I'd love to see AMD get back in the game, customers would win...

Well point of the matter, we're not associating AMD with high level systems. The AMD platform aims at those who want to game, but not so much as to spend an arm on gaming. "Casual gamers", "cheap gamers", call them what you want, but they're out there and quite numerous too.

Just as an example, how many threads in the "What notebook should I buy?" section do you see of people who coin that they want to play computer games, but have a limiting budget of say 900$(speaking of a notebook that is)? Half the time their option is refurbished or some third rate GPU(the other half of the time, you get really good deals, but that's not always happening).

These are the people for whom an AMD platform would be useful(assuming it sells at a fraction of the cost of an Intel platform). Scratch the enthusiast who gets tech he/she doesn't need or needs very little.

 

This might work, but only if there are more applications that rely on the GPU. As things stand, there is very little point in buying a hotter, slower CPU just to get a better integrated GPU which still can't play modern games.

Also, does anyone know when the Fusion platform is coming out? As far as I can tell, it's not scheduled until 2011 which means a year and a half to two years from now (and that's assuming they keep to that schedule). Intel's Arrandale which also puts the GPU and CPU on the same chip will be out in the next 6 months so AMD will be at least one generation behind (quite likely two) by the time Fusion is released.

I'm not saying they can't succeed, but it looks like for the next couple of years they'll be relegated to the lowest end of the mobile market and the mid-low range of the desktop one.

 

Slightly flawed. Arrandale has the graphic controller integrated, and the GPU is connected. And IIRC Arrandale includes IGP in the package.

AMD Dragon is out people. Dragon is quoted by AMD:
'AMD desktop platform technology codenamed “Dragon”

"Dragon" platform technology from AMD is a synthesis of power, strength, and wisdom: the fusion of the AMD Phenom™ II processor, ATI Radeon™ HD 4800 series graphics, AMD 7-series chipsets and AMD software that puts you in control. It's the PC platform designed for high-definition gaming, video processing and entertainment at an affordable price. The AMD Phenom II processor is the heart of Dragon platform technology, bringing AMD's highest performing processor ever with superior energy efficiency to customers who want to do it all."

So Dragon is NOT another CPU. Dragon is the name that a Phenom II (which are out for some time now), plus the ATI 4800HD series and the 7 series chipset. Look it this way, Dragon is like Centrino. Centrino is a combo CPU+chipset+wireless, Dragon is CPU Phenom II (any variation)+Chipset 7 series+GPU 4800HD series.

Check this link: http://www.mwave.com/mwave/amddragon.hmx?lid=mwavedragon
You can buy Dragon NOW! Is not like we have to wait.

Now, Fusion. Fusion is the attempt to make a CPU/GPU in a single chip. Make AMD/ATI one sole thing, instead of having a CPU and a GPU, you get one chip that does it all. That not even Intel can do it. The are making everything together, but still requiring a GPU.

AMD Dragon Platform is the one that is aimed at gamers, performs quite well, it is cheaper, and it is available now.

 

Right. I used "chip" where I meant "package". But does it really matter? Every Arrandale CPU will come with Intel's integrated graphics and supposedly an option to switch between integrated and discrete. It's the same issue as with the original quad-core processors: Intel put two Core2Duos on a package and called it a Core2Quad. AMD said that the first generation of Phenoms was a "true quad-core", but since the Core2Quads were better, nobody cared.

Sure, but that's pure marketing: in a desktop, you can just as easily combine an 4800 series card with a Core i5/7 processor or a Phenom II with an Nvidia card. You could go all-AMD/ATI and get "Dragon", but it's not necessarily the best choice.

 

Yes, but do you know that AMD will also go that route for the first generation before fully integrating it into the CPU? Plus, Arrandale's integration isn't really comparable to Core 2 Quad style integration. Core 2 Quad communicated with the FSB. Arrandale's CPU and GPU will do it with the dedicated QPI, more like the AMD Magny Cours CPU.

