AMD Is Restructuring Again, Losing 7% Of Employees

[dungeon]

The biggest problem is that their CPUs are just slower than Intel and consume more power

I guess those both are mainly because of manufacturing process 0.22 vs 0.28 nm, so not that they do something wrong there or opponent doing something especially good

Probably linux will loose one or two devs... well, naturaly no one likes laid offs

[johnc]

I guess those both are mainly because of manufacturing process 0.22 vs 0.28 nm, so not that they do something wrong there or opponent doing something especially good

It's not necessarily about the process advantage, which is becoming less important as the shrinks get less. Intel has much, much better architectures than AMD. That's where AMD is getting killed.

Similar to how Maxwell is a better architecture than Kepler, even though both are on 28nm.

[AJSB]

The biggest problem is that their CPUs are just slower than Intel and consume more power especially mobile ones. That's probably why laptops with AMD CPUs are rare
And even more, there was a rumor they are going to discontinue FX processors next year... And FX are their only powerful desktop CPUs. Kaveri is rather slow, its integrated GPU is faster than integrated Intel HD****, but on par with Iris Pro and of course slower than any discrete card... there is probably some hope for HSA and zero-copy driver support (as I understand it's not yet supported neither in Windows, nor in Linux), and for integrated RAM in newer APUs (like in Iris Pro...) - I'm looking forward for any news about it
On the other hand, AMD was behind Intel most time, but they're still with us

FX is OLD tech that needs to be put to rest.

AMD APUs have all computational power needed for average Joe.

Intel IrisPro , even with same performance in iGPU than AMD APUs is NO MATCH for AMD APU for the simple reason of COST.

The money is in Enterprise/embedded/custom SoCs....that's the profitable market for AMD right NOW....not markets like the ones represented by the FX range where AMD will simply be CRUSHED.

To make something of the FX type that could beat Intel , it needs a small miracle....anyway, true standalone CPU are a thing of the past...anything "revolutionary" from AMD will be always an APU.

IMHO, YMMV.

[dungeon]

It's not necessarily about the process advantage, which is becoming less important as the shrinks get less. Intel has much, much better architectures than AMD. That's where AMD is getting killed.

Well speaking about CPUs, it is 0.32 vs 0.22 nm actually Yeah archictecture matters of course i do think Intel has slightly better, but applied on lower manufacture process it just gives illusion that is so big difference... so yup it does matters, but i don't think architecture takes all the precedence there

[torsionbar28]

The biggest problem is that their CPUs are just slower than Intel

No, they are not. AMD is faster than intel at the same price points.

intel has better absolute performance - when you buy the very top of the intel range, there is no comparable AMD chip. But those top of the range intel chips are priced in the $1000.00 - $3500.00 range, far above what most are willing to pay, even enthusiasts.

If you look at chips in the $100 - $500 price range, AMD wins every time, delivering more performance per dollar than intel.

[gamerk2]

No, they are not. AMD is faster than intel at the same price points.

intel has better absolute performance - when you buy the very top of the intel range, there is no comparable AMD chip. But those top of the range intel chips are priced in the $1000.00 - $3500.00 range, far above what most are willing to pay, even enthusiasts.

If you look at chips in the $100 - $500 price range, AMD wins every time, delivering more performance per dollar than intel.

Uh, no. FX 8350 <> i7 2600k. Once you hit the 3770k, performance is pretty much always in Intels favor. Heck, we still see plenty of benchmarks where the i3 3220 matches the 8350, and that's just sad.

[johnc]

No, they are not. AMD is faster than intel at the same price points.

intel has better absolute performance - when you buy the very top of the intel range, there is no comparable AMD chip. But those top of the range intel chips are priced in the $1000.00 - $3500.00 range, far above what most are willing to pay, even enthusiasts.

If you look at chips in the $100 - $500 price range, AMD wins every time, delivering more performance per dollar than intel.

* in heavily multi-threaded benchmarks

[dungeon]

Uh, no. FX 8350 <> i7 2600k. Once you hit the 3770k, performance is pretty much always in Intels favor. Heck, we still see plenty of benchmarks where the i3 3220 matches the 8350, and that's just sad.

Those both are maded under 0.32 nm lithography, pretty much that answers all our questions

[dbont]

quality ultrabook

I really don't care about CPU speed that much these days. I would totally buy an AMD laptop if it could have the same screen and weight as my Samsung ATIV Book 9 Plus.

Last I looked, most AMD laptops had low-normal resolution, and were heavy weight.

[varikonniemi]

First cost saving: scrap the catalyst and go 100% open source.