backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by monkeyman1140.. on Jul 22 at 3:28 PM

Upgrade push could be the salvation of long struggling AMD

In business, just like in real life, companies can be a victim of expectations.   Fortunately for chipmaker Intel it handily beat the estimates of Wall Street's top researchers, reporting its best quarter ever.  On Tuesday night after the closing bell Intel reported a Q2 2010 revenue of $10.8B USD, handily topping the $10.25B USD predicted by analysts.

Chipmaker AMD, the David to Intel's Goliath, had some good news of its own on Thursday.  The company posted a net loss for Q2 2010 of only $43M USD, $110M USD less than the loss widely predicted by Wall Street.  AMD reported revenue of $1.65B USD, where analysts had predicted it to pull in only $1.54B USD.  It also posted a promising Non-GAAP earnings were $83M USD.

AMD has benefited from its success in the GPU segment, and, like Intel, by a strong upgrade cycle demand for CPUs.  AMD credits stronger demand for notebook CPUs and GPUs as a major source of its turnaround.  With its latest results, AMD inches closer to finally crawling out of the money pit it has long been languishing in.  In fact, if the current results are any indication, AMD may return to profitability within a quarter or two.  

Ultimately, AMD and Intel are being buoyed up by a strong upgrade push both in the desktop and notebook sector.  A major part of this push is thanks to Windows 7, Microsoft's latest consumer operating system that is earning unanimous praise from reviewers and customers alike.

While some worry about the upgrade craze dying down, it seems likely to continue strong for some time while so many customers still have Windows XP.  Additionally, businesses will likely slowly jump onboard the upgrade train as they look to transition to Windows 7.  If Microsoft can replicate Windows 7's success with Windows 8, the outlook for both Intel and AMD may continue to be just as rosy.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Yehaw.
By jimhsu on 7/17/2010 7:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
More and more consumer apps, in fact, do benefit from many-core processors:

- Video encoding (ever shot any home video?)
- Music encoding (MP3 ripping, converting those old CD's to FLAC)
- Gaming - more and more games; RTSes like Supreme Commander, simulations, etc
- Utilities e.g. archiving

Not to say that multi-core computing is dominant (it's far from it), but the uses for at-home computing are no longer "scientific apps".


RE: Yehaw.
By Cypherdude1 on 7/19/2010 1:02:21 AM , Rating: 3
Remember that in my original post, I said it's difficult to use all 6 cores maxed out simultaneously all the time. You can easily use a quad core, the most common desktop CPU available now, for the tasks you've listed. For most users, all 6 cores will be idle the same as with a quad core.

The only tasks you've listed which can actually utilize 6 cores are video encoding and gaming. Even then, again, most of these apps don't use all 6 cores because 6 core CPU's aren't commonplace. They simply aren't programmed for 6 cores. As others have mentioned, you're talking a very small percentage of users which can fully utilize a hex-core CPU, probably 3%, at most.

BTW, it would be difficult to max out a hex-core CPU with MP3 ripping/encoding. The actual rip is done by the DMA controller, not the CPU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_memory_access

Only the MP3 encoding is done by the CPU. Because the optical drive can only rip 1 song at a time, only 1 core can be used. A single fast CPU core can encode a 4 minute song in less than 8 seconds. The only way to simultaneously utilize all 6 cores at 100% is to have 6 optical drives, with 6 copies of ripping apps loaded each manually assigned to a different physical core, working simultaneously. While most system tower cases can only accommodate 4 optical drives, you could still connect your fifth and sixth drive via USB (or perhaps e-SATA) but why would you want to?


RE: Yehaw.
By themaster08 on 7/19/2010 2:06:04 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Remember that in my original post, I said it's difficult to use all 6 cores maxed out simultaneously all the time.
It's not necessarily about "maxing out" your processor, although a 6-core processor would give you much more headroom for the most fundamental use of mulit-cores: multi-tasking.

Have a dual monitor setup and watch a HD movie, whilst at the same time playing one of the latest games, backing up your data and performing a malware scan, as well as running many background apps such as Steam, your browser, IM program etc. and quickly watch a quad core, or even a hex-core processor hit 100% load.

A lot of people also like to run programs such as Folding@home, SETI@home, Rosetta@home etc. which all benefit from multi-core processors.

If you don't feel the "need" for such processing real estate then the product is obviously not for you, but don't force your ideals off on everyone else. Go and buy an Atom-based computer.

It's also about better utilization of processing power. For example, a 6-core processor could utilize the same amount of processing power better than a quad core, so therefore your program will run faster and use less energy than it would with a quad core processor. That leaves headroom to do other things (as I've already mentioned) and will keep your processor cooler as it's using less energy.


RE: Yehaw.
By themaster08 on 7/19/2010 2:06:04 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Remember that in my original post, I said it's difficult to use all 6 cores maxed out simultaneously all the time.
It's not necessarily about "maxing out" your processor, although a 6-core processor would give you much more headroom for the most fundamental use of mulit-cores: multi-tasking.

Have a dual monitor setup and watch a HD movie, whilst at the same time playing one of the latest games, backing up your data and performing a malware scan, as well as running many background apps such as Steam, your browser, IM program etc. and quickly watch a quad core, or even a hex-core processor hit 100% load.

A lot of people also like to run programs such as Folding@home, SETI@home, Rosetta@home etc. which all benefit from multi-core processors.

If you don't feel the "need" for such processing real estate then the product is obviously not for you, but don't force your ideals off on everyone else. Go and buy an Atom-based computer.

It's also about better utilization of processing power. For example, a 6-core processor could utilize the same amount of processing power better than a quad core, so therefore your program will run faster and use less energy than it would with a quad core processor. That leaves headroom to do other things (as I've already mentioned) and will keep your processor cooler as it's using less energy.


RE: Yehaw.
By themaster08 on 7/19/2010 2:07:40 AM , Rating: 2
This is ridiculous. Jesus Christ, DT, when are you going to finally have a delete button?!


RE: Yehaw.
By monkeyman1140 on 7/22/2010 3:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
There was a time when pundits also asked "Are 2 cores necessary?"

Put the hardware out there and people will find a use for it, that much is a given.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki