jdreyer wrote on Dec 24, 2015, 03:08:
It takes hundreds of millions of dollars in research for each new proc generation. AMD has made some bad choices, but things like Bulldozer were done because they didn't have the money to do traditional prediction research, so they gambled. And lost. But those things were done because Intel cheated them out of market share and revenue, not the other way around. Intel cheated its way into a dominant position, and has held onto it. But think of the procs we might have if Intel and AMD were able to compete for real.
What kind of revisionist history is this? AMD "gambled" by selling its most important fucking fabs and by doubling down on bad designs that were already behind Intel equivalents. It also was lax in leveraging server market chips and had several failed designs back to back which left it in the dust and out of consideration. You can argue that Intel bullied it around in several marketplaces but that's just one small piece of the pie, AMD had several major fuckups which had far more impact than anything Intel did.
AMD is getting pounded because they are mismanaged and suck, ask any of the ex-employees we have around here. They are a rudderless ship and have been for some time. The closest they came to real success since the Athlon was buying ATI and attempting to get ahead of Nvidia and mobile integrators for small chipsets. Too bad they completely lacked the expertise and focus, they took on a lot of debt to buy ATI and it turned out to be pretty pointless for the companys direction. ATI is still barely integrated into their product lines in any meaningful way and they totally missed the boat on mobile graphics which could've reinvented the company. This comment was edited on Dec 24, 2015, 16:17.