AMD reports FY 2019 results

I was referring to marketshare rather than capability with respect to NVIDIA. Looking at raw numbers, NVIDIA invests far more into R&D than AMD does and they have a stranglehold on the GPU market. Navi hasn't really made a huge dent. But as far as Intel goes, the foundry ability will always give them an edge in enterprise. They may have shortages now but that won't last.
R and D does not make a major player. Marketshare does. Having your own Fabs to not make you a major player. Nvidia shows that as well as AMD.

-can AMD affect pricing of the competitors? yes

-can AMD affect the product Stacks of their competitors? yes

-can AMD ship products in volume? yes

These facts on how AMD can manipulate the market makes them a major player in both CPUs and GPUs - whether you like it or not.
 
R and D does not make a major player. Marketshare does. Having your own Fabs to not make you a major player. Nvidia shows that as well as AMD.

-can AMD affect pricing of the competitors? yes

-can AMD affect the product Stacks of their competitors? yes

-can AMD ship products in volume? yes

These facts on how AMD can manipulate the market makes them a major player in both CPUs and GPUs - whether you like it or not.

NVIDIA makes most of their money from consumer GPU sales, it's not a big enterprise player. For AMD to really be at Intel's level, they need dependable mass production and TSMC may give them allocation or may give it all to Apple like they usually do. That's why they can't ever be a true top down provider like Intel for enterprise. Yes AMD ships in volumes to Microcenter, Frys and Amazon, we haven't seen them perform in enterprise consistently yet over a span of years. My opinion is that w/out their own fabs, they won't be able to do it because they're at the mercy of TSMC. They're filling in the gaps where Intel is failing at right now but in 3-5 years? Who knows...

Oh yeah, then there's gross margin, Intel can better streamline their portfolio because they control production and again, AMD/NV are at the mercy of foundry prices and allocation. The profits Intel is generating are proof that their methods work. I don't think this small bump they're experiencing will affect them in the long term at all.
 
Lets look at it another way, market cap:

NVIDIA: $151.758B
AMD: $56.272B
Intel: $287.885B

AMD has CPUs, GPUs and APUs yet they trail NVIDIA in market cap who is solely a GPU manufacturer. Then compared to Intel, they aren't even a quarter of their market cap. That makes them a distant third.

Look at AMD's projected server marketshare for end of 2020:

View attachment 219339

It's a nice gain but still a pittance.

Market cap and Enterprise is not the end all to everything. It's only a part. The rest of the world still exists - believe it or not. Don't be so shallow. I've already listed the reasons AMD is a major player. You can refute none of it.
 
Market cap and Enterprise is not the end all to everything. It's only a part. The rest of the world still exists - believe it or not. Don't be so shallow. I've already listed the reasons AMD is a major player. You can refute none of it.

I don't need to refute it, the proof is in marketshare and income generated that's put back into R&D. In all 3 metrics, AMD is a minor player and projected to stay that way. Let's come back to this thread in 2021 when Intel finally ramps up some 10nm products and Ampere is in full swing.
 
I don't need to refute it, the proof is in marketshare and income generated that's put back into R&D. In all 3 metrics, AMD is a minor player and projected to stay that way.

If you want to use to fabricated illusions of your view of major player go ahead. It is a false assumption. AMDs ability to affect both the CPU and GPU markets in major ways (as I listed above) makes it a major player. Those are the facts.
 
I don't need to refute it, the proof is in marketshare and income generated that's put back into R&D. In all 3 metrics, AMD is a minor player and projected to stay that way. Let's come back to this thread in 2021 when Intel finally ramps up some 10nm products and Ampere is in full swing.

FYI - R&D mean nothing in terms of major player. Marketshare only matters only to the point you are a Monopoly and have control over all aspects of a market - which I have shown is NOT the case in either the CPU or GPU market. AMD can affect most all aspects (pricing/available products/changing competitor product stack) and we've seen this for the past several years. To dismiss AMD as not being a major player in each of these arenas is foolish and ignorant.
 
FYI - R&D mean nothing in terms of major player. Marketshare only matters only to the point you are a Monopoly and have control over all aspects of a market - which I have shown is NOT the case in either the CPU or GPU market. AMD can affect most all aspects (pricing/available products/changing competitor product stack) and we've seen this for the past several years.