 

The next generation Intel processor, Sandy Bridge, due in about a year, will put everything on one piece of silicon.

 

A year and a half, and TOTALLY not nitpicking.

 

I'll go along with that.

 

To just add, or "adjust", to what you said, it's not to say that people are looking for 'only' a mid range system because they don't WANT more...it's more along the lines of: people are hurting for money but they still want to game. AMD's pricing, if competitive enough, provides a way to do that.

Personally if I HAD the money, I'd probably keep going intel, buy the top i7 they have out right now. Unforunately a lowly airmen doesn't make that kind of money XD

 

Well yes, as human beings, we have trouble discerning the difference between what we want and what we need. I could surely get a huge mansion if I had the money, but I know I wouldn't use half of it on a daily basis(since I don't party every day lol ). Let's not even talk about cleaning and maintaining the thing...

Cost is usually one of the main control factors that help people make the distinction between these 2(which IMO is a good thing). People who are less fortunate financially wise are usually more aware of the difference between want and need. This way, overconsumption(or as I call it "overkill" ) is avoided.

Anyhow, point of the matter is, AMD can(and at this point should) provide an alternative for these people. Sure, you might not get the top gaming system available, but if the rig plays what you want, who cares?

 

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/09/21/e.mails.show.intels.guilt.in.eu.anti.trust.case/

And I wonder why AMD has a smaller share of the market....

 

Intel has got a loooong history of dirty tricks. I remember back in the days Intel forbid to place Intel equipped devices beside AMD equipped devices in catalogues. If Intel would obey common rules of behaviour, its standing wouldn't be that good. I'm still waiting for AMD to sue Intel on that behaviour that led to the fine the EU appointed. The verdict is based on competition law and does not include AMD as aggrieved party. AMD could still sue Intel for compensation and would win easily. I don't know why AMD is taking so long.

 

Back in what game? AMD is doing good, they beat Nvidia in the GPU market for the most part and are poised to do it again with there 5000 series gpu's and while I admit intel is dominant in the notebook market for cpu in the desktop world there are still a lot of AMD based systems and they still make better IGP solutions.

I dont see them catching up to intel in the cpu world though for power for a long time, the intel roadmap simply has better products.

 

And the plot thickens! This is something we should all fear.

 

It is well known of this. This case has been around since May!!
No wonder Intel has a larger market share.

 

I remember during the days of the Athlon X2. For the life of me I could not figure out why PC vendors were not supporting AMD processors when they clearly much superior to the Pentium 4's.

I remember Dell specifically only offered Pentium 4's while Athlons were much more powerful. It wasn't until AMD lost its performance crown to Conroe that Dell started supporting AMD more.

The same thing happened when Apple decided to go Intel right before the release of Conroe. No one could figure out why Apple went with Intel, when AMD was in the lead.

I'm almost certain that Apple knew the potential of Conroe and what it would mean for them partnering with Intel. Now that everything has now long gone and past, it all seems clear now.

AMD had a shining moment during their Athlon 64 times, but even if they were able to take full advantage of it with their vendors, Intel would still have a much bigger marketshare.

 

Hindsight is 20/20 my friend. To be honest with the odds stacked against them like that I'm surprised they pulled through and are still here.

 

AMD had to retreat from the mobile market almost completely.
Even now, it is hard to find AMD based laptops outside HP and MSI!

It was a dirty play from Intel, which helped them get ahead, develop Conroe, and get where they are now. But AMD survived thanks to servers and desktops, which are still plenty, and in those areas, they works quite well.

What puzzles me is why ATI is so far ahead in the mobile market, while AMD is still lagging...

 

Well AMD and ATI weren't always one entity, correct? That happened after AMD's downfall.

 

Actually, AMD bought ATI right before Conroe launched, not after. IIRC Conroe came out literally the day after AMD made the announcement.

Which brings me to the next point - the buyout happened years ago, what's taking them so long to get Fusion to market? Had Fusion been launched in 2007, AMD might actually be competitive in the notebook market right now.

