Understanding AMD's Roadmap & New Direction
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 2, 2012 6:16 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- Trade Shows
- AMD FAD 2012
ARM & The Future
Thankfully, Rory isn't HPing the company. AMD will continue to build its own x86 CPUs and GCN (and future) GPUs. The difference is that AMD will now consider, where it makes sense, using other architectures. AMD didn't come out and say it, but it's clear that the other ISA under consideration is designed by ARM. In the markets where it makes sense, AMD might deliver an ARM based solution. In others it may deliver an x86 based solution. The choice is up to the market and customer, and AMD is willing to provide either.
What's most interesting is that AMD was very clear about not wanting to be in the smartphone market. It believes, at least today, that the smartphone SoC market is too low margin to make financial sense. With smartphone SoCs selling for under $20 and given how hard it has been for Intel and NVIDIA to break into that market, I don't blame AMD for wanting to sit this one out. However, smartphones have been a huge success for ARM. If AMD is to offer ARM based SoCs coupled with their own CPU/GPU IP in other markets, it's unclear what the reception will be. The flexibility is definitely appreciated and it's a far more defensible position than saying that all future products have to use x86, but simply embracing ARM isn't a guarantee for success.
Rory Read presented a vision of the future where a large, vertically integrated device manufacturer may want to deliver custom silicon for everything from tablets to notebooks to TVs. AMD's goal is to be able to provide silicon to companies like this, while differentiating based on its own internal IP (x86 CPUs, GPU cores). One current example would be Microsoft's Xbox 360. AMD designed much of the silicon for that console, although it's using 3rd party CPU IP. In other words, should a customer want an ARM based solution mated with an AMD GPU, they could have one. If a customer wanted a strange x86/ARM APU, that would be a possibility as well.
AMD did a good job outlining that it would be more agile and flexible, however it didn't outline what specific products we'd see that implement this new architecture agnostic mentality. I suspect AMD's lack of specific examples is a result of the simple fact that the new management team has only been in place for a handful of months. It will take a while to develop outlines for the first products and a clear roadmap going forward. Until then, it's all about executing on the APU, GPU and server CPU fronts.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
84 Comments
View All Comments
spidey81 - Thursday, February 2, 2012 - link
There's nothing about what I asked that suggested AMD pander to the so called "high end". But they have been going for the mainstream enthusiast market with their unlocked CPU's. I don't have an unlimited budget and the most I've spent on a CPU or GPU is $300. I'm just hoping I'll see some better competition in the "value" enthusiast segment.Sabresiberian - Friday, February 3, 2012 - link
I certainly would have agreed at the time I built my systems that the cost/performance value favored AMD's Phenom II. I even recommended tit over the 1366 based platform to people building new computers, because they could not afford spending the extra money.However, I was an early adopter of Nehalem, and paid a premium for what I got. Today isn't yesterday, we have an extensive Sandy Bridge lineup to choose from, and AMD's offerings don't hold up.
As an example, I direct you to this article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pent...
The article is gaming oriented, and many Anandtech.com readers don't fit in that category, but even so I think it is of interest to those building or buying a new computer for any purpose. The fact is, AMD isn't just "losing" the performance "war", it is losing the cost effectiveness war as well. (I don't want downplay the fact that gaming benchmarks can have little to do with other needs, but if you really check prices and benchmarks for more business-oriented applications I think you'll find I'm not far off the mark there, too, for desktop CPUs.)
I suggest that far more than 5% of users would benefit from using an Intel offering over an AMD at any price point.
;)
wumpus - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link
First, the last Intel CPU I've used was a P3 base Celery. Looks I'll be going to Intel sooner or later.Two exceptions:
First, those of us with AM3+ sockets will have to decide if a new motherboard is worth it. This changes the value calculations enough for the 5%.
Second, I suspect Anandtech readers get roped into "supporting" more computers than they use outright. Even on the desktop, llanos-type CPUs will become more and more appropriate for any purchase not based on geek lust.
riottime - Thursday, February 2, 2012 - link
i'll wait until steamroller to upgrade my amd build. i plan to get ivy to upgrade my intel build. i will skip 7xxx series graphic cards and stick with my 5xxx series for both my amd and intel builds. they're still good. ;)Taft12 - Thursday, February 2, 2012 - link
"will the consumer market ever see anything directed at the desktop enthusiast marker?"Yes -- high-end gaming cards.
Rory Read and Anand made it very clear. The war is over for the high-end desktop. Intel won. But that market barely exists anymore - at least not in volumes that AMD or Intel care about, despite the high margins of i7 and FX CPUs
Neither will be investing much R&D there anymore. Look on the bright side, at least your Sandy Bridge system is future proof in the sense that neither company will produce something any better to tempt you to upgrade.
SlyNine - Thursday, February 2, 2012 - link
LOL, you talk as if it ever was a big market for it. Sorry to ruin your whole post by saying nothing has changed.EyelessBlond - Friday, February 3, 2012 - link
It has, though. I used to spend a decent amount of money on the CPU for my PC, and upgraded every couple of years. Nowadays, when I scrape together a few hundred dollars to upgrade my system I'm looking at a third/fourth/sixth monitor, an SSD, a good mechanical keyboard/gaming mouse, a better GPU. The CPU just isn't that important any more; now that a good quad/hex-core from two years ago can keep my system running strong, I can focus on other priorities.jabber - Friday, February 3, 2012 - link
Spot on. As soon as dual cores appeared it was game over in terms of CPU power needs for most folks.I now go longer and longer between CPU upgrades. I also don't even bother looking at anything higher than $150 for my needs. I have better things to do than run bechmarks all day. I'd rather spend the money as you say on a better monitor or something I'll really notice like a SSD.
I used to buy Opterons/DDR500/Raptors etc. but now I just don't find that stuff really matters now.
Ultimate performance items contribute very little to the overall average user experience.
SlyNine - Saturday, February 4, 2012 - link
Yea but I'm talking about the ultra high end 1000$ CPU market. when you could buy 90% of that speed for 200$. That market was never big.I do agree though. The important segment, mid range, has dropped off because older CPU's are still fast enough. Now I have a 2600k and the only real reason I upgraded from my I7 860 was because my Mobo was giving me minor troubles and it was hard to justify buying a new one. So ya times in general are changing I just don't agree that the ultra high end has changed much.
EyelessBlond - Saturday, February 4, 2012 - link
Oh, but it has. There are so many other things you can be spending your high-end dollar on nowadays: Eyefinity setups, expensive keyboards/mice/HD audio, tablets, home automation, SSD RAID setups, etc. All of these things will bring more to the high-end desktop than that $1000 CPU; all that is good for is CPU-intensive tasks, and if you have the workload that necessitates that then you can purchase time on an Amazon EC2 and get things done far faster than a single CPU desktop.