backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by mars777.. on Jul 15 at 7:12 AM

Former ATI president and CEO resigns from AMD

AMD today announced Dave Orton, executive vice president of AMD, has resigned. The resignation is effective in the end of July 2007. Orton was the former president and chief executive officer of ATI before the merger with AMD. A new executive vice president has not been appointed yet.

“It is with mixed feelings that I am leaving AMD,” Orton said. “I am very optimistic about AMD’s future. I believe strongly in the strategies that brought AMD and ATI together and the talented employees of the ‘new AMD’ who are committed to winning in the market by delivering the best possible solutions for customers.”

Orton was one of the “key drivers in the successful integration of AMD and ATI,” according to AMD President and Chief Operating Officer Dirk Meyer. “With his integration work complete and the successful launch of key graphics and chipset products earlier this year, the time was right for Dave to take his personal and professional life in a different direction,” he added.

Despite the “successful integration” of AMD and ATI, the company continues to hemorrhage cash, with debts mounting up fast and an estimated $1.1 billion in the bank. The company also posted a first quarter loss of $611 million USD.  



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: wa
By mmarq on 7/11/2007 1:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but if performance is not up to snuff, then your efficiency gives you a very modest profit on the midline and nothing on the bottom end, just like now


Yes, but an interesting fact in IT spin, is that that performance measure is always taken from top of the lines and not from the bottom.

AMD as of yet dont have a quad core in the market to compete, period. So lets see about price/watt per performance points.

Yes the core 2 is a superior design than the K8, but if you were able to compare 2 CPUs with equal cache size at the same clock speed i believe that Intel would win in integer performance for only say 10%, and be almost equal in most floating point benchs, because AMD hypertransport platform is superior.

* that would take a C2duo with *1M L2* at 2,4 to 3,0 Ghz to compare with brisbane *

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMywxMi...

quote:
...new architecture from Intel again, which initially looks to eliminate the last of Amd's technical superiorities, like IMC


I believe that was already addressed in c2duo and the tradeoff is, for having an IMC than the L2 cant be so big.

I believe that HT3.0, Direct connect 2.0, will be superior to CSI when CSI arrives.

Second i dont believe that the intension of FUSION is to put a full GPU integrated with the CPU, but to make an instant on, double, triple, quad, penta... crossfire(in asymetric form). Since the CPU will have GPU function it can be like any other GPU... meaning booting without a GPU graphics card or a software layer framebuffer(for servers), and 'instant on' crossfire.

Expect CrossFire 2.0 to be nothing much more than Direct Connect 2.0 with some drivers and a special HT3.? for connection with HTX slots. Since also the GPU will have CPU functions for floating point and SIMD/MIMD, expect those superior design schematics showing a 4 SMP all fully connected around HT and DC(for servers), to show also 2 CPUs and 2 GPUs instead.

Yes, i believe that AMD will end up abandoning PCIe slots in their chipsets for graphics, and adopt HTX slots instead.

One of the few great advantages of AMD will still be their platform. Intel was/is foolish by not adopting hypertransport. Transporting for the present time if they did, the C2duo on HT will have absolutely killed AMD.


RE: wa
By mmarq on 7/11/2007 1:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
A last detail more directly related with this topic...

I believe that was one of the major reasons AMD bought ATI. Otherwise Intel and market pressure would make no good GPU 'manufacturers' to design and make graphic cards for the HTX slot. Co-processores are already here for HTX slots, but no good graphic card will be anytime soon if AMD dont take that matter in their own hands.


RE: wa
By zsdersw on 7/11/2007 1:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes the core 2 is a superior design than the K8, but if you were able to compare 2 CPUs with equal cache size at the same clock speed i believe that Intel would win in integer performance for only say 10%, and be almost equal in most floating point benchs, because AMD hypertransport platform is superior.


HyperTransport is "superior" only in multi-socket systems, and even then, it earns the "superior" adjective only in systems above 2 sockets.

quote:
I believe that HT3.0, Direct connect 2.0, will be superior to CSI when CSI arrives.


Based on what? Your AMD fanaticism?


RE: wa
By mmarq on 7/11/2007 4:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Based on what? Your AMD fanaticism?


Nothing of the kind. Only because HT, DC are around for 5 years, and is acknowledge superior design to shared buses and not only in servers.

Too much spin, no real numbers...
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml;?articleI...
http://interconnects.blogspot.com/2007/06/nudging-...
http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml...
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jht...

... i dont buy it, not because is Intel but because i despise brainwashers. So implying otherwise without numbers cannot be called Intel fanatism, yes ?