How did AMD really affect the GPU market? The only time I saw NVIDIA really "react" if you can call it that is when they dropped the 2060 price and ruined AMD's little jebait party. Their 2080 Ti is still selling north of $1000 a year later, is that what you call affecting the market? Yeah they have put minor pressure on Intel for now but that's due to Intel fumbling themselves more than AMD doing anything to them. Marketshare is a strong metric of success, you can't ignore it nor can you ignore how much money a company puts back into R&D for new products.
 
How did AMD really affect the GPU market?
Let's use your examples
The only time I saw NVIDIA really "react" if you can call it that is when they dropped the 2060 price and ruined AMD's little jebait party.
An effect on GPU market competitor. Check.
Their 2080 Ti is still selling north of $1000 a year later, is that what you call affecting the market?
Picking and choosing one very small segment of the market has nothing to do with "major player".
Yeah they have put minor pressure on Intel for now but that's due to Intel fumbling themselves more than AMD doing anything to them.
That's PARTIALLY due to Intel shooting themselves in the foot. It is also because AMD has made many excellent choices to put themselves in that position. Affect competitor in CPU market. Check.
Marketshare is a strong metric of success, you can't ignore it.
Marketshare is ONE measurement. Just don't make it the lynch-pin of a faulty two dimensional argument argument on your definition of "Major player".
nor can you ignore how much money a company puts back into R&D for new products.
R&D expenditure is just a means to an end. It has nothing to do with BEING a "Major Player". It's the results of the R&D that matter. Here I would conjecture that AMD has by far one of the best efficiencies - exceeding both Nvidia and Intel.
 
Let's use your examples

An effect on GPU market competitor. Check.

Picking and choosing one very small segment of the market has nothing to do with "major player".

That's PARTIALLY due to Intel shooting themselves in the foot. It is also because AMD has made many excellent choices to put themselves in that position. Affect competitor in CPU market. Check.

Marketshare is ONE measurement. Just don't make it the lynch-pin of a faulty two dimensional argument argument on your definition of "Major player".

R&D expenditure is just a means to an end. It has nothing to do with BEING a "Major Player". It's the results of the R&D that matter. Here I would conjecture that AMD has by far one of the best efficiencies - exceeding both Nvidia and Intel.

If your criteria for major player is having a minor impact on a market leader that's a very low bar you're setting for AMD. Markeshare, gross margins, projected growth, top down production capabilities, r&d expenditure, ecosystem all go out the window for you which is pretty absurd.
 
If your criteria for major player is having a minor impact on a market leader that's a very low bar you're setting for AMD. Markeshare, gross margins, projected growth, top down production capabilities, r&d expenditure, ecosystem all go out the window for you which is pretty absurd.

I've already explained. stop being obtuse. Marketshare i've already addressed above,. R$D expenditure i've already discussed and it is irrelevant. AMD has an ecosystem in place that is very capable. Top down production? I assume you mean owning fabs. Already discussed as we all know nvidia owns no fabs and is a major player - one of two. The rest are financials and are not indicators of a Market major player. But if you want to include them, ok. Gross margin is reflective of market cap as discussed previously. Projected growth, AMD hands down winner by a long shot. AMD revenue growth of 29% for 2020. intel projected growth y-y is 1.69 %. LOL AMDs balance sheet is now superior to intel too. We can bring in a host of other figures than are meaningless to "major player".

One more time:

A Major Market Player can do the following:

can AMD affect pricing of the competitors? yes

-can AMD affect the product Stacks of their competitors? yes

-can AMD ship products in volume? yes

I've addressed all your points. You have yet to address ANY of the ones I've mentioned.
 
Last edited:
I've already explained. stop being obtuse. Marketshare i've already addressed above,. R$D expenditure i've already discussed and it is irrelevant. AMD has an ecosystem in place that is very capable. Top down production? I assume you mean owning fabs. Already discussed as we all know nvidia owns no fabs and is a major player - one of two. The rest are financials and are not indicators of a Market major player. But if you want to include them, projected growth, AMD hands down winner.

One more time:

A Major Market Player can do the following:

can AMD affect pricing of the competitors? yes

-can AMD affect the product Stacks of their competitors? yes

-can AMD ship products in volume? yes

I've addressed all your points. You have yet to address ANY of the ones I've mentioned.