 

It takes a while to design and test the chips, its not like AMD can just skip straight to 32nm right now, it takes time.

 

Interesting that you bring up a mansion. It is true that I can't buy the house or the car I would like. But I can buy what I consider the best laptop (without compromise).

Yeah, I wondered about that too. I presumed it was just the slowness of the Dell bureaucracy.

Think about Apple's motivation. Apple knew that the rather impressive G5 (a PowerPC chip) consumed more energy and put out too much heat to be practical in a notebook--and they correctly assessed that the notebook market would shortly dominate computing. Thus, their decision was based on switching to the best source of notebook processors. Thus they chose Intel.

 

And this responds to my comment how...?

My point still stands; just as I can't buy the "best house"(for argument's sake let's pretend it's a mansion), some people cannot afford their "best" laptop/notebook.

It's not about compromise because at a certain point you're past what you need and into what you'd like to have. I'm sure half the people who own computers have overkill standards for what they need(I honestly admit falling into this category). The industry(and capitalism in general) builds upon this fact really. The more you overkill your needs, the happier companies are.

Having a car which does 0 to 100km/h in 5 seconds is nice, but the only place I can roll at over 100 is on the highway and that begs to question... what was I doing at 0 on the highway in the first place?!?!? (don't take this too seriously, it's a joke)

 

I for one think the new AMD CPU's might be decent. They are based on the PII core which had benchedmarked relatively well against Core 2 based chips. Probably no competition for mobile i7 but against C2D they might be competitive.

 

Well, I'm really not trying to argue. I root for AMD to stay in the game too. Monopolies are no fun.

My point was that a notebook is one of the few things I don't have to compromise on (admittedly, I only buy a new one every five years or so).

 

Maybe I don't have much business smarts but instead of allegedly holding back rebates as an incentive to not sell AMD, couldn't they have just outright sold the chips to the manufactures cheaper? If the money being held back by Intel was the only motivation to cut AMD out, they could just undercut AMD on price. Seems like the an awful big risk on their part just to keep AMD out of the game. Unfortunately, its the consumer who in the end will really be paying for this fine, Intel sure as hell isn't just going to eat it. I don't understand how it got to this point after how many years of this behavior by Intel before something is being done about it.

If there was an actual competitor right now all of us would be paying much much less.

 

Analysts predicted that AMD buying ATI was the worst investment ever and said that it was going to be their undoing.

And in a sense, the analysts were part right. AMD buying ATI right before Conroe (Intel's biggest comeback) hurt AMD severely and couldn't come at a worst time.

AMD is still trying to recoup the losses from the ATI merger.

 

Indeed, I remember one analyst jokingly claiming that because the ATI acquisition would drain AMD of so much cash, even a teenager working at McDonald's for 1 day would make more money than AMD had during its entire lifetime as a corporation since their net income over the course of their entire existence was negative as a result of the ATI acquisition.

AMD basically had nothing with which to compete against Conroe until the Phenom II launched, and they still have nothing that's competitive with Nehalem. I can't help but wonder if their situation would've been much better had they held onto their hard-earned cash from Athlon 64 sales at the critical moment. Maybe the original Phenom might have actually turned out to be decent.

 

Well people call the Phenom II "what the original Phenom was supposed to be", i.e. it's competitive with Intel's last generation CPUs. I suppose had Phenom II been in the place of Phenom, we might've had a more decent competition.

 

Yes, that was a very risky move. They've never truly recovered from it. Here's a recent article on the matter:

I don't think they're in too much danger of bankruptcy, but the fact remains that in 2006 their shares were trading at $40 and today they're worth less than $6.

 

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/09/23/radeon.hd.5800.reaches.three.pc.builders/

This confirms what most people said?
Dragon based PC 400 less than Intel. Both carrying the 5850HD or 5870HD.

 

I don't know about MainGear, but I'd never buy anything from CyberPower or iBuyPower.

Both are so shady that I can't help but wonder if they aren't the same company.