in before thread lock? i thought i was reading about amd cutting off jobs '__'

^So did I 🙁

NO! You are both wrong and may heaven have mercy upon your souls!!! God hath forsaken this thread and all within have strayed from the path of thy holy covenant!! :flame: <--- people in this thread burning for all eternity (btw, I am completely kidding. In case anyone didn't know)

I will tell you what you are missing: You are blind pitiful and naked.Buy clothes from wisdom that comes from the Creator so you ll be able to cover your shameful nakedness,buy medicine for your eyes so you ll be able to see and buy gold that has been refined in a fire. I dont expect you to understand it,but the sooner the better. Flame whatever you want and maybe this sounds harsh.

Okay.... that was a really weird response and does not make and sense and no context to MikeDogg and the rest of this thread. You must see that right? Very, very odd...

I will be glad to be banned from this site where are people like you. Hate me as much you want,I didnt speak about religion,but about faith,which are two completely different things. And your opinion is c***.And you call yourself a "don".You are far from that.

Don Tommasino is mafia boss from Godfather!:bang:

Oh u ppl are so stupid, do u really think that making new CPU is that easy ? "Intel Core" is still using technology from Pentium 4 like Hyper Threading - its basically same technology re made and upgraded many many times for many years now, AMD Phenom core was still basically the same Athlon technology that kicked intel pentium ass once in a while and AMD FX core is completely fresh, a lot of very hard work to be done to optimize "the city" inside it, that's why they are cutting jobs, probably to hire more ultra professionals, when they finish making FX core as fast as it can be - intel will be in trouble just like now they cant match AMD APU core and nvidia cant release new GPU on time. I totally support them, running AMD FX quite some time and i cant remember my PC running so smooth on intels platform. By smooth i mean it doesn't have the celeron syndrome like i had on Core i5 750 when it was busy.

Yeah layoffs suck.. I tell you what Jeters out they lose the game but i still have faith they can come back and win this thing.

Back on topic please, thanks guys.

Oh u ppl are so stupid, do u really think that making new CPU is that easy ? "Intel Core" is still using technology from Pentium 4 like Hyper Threading - its basically same technology re made and upgraded many many times for many years now, AMD Phenom core was still basically the same Athlon technology that kicked intel pentium ass once in a while and AMD FX core is completely fresh, a lot of very hard work to be done to optimize "the city" inside it, that's why they are cutting jobs, probably to hire more ultra professionals, when they finish making FX core as fast as it can be - intel will be in trouble just like now they cant match AMD APU core and nvidia cant release new GPU on time. I totally support them, running AMD FX quite some time and i cant remember my PC running so smooth on intels platform. By smooth i mean it doesn't have the celeron syndrome like i had on Core i5 750 when it was busy.

Ok, clearly many on this site would grossly disagree with this guys entire post, but he does make a point amongst the rubble in there. Hear me out before instant AMD flame ensues 😉 This guy isn't the only one I hear making mention of their computer just "feeling" faster with an AMD FX cpu. While most standardized benchmarks don't reflect that, people using their PC for everyday tasks are NOT benchmarks. I'll be honest, I've not worked on an i7 machine (and I'm sure it would blow the FX away) but I have worked on i5 machines and can agree, my PC generally feels quicker all around. Not all of this is attributable to the processor alone I'm sure, but the bottom line is I think the FX looks comes off looking worse than it actually is when it comes to the actual end user. As stated in this thread, the enthusiast market even paying attention to these almighty benchmarks are among the very few.

@Mozaik: Speaking of topic: So how will this go if AMD decide to sell out? Will the developers that lost their jobs from the different departments continue their work under a different contract? Or will another developer step up to challenge the big dogs? Either way, Intel and Nvidia need competition - so AMD staying afloat is an absolute must in my opinion.

But yes speaking of the topic, I would think most of us could agree with you on this! AMD dropping off would be an absolute atrocity for the industry. People who think an Intel and Nvidia monopoly would be ok are delusional crack smokers.

