backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Sep 10 at 7:23 PM


New AMD graphics branding

The evolution of AMD/ATI branding
AMD's market research shows that it's time to get rid of the ATI brand

It's been a long four years, but AMD has finally hits its stride after its acquisition of ATI Technologies way back in 2006. After agreeing to purchase ATI for $5.4B, AMD was besieged with quarterly losses stemming from the purchase, constant pressure from NVIDIA in the graphics market, and beatdowns from Intel (who wasn't exactly playing by the rules of fair business) in the processor market.

With most of its troubles now behind it, AMD is looking to kill off the long-standing ATI brand and bring Radeon and FirePro graphics solutions solely under the AMD umbrella according to AnandTech.

According to AMD's own research in markets from around the world, it came to the following three conclusions:

  1. AMD preference triples when respondent is aware of ATI-AMD merger
  2. AMD brand [is] stronger than ATI vs. graphics competitors
  3. Radeon and FirePro brand awareness and consideration [is] very high

The move will also help to further consolidate AMD's branding which has pretty much gotten out of hand in the past few years [see figure on right]. AMD will begin the transition later this year to phase out ATI branding and move to a more simplified product branding lineup. By 2011, AMD's product lineup will consist of AMD's Opteron for server processors, Vision (which consists of a CPU/GPU hybrid) for consumer processors, and Radeon/FirePro for graphics.

With AMD now taking the discrete graphics market lead from NVIDIA (51.1 percent for AMD versus 44.5 percent for NVIDIA) and preparing to take the fight straight to Intel with three new CPU designs, the next year should be a fruitful one for enthusiasts.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Huh?
By EricMartello on 8/30/2010 5:26:39 PM , Rating: -1
quote:
AMD is trouncing Intel in desktop bang-for-your-buck - especially at a system build level. You can't neglect the cost of a mobo these days.


Bang-for-the-buck is for people without money or who have low standards. I'm happily running my Core 980X on a Gigabyte UD9 which, even in its stock state, blows away anything AMD has to offer. Never mind the fact that I can OC to over 4 GHz with ease.

For people who rely on computers to earn an income, "bang for the buck" is a lot less important than "bang", because time is money and the more you can do in the same amount of time the better.

Point is that price aside, Intel is still kicking AMD's ass in CPU technology and the AMD brand has always been associated with "budget" so if they axe the ATI brand which is well-known among gamers, it's probably not going to help them in the long run. I actually think they'd do better to axe AMD and keep ATI.


RE: Huh?
By tomorrow on 8/30/2010 5:46:10 PM , Rating: 5
Bang-for-the-buck is for people without money or who have low standards

Wrong.Bang for buck users get 80% of your PC-s performance for third of the money of yours.

Bang for buck is for people who want a fast pc but don't want to get bankrupt in the process of buying it.


RE: Huh?
By EricMartello on 8/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By tastyratz on 8/30/2010 11:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
There is an extremely finite actual business need for modern day systems and their speed because in general people cant harness a fraction of it. Case in point: All that power and you use it to post on dailytech.

In reality for someone to get 90% of the performance for even 50% of the investment they can upgrade their computer twice as often as you and stay in current generation systems ahead of the game more of the time than not.

Every purchase is an investment, and if the most expensive top of the line computer is your investment unless its chugging 24x7 graphics operations I see your business model failing. You cant tell me your machine will yield more than 5 minute of office productivity in a standard business environment. Running pixar? then we can talk. till then its the same porn halo and google you get on a cheap machine.


RE: Huh?
By Amiga500 on 9/2/2010 3:23:21 AM , Rating: 1
What if I buy 3 machines for the price of your 1 machine, hook them on a network and then have 240% your performance? After all... you do need heavy multi-thread apps to take advantage of all those threads you have.

Who is the person with no standards (or should that be no sense) then?

Yes, a computer is an investment - hence it is important not to pay a disproportionate amount of money for what you are getting. Would you pay 200% more for a top of the line Ferrari compared to its smaller brother which has 90% the performance? Yes, you might - if you'd more money than sense.