RE: wa
By zsdersw on 7/11/2007 7:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of things have been around for 5 years.. that are far from immune to being leap-frogged by the competition. HyperTransport's length of time in the marketplace does not mean that any potential competitor cannot possibly be as good or better. There is no basis for you to conclude that CSI won't be at least on par with the rendition of HyperTransport available at the time of CSI's arrival.

And yes.. only in 4S+ servers and workstations is HyperTransport a truly soar-away superior architecture. In everything else (laptops, desktops, 1S and 2S workstations/servers) there is plenty of competitiveness from Intel to muddy the water on HyperTransport's supposed "superiority".


RE: wa
By mmarq on 7/13/2007 2:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lots of things have been around for 5 years.. that are far from immune to being leap-frogged by the competition.


Yes nothing is immune to leap-frogging in the IT industry. But where are the numbers about latency, bandwidth that shows that at least Intel intents to do it with CSI ? ( a link please)

quote:
And yes.. only in 4S+ servers and workstations is HyperTransport a truly soar-away superior architecture.


NO. Actually HT1 sucks a little at 4 way, and is no improvement at all at 8 way because of bus contention. It doesn't have enough bandwidth to deal with the cache coherency protocol of 4 CPUS all connected to each other much less 8. HT3 has the potential of more than the double the bandwidth and with less latency. It can be pushed to more than 25Gb/s with 16 lanes ~12,5Gb/s in each direction(in and out).

C2D shared bus at 1066Mhz can punch 8,5Gb/s aggregate in all directions. DDR2 at the same speed can punch ~14Gb/s (12,8 at 800Mhz) one direction at a time. Talking about huge waste of memory bandwidth(8,5-14=-5,5GB/s) and bus contention .

HT1 can punch around ~12Gb/s with 16 lanes or ~6Gb/s per direction. But here stops any comparativeness because of the IMC, HT has to pull/push comparatively much less data trough the FSB. A huge benefice IMO

Penryn shared bus at 1333Mhz can only punch 10,6Gb/s aggregate in all directions. DDR3 at the same speed can punch ~24GB/s. Even a more huge waste of memory bandwidth(10,6-24=-13,4Gb/s) and higher bus contention.

HT3 can match DDR3 at 1333MHz, with no theoretical bus contention. And it only has more comparativeness because if you think of SLI or Crossfire, than AMD has a huge advantage.

And that is why Intel move to DDR3 is *PURE MARKETING BS*. They are on the catch up and losing. Can CSI change this to the point of being better than HT3 ?... It would be a huge leap-frogging, and i doubt it very much.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2duo-e675...


RE: wa
By TSS on 7/11/2007 1:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
i'd think that intel doesn't want to completly kill off AMD since beeing a monopolist isn't exactly benificiairy at present, definatly not with the EC lingering about. it'd be hard to imagine, in any case, that both intel's and AMD's strategy's for the long term are anything but complicated.

there is the problem of cache sizes though, and more importantly what it does for intel. if the cache's are equal, then the chips would perform similar. it might even happen that the core2duo would perform worse then the good ol' AMD64. but their not, and intel has of yet crammed alot of cache into their chips simply because they can with the scale of chips their on. the point beeing however that once the IMC is used by intel aswell the cache sizes can decrease dramaticly (the reason why amd doesnt really function alot better with more cache) and more area can be used for say computing power or it can be left off to increase profits. or, keep the profit the same and sell at a lower price.

now i dont have much besides logic to help me out here, so i could very well be wrong. i don't have a clue how much space a IMC takes up on the die either. but i'd figure it's less then the ridicolous amount of cache intel is adding. in any case, the way a IMC affects AMD may be different from what we think.

the decicive battle won't be fought this year in any case. if i'd have to guess which point in time will be critical for either compagny, it'll be what AMD's move is going to be after barcelona. once barcelona's up and running and the refresh comes about to take on nehalem, it'll be more like it is now. but if the next CPU that needs to take on the nehalem refresh dissapoints, and this is just a matter of *hom much*, AMD might be done for.

but i do belive then it will be because of their own fault, not intel's. AMD has shown more then once in the past how to improve performance by creative thinking, and i'd like to think they can do it again. but you can't blame the competition if you lost by lack of innovation.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles
AMD's Large Debt Mounting Up Fast
April 29, 2007, 1:54 PM
AMD Posts $611 Million Net Loss in Q1
April 19, 2007, 9:13 AM
AMD-ATI: A Done Deal
July 24, 2006, 5:00 AM













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