The prices AMD offers right now are very tempting, especially in the GPU department so I must ask - is your observation true for the usual online browsing/multitasking or gaming as well? It would be interesting to pit two similar rigs with Intel and AMD CPUs and record a video, because a lot of people suffer the placebo effect (not saying you do).

Speaking personally, I can say I've experienced this only with general use, ie: online browsing, multitasking (some small apps, some Adobe software etc). I've not done any serious gaming on an i5 machine so I can't speak on that. Also keep in mind, I didn't mean for it to sound like this difference I've experienced is mind blowing, but I can say it does feel a bit overall quicker. Perhaps this can be attributed to multi-threading? Idk, but I agree, it would be interesting to see two similar rigs put to video test, not just benchmarks!

School systems in the US are moving towards laptops and tablets....albeit rather slowly compared to what was predicted in the past. The cost is a hindrance given the current economy though, so that may explain the slower than predicted transition. At this point though, I'm inclined to fight such transition due to most school systems wanting to put the cost of such transition on the parents. Given reports from other some school systems, I'm not comfortable with the idea of the school system providing the laptop or tablet either since there has already been an incident in which a school IT employee was caught watching a student change clothes using the built in webcam and school board mandated software that provided access to the webcam. Too much a security risk for me to support. Now, I'm looking to build an HTPC in the not too distant future. I'm actually looking towards the current line of AMD APUs for a processor as it would negate the need for a dedicated GPU. Would suck if I build my HTPC and then AMD goes belly up....

And more conspiracy theory.... If the US Gov't wanted to implement tracking via hardware...they could force such tracking regardless of how many hardware makers there are. However, the US Gov't has no legal control over software licensing and the current laws (as they stand) don't permit the Gov't to have any control over businesses.

This thread pwns lol Well... If AMD disappears. nVidia owns the whole GPU market, Intel owns the whole desktop CPU market. And free market and competition save the day, yay.

NVidia doesn't even dominate the GPU market....Intel does. NVidia dominates the "discrete" graphics market. Intel holds majority market share in the graphics market as a whole.

Sure seems as though they are pulling whatever strings they can to manipulate the market, here is an example: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/08/us-usa-china-huawei-zte-idUSBRE8960NH20121008 As to the consipracy theory remark, its sometimes reassuring to know that still useful (ingorant) idiots exist, as that will buy the educated ones some time when the $hit hits the fan...

So, you've formed your conspiracy theory based on the US trying to block the import of products from 2 companies due to alleged security concerns? You really should learn the laws. Unless congress decides to repeal several laws, they legally can't interfere in the "day to day" operations of any business. They can impose new regulations for a particular market/industry, but can't impact any single business so long as they're operating within the regulations/laws set for their particular market/industry.

People need to take a long hard look at Intel's business model, their margin model and their OpEx and the realization will come that any trouble that AMD can cause in its current state (or any state, for that matter, given their always constrained production capacities), is mere background noise compared to the challenge of keeping that particular behemoth going. They're not innovating and implementing a particular price structure out of fear of what AMD can do (the latter have been way behind for years now), they do it because otherwise they'd implode themselves. So as beautiful and motivating as hero doing battle against evil empire stories are, it's really not AMD's fortunes that's keeping the market going and alive. The fringe market-share they hold (which is actually under 20% as we speak in desktop and under 5% in server) can easily be serviced by Intel, but doing so would put Intel at risk of over-commoditization, so they choose (emphasis on choose) not to pursue it. If AMD were to go kaboom, Intel would service it. And no, that has nothing to do with them pricing everything and 1000USD and laughing all the way to the bank, as some (naively) assume. Read what I posted above, Intel's main problem is keeping Intel running within optimal parameters. Their entire business model is built around the idea of high-margins and high-revenue. If the revenue stream is gutted, they're in a very tight position to say the least. By way of consequence, they cannot price themselves to the moon, there are constraints in place as a consequence of what the market will accommodate. Otherwise stated, they can only bump up the price within the space of whatever consumer surplus there may be accumulated, beyond that they will start negatively impacting the volume of sales, which has a negative impact on their business. Also, let's move out of the emotional "Oh man, AMD is keeping the market honest, everybody else is evil". They're all corporations, they're not people, and they're not evil or good or whatever. AMD sells its stuff for as much as it (assumes? hopes? has established that?) can sell it for, in quantities that meet some revenue targets that are set correlated with their expenses et al. They'd sell 1000$ SKUs in a second, if they had anything for that space, but they don't. They're not keeping the market honest, or being kind to consumers or whatnot, they merely have a product stack that constrains them to particular segments. As evidenced by recent developments, the whole "Sweetspot" strategy was a big load of gunk that was meant to put lipstick on the "we need to engage in super competitive pricing to stall and perhaps reverse share erosion; we're also far more financially constrained and can't afford risky, top-gun projects" porcine unit. I'd have trouble identifying even a single captive customer that AMD has...mainly because they offer no ancillary services to induce that captivity. They have no software stack worth noting and they offer no specialist services. NVIDIA tries to trap you with FUDA, Intel gives you a pretty fat toolchain and the guarantee that you won't get fired, AMD gives you the address of the nearest place of worship so that you can pray that someone will make the tools that you need, and that competitor's devrel efforts haven't hamstrung their HW that you just bought. Also, they (NVIDIA) are not giving you anything, they want to repeatedly get your money because otherwise they're screwed. In order to repeatedly get your money, they need to incentize you to give it to them, otherwise you'd just keep it in the safe or spend it on booze (they want the benefit of getting one of their GPUs to outweigh the cost of opportunity attached to this choice). Selling you a faster, shinier something, has that effect. They stop doing that, or charge you so much so as to have the benefits fall under the cost of opportunity, they're screwed, because they no longer get your money and they need it to cover OpEx, CapEx et al., whilst also generating some neat extra money for all stakeholders. cut & copy-paste from B3D

People need to take a long hard look at Intel's business model, their margin model and their OpEx and the realization will come that any trouble that AMD can cause in its current state (or any state, for that matter, given their always constrained production capacities), is mere background noise compared to the challenge of keeping that particular behemoth going. They're not innovating and implementing a particular price structure out of fear of what AMD can do (the latter have been way behind for years now), they do it because otherwise they'd implode themselves. So as beautiful and motivating as hero doing battle against evil empire stories are, it's really not AMD's fortunes that's keeping the market going and alive. The fringe market-share they hold (which is actually under 20% as we speak in desktop and under 5% in server) can easily be serviced by Intel, but doing so would put Intel at risk of over-commoditization, so they choose (emphasis on choose) not to pursue it. If AMD were to go kaboom, Intel would service it. And no, that has nothing to do with them pricing everything and 1000USD and laughing all the way to the bank, as some (naively) assume. Read what I posted above, Intel's main problem is keeping Intel running within optimal parameters. Their entire business model is built around the idea of high-margins and high-revenue. If the revenue stream is gutted, they're in a very tight position to say the least. By way of consequence, they cannot price themselves to the moon, there are constraints in place as a consequence of what the market will accommodate. Otherwise stated, they can only bump up the price within the space of whatever consumer surplus there may be accumulated, beyond that they will start negatively impacting the volume of sales, which has a negative impact on their business. Also, let's move out of the emotional "Oh man, AMD is keeping the market honest, everybody else is evil". They're all corporations, they're not people, and they're not evil or good or whatever. AMD sells its stuff for as much as it (assumes? hopes? has established that?) can sell it for, in quantities that meet some revenue targets that are set correlated with their expenses et al. They'd sell 1000$ SKUs in a second, if they had anything for that space, but they don't. They're not keeping the market honest, or being kind to consumers or whatnot, they merely have a product stack that constrains them to particular segments. As evidenced by recent developments, the whole "Sweetspot" strategy was a big load of gunk that was meant to put lipstick on the "we need to engage in super competitive pricing to stall and perhaps reverse share erosion; we're also far more financially constrained and can't afford risky, top-gun projects" porcine unit. I'd have trouble identifying even a single captive customer that AMD has...mainly because they offer no ancillary services to induce that captivity. They have no software stack worth noting and they offer no specialist services. NVIDIA tries to trap you with FUDA, Intel gives you a pretty fat toolchain and the guarantee that you won't get fired, AMD gives you the address of the nearest place of worship so that you can pray that someone will make the tools that you need, and that competitor's devrel efforts haven't hamstrung their HW that you just bought. Also, they (NVIDIA) are not giving you anything, they want to repeatedly get your money because otherwise they're screwed. In order to repeatedly get your money, they need to incentize you to give it to them, otherwise you'd just keep it in the safe or spend it on booze (they want the benefit of getting one of their GPUs to outweigh the cost of opportunity attached to this choice). Selling you a faster, shinier something, has that effect. They stop doing that, or charge you so much so as to have the benefits fall under the cost of opportunity, they're screwed, because they no longer get your money and they need it to cover OpEx, CapEx et al., whilst also generating some neat extra money for all stakeholders. cut & copy-paste from B3D