That's just your made up criteria and has no defined parameters. What if I said you need to reach $100B market cap to be considered a major market player/leader and keep repeating that ad nauseam like you are? Does that make it true? Let's stick to measurable yardsticks here:

1. Market cap
2. Marketshare
3. Growth potential
4. R&D expenditure
5. Portfolio of products
6. Ability to levy production costs

Does AMD check all those? No but it does most but not in any way that makes it a market leader, not even close. It is relevant yes (which I guess you could call it a "major player"), it affects the market to a small extent for sure, but it isn't near a dominant player in any of the above. It is a distant 2nd or 3rd depending on what you're looking at.

GPUS: far behind NVIDIA in every way
CPUS: barley making a dent in enterprise and is on a limited time table before Intel comes roaring back.

AMD is finally getting around to paying off their debt but can they sustain growth for another 5-10 years in the face of Intel and NVIDIA? I doubt it, they've never been able to in their 30+ year history and that won't change just because Intel fumbled a little.
 
Last edited:
That's just your made up criteria and has no defined parameters. What if I said you need to reach $100B market cap to be considered a major market player/leader and keep repeating that ad nauseam like you are? Does that make it true? Let's stick to measurable yardsticks here:

1. Market cap
2. Marketshare
3. Growth potential
4. R&D expenditure
5. Portfolio of products
6. Ability to levy production costs

Does AMD check all those? No but it does most but not in any way that makes it a market leader, not even close. It is relevant yes (which I guess you could call it a "major player"), it affects the market to a small extent for sure, but it isn't near a dominant player in any of the above. It is a distant 2nd or 3rd depending on what you're looking at.

GPUS: far behind NVIDIA in every way
CPUS: barley making a dent in enterprise and is on a limited time table before Intel comes roaring back.

AMD is finally getting around to paying off their debt but can they sustain growth for another 5-10 years in the face of Intel and NVIDIA? I doubt it, they've never been able to in their 30+ year history and that won't change just because Intel fumbled a little.

Changing the argument to satisfy you and your points only, here we go - AGAIN

1. Market cap - discussed
2. Marketshare - addressed
3. Growth potential - see aboce
4. R&D expenditure - meaningless per "major plaer argument"
5. Portfolio of products - meaningless per "major player argument"
6. Ability to levy production costs - who cares. again meaningless per "major player argument"

address the real points on affecting markets.
A Major Market Player can do the following:
can AMD affect pricing of the competitors? yes
can AMD affect the product Stacks of their competitors? yes
can AMD ship products in volume? yes

Financial statistics do not show "major player" as well as my points above. Guess you missed the previous posts on AMDs debt payoff, I wont bother to re-hash it again how well they are doing on that.

"GPUS: far behind NVIDIA in every way."
Not so far, exaggeration to say the least. By the end of the year, all caught up mostly.

"CPUS: barley making a dent in enterprise and is on a limited time table before Intel comes roaring back."
Same old Enterprise argument. Already addressed. There's more to CPU than enterprise and AMD is making fabulous inroads here with superior product.

Roaring back? Rawr? More like meow. I'll believe it when I see it. Even if intel can get off the canvas, it better be awesome because by that time Zen4 or 5 will be out on 5nm.
 
Last edited:
The problem I see 5-10 years down the line for AMD is that Intel will move passed these current fabrication hurdles and will have 10/7/5nm lithography ready to go in their own foundries. The last part is super important because if you're going to cater to Enterprise in a meaningful way, it helps not to be dependent on an outside supplier for your production needs. This is where Intel has a huge advantage over AMD and it is why AMD will never take them down. Plus Intel is a top down solutions provider and continues to expand. AMD may be on the right track but they will always be a minor player in the CPU and GPU markets IMO.

Perhaps once AMD gets large enough, they can "buy out" all the production time in one facility from either TSMC or Samsung and keep its capacity reserved entirely for their orders. Best of both worlds that way. They dont have to spend on R&D, they have the capacity to do semi-custom jobs at a moment's notice and can pick and choose every 2-3 years which company to buy from that has the best process between the two. It will cost a lot, but less than owning the whole fab and R&D themselves.
 
Keep Watching, yet another year. And keep patching and losing more performance, paying higher cost of ownership. How many years do you need?

Yeah. Hundreds of people losing SO much performance in their emails and Word documents. However will they cope?
 
Yeah. Hundreds of people losing SO much performance in their emails and Word documents. However will they cope?

So, you are cool with paying for a certain performance level and then getting less over time, because Intel cheated on their designs?
 
