Qualcomm already bought AMD's mobile GPU division, Imageon, and renamed it to Adreno.

Yeah I know that, but they are moving into the server space and **** now. I could definitely see them picking up AMD if the price keeps getting lower and lower.

The situation is far more serious than those analysts stated; being bankrupt by 2020. This is partly why the Radeon Group was formed. The segments are getting setup as stand alones, in a sense, to make the selling of pieces easier; if and when the need arises. They would also net more cash for the stockholders as well. If Zen is a flop, they will seriously look at strategies on how to exit the consumer cpu market. My bet is still on a transition to a think tank.

Bearing in mind that AMD with their $1.57B, fights against $155.62B of Intel + $14.72B of NVidia, it seems to me that they still create a really interesting products ( low level API, HBM, VR API, APU). I wonder what could they show with $15B-50B? I wish them well.

Hey I am trying my best to keep money in their pockets. I love my Tri-X Fury!

Indeed, I wasn't planning to buy a new GFx card until next year, but just now have a nice quiet Tri-X Fury sitting on my desk waiting for me to pop it in my PC later today 🙂 AMD have some excellent GPUs out atm and find it strange more people don't buy a product that will excel for their needs, but rather pay more for a product they don't need that could help put under a company brining much innovation with competitive products at good prices. How many times on forums do I keep seeing people say things like "I'm looking forward to AMDs next great product, so I can get a cheaper NVidia / Intel... ...or push NVidia/Intel to release better products" ...really is so Fing Stupidly short sighted, bordering on insane. You want something good, then occasionally even the fanboys should actually buy from the competition when it is good enough to help spur the companies they really like to step up their game! I'd very happily buy NVidia and have in the past. (My current Xeon setup I got dirt cheap 2nd hand). But for years I've been exclusively buying AMD because their products are actually really pretty Damn Good and that small company deserves more support to help it flourish. It does so very well with so little money, I'd Love to see what it can do with some real budget behind it! 🙂

Why does pointing out the failings of AMD make people nervous? You and I don't control the market. If AMD made stuff worth buying, more people would buy it but they don't. People have already voted with their wallets. AMD is a sinking ship. It's been coming for years with all their downtrends in every market segment. AMD will likely be gone soon. Is that good for the market? Of course not. It's not exactly the end of days either though. Though pointing out the obvious AMD death knell apparently means one is a shill for the "other side" to some folks. :3eyes:

Why does pointing out the failings of AMD make people nervous? You and I don't control the market. If AMD made stuff worth buying, more people would buy it but they don't. People have already voted with their wallets. AMD is a sinking ship. It's been coming for years with all their downtrends in every market segment. AMD will likely be gone soon. Is that good for the market? Of course not. It's not exactly the end of days either though. Though pointing out the obvious AMD death knell apparently means one is a shill for the "other side" to some folks. :3eyes:

I do not like words like "voting", because it is act which proven to be easily manipulated. And statistically those who manipulated crowds were nothing good. And those who allowed themselves to be manipulated turned into something they would not ever wanted to be. "If AMD made stuff worth buying, more people would buy it but they don't." This is sole proof that you should think deeply about source of your belief. I would use little hyperbole here: "When half of the world gets massacred, you'll say it is not madness but natural thing to happen, because people did it." Parental Advisory for U.S. Citizens required: [spoiler]Even imbecile can see consequence, but not everyone can do RCA.[/spoiler]

I haven't supported Intel for years simply based on principle. I know that their products are better, but I've never needed the performance they offer, and I still don't. If you want healthy competition, you don't buy what's best simply because you can: you support the company that fulfills your needs. That being said, I've used plenty of ARM based systems. EDIT: But, I would like to point out that I pretty much only consider Intel when it comes to laptops. As for nvidia, they also tend to make better products, but there are 2 things I really don't like about them - their ego, and their cripplingly proprietary nature. Nvidia, as a company, acts like they're better than everyone, including those who are more successful than them. They're so full of themselves that they lose out on major deals (such as the consoles) or push away companies that could have otherwise helped them (such as intel). They support fantastic technologies (such as physx, CUDA, G-Sync, Optimus, etc) but see it as bad practice to have a hardware company make software restrictions. All that being said, I do still sometimes buy nvidia GPUs, but only when AMD doesn't have a product that can do what I want it to do. Anyway, personally, I'd like AMD to get bought out by someone like IBM or Qualcomm. IBM would help level out the performance (but would be more expensive and mostly just focus on servers) while Qualcomm would focus more on consumers. Both companies are already somewhat knowledgeable of AMD's technologies.