Intel knows the market is moving towards a more mobile model. Once they're established in the mobile market (i.e. tablets, smartphones), they can pretty well do whatever with desktop prices. Profits in mobile markets come from volume because of the smaller margins. If the volume is high enough, the profits will follow. If Intel decides to start building their own phones...the profit margins will increase. Short term, yes, Intel will be stuck on pricing...Long term, Intel has the ability to control their pricing so long as they stay within a price range that the market can/will support. But, what people seem to be ignoring is that IF AMD dies before ARM vendors are ready to compete with Intel directly....Intel has to concern themselves with Anti-Trust charges. AMD is the only company competing with Intel directly. VIA doesn't have the resources to ever challenge Intel, in any market. VIA is currently struggling to compete with ARM in the embedded market.

But Intel can pretty well do whatever with desktop prices in the same way that has always been the case. Ask from 0.01% of 0.01% customers to shell $1000 for their top of the line. While pretty much everyone else will upgrade only when +perf/$ is deemed worthy. If Intel is not reasonably priced, and they don't create new value - they don't get the money. Simple as that. And if they are not covering entire targeted population, they are losing money, because no amount of overpriced $500 mid-high range CPU will cover loss in volume when your revenue is in 10s of B.

While religion and AMD both are important to me (religion more so), I know this is not the right place to discuss religion/faith etc. So, coming to the discussion about AMD. I used to work at AMD Markham campus which was former ATI HQ. Naturally, it became AMD Graphics division after AMD acquisition. I have many good friends there and I know they are a talented bunch of people. I was there when the first round of layoffs took place (under Rory Read) and Software Engineering (driver development/QA) was least affected. I am sure it would probably be the same this time as well as they would not want driver development to be affected much otherwise they will have problems. I hope that they make a strong comeback after this and yes we all want them to be in the business for competition sake. And yes I personally don't feel the need to abandon the desktops yet. For me it is still the best platform to do work and to game on. May be because I was exposed to Intel 80386 and MS DOS in my childhood and with those memories there is a respect that I will always have for them.

The last thing this industry needs is another AT&T. That's why I seriously doubt anything will happen with AMD.

Intel is AT&T

Intel knows the market is moving towards a more mobile model. Once they're established in the mobile market (i.e. tablets, smartphones), they can pretty well do whatever with desktop prices. Profits in mobile markets come from volume because of the smaller margins. If the volume is high enough, the profits will follow. If Intel decides to start building their own phones...the profit margins will increase. Short term, yes, Intel will be stuck on pricing...Long term, Intel has the ability to control their pricing so long as they stay within a price range that the market can/will support. But, what people seem to be ignoring is that IF AMD dies before ARM vendors are ready to compete with Intel directly....Intel has to concern themselves with Anti-Trust charges. AMD is the only company competing with Intel directly. VIA doesn't have the resources to ever challenge Intel, in any market. VIA is currently struggling to compete with ARM in the embedded market.

Right now AMD barely matters to Intel. They can only sell in the mainstream segment because Intel allows it since Intel has the power to simply push them off the market since they have their own fabs that allows Intel to undercut AMD´s prices, if they wanted but they simply don´t care enough about AMD to do that. As for Anti-trust charges they are bound to become irrelevant sooner or later. If AMD goes down no one can force any kind of competition against Intel because of the multi million dollar investments necessary with maybe the exception of IBM. In the end Intel is going to simple say if they can´t compete against us, then anti-trust charges can´t be applied at all. As for Intel pricing their CPU´s like crazy if AMD it´s impossible to happen. Right know Intel´s biggest opponent is Intel himself. Everytime they build a new fab they spend millions that they can only recoup if they maintain their fabs working at full capacity and for that to happen they need to sell all the CPU´s they produce and for that they need to price them at acceptable prices otherwise people won´t buy them. So prices aren´t going to rise 300% even if AMD goes down. But innovation will suffer a severe blow because Intel will the only company selling desktop/laptop CPU´s. I just hope AMD can overcome this bad phase and comeback stronger because we need the competition.

Right now AMD barely matters to Intel. They can only sell in the mainstream segment because Intel allows it since Intel has the power to simply push them off the market since they have their own fabs that allows Intel to undercut AMD´s prices, if they wanted but they simply don´t care enough about AMD to do that. As for Anti-trust charges they are bound to become irrelevant sooner or later. If AMD goes down no one can force any kind of competition against Intel because of the multi million dollar investments necessary with maybe the exception of IBM. In the end Intel is going to simple say if they can´t compete against us, then anti-trust charges can´t be applied at all. As for Intel pricing their CPU´s like crazy if AMD it´s impossible to happen. Right know Intel´s biggest opponent is Intel himself. Everytime they build a new fab they spend millions that they can only recoup if they maintain their fabs working at full capacity and for that to happen they need to sell all the CPU´s they produce and for that they need to price them at acceptable prices otherwise people won´t buy them. So prices aren´t going to rise 300% even if AMD goes down. But innovation will suffer a severe blow because Intel will the only company selling desktop/laptop CPU´s. I just hope AMD can overcome this bad phase and comeback stronger because we need the competition.

Actually, the USDoJ can use the evidence previously collected after AMD filed the complaint against Intel. ARM has already made it known that they intend to move into the laptop and server markets to compete against Intel (again...)

IBM discontinued its own x86 line years ago. They do however fab x86 CPUs for VIA and one other company which I can't remember the name of it though. But that's it. There is no one left ito force any kind of competition with intel if AMD falls. The rest of the players either stopped producing, were either bought out/merged with other companies or started their own embedded manufacturing. But you are right on a couple things. I highly doubt Intel will raise their prices any higher than they currently are and the last thing anyone wants is innovation to stagnate.

AMD, IBM, Samsung, Tilera and VIA are the only ones I'm aware of having x86 licensing agreements with Intel. AMD uses GloFo and TSMC, Tilera uses TSMC and IBM, VIA uses TSMC and IBM, Samsung and IBM don't currently utilize their x86 licenses outside of manufacturing. IBM and Samsung are the only companies capable of taking over AMD without halting production to negotiate a license agreement. I doubt Tilera has any interest in trying to compete with Intel as their focus is primarily networking.

AMD won't be going anywhere anytime soon, until then I'd like to see ARM grow in performance 🙂

His response is not related to the thread, but there is nothing wrong with it. So I suppose that as a sender of a thing like this, you'll have the place for it to fit as well And so will you

Everyone has moved on, lets not derail the thread anymore:infinity: