Back to Article

  • quiksilvr - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    No consumer needs them unless they are epic gaming and every pixel counts, and that is a very niche market nowadays.

    You don't even need a desktop to do high end video editing anymore. The more efficient programs become and the more powerful mobile devices become, the smaller the computer needed.

    Remember when in the '60s computers were the size of rooms? Just makes sense to go smaller.
  • umbrel - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    And if they suceed with the APU thing and manage to boost the GPU part even high end gaming should be achivable with less than high end cores, not the current ones of course, I'm thinking 3 years from now.
    The only games that should require TruHighEnd® CPU will be those with advanced AI.
  • Hector2 - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    So a postage stamp size tablet will be better still, eh ? I don't think so. I use a docking station at work for my i7 notebook to interface with my 27" LCD monitor, wireless mouse & wireless keyboard. At home I have a desktop to do the same

    Why in the world when I'm at home or at work would I want to peck at a little virtual keyboard and tiny little screen ? Sure, they're great when I'm mobile and don't want to be lugging around monitors & keyboards.

    Did I miss something and the market for large LCD monitors, keyboards and mice just dry up ? Is everyone abandoning their big monitors and keyboards at home or the office in favor of tiny keyboards & screens ? Really ?

    As long as people are the size we are today and don't shrink as well, we'll be using big monitors and keyboards when we can.

    What a "PC" is is evolving with time. More & more "laptops" are being sold instead of desktops but desktops still offer more today than laptops have and they're not as fragile. Ultrabooks will replace "laptops" before desktops go away. The Ultrabooks will be a blend of today's tablets and laptops.

    Ultrabooks will continue to get smaller, lighter, thinner, and more powerful. They will have "touch", run Windows apps as well as other OS's. They'll be very mobile but when at home or work, they will be popped into docking stations for a better interface experience. When my desktop no longer offers me a better experience than a small CPU box (call it anything you want) connected to a docking station, then & only then will I get rid of my desktop.

    That'll be awhile.
  • umbrel - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    Relax, no one is banning periphericals, we are talking about the computing part.
    Remember that Intel is already pursuing designs where there is only monitor, keyboard and mice (kinda flat panel imacs), and there are already designs of phones that dock into a laptop form.
    Give to the industry another 5 years and there will be phones docking to a monitor and the keyboard and mice will be conected to the monitor too, or wire less. Actually given the push for wireless video the phone might not even dock, the perifericals will just work with the phone when it is close, in the wireless charging station I guess.
    Plus this year are already designs for in-glasses display that are almost practical, I give them 2 more years to get to something that can actually be used properly. Add the improvements in voice commands and gestures recognition and there is a good chance for stamp sized phones, no screen and no keyboard, just a nanoTX with wireless capabilities.
    I've decided, I just named the wristtop. :)
  • Herp Derpson - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    Voice Recognition is gonna be super-awkward. I imagine telling my computer to open porn folder. Probably will never use it. Besides it's very slow and inefficient. I'd rather have my PC hooked up too my nervous system :D. Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    That's what the motion capture hardware is for. Unbuckle your belt and it'll open the folder and start playing a random selection. Reply
  • Herp Derpson - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    Man, you really got me interested! Reply
  • jaydee - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    AMD is simply saying that desktop CPU's are no longer a market with high annual growth rates (like tablets, notebooks, etc). Are you refuting that, or merely taking up a strawman argument? Reply
  • Impulses - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    You and I and most enthusiasts are in a shrinking majority... The growing majority may not favor postage sized devices but the do favor mid range sub-$1,000 laptops, which have been fast enough for most common uses for a few years now... Reply
  • Impulses - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    Shrinking minority, blah Reply
  • Mumrik - Friday, February 03, 2012 - link

    Some of us just feel that laptops (and tablets 10x so) make for pretty horrible user experiences... Reply
  • Beenthere - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    As AMD has proven their desktop CPUs are more than adequate for any mainstream and gaming applications and a good value also. If all you do is benchmarking you're missing the whole point of a PC. Thus AMD will still be providing exceedingly good performance and value in the desktop segment but also in many new revenue stream areas.

    No where has AMD stated they will not continue to delivery top flight desktop CPUs, no where so don't go off on a tangent.
  • frozentundra123456 - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    Are you talking about the same AMD that I know?? They provide decent value in some segments but that is the best that can be said about them in the desktop field.
    Yes, their CPUs are adequate for most tasks, but why would I settle for something that is merely adequate when something even better can be had for a very similar price? And if you want top performance, AMD isnt even in the picture.
  • chillmelt - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    Do you need a top of the line desktop CPU to browse efficiently? Do office work? Watch videos online? No, that can be done by a sub $500 machine with an AMD or Intel CPU. You're still deluding yourself that every point of benchmark results matter in the end. They don't. I don't care if my computer can't reach gagillionhurtz of processing speed if a quad core from AMD / Intel I3 will do just as well for what I need it to do. I don't care if my laptop can't reach 6+ in cinebench. Performance scores mean doodly squat for most tasks. If you're a desktop gamerhead, then okay. More power to you. You're a dying breed. If you're a professional graphics designer or engineer.... You know what? You can get a high end i7 laptop with a professional grade GPU and still do fine. Reply
  • frozentundra123456 - Friday, February 03, 2012 - link

    You are totally missing the point of what I said. I would agree with you if AMD had a clear performance per dollar lead over intel. What I am saying is that Intel has superior CPU performance at the same price. So why would I purchase an AMD desktop CPU?

    I am view AMD APUs in laptops much more favorably, but in the desktop, they simply dont compete. And I am getting tired of those who continally excuse AMDs inferior CPU performance because it is "good enough".
    Why would you settle for "good enough" when better can be obtained for the same price?
  • chillmelt - Saturday, February 04, 2012 - link

    Everybody wants better performance. The performance gains however are RARELY used on an everyday setting. Today's average software can't keep up with hardware improvements over the past ~2 years. When, say 90% of software can actually utilize quad cores (IE browsers) then there will be a need for better processors. Since the trend nowadays are portable apps, these is more focus on power efficiency, since today's devices and computers aren't exactly starved for performance. Reply
  • frozentundra123456 - Thursday, February 02, 2012 - link

    Oh I forgot to ask: What is the "top flight desktop CPU" that AMD is delivering now? Reply
  • shriganesh - Monday, February 06, 2012 - link

    There are several times that I'd prayed to God when AMD was in crisis. The main reason is that if Intel was solely the performance king, it would jack up the prices to new levels! Now that AMD is officially off the performance CPU line, Intel would be more than happy jack up the prices once again. Now I'd been happier if AMD had gone bankrupt!
    But still I believe if any company that can challenge in CPU performance, it's AMD. Hope Read doesn't run the AMD aground!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now