So, you are cool with paying for a certain performance level and then getting less over time, because Intel cheated on their designs?

Of course that sucks. But in an Enterprise environment your primary concern is people being able to do their jobs with as little interruption as possible. Losing some performance and having to do more patches, which are being done continually overnight in any scenario regardless of hardware platform, is no concern next to stability. As an extreme example: If I had a rock solid i3 and a flaky i7 desktop as my only options to deploy to a MS office user, guess which one I would choose?

We had over 1200 Intel SSDs starting to fail on mass. So now we are scrambling to clone drives over to Samsungs, Microns and Kingstons and the cost is enormous in money and labor hours. But the Intel systems they reside in run 24x7 for 4 year replacement cycles, with only a handful of RMAs and next to zero bluescreens from BIOS/UEFI issues, chipset or GPU drivers.

My team has to replace 25% of those 1200 PCs and laptops this year, as that 25% are 4 years old and end of warranty.

Would you gamble that 400ish Ryzen Pro ProDesks, ProBooks, or OptiPlexs will be 100% rock solid for the next 4 years? With no firmware, chipset, USB, NIC and GPU driver issues? Would you gamble that AMD specific exploits won't be found in the next 4 years, as they become more popular (and therefore target) in the Enterprise for hackers? Or would you wait a bit longer just let other organizations be the Guinea pigs?
 
Of course that sucks. But in an Enterprise environment your primary concern is people being able to do their jobs with as little interruption as possible. Losing some performance and having to do more patches, which are being done continually overnight in any scenario regardless of hardware platform, is no concern next to stability. As an extreme example: If I had a rock solid i3 and a flaky i7 desktop as my only options to deploy to a MS office user, guess which one I would choose?

We had over 1200 Intel SSDs starting to fail on mass. So now we are scrambling to clone drives over to Samsungs, Microns and Kingstons and the cost is enormous in money and labor hours. But the Intel systems they reside in run 24x7 for 4 year replacement cycles, with only a handful of RMAs and next to zero bluescreens from BIOS/UEFI issues, chipset or GPU drivers.

My team has to replace 25% of those 1200 PCs and laptops this year, as that 25% are 4 years old and end of warranty.

Would you gamble that 400ish Ryzen Pro ProDesks, ProBooks, or OptiPlexs will be 100% rock solid for the next 4 years? With no firmware, chipset, USB, NIC and GPU driver issues? Would you gamble that AMD specific exploits won't be found in the next 4 years, as they become more popular (and therefore target) in the Enterprise for hackers? Or would you wait a bit longer just let other organizations be the Guinea pigs?

I would get some in test/dev to vet.
 
I would get some in test/dev to vet.

We do that. But everything changes when you switch from a small sample size and move up to large scale. An established history of a particular corporate PC model having very few issues in support forums becomes your best reliable source of a predictable outcome. Hence, my wait and see position on AMD.

If a university buys a few thousand Ryzen OptiPlex 5055s and they tell me a year from now they have been near perfect, plus I don't see IT people freaking out on their forums, then I'll make a case to purchase them.
 
Would you gamble that 400ish Ryzen Pro ProDesks, ProBooks, or OptiPlexs will be 100% rock solid for the next 4 years? With no firmware, chipset, USB, NIC and GPU driver issues? Would you gamble that AMD specific exploits won't be found in the next 4 years, as they become more popular (and therefore target) in the Enterprise for hackers? Or would you wait a bit longer just let other organizations be the Guinea pigs?

I have always found motherboards to be more a stability culprit and area of hardware failure than the CPUs tend to be, and those arent the same any upgrade you do.
 
I have always found motherboards to be more a stability culprit and area of hardware failure than the CPUs tend to be, and those arent the same any upgrade you do.

Yes, motherboards and power supplies are almost always the culprit if the drive is OK. But the key difference here is that Intel chipsets, which are a platform (GPU, NIC, ACPI, ME, SATA, USB,etc.etc) with associated drivers and firmware are very mature because they have been slowly iterative for many years now. The most 3rd party thing you may see on a corporate machine might be Realtek, which have been around forever too. That's a sh1t ton of things that can bluescreen, but there is so many years of Intel not messing those things up that none of us even think of it anymore.

With AMD, 2017 came and now ALL of those things you need to pay attention to again. Forums were filled with Ryzen teething problems.

