Negative Feedback Loops: How To Escape the Pit

During my time with AMD, a few things came out as painfully obvious. Everyone seemed enthusiastic, jubilant, and willing to talk to the ends of the earth about the product, the design, the team and the ideas, even with that sense of humbleness and humility. Meetings easily stretched into hours, and there is a great positive vibe among the employees that they have good products to use and good people to hold on to. There was little pomp and show, and no-one seemed overly worried about AMD’s recent financial news or exploits, such as the sale and lease-back of property or the movement in and out of key personnel.

Everyone was excited to be in the moment, and one person who exemplified this was Raja Koduri, who heads up the Radeon Technologies Group (RTG). I wasn’t scheduled to meet with Raja during my trip, as APUs/laptops and graphics are different departments internally, but it was by sheer coincidence that he was in town for a couple of days while I was, and I bumped into him in my hotel. We shared an uber into the office, and I talked his ear off about AMD, the perception and the future. If I had my head screwed on I might have recorded the conversation, but it was clear in Raja’s responses that AMD is always looking ahead. While we are worrying about reviewing 2015 products, 2016 is almost done and engineers are working on 2017’s lineup and the march is set. Next generation parts, new process nodes, the whole lot – everyone seems to be excited to be designing new technology. It could be argued that every company is like this, but given AMD’s recent financial news I did not expect my conversations to be so buoyant, active, and everyone seemed to be happy to put in long hours where needed. The only thing they really wanted is more people – with more people they could do more things.

Having positivity, hope, and genuinely dedicated employees is one thing. Having the right product that sells is another, and more often than not it comes down to a single individual making one or two critical decisions that can affect a product line, a launch, or the perception of the company. One could postulate that the main goal for any company is to stay afloat, to keep the bank balance in the black (which provides a return for shareholders and increases the value of the company). This can be done in a number of ways, but typically it comes down to revenue, profit and margins. To put it another way, a company needs sales, efficiency and repeat business, which creates a positive feedback loop.

Specifically talking about AMD, AMD’s goal is to sell more products. This could be through diversification or innovation, but selling more at a higher efficiency keeps the company going. If users like the product, they keep buying the next one, and the next one. A user (consumer or enterprise) needs to buy a device from an OEM, and an OEM has the same goal – sales and efficiency. So they want both the cheapest option that will get the biggest margin. AMD needs to keep the OEMs happy as well, so they keep buying their products.

So Consider This

Stage 1 AMD has had two mobile platforms for several years. If we pick the last generation – Kaveri and Beema, these were two different platforms, using two different core sets, two different chipsets and two different designs. Kaveri and Beema addressed different markets, with a small intersection.
Stage 2 A major OEM says designing two different platforms is expensive, meaning designing AMD systems is expensive. The OEM wants AMD to simplify costs to help their bottom line, and doing so would maintain a healthy relationship. This would allow OEMs to make one design for one chassis, and adjust the APU/firmware as needed without much effort and no need to design two motherboards, two sets of power delivery, and so on.
Stage 3 AMD does this with Carrizo and Carrizo-L. The APUs are pin compatible, with Carrizo-L using Puma+ cores but limited in terms of TDP, memory bandwidth (single channel) and ultimately aims for lower cost. Carrizo can use dual channel, has the new Excavator cores and is the current high end mobile part.
Stage 4 OEM creates one design, but ends up with Carrizo platforms that are physically limited by the Carrizo-L limitations. But it saves money, which is what their customers want. OEM builds a few products (some end up Carrizo only, some Carrizo-L only, but all limited by Carrizo-L). AMD saves extra work for the OEMs, OEMs increase margins.
Stage 5 User buys product at the new low shiny price, but due to some of the cutbacks has a bad experience. The system is slow, and not performing as well. Perhaps the power delivery system isn’t suited for such a high TDP, or the chassis design causes throttling, or the low price means a TN panel with a mechanical drive. The low price may also be due to pre-installed bloatware subsidizing the material cost.
Stage 6 Users do not like to be told they have spent their hard earned money on a bad device, and associate the bad experience with either the OEM, whose logo is on the device, or the CPU/APU manufacturer, whose sticker is next to the wrist pad.
Stage 7 Either no resale to that user, or they attempt a different configuration, or they are stuck with a budget/contract that requires them to stay on the path. With any wiggle room, or when advising others who have budget, they advise against the anecdotal bad experience.