RE: Huh?
By EricMartello on 9/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By xti on 9/3/2010 10:11:30 AM , Rating: 1
You realize that neither AMD nor Intel cares about you and your bajillion dollar computer? Thats great and all that you are happy about your purchase, but manufactures are focusing on their fastest sellers, not their greatest margin ones that they sell once in a blue moon.

If I was poor I would still be content than I can understand simple concepts.


RE: Huh?
By Etern205 on 9/3/2010 1:34:52 PM , Rating: 1
Sad news for you as your precious 980x is being replaced by the 990x.

Looks like your e-penis has shrunk by 3 inches. :D :D :D


RE: Huh?
By EricMartello on 9/3/2010 4:17:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sad news for you as your precious 980x is being replaced by the 990x. Looks like your e-penis has shrunk by 3 inches. :D :D :D


What's your point? For the time being the 980x is the best CPU available from Intel, but there's always going to be something better coming up in the future. For people like me who continually improve, what makes you think I wouldn't get the next best CPU when it becomes available?

Looks like you should just stick to fingering your e-vagina. :D :D :D


RE: Huh?
By Etern205 on 9/4/2010 12:03:29 AM , Rating: 2
Real men use Xeons so why don't you take your pathetic low-end 980x and shove it.
:D :D :D


RE: Huh?
By EricMartello on 9/5/2010 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 1
Real men know when to use a Xeon and when to use a 980x...and again, who said I didn't also use Xeons in systems where they would be approriate? You sure are making a lot of fail assumptions here.


RE: Huh?
By Etern205 on 9/9/2010 9:59:59 AM , Rating: 2
What does Xeons have to do with a 980x, there are 6 cores version of Xeons which is a higher-bin version of the 980x and has dual QPI.

It's obvious that someone gave that 980x as a gift and now your running around like some bigshot who know absolutely about hardware.

And stop trolling.


RE: Huh?
By EricMartello on 9/10/2010 7:23:21 PM , Rating: 1
If you're so enlightened about hardware then you'd know that using CPUs for their intended roles more often than not yields better results. The Xeon is intended for workstation/server duty and is optimized for such work. The 980x is an "ethusiast's CPU" that can overclock like nothing else and has more ubiquitous motherboard options.

As for performance, Passmark disagrees with you:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

The 980x is on top by a decent margin...and while the Xeon may excel at tasks for which it was optimized - the 980x is still the best CPU for my needs.

Conclusion:
If you're running a Xeon in your desktop rig / gaming system then you're definitely fingering you e-vag...you spent about $700 more over a 980x for a CPU that runs slower just so you could say you have a Xeon. LOL


RE: Huh?
By clovell on 8/31/2010 4:19:52 PM , Rating: 1
I thought.... I thought I just said that.... ????


RE: Huh?
By clovell on 8/31/2010 6:40:28 PM , Rating: 3
I see the fanboys are screwing with the rating system.


RE: Huh?
By priusone on 8/31/2010 7:28:44 PM , Rating: 3
A buddy of mine just spent $2,100 building a computer that would 'run circles around my POS computer'. It sure does. Talk about one fast machine. Man, it sure makes my $369 Walmart machine look like crap. It makes my two netbooks, which are hooked up to my LCD TV's, seam like they are running even slower. It even makes my $1000 Dell Studio 15x run somewhat slow. Problem is, my living room netbook and my bedroom netbook are both setup like media centers and are controllable by either my Droid or my Dell. My Walmart PC is basically a glorified file server, but it does have a $50 ATI Radeon 4570 for the occasional trip to the Wasteland.

Yeah, my friend loves giving me grief about my lowly PC offerings, but they suit me just fine. But my 9TB of storage trounces his 1TB. Different priorities I guess.

Now as far as AMD doing away with the ATI namesake, we could take your itty bitty market share $2100 machine or our extremely large $369,$399,$350,$1000 market share, and what do you know, there are way more of US. Your average PC user probably doesn't know the difference between discreet and integrated graphics cards. So, be it ATI or AMD, chances are they have heard of AMD. You and Curtis can have a blast playing WOW with max settings, but I'm going go out camping while the weather holds out.


