Login:
Password:

AMD: With Vista, Time to Re-evaluate Price/Performance

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

February 1, 2007, 6:40 PM

(continued from previous page)

In terms of percentage, Schwarzbach said, more of AMD's customer base is concerned with compatibility, image stability (producing essentially the same system over a longer period of time, in high quantity), acoustics, power consumption, and energy efficiency. "Of course, the enthusiasts are notorious for not being concerned about those things; their cases are very large, [they have] cooled neon fans, several of them blowing full speed, to keep their really high-power rigs running efficiently."

Guilty as charged. But here's where the AMD strategy begins to take a sharp turn from its 2006 course: Suddenly, AMD can't claim a power advantage across the board, and certainly the notion of pairing two processors in a desktop system doesn't help the power envelope much. But hey, perhaps those factors aren't all that important to enthusiasts anyway. And it's enthusiasts who are responsible for helping establish AMD's brand presence; after all, they're the ones who populate sites like Anandtech and Tom's Hardware Guide. So why bother redirecting their attention to matters that don't interest them anyway - or at least, matters that aren't supposed to?

Why not keep their attention focused on the notion of raw power...while making a case for changing the definition of what "raw power" means? The introduction of Windows Vista makes the definition-changing part of that strategy all the simpler.

"The Quad FX platform and the FX 7-series processors are targeted at a unique market segment that values the performance more than the [thermal design power rating]," Schwarzbach said. "So we've optimized that line on the performance attributes, and pushed the TDP in order to do so. These are going in large cases with liquid cooling solutions and lots of thermal airflow designed into the chassis so it can handle the TDP; and folks are buying 1000 watts of power supply to power these rigs."

Isn't the enthusiast segment of the market still pretty slim? "It's pretty slim," Schwarzbach responded, "but the halo effect, the evangelist effect that they have on a person's behavior in the general market, I think have been understated. It's difficult to quantify, but we all know it's real and it's there, which is why you see continued investment from not only the silicon providers, but from the OEMs as well in this really important space. And the margins are great."

If AMD relies upon the high-performance, enthusiast segment of the market to substantiate its brand - the segment that doesn't care so much about low power and efficiency - but the market to whom their message trickles down, the recipient of the halo effect, does care about those things, then doesn't AMD risk creating a kind of disconnect between those market segments, thus strategizing itself into a niche?

"The answer is no," Schwarzbach responed, "because the distinction of the enthusiast market from the mainstream market has been strong...and now there are other applications like multimedia production, extreme video editing, that continue to define what the enthusiast segment is. They have always had different sets of criteria and features that they go after. But what we have found is once these folks have put a product through its paces, they become evangelists for the brand and the company behind that brand. They will have an understanding that most users do not have that same definition for what they're usage requirements are, but they will still give a very favorable impression of AMD, accepting and regardless of what the differences in their feature requirements are."

To that end, AMD CEO Hector Ruiz may have thrown a little monkey wrench into that strategy, when he told analysts during the company's last quarterly earnings conference that over time, customers in general won't care about numbers of cores the way Intel believes they will. "It's not about the cores," Ruiz said, before spending the next several minutes trying to pick up the pieces of what "it" actually is about.

So what is it about? "It's about what you can do with the cores," responded Pat Moorhead. Immediately, he promised, "AMD is going to be first to market with a true, native quad-core processor. Not two dual-cores glued together. So what matters most is the work that the customers are going to actually accomplish with those cores, not the fact that you have four cores. AMD has a very differentiated approach in that we decided, as opposed to rushing to market two dual-core processors and gluing them together, to come up with a native quad-core approach that from the ground up is optimized for four cores.

"It's still the number one important thing, what the customer can actually do with that," Moorhead concluded, "and do with it at the right thermal envelope and the right power envelope as well. That's what matters."

And there was that old AMD pitch again, the 2006 strategy: multiplicity with efficiency. AMD never lost the ability to build an efficient processor; but in a race that many credit AMD for having started, its competitor surged ahead. Now it has to decide how to make the gap seem unimportant, while at the same time closing that gap, and making the closing of that gap matter to all of its customers - the "mega-taskers" and the "mainstreamers."

This while Intel implements groundbreaking changes to its 45 nm production almost immediately, while AMD races to catch up to accomplishing the same feat the following year. For AMD, the year 2007 will definitely be one of redefinition: specifically, one that redefines the phrase "hard sell."

<< Prev | 1 | 2

Add a Comment (11 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By ce la vie

posted Feb 5, 2007 - 12:28 AM

from the jargon in the above article, i can say that amd has intentions of cost cutting in instruction set. that whould mean that we can expect different versions of the same chip for different vista sys. that also means that amd would be laughing all the way to the bank while the ordinary consumer gets the middle finger. oh boy... are there any honesty management classes for amd? it's just a question because everyone in the high tech needs to attend that. so if you are the consumer, please read before you buy and trust no one at best buy, or wall mart, or compusa... i never trust any texas company or politician... so do your homework before you charge your credit card.

Score: 0

By domino360

posted Feb 4, 2007 - 4:29 PM

If you are a chip company (CPUs), and your chips are not compatible with current Operating System then may be you shouldn't be in business.
This article is an oxymoron statement from AMDs marketing department.

Score: 0

By CarLox

posted Feb 2, 2007 - 7:22 PM

this is not a surprise for me guys, i've been using Intel processors since i was 8 years old, and i've never had any troubles, now im a owner of a Pentium D 820 running @ 3.06GHz and it works pretty well with my windows vista ultimate, and by the way, you just have to double the amount of memory ram (to 2.0GB) and Mac OS X runs pretty good as well, i can't wait to buy the 45nm processors which they say they would consume less energy while increasing perfomance but i admire the work that Toshiba, Sony, and IBM did with the Cell Processor but neither IBM nor AMD has a great deal to offer, so you just decide whatever you want, it's your choise guys, not mine, if you like AMD processors then buy them, and if you like Intel's then buy them

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Feb 2, 2007 - 12:49 PM

It is about changing perceptions.

So, which environment do we emulate in order to 'properly' evaluate hardware? And which variant, environment, customer use, etc. etc. etc. is correct?

And why stop at several multi-threaded applications running simultaneously?

I mean, if we do that, someone else will say, yeah, but that doesn't address My (fill in the blank) processes running on (random/designated-pinned) cores in some (fill in the blank) manner that emphasizes (fill in the blank) utilization of (fill in the blank) resources.

The fact is, AMD doesn't control the software environment. But they are trying to define their hardware in terms of the software environment.

And there are no 'monolithic' defined software environments.

If AMD is so concerned with this, all they need do is to have a independent lab identically configure the various hardware platforms and run identical tasks and measure the response times and resource utilization for a simple comparison of what they think might be representative of the user environment.

And I can already predict the results.
Performance can be seen to vary depending upon the particular configuration. Duh. And each platform will attempt to manipulate the perception to favor their particular configuration. I wish that this exercise would prove to be more useful.

But if AMD is so concerned about perception, then they had best address the results of their continuing complaints about Intel, metrics, and so many other issues that belie the perception of a company who is putting more effort into complaining about the rules of the game than they are in putting those same resources into building a more innovative product.

Score: 0

By divinelogic

edited Feb 2, 2007 - 2:19 AM

You guys are missing the point.
I've been building servers, workstations, and PCs for 13 years, and I've been testing both hardware and software configurations for almost as long. But that's irrelavant.
What I do on my own computer is.
I'm doing several different things at the same time, usually from the same computer. This means if the multitasking is smoother and more efficient with AMD processors than with Intel, then I personally would choose to use AMD processors, because it helps my production.

That's what AMD is trying to say. They are saying it's not about the actual numbers so much as it is about which processor better handles the tasks that everyday users throw at it.

Personally, I don't even want to hype up Vista, because Microsoft is charging way too much for it. I'd much rather stay with my bootlegged, pirated, cracked copy of XP 64, because Microsoft doesn't deserve to make any money from me. The way I see it, they owe me! If it wasn't for people like me, they wouldn't even be in business!

Besides that, why spend more than $100 on an operating system when you can download one for free? I know, most PC games and software are designed for the Windows platform, but that's because Microsoft has such a strong hold on the industry. That will soon change. Statistically, more and more people are starting to use some flavor of Linux. Fedora has the strongest base.

Speaking of which, Fedora, Solaris, and Ubuntu all run better on the AMD platform than Intel. That's another factor I think both AMD and Intel should consider. Don't count Open Source out just yet!

Score: 0

By steve17

posted Feb 2, 2007 - 3:50 AM

"Personally, I don't even want to hype up Vista, because Microsoft is charging way too much for it. I'd much rather stay with my bootlegged, pirated, cracked copy of XP 64, because Microsoft doesn't deserve to make any money from me. The way I see it, they owe me! If it wasn't for people like me, they wouldn't even be in business!"

"Besides that, why spend more than $100 on an operating system when you can download one for free?"

hhmmm...thats interesting. do u mind explaining exactly what u have done that makes u think microsoft owes u money???

and i dont want to stirr up a fight here but the fact that u go around flaunting u have a pirated copy of windows and u think ur all cool pisses me off! why spend 100 bucks when u can steal it?? well if everyone did that then microsoft and every single software company wouldnt be around anymore and u wouldnt have an OS to put on ur computer. if everyone pirated windows the software indusrty would be no more.

microsoft wouldnt have to charge $100+ if enough people just bought it and didnt steal it. and with that i will personally thank you. because us honest consumers have to absorb the lost profits because u think ur too good to pay for windows. f*ck you!!

Score: 0

By dozier

edited Feb 2, 2007 - 7:32 PM

If you had a lick of common sense you'd know he was referring to Linux as a freely downloadable operating system. read the whole post idiot.

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

edited Feb 2, 2007 - 6:29 AM

""microsoft wouldnt have to charge $100+ if enough people just bought it and didnt steal it.""

You're obviously 100% delusional, and judging by your next comment (if any) we will determine if you are brainwashed as well.

Score: 0

By Dev3Iop3

posted Feb 1, 2007 - 7:24 PM

LOL, now that they are no longer in the lead they want a new measurement system. I've always liked AMD but things like this and their other recent whining has really lowered my respect for them.

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Feb 1, 2007 - 7:20 PM

""One of the built-in advantages that we have for mainstream graphics is the fact that we've got an entire team hammering out graphics at the high end. We can leverage that code on the integrated solution. So for instance, in The Sims 2, the water looks like water, has transparency, has translucency, you can see rainbows and the reflections of bridges; and on the Intel solution, you can't see any of that. The hardware might be capable, but the software isn't.""

And I'm sure the hordes of teenage girls who play Sims 2 are DYING for that little graphical touch.

Score: 0

By ravemanson

posted Feb 2, 2007 - 8:36 PM

LoL, well said.

Score: 0