But its difficult to get a read on things because of the fanbois and apologists. Big issues aren't a big deal, because Intel SuX0rs and there's a half a$$ed fix for whatever. Every YouTube influencer is buy 5700XT! Its emergerd ermerzing! Then you read the comments on Newegg, Amazon, etc. and a ton of people are returning them because drivers are sh!t. Even here at [H] people gloss over issues for AMD and nail Intel to the damn wall for every tiny thing, even though they were just creaming all over Intel a couple years ago.

Don't get me wrong, things are better than ever for AMD. They caught up and matured insanely fast.

But we are still talking about purchases of several hundred thousand to millions of dollars.

Something most people here are not even remotely familiar with.

I'm going to wait a bit longer before I make any recommendations for change.

But there's nothing stopping anyone else here. Buy a quarter mill plus of Ryzen machines and let me know how it goes.
 
Of course that sucks. But in an Enterprise environment your primary concern is people being able to do their jobs with as little interruption as possible. Losing some performance and having to do more patches, which are being done continually overnight in any scenario regardless of hardware platform, is no concern next to stability. As an extreme example: If I had a rock solid i3 and a flaky i7 desktop as my only options to deploy to a MS office user, guess which one I would choose?

We had over 1200 Intel SSDs starting to fail on mass. So now we are scrambling to clone drives over to Samsungs, Microns and Kingstons and the cost is enormous in money and labor hours. But the Intel systems they reside in run 24x7 for 4 year replacement cycles, with only a handful of RMAs and next to zero bluescreens from BIOS/UEFI issues, chipset or GPU drivers.

My team has to replace 25% of those 1200 PCs and laptops this year, as that 25% are 4 years old and end of warranty.

Would you gamble that 400ish Ryzen Pro ProDesks, ProBooks, or OptiPlexs will be 100% rock solid for the next 4 years? With no firmware, chipset, USB, NIC and GPU driver issues? Would you gamble that AMD specific exploits won't be found in the next 4 years, as they become more popular (and therefore target) in the Enterprise for hackers? Or would you wait a bit longer just let other organizations be the Guinea pigs?

Wrong. In enterprise you balance your performance for your workload. And suddenly if your systems lose 15% poerformance, all your metrics are fucked and you have to spend money to get back to where your prior balance was.
 
Wrong. In enterprise you balance your performance for your workload. And suddenly if your systems lose 15% poerformance, all your metrics are fucked and you have to spend money to get back to where your prior balance was.

ROFL
 
Yes, motherboards and power supplies are almost always the culprit if the drive is OK. But the key difference here is that Intel chipsets, which are a platform (GPU, NIC, ACPI, ME, SATA, USB,etc.etc) with associated drivers and firmware are very mature because they have been slowly iterative for many years now. The most 3rd party thing you may see on a corporate machine might be Realtek, which have been around forever too. That's a sh1t ton of things that can bluescreen, but there is so many years of Intel not messing those things up that none of us even think of it anymore.

With AMD, 2017 came and now ALL of those things you need to pay attention to again. Forums were filled with Ryzen teething problems.

But its difficult to get a read on things because of the fanbois and apologists. Big issues aren't a big deal, because Intel SuX0rs and there's a half a$$ed fix for whatever. Every YouTube influencer is buy 5700XT! Its emergerd ermerzing! Then you read the comments on Newegg, Amazon, etc. and a ton of people are returning them because drivers are sh!t. Even here at [H] people gloss over issues for AMD and nail Intel to the damn wall for every tiny thing, even though they were just creaming all over Intel a couple years ago.

Don't get me wrong, things are better than ever for AMD. They caught up and matured insanely fast.

But we are still talking about purchases of several hundred thousand to millions of dollars.

Something most people here are not even remotely familiar with.

I'm going to wait a bit longer before I make any recommendations for change.

But there's nothing stopping anyone else here. Buy a quarter mill plus of Ryzen machines and let me know how it goes.


LOL I'm on the same page with you. I WANT to test Ryzen for a quater as a big SQL Dev box and as a host for VMware. I want to teethe feeling the pain of moving VM's from Intel CPU hosts to AMD CPU hosts and see what teething issues I actually have.

I WANT to prove out the platform is rock solid and stable.

THEN if all of that works out I'll look to make a purchase of several hundred thousand. But really when it comes to that size of refresh. I'll spend the same or more just on the storage environment to support it.
 
Back
Top