If we had a poll system for our articles I would stick one in here – who is at fault? Is it AMD for simplifying the design, causing high end products to be put in cheaper designed platforms? Is it the OEM, asking for an easier solution to design, or for trying to gain sales in a race to the bottom? Or is it the end user for asking for a lower price, not willing to pay for that $30 upgrade, or being price constrained in the first place?

Perhaps this is a silly question, and no-one is at fault. This is sometimes how the race-to-the-bottom, or how a value proposition, works. In this scenario, it generates a negative feedback loop, one that can be notoriously difficult to get out of.

What Solutions are there?

Solution 1 Make a product that blows the competition out of the water. For the current climate in processors, semiconductors, software, architecture (x86), knowledge and application, as well as physics in lithography nodes, it becomes pretty much impossible without a fundamental paradigm change, and even then something like HBM (High Bandwidth Memory on AMD’s Fiji GPUs) required many years of research and collaboration with specific partners. If we consider the monitor space, the race-to-bottom on 1080p flat screen panels went on for 10 years, with monitors over 1080p being very expensive. Then a combination of cheap 2560x1440 Korean panels flooded the market, with three new disruptive technologies (G-Sync, FreeSync, 4K) hot on the heels.
Solution 2 AMD makes their budget and mainstream platforms require different designs, similar to pre-Carrizo. This would mean OEMs have to have two design teams, but it would almost guarantee a minimum level of performance based on the platform you have. The obvious downside is that the OEMs would not like it, even though they already do it with other semiconductor firms and very few laptop lines are similar, so they’re making a few dozen already. The issue is that OEMs want to be efficient with the money and time, and AMD doesn’t want to lose the major contracts it has.
Solution 3 OEMs fight against bad configurations. Unfortunately this is very difficult. Sales and requests from distributors govern future trends, so if a country requires 40% of notebooks to be under $400, then that is what the OEM will make. OEMs also have separate deals with IC manufacturers – perhaps they can save $0.01 per design by using a lower grade audio NIC that 95% of users won’t notice, or DRAM company XYZ is a long term partner so the OEM doesn’t want to disturb that partnership. Ultimately if a user wants 1TB of space and a 17-inch device but only has $400, it will end up with a mechanical hard-drive and a low quality 1366x768 screen.
Solution 4 Distributors stock only certain models with quality controls. While noble, that won’t happen any time soon, because another distributor will just take the business.
Solution 5a Distributors need to stock more models, or variants with better components (WiFi, screen). Again, this is difficult because distributors don’t want to sit on stock that might not sell, or deal with 450 variants of the same machine. The only people that can do this are the big OEMs that sell direct to customers. But if you’ve ever navigated HP’s website, trying to configure the exact system is a bit of a nightmare. Dell does this better than most big OEMs, but the options are still fairly limited.
Solution 5b Distributors need to stock more models. If more people see the products on shelves, then arguably it would be part of the mind set when it comes time to buy. This has issues, aside from idle stock, but also many companies pay for space in brick-and-mortar stores, and advertising can be expensive. It’s hard to force a big marketing and distribution campaign without money.
Solution 6 Users have to make informed decisions. That’s what places like AnandTech are for, so cutting through the FUD and presenting it in the best way is what we aim to do. But again, while we wish more people would read our analysis, most users end up getting advice from ‘the family friend that knows about computers’, or they are simply fighting budget constraints.
Solution 7 The Killer App. Similar to solution one, but find a way that your product has the next must-have idea and still have a good user experience, e.g. a must-have app that greatly benefits from HSA.
Solution 8 Deal with what affects user experience. Is it just about the quality of the components? Some of the devices we tested in this piece came with pre-installed bloatware, some of it scanning the hard drive so much that the CPU was being used and never allowed to idle. This bloatware is added because companies like Norton, or even Intel’s McAfee (even on an AMD system) pay the OEM to have their software preinstalled. So the OEM can save $0.02 per unit, increase margins, but it forces that negative feedback loop in a big way.

