 months ago | (#46811747)

Because if the market for x86 is destroyed by ARM there will be no more high end x86 market. ARM would love AMD to take the sidelines and cede the market entirely. Then they'll try to sell you an ARM desktop.

Intel is wise enough to see that they need to be a competitor now or be a has-been later. But AMD might recognize this and figure that Intel can do the hard fighting for x86 continuity and then just reap the rewards.

even more new clear options (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46805031)

thanks moms http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mom+kind+creational+compassionate pardon the typo {;^)-)-|

Re:even more new clear options (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46805707)

Thank you for moms

AMD != More_Bang_ForBuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46805059)

AMD used to provide more "bang for the buck" than Intel chips back in the day. Sure, they ran a bit hotter, but even 10% more performance for a bit more heat for 25% less than Intel was a huge deal back then.

Now, AMD chips are a great investment if you want to heat your room in the winter. AMD Chips are great at converting electricity to heat. I tried an AMD laptop, and that thing ran so hot at IDLE, I thought it would burn my house down.

Looks like AMD has lost its way.

Re:AMD != More_Bang_ForBuck (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 3 months ago | (#46805149)

can AMD even beat ARM? If they licensed ARM and made an SOC based on their Radeon chips, could they compete in that space? My worry is that the margins in that space are so tight I don't think AMD can even try.

Re:AMD != More_Bang_ForBuck (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 3 months ago | (#46805663)

They have been working on ARM cores but focussing on the 64bit server farm NOT consumer devices.

Re:AMD != More_Bang_ForBuck (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 3 months ago | (#46805783)

AMD sold Adreno to Qualcomm.

Re:AMD != More_Bang_ForBuck (2)

Sam36 (1065410) | about 3 months ago | (#46805231)

What ever man. Top of the line AMD cpu: $250. Top of the line intel cpu: $800.

Re:AMD != More_Bang_ForBuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46805283)

Heatsink for top-of-the line Intel Chip: $0 Included

Heatsink for top-of-the-line AMD Chip: $0 Included

Heatsink for top-of-the-line AMD Chip: $50-75 [for chip not to throttle]

Heatsink for top-of-the-line AMD Chip: $125 [for chip not to throttle] or burn down your house

Fire insurance for AMD Chip: $50

Re:AMD != More_Bang_ForBuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46805809)

BS. I use the stock AMD heatsink. It works just fine.

Re:AMD != More_Bang_ForBuck (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 3 months ago | (#46805955)

Actually, intel stopped shipping 'stock' fans with the high end chips (Socket 2011). They expect you to buy it separate. They offer their own model for it, but its an addon.

Re:AMD != More_Bang_ForBuck (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 3 months ago | (#46807685)

Still adds up to $400, as opposed to Intel's $800.

Re:AMD != More_Bang_ForBuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46809861)

The small heatsink+fan combo included with either AMD or Intel CPUs are sufficient if you don't mind the noise when they wind up under load. If the noise bothers you (it very likely will), you'll need an after-market heatsink for both of them.

And your fire insurance lines are just trolling nonsense.

Re:AMD != More_Bang_ForBuck (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 3 months ago | (#46806527)

AMD Chips are great at converting electricity to heat. I tried an AMD laptop, and that thing ran so hot at IDLE, I thought it would burn my house down

I'am running a FX-6300 CPU.
Dont get me wrong, for the low cost it was such a pleasing purchase, but now i regret it.

The heat, still a issue that plagues AMD:
- I run my CPU at 3ghz (instead of 3.5ghz), turbo mode off. = 35-45 'c at load
- If i run at stock 3.5ghz and all the bells and whistle on = 60-65'c at load.

60'c, although "acceptable" to AMD and the CPU, isnt for me. I want my CPU to last a little longer than a few years.
I think the issue is with the stock heatsink and conductivity. As soon as the cpu is under load, the fan speed increases to max but feels like its doing bugger all.
The funny thing, the compound on the bottom of the heatsink looked like arctic silver 5 to me lol.

If AMD want to seriously think about high end. They need to take some tips from Intel and learn how to deal with heat dissipation. To the point of actually providing a half-decent heatsink that's fit for purpose.
And i'am pretty sure the top metal plate on the cpu is another cause of bad heat conduction.

Re:AMD != More_Bang_ForBuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46807213)

WTF? The CPUs are designed for 80 - 90 degrees C, and you want them under 60? That's crazy and idiotic, and of course the cooler won't work properly if you try to use it completely out of spec.
And btw. the only thing the heat is remotely likely to kill within just a few years are the mainboards capacitors, but not the CPU itself.

AMD are right. (1)

edxwelch (600979) | about 3 months ago | (#46805469)

A product that can't compete without subsidies is worthless. It doesn't get you foot in the door, it just burns cash. Look at the Lenovo k900 design "win". Basically, Intel paid Lenovo to put their chips in the phone, but as soon as the subsidies ran out Lenovo switched to a Qualcomm design.

Re:AMD are right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46805545)

Not low-cost, not running WP8. Fail for a x86 chip.

Re:AMD are right. (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 3 months ago | (#46805819)

Good luck running legacy Windows apps inside a cellphone.

Re:AMD are right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46807523)

It's called a "dock".

And being able to dock an otherwise normal phone and run FULL WINDOWS, off a kb/mouse/1080p monitor in a quad core 2-4gb environment...would be a game changer.

So AMD wants to doom themselves to...mediocrity? (2, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | about 3 months ago | (#46805885)

Okay, Intel chips tend to outperform AMD on a clock-for-clock and core-for-core basis. So Intel has the high end pretty firmly locked in.

And Intel's going after the low end as well.

So where does that leave AMD?

Pretty much with whatever leavings Intel chucks their way?

Re:So AMD wants to doom themselves to...mediocrity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46806035)

AMD has been mediocre for some time now. It is their business plan. Cheap and mediocre processors.

Beta Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46806941)

"AMD has been mediocre for some time now. It is their business plan. Cheap and mediocre processors."

AMD is a good graphics company lumbered with a legacy CPU division.

Re:So AMD wants to doom themselves to...mediocrity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46806535)

Where the bulk is, and where the money is. In the Good enough (TM) department, and in pretty much every modern console out there. Go troll somewhere else, wanker.

Re:So AMD wants to doom themselves to...mediocrity (3, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 3 months ago | (#46806791)

Okay, Intel chips tend to outperform AMD on a clock-for-clock and core-for-core basis. So Intel has the high end pretty firmly locked in.

Interesting to see how this changes. On straight up single threaded workloads, AMD is unlikely to pull even. However, the nanosecond latency with HSA can prove iteresting. So far about the only benchmark actually written for that architecture was the libreoffice calc one. We got to see AMDs APU destroy everything Intel has to offer on that one by a vast margin.

Not everything will work with HSA, but far more things than GPGPU due to the low latecy and large memory space.

Beta Sucks (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46806979)

"So far about the only benchmark actually written for that architecture was the libreoffice calc one. We got to see AMDs APU destroy everything Intel has to offer on that one by a vast margin."

If you're using a spreadsheet to do something so complex that GPU calculations actually make a difference to your life... you're probably doing it wrong.

Re:So AMD wants to doom themselves to...mediocrity (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 months ago | (#46808039)

To quote AMD (pdf) [corporate-ir.net] in their 2014 Q1 earnings, a couple days ago:

We are on track to generate approximately 50% of our revenue from high-growth markets, including embedded, semi-custom, dense server, professional graphics, and Ultra Low-Power client, where we can create differentiated winning solutions by the end of 2015. (...) We used to be a business centered over one stream of revenue, one opportunity, the PC market. Now we've introduced five new ones with our traditional space; that's six key markets where we can leverage our core IP. (...) Now let's turn to our traditional businesses. In graphics, we see strong demand in the enthusiast portion of the market. Our industry-leading R7 and R9 products drove GPU revenue growth year-over-year and sequentially.

In short, they're transforming away from their "traditional" business and of the PC market graphics revenue is going to be significant. AMDs x86 CPUs/APUs are going to be a small part of their business, there's a reason Intel is aiming all the big guns at ARM because AMD has already in their strategy decided to get out of the head-to-head competition with Intel. If you don't believe that, read the above lines again. They couldn't compete with Intel when they bet everything on one horse, now they're riding five others as well? That's a slow exit strategy, milking the CPU/APU revenue to execute their transformation. The FX line is probably already dead, Kaveri/Beema/Mullins will keep AMD present in the consumer market a while longer but the revenue is funneled into all those other key areas.

Beta Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46809743)

"Professional graphics" is where GPU companies go to die; margins are high, but sales are low.

Wise choice. Low-end tablets are not adequate (1)

keneng (1211114) | about 3 months ago | (#46806127)

AMD serves the desktop/server-with-big-TV-Display market very well and should not be questioned. AMD also has a respectable position in the laptop market. The devices AMD's products run in better serve the consumer. They would be well-advised to avoid supplying to tablets altogether.