Your GPU would perform better if you had Intel because of the IPC difference. Not as important with DX12 but still. You would benefit from having Intel instead of AMD.

Your GPU would perform better if you had Intel because of the IPC difference. Not as important with DX12 but still. You would benefit from having Intel instead of AMD.

Some (not as few as many make out) mainstream games actually perform better with OC'd AMD chips than OC'd i5's and sometimes (less so) even the i7s. AMD scale slightly better for the increased clocks than Intel in games and catches up or passes. Once we are talking Intel Hex cores, yeah, they wipe the floor with AMD. But they cost a damn lot more money! AMD have some excellent products at the moment and honestly have done for quite a while. Their sales are hurt in large part by false (and past where more valid) negative spin people keep flinging around. (don't get me wrong though, people with certain business or gaming requirements would be most wise to buy particularly an Intel CPU, sometimes the performance gains are quite significant. But for many an AMD would keep them equally very happy for years) A lot hangs on Zen to hopefully make AMD a clear and easy recommendation for anyone CPU wise. (also as mentioned DX12 will help their older CPUs a lot too once it is more mainstream) It's rather a touch early to be writing them off as a dead horse...

Some (not as few as many make out) mainstream games actually perform better with OC'd AMD chips than OC'd i5's and sometimes (less so) even the i7s. AMD scale slightly better for the increased clocks than Intel in games and catches up or passes. Once we are talking Intel Hex cores, yeah, they wipe the floor with AMD. But they cost a damn lot more money! AMD have some excellent products at the moment and honestly have done for quite a while. Their sales are hurt in large part by false (and past where more valid) negative spin people keep flinging around. (don't get me wrong though, people with certain business or gaming requirements would be most wise to buy particularly an Intel CPU, sometimes the performance gains are quite significant. But for many an AMD would keep them equally very happy for years) A lot hangs on Zen to hopefully make AMD a clear and easy recommendation for anyone CPU wise. (also as mentioned DX12 will help their older CPUs a lot too once it is more mainstream) It's rather a touch early to be writing them off as a dead horse...

Which games? DX11 is very reliant on the CPU, what matters most right now is IPC and not thread count (up until a point). I'd be interested to know which games flaw this logic. In GTA V, I've seen i3's outperforming overclocked FX-9590's because of what I said above.

AMD have some excellent GPUs out atm and find it strange more people don't buy a product that will excel for their needs, but rather pay more for a product they don't need that could help put under a company brining much innovation with competitive products at good prices. How many times on forums do I keep seeing people say things like "I'm looking forward to AMDs next great product, so I can get a cheaper NVidia / Intel... ...or push NVidia/Intel to release better products" ...really is so Fing Stupidly short sighted, bordering on insane.

I completely agree with your entire post, but I think what you're forgetting is forums like this are for enthusiasts, and AMD CPUs haven't catered to enthusiasts for years. Their GPUs are more than "good enough" but they're almost never the fastest. Even though nvidia might cost an extra $100-$200 for usually a 1-10% performance increase, it's better than 0% and people will still pay for it. Nobody cares about bragging about mediocrity. People brag about the best. Almost nobody needs the best (key word here is "almost"), but you can't tell them that or else they get pissy, because people don't like being told that the higher premium they paid wasn't worth it. Anyway, because enthusiasts tend to stay away from AMD intentionally, they'll recommend others stay away from AMD no matter what the person's budget is or how unnecessary Intel may be. Where I work, a bunch of office PCs are using Core2 Duos with 4GB of RAM and dual monitor setups run by GT 520s. People are just now complaining about performance, so my supervisor decides to go for i5s or i7s with 8GB of RAM. That's seriously overkill for people who are basically just running MS Office and a web browser. But, he refuses to use AMD, even for GPUs, for no apparent reason.

I completely agree with your entire post, but I think what you're forgetting is forums like this are for enthusiasts, and AMD CPUs haven't catered to enthusiasts for years. Their GPUs are more than "good enough" but they're almost never the fastest. Even though nvidia might cost an extra $100-$200 for usually a 1-10% performance increase, it's better than 0% and people will still pay for it. Nobody cares about bragging about mediocrity. People brag about the best. Almost nobody needs the best (key word here is "almost"), but you can't tell them that or else they get pissy, because people don't like being told that the higher premium they paid wasn't worth it. Anyway, because enthusiasts tend to stay away from AMD intentionally, they'll recommend others stay away from AMD no matter what the person's budget is or how unnecessary Intel may be. Where I work, a bunch of office PCs are using Core2 Duos with 4GB of RAM and dual monitor setups run by GT 520s. People are just now complaining about performance, so my supervisor decides to go for i5s or i7s with 8GB of RAM. That's seriously overkill for people who are basically just running MS Office and a web browser. But, he refuses to use AMD, even for GPUs, for no apparent reason.