RE: Huh?
By Major HooHaa on 9/3/2010 12:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
The components in my P.C. may once have cost £2,000+ to buy, for the level of performance they give, but I got them for a quite reasonable sum.

Oh and I read a quote from some bloke at AMD, saying that no one cares about branding. But what about the "Intel Inside" campaign? It helped Intel get where it is today.

In one of Terry Pratchett's Diskworld novels, there was even a strange primitive computer called 'Hex' with an "Anthill Inside" logo on the side. They could get it to work, if they could just get enough bugs into the system.


RE: Huh?
By spread on 8/30/2010 6:23:17 PM , Rating: 5
Congratulations on spending $500 on a motherboard. I can buy one with 95% of the performance for around $125.

That's called bang for buck.


RE: Huh?
By Motoman on 8/30/2010 7:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
Precisely. And for virtually everything that a user would do with a computer, using a $50 motherboard would not make any perceptible difference in performance to the user.


RE: Huh?
By RW on 8/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By RW on 8/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/30/2010 10:30:14 PM , Rating: 1
Um...lol


RE: Huh?
By EricMartello on 8/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By rdeegvainl on 8/30/2010 11:08:22 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, I totally know what U mean brah!!! Like just the other day, I was all like looking at this can of corn, and it cost like only 35 cents... u could totally tell that the can of corn that cost a dollar was better... I mean it had 2 more oz of corn, only some cheapo's would buy that other corn. Me on the other hand, I buy the higher quality can of corn with 2 more oz of corn...
/end retardation

Seriously, once you figure out that 90% of people only use a computer for surfing the web, you may be able to have a conversation that isn't full of your ineptitude and e-peen.
Oh, and when you pay for that quad sli mobo and buy four video cards, I laugh when just 6 months later a new card would perform just as much, with a quarter of the heat and electricity usage.
But by all means, get what makes you happy, keep up with the joneses or nobody is gonna respect you.


RE: Huh?
By EricMartello on 9/3/2010 4:33:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yeah, I totally know what U mean brah!!! Like just the other day, I was all like looking at this can of corn, and it cost like only 35 cents... u could totally tell that the can of corn that cost a dollar was better... I mean it had 2 more oz of corn, only some cheapo's would buy that other corn. Me on the other hand, I buy the higher quality can of corn with 2 more oz of corn... /end retardation


If CPU A performed equally to CPU B but CPU B was 50% cheaper, I would buy CPU B. You see, my retarded friend, the issue is purely performance and not price. AMD has NOTHING that can touch the 980x and probably will not until the tech behind the 980x is outdated. AMD has been lagging behind since the A64 days and has not had a compelling offering since that time. So if you're going to make a comparison at least make an effort to do it right.

quote:
Seriously, once you figure out that 90% of people only use a computer for surfing the web, you may be able to have a conversation that isn't full of your ineptitude and e-peen. Oh, and when you pay for that quad sli mobo and buy four video cards, I laugh when just 6 months later a new card would perform just as much, with a quarter of the heat and electricity usage. But by all means, get what makes you happy, keep up with the joneses or nobody is gonna respect you.


The point of this conversation is not to make you feel as inferior as you really are, but rather it is to illustrate the ever-widening gap between the available performance of Intel vs AMD CPUs. Intel hands-down dominates AMD and despite their best attempts AMD's best cannot come close to Intel's best.

Now even if all you do is general-purpose stuff on your comp, the benefits of high-end hardware do not end. The lifespan of a 980x system will be several years if not more, since it is so much faster than peasant systems, it will continue to be fast enough thus preventing the need for hardware upgrades. Each year you go by without having to upgrade adds value to the purchase. I have no doubt that my system will be more than capable of running any game/app 5 years down the line just as well as it can today...on the other hand, your "bang for the buck" system will show its age within a year or less and start to "feel slow" with newer apps and games.

Yes, my CPU costs more than your car and my motherboard is worth more than your life...but you shouldn't let that make you feel bad. You just need to accept that you fall into that 90% group that you mentioned, and that most people will only ever be average at best in their lives.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














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