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 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.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














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