Some companies in the past have dealt with contra-revenue, selling processors at below cost or with deals on multiple parts when purchased together. Very few companies, typically ones with large market shares in other areas, have access to this. Some members of the industry also see it as not fighting fair, compared to actually just pricing the parts lower in the first place.

Unfortunately, no matter how much positivity AMD has, that negative feedback loop is hard to get out of. It is not one person’s fault, and every solution is a double-edged sword that requires one part of the chain to take the hit – either AMD, the OEMs or the buyers. Chances are it won’t ever be the last two, which puts AMD in a precarious position of either trying to define their position at the risk of angering their partners, or continuing down an uncertain road.

Power Consumption: Big Improvements to Video Playback Final Words: So Who Does Control User Experience?
Comments Locked

175 Comments

View All Comments

  • Kylinblue - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    When I saw the sub-page title "AMD's Industry Problem" I though it is the conclusion, after reading that page I found out I am just at half of the whole article. Well done Ian, well done...
  • ImSpartacus - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    I know, right? I'm one of those weirdos that reads the pages backwards (mostly), so I was immediately surprised at the list of pages before the conclusion. I honestly haven't finished even half of the article, but it's already evident that some tlc went into it.
  • just4U - Saturday, February 6, 2016 - link

    A excellent article Ian.. and actually a surprise I wasn't expecting anything in the pipe like this right now.
  • SviatAI - Friday, February 19, 2016 - link

    Unfortunately, this often happens when you work for some ecommerce shop selling various goods, the boss of the shop may not want such kind of articles about the products he or she sells. They want it now and fast, just to fill the site with irrelevant content. The problem is that you want to make something better than a stupid re-write. But who cares? So, I am happy for those guys who write for AnandTech and other similar websites. They can learn something new while doing their job.
  • CajunArson - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    This article certainly proves one thing: When it comes to price lists on Intel Mobile parts, the numbers you see on ARK have absolutely nothing to do with the actual price that OEMs pay in real life.

    Observe the supposedly major $200 price premium for Intel chips when you read a price list in a vacuum, but then see that the real-life Intel system [with an honest-to-God *quad core* chip!] is basically selling for the exact same price as a much less capable Chorrizo part.

    I personally got a Costco-Special notebook for the wife last year at $500.. it has an I5-5200U, and I assure you that the OEM most certainly didn't sell that notebook at that price after spending $300 on the CPU.
  • extide - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    BTW, that's not a quad core. It's dual, with hyperthreading :)
  • CajunArson - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    When I said quad core I was referring to the Core i5-6300HQ (45W) in the price comparison that Anand posted. It is a 4 physical core part in a notebook that only costs $8 more than a "4 core" Carrizo using AMD's "cores".

    I am aware that the 5200U is a dual-core hyperthreaded part too. Like I said, the entire price of the notebook including the 5200U was only $500 (it has 8 GB of RAM too).
  • extide - Tuesday, March 22, 2016 - link

    Ah, yes, Intel is FINALLY shipping quad core mobile i5's. Good call :)
  • vladx - Saturday, February 6, 2016 - link

    Except you didn't put in consideration that what you bought was called "Special" for a reason and it wasn't the release price of the product that was most likely $200+ more.
  • Braincruser - Friday, February 5, 2016 - link

    AMD still has a long way to go before its considered a valid choice. The 4.5W intel beats it in the tasks its gonna be used in. Even in graphics, the supposed strong side of amd's APU.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now