RSSAMD transforms into a platform company, to release triple-core CPUs
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published March 27, 2008, 11:54 AM
It builds CPUs, chipsets, and now with ATI, it builds graphics processors. So beginning today, AMD is radically reforming its marketing strategy, arguing now that it takes all three components together in harmony for customers to realize value.
Between now and April 7, AMD will be releasing its first triple-core processors, announced last September, along with performance upgrades to all three of its quad-core Phenom desktop processors. The success of their release may be completely dependent upon how well the company's new value proposition is received by consumers: What their CPUs may lack in performance against Intel's top-of-the-line, may be compensated when you add an AMD chipset-based motherboard and an ATI graphics card.
The triple-core line may be AMD's biggest gamble to date. Its success hinges on a theory that there's a serviceable niche of the buying public in-between its best-performing dual-core and its entry-level quad-core -- up until today, somewhere within a price gap of $31.
Though pricing details were not released on time by AMD this morning, it estimates its new 2.1 GHz Phenom X3 8400 will sell for just above $150, and its 2.3 GHz Phenom X3 8600 will stay well below $200.
That will probably trigger another price drop in its dual-core segment just to make room.
Can AMD effectively differentiate its triple-core series with very little price point to stand on? "I think certainly triple-core will stand on its own for price/performance," AMD's director of platform marketing, Leslie Sobon, told BetaNews earlier this week in an online Web conference with reporters.
Sobon invoked the term uplift to refer to the price/performance differential between lower and higher product segments. "When you look at the data that we've seen in terms of dual-to-triple, triple-to-quad," she said, "there is a good place for it to fit and differentiate for itself as a stand-alone. And it will fit higher in terms of a price than our dual-core, and it'll be lower than quad. But it'll offer its own value within that space not just around price."
The best way to test the real performance of either Phenom X3, Sobon made sure we noted, was in a system using the 780G chipset. In highly multi-threaded application tests, she said, AMD sees what she calls a 30% uplift between dual- and triple-core product performance for CPUs clocked at the same frequency, and 20% between triple-core and quad-core at the same frequency.
"So it has a place in performance, and it absolutely has a great area to fit for price in-between dual-core and quad-core, to hit that sweet spot in the market," she continued.
Today, AMD finds itself in a dangerous position: It is a full process generation behind its sole competitor, and it can no longer hold claim to the high performance or even the power conservation segments of the market -- two areas which helped AMD gain an edge against Intel in 2004 and 2005. And with Intel already ramping up its foundry conversion roadmap to the 32 nm generation, AMD must make the most of its current process with only half the granularity.
There are two possible strongholds remaining, and that is where AMD is falling back and holding the line. The first is familiar territory: the value segment. Most every processor AMD currently produces gives the customer significantly more performance for the dollar than price-comparable Intel processors. BetaNews verified this claim mathematically using the latest CPU performance figures from Tom's Hardware, and the latest street prices from PriceWatch. Though there are some Intel processors which break through AMD's price/performance curve, many AMD processors remain $100 less expensive, on average, than the nearest performance-comparable Intel CPU.
Earlier this week, AMD desktop brand manager Simon Solotko demonstrated for reporters a test system featuring the latest renditions of all three elements of the company's Spider platform: a new Phenom X4 9850 quad-core processor, dubbed "Black Edition," clocked at 2.5 GHz; an ATI Radeon HD 3850 discrete graphics card; and a motherboard using an AMD 780G chipset. In one of the few performance scores Solotko would share with reporters at this early date, the system scored a 2711 on the 3DMark06 CPU benchmark.
When the 9850 Black Edition goes on sale April 7, it will sell for $235. Using performance numbers from Tom's Hardware, we determined that the nearest performing Intel CPU on that particular benchmark was its Core 2 Duo E6850, a 65 nm processor whose best sale price, according to PriceWatch, is $278.75. Performing slightly better than the 9850 in Intel's 45 nm lineup is its Core 2 Duo E8400, which typically sells now for $295.
So the price/performance gap right now between what AMD is selling as its high-performance enthusiast desktop CPU, and what Intel is already moving into its mid-range category, is about $44.
For more: AMD's price/performance conundrum: Can it keep its high-end customers?
"3 is better than 2" Always did like 3-ways.
Score: 0
Using both hands, eh? :p
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Score: 0
Well..using only one I can't get a firm grip.:) sort of like an AMD chip.
Score: 0
lmao...
Yeah, those AMD chips are pretty tiny. :p
Score: 0
nanometer peter
Score: 0
LOL on the picture of Leslie... Pretty much tells me everything about AMD as a marketing powerhouse.
Score: 0
You'd think they could find a less cam-wh***-ish pic, right?
...actually, that's probably not a bad marketing gimmick...
Score: 0
This has more to do with getting a return on "failed" chips than anything else. Sure they want to include more of what they make into end systems. They knew that the centrino brand, putting Intel products altogether ensured more income and increased market share, something AMD is wanting to emulate.
3 is better than 2, and I hope AMD moves away from duel core in favour of these. Anyone interested in low cost duel core CPU's could be tempted by these, but I dont think they will attract the power users who would want to skip them in favour of quads or greater.
They would make a fine office desktop, especially with the improved chipsets and graphics now in AMD's grasp.
Score: 0
Let's be honest about this whole scenario, Intel has been putting pressure on AMD since the beginning and that's fine. The real issue is being able to have choices. IF (that's a big if) Intel were able to snuff AMD completely out of the market guess where that leaves you and I, in the price/ performance dust. Then Intel will have more reason to think it can do whatever it wants with it's prices and won't care about performance. We all need AMD in the market to be able to maintain freedom of choice. Let me ask you this for example, who here likes the fact that Windows is the predominant OS provider? Don't you think there are other choices out there? Of course there are but with the multi-billion dollar stronghold Windows has who really has a choice in the matter. This is what Intel wants too, you can be sure of that.
Score: 0
That's partly true. Here is the how it all breaks down though in my opinion:
Intel - Brand, Known to be used on the new Mac.
AMD - Pricing and performance. Well known throughout the gaming world for both, especially used by geeky teenagers and college students.
--
www.TalkPrice.net
Score: 0
Add VIA, they are well known by me for being green and cheap.
Score: 0
The trouble is, Intel has a huge R&D budget and got used to being a few generations in front in house. They milked their products for as much as they could while offering increased speeds for existing technology to keep people buying, maximising return and improving manufacturing processes.
AMD unexpectedly pulled the rug from under their feet, and for a while rubbed Intels nose in the fact that they were not the fastest any more. This is why it didn't last for too long, and is also the reason why everyone is getting frustrated with AMD. Everyone is expecting AMD to return a shot in the same style, which although they are trying and achieving great results, it is simply not quite going to match the reply that Intel made.
I like AMD. They are not too far behind price for performance, and in some area's are actually better. Intel, however, is on a mission to not let AMD compete on price, and the next round of chips by Intel is not going to be forgiving for AMD.
Score: 0
I hope this does well for them. AMD needs some gains if they hope to survive.
I think their 780G chipset is awesome and is just one attractive reason to pick an AMD system right now, so coupled with this cpu--if I were buying a new system today, as great as Intel's CPUs are, it is hard for me to pass up a system with 780G and one of these processors--that could be the best bang-for-buck right now.
Score: 0
What about 790FX?
Score: 0
Excellent idea. I would personally LOVE to see a mb with EVERYTHING integrated into it, since I don't really play, so I need neither fancy memory & cpu nor a video card with a ton of horse power.
Thumbs up!
Score: 0
What AMD says about the value of the graphics is absolutely true.
You need to see it to believe it!
AMD did a good video versus Intel on BluRay playback and on games. Check the videos out.
Intel vs. AMD BluRay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V741rSx3-5U
Intel vs. AMD Games: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd0Of4PnpQk
Score: 0
Are there real world benchmarks? (not those synthetic crap)
Are they good for gaming for their price?
Score: 0
Particularly in the Video department (ATI), AMD is the best for price/performance.
Score: 0
Yeah, comparing the CPUs using scores from a test designed to benchmark mainly the GPU is pretty stupid. How about a test that utilizes more than a single thread/core. I'm sure none of Intel's dual core CPUs come anywhere as near to the performance level of AMD's quad core CPUs as this poorly researched article would have you believe.
Score: 0