LOW-END Tablets are very slow with single-core/dual-core SOCs and I have zero patience for the 3-10 second reaction times and 2-4 minutes startup times on LOW-END Tablet GUIs. Low-end tablets also have less-power efficiency since they are old chipsets. Retailers selling the low-end tablets right now are dumping it to the public on a "Take-it-or-leave-it" basis before they start selling the new stuff when the retailers know full-well that these low-end tablets are inadequate for day-to-day requirements. It's unethical IMHO, but consumers are gullible. Tablets are inefficient without a keyboard. The latest trend is to get a bluetooth keyboard which renders the whole concept of tablets pretty much eliminated because keyboards are a necessity and not optional accessory. Tablets are inefficient for senior citizens with lower hearing/sight capabilities. Having to pinch/zoom is a pain in the butt because those suffering from arthritis in the fingers/joints won't like doing that all the time either. Built-in speakers are terrible for seniors to hear with and touching the wrong place with the ears on the tablet results in the phone call being disconnected. Hands-free is better for Seniors.

SIM CARDS/phone chipsets integrated within desktop/server motherboards is a potential market for AMD and its partners, but IMHO wireless should be used as minimally as possible. I am quite certain there are health effects being constantly surrounded by wireless energy everywhere around us, be it bluetooth, wifi or all the different phone/mobile data frequencies. I feel like my hand is being fried in a microwave everytime I use my phone for internet 3G or whenever I am on the phone call with someone long enough. I think it would be preferrable for everyone to use wired as much as possible for security and for health reasons when we are at home.

Re:Wise choice. Low-end tablets are not adequate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46806295)

The devices AMD's products run in better serve the consumer

lol fanboy much?

Re:Wise choice. Low-end tablets are not adequate (1)

InvalidError (771317) | about 3 months ago | (#46806607)

AMD serves the desktop/server-with-big-TV-Display market very well and should not be questioned.

The conventional PC market is already undergoing a substantial shake-down with people embracing smartphones and tablets in bulk. At the rate Android platforms are evolving, we are only two or three years away from the average phone and tablet being able to handle just about anything the average person might want to throw at them. For many people, current devices have already passed the good-enough milestone. In my immediate family, I am the only one who genuinely needs a PC - both of my sisters and their boyfriends do just about all their online stuff using their phones and own a computer or laptop they hardly ever use anymore and neither of my parents use the PCs I gave them for anything much beyond basic web browsing.

Re:Wise choice. Low-end tablets are not adequate (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 3 months ago | (#46806865)

Intel and Asus are launching a quad core Atom Android tablet at 7" for $150 this week.

AMD can't keep up, so they won't even try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46806993)

This makes sense once you consider just how far behind AMD is from Intel with their CPU technology. Their fabs are still 28nm, which is an aging process node that has been around since about 2011, while Intel has been shipping 22nm for almost as long, and is on schedule to deploy 14nm CPUs this year or early next year.

The main advantage of process node size is lower TDP, longer battery life, and cramming more performance into less space and less power. This is precisely the kind of advantage you need if you're on a battery powered device. ARM keeps up because they have a relatively efficient architecture, but they still lose in performance compared to Intel because, again, their process node is inferior.

Intel is still more than capable of making better all-around processors for mobile than any of its competitors, but the main reason they've lost market share to ARM manufacturers is that ARM came first and gained a large de facto following. Intel is relatively late to the mobile game, and they're having a few initial difficulties getting their traditionally "big" (laptop grade and up) processors to scale down to the 3 to 5 Watt TDP range, which is what you need for smartphones and small tablets.

Not only does AMD have zero established market share in mobile, but even if they tried, Intel could easily squeeze them out by having simply better technology that will yield better battery life and higher performance. AMD would have a real hard time selling x86 chips that perform about the same as ARM chips with slightly higher power use, which I figure is about the best AMD can manage.

Honestly, AMD's CPU division has the stench of death on it. It isn't even close to being competitive, and hasn't been for years. The only thing propping up AMD as a company is what used to be ATI; their graphics products are still extremely successful due to a simple and efficient architecture that's very cost-competitive against Nvidia, and still way faster than Intel's fastest IGPs. Being on major consoles as well as having a very substantial market share on the desktop certainly helps. AMD should just demolish the rapidly-sinking CPU boat, and rescue whoever's worth keeping into the GPU boat.

Anyone else worried about Intel's monopoly now? (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 3 months ago | (#46807145)

Intel now has a monopoly on the general-purpose CPU market. It's Intel or nothing. Could this be a problem with regards to price, and perhaps enforced DRM (if there's no competition Intel are able to dictate what DRM goes on the CPU)?

Re:Anyone else worried about Intel's monopoly now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46807693)

It's already had an impact.

They've delayed 14nm, since they have zero need to bring it out yet, as nothing competes with their 22nm...

Re:Anyone else worried about Intel's monopoly now? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 3 months ago | (#46815941)

From an engineering POV, the delay is good. From a financial POV too, the delay is good, particularly if what's involved in the transition from 22nm to 14nm is new equipment, tooling et al. B'cos die shrinks no longer automatically translate into cost savings, but the public perception, including that of the industry, is hard to alter. So it's good if Intel can run the 22nm for a while until the fab equipment depreciates, and then bring out the 14nm.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>