AMD's worst curse is driver support. When games don't work on AMD day 1, but do on Nvidia (RAGE for example), then a ton of casuals think "I'm getting Nvidia next time). Not to mention that for businesses that use Linux, they HAVE to have Nvidia. AMD's only good enough for surfing the web there. Some AAA+ titles don't even support AMD on Linux. Also stories of AMD's demise have been happening since 2008, where Bulldozer was a colossal failure. I'm sure I'm not the only one concerned about driver/game support in a post-AMD world. If AMD collapses, and the buyer has no interest in desktop GPUs, then games will slowly just stop supporting AMD GPUs, even if the hardware can run them. This Q3 report is only more support for possibly avoiding AMD until seeing how things play out with Zen. AMD's future relies on Zen's success.

AMD's worst curse is driver support. When games don't work on AMD day 1, but do on Nvidia (RAGE for example), then a ton of casuals think "I'm getting Nvidia next time).

That's true - drivers are usually AMD's greatest shortcoming. But if you're like me and you don't get games when they're first released, they're never a problem.

Not to mention that for businesses that use Linux, they HAVE to have Nvidia. AMD's only good enough for surfing the web there. Some AAA+ titles don't even support AMD on Linux.

I disagree. If you do gaming on linux, AMD with the open source drivers is a pretty decent choice. If you do openCL, AMD with the catalyst drivers is the best choice, including over nvidia. Generally speaking, nvidia is a better linux experience, but my R9 290 plays every game I have including Metro Redux or Witcher 2 pretty smoothly. Both games have no optimizations for AMD.

Also stories of AMD's demise have been happening since 2008, where Bulldozer was a colossal failure. I'm sure I'm not the only one concerned about driver/game support in a post-AMD world. If AMD collapses, and the buyer has no interest in desktop GPUs, then games will slowly just stop supporting AMD GPUs, even if the hardware can run them.

That's sort of true - since the consoles are AMD-based, as long as AMD makes hardware based on Bulldozer or GCN, there should always be some enhanced performance on PCs. Maybe not intentional, but it's there. Even before the Bulldozer situation, AMD never got much direct support.

This Q3 report is only more support for possibly avoiding AMD until seeing how things play out with Zen. AMD's future relies on Zen's success.

Absolutely. Zen really is their last hope. It'd be in AMD's best interest to release Zen sooner but I don't think they can afford any mistakes with the architecture.

Bearing in mind that AMD with their $1.57B, fights against $155.62B of Intel + $14.72B of NVidia, it seems to me that they still create a really interesting products ( low level API, HBM, VR API, APU). I wonder what could they show with $15B-50B? I wish them well.

I get the impression at work every time and again, their problem is their CPU's, not their GPU's. The thing is, even if it's not your main product to sell, being "The Best" simply sells. Especially in these days with media, your product needs to be portrait as "The Best". If you look at the mouse industry, you can see random bollox and playing the media, commercials, etc can get you better sales. Razer invests massively in PR, teams using their mice, etc. Their products on average however are worse then some of the competition (excluding the Deathadder/Abyssus). You need 1) A specific piece of product that's really nice, 2) build on that and invest into PR, media, commercials, ... to sell the rest imo. In my opinion, their CPU department has failed and they simply failed at "being a salesman". With the stuff I've seen at work, I wouldn't even want a AMD CPU for office use.

AMD is pretty much done for, they haven't released anything revolutionary or been able to successfully compete with Nvidia for the past six years with their HD5000 series and above. I don't want them to fail, but I get the feeling that they don't know what they are doing or know their market, which is proven by the latest Q3 results.

Hard market to sell when Fury X performs roughly on par with stock 980 ti and sells for the same. While 390 and 390x perform similar or better then 970 and 980 they use loads of power considering they are good old 290 and 290x which actually sold really well back in the day. Fury is the only thing that makes perfect sense in current lineup. After hd5000, the 7000 series sold really well and 200 series was not that bad really. It is after that taking forever to launch anything that has hurt amd. And then they are competing with Intel too, if they only competed on gpu segment vs nvidia they might do better. But competing with their r&d budget with both intel and nvidia is pretty much impossible. Their CPU's have been weaker for a really really longtime already which didn't help after Intel properly kept them from getting into the prebuilt market from which Intel already paid fines for rather measly fines for what the gains could have been but oh well.