In a presentation slide, Intel alleges that AMD’s EPYC server processors are actually repurposed desktop products comprising parts that have merely been “glued together.” They claim that this design results in “inconsistent performance” and additionally accuse AMD of having a poor track record and being an inconsistent supplier. Ah, the "glued-together" dies. Let's forget how AMD's Zen cores actually look like they were architected from the get-go for modularity and scaling, which has allowed the company to keep die-sizes to a minimum and yields to a maximum. This means that from a same-sized wafer, AMD can make more Ryzen/EPYC processors (because yes, that's the beauty of it, they're almost interchangeable), and in all likelihood, have more of those full-fledged dies without any defects that affect yields.
I was leaning towards an Intel Kaby Lake replacement for my Sandy Bridge, but their sour grapes for being 2-3x the price for the same overall performance is making me rethink, especially since AMD needs the money more so than can compete and keep making Intel have sour grapes over their last few years of relaxed development.
"So essentially, AMD has 8 more cores, 16 more threads, delivers 16% more performance than Intel's e5-2699 system and 32% more performance than Intel's "non glued-together" Xeon 8176. AMD's chip does all that while consuming 23% less power than the Xeon e5-2699, and 28% less than the Xeon 8176. Not too shabby. I'll take my CPUs with this kind of glue any day." Intel knows that people can check their ad copy, right?
This is evidence that Intel legitimately feels pressure from AMD now.....things are getting interesting now ::wringing of the hands::
The fact that Intel is FORCED to acknowledge AMD as a potential competitor by throwing "insults" shows Intel is worried, and with good reason.
Talking trash about one company usually makes people buy MORE of the other Product.........................not smart Intel not smart at all if you care and or are listening...........
I just don't understand Intel. Why would they feel any pressure from AMD. Intel has the surpior product. They just seem they don't want to compete with AMD on price. Sure they releasing higher cores now but are no where near AMD's price. Why is Intel so against lowering it prices. Fear from share holders? Brand degradation? They could cut their prices by half across the board and make a killing and stomp AMD out.
Intel had a superior product but doesn't anymore because of price. Slashing prices would cut profits. Profits are what investors look for. They've gotten accustomed to throwing out any price they want and receiving hefty profits, going back into competing mode isn't want they want. If AMD can get some decent momentum and market share as well as keep supplies from running out, Intel is in for a world of hurt.
I love watching Intel squirm. They make great products, but it is about time someone put them in their place. I am tired of them charging more and more and delivering the same crap year after year. It is time for some innovation. I am still holding on to my 4770k and I am one that usually upgrades fairly regularly, but they have yet to give me a reason so far.
AMD caught Intel off guard with a BETTER cpu this time with more pci lanes and price for performance AMD is the now Superior product.
They can't really lower prices without their stock taking a hit. They can, however, bad-mouth and hope that some person in a company's purchasing department sees their bad-mouthing and takes it to heart and says - 'Yea, we see the numbers and the prices, but we don't want something that's glued together, glue falls apart. We need something that's attached to a mesh instead' Plus, they can't appear weak, and right now they're weak. Now they have to go back and design a new core rather than keep adding things that don't help many people very much (AVX-512) to their existing core while staying relatively stagnant as far as R&D numbers on IPC. They need more raw horsepower (again) - they're kind of hitting Netburst diminishing returns now.
Were they charging more and more. From my perspective buying machines, it seemed they were charging about the same for very gradual improvements. Which is about what you expect when the marketplace stagnates. Intel has a few choices, lower prices, expand outside of the x86 game, or improve the product significantly. Also, AMD looks attractive for data center use, but doesn't look all that compelling for desktop use unless you already have some use that is already multi-threaded, and multi-threaded WELL. Apples to apples for many common things performance is similar and prices are similar. So for the consumer market, Intel also has the option of simply leaning on/bribing devs to not improve multi-core support further. That really doesn't work at the data center level though. SO there they spread the FUD of "nobody got fired for buying intel". Intel being intel, I suspect they will respond with better hardware. This about buying some time to push it through the pipeline. AMD's chipsets aren't exactly famous for being ultra good and stable on day one, so the data center market is going to need to see some proof of a quality product there before you see any big shifts.
I like how one of the graphs is comparing the performance of Intel server processor to an AMD desktop processor. Because thats totally fair. Im not ready to jump the Intel ship yet, but im stoked that AMD is finally making a comeback. Really hope this keeps up.
This is one way of saying "SHIT, we got hit badly by those damn good AMD products..ehhhh...yeahhhh I know ..blabla...LET'S SPREAD SOME BAD NEWS ABOUT THEM...and we might get away with it" --> NO, YOU DON'T For whom the bell tolls comes to my mind...or ...force a rat into a corner...they get ugly too. Intel, how low can you go ?
I am happy AMD is in the game.. but lets be real, even if Intel's were very clearly, significantly inferior products (not saying they are, they might be a in the sense of price/performance here and there and so on) it is such a heavy lift so eat up marketshare, I don't think this is like throwing a switch, so yeah, Intel has time. Although I agree, they are in FUD more.. a bit funny to see.
If you look at the info below, the 1800x is massively underclocked to 2.2ghz, 1.4ghz underclock from its stock 3.6 ghz. Yup totally fair.....
Love the down-clocked comparison by Intel, with a product that isnt even in the same price range. Lulz
I like the graphs on SMT On/Off because people turn it on and off all the time /s. I really don't care how well SMT works if I get 4-8 more cores for the same price and it has better multi-thread performance.
Early indications are Intel is taking a serious hit already. And to be honest a 1% to 2% market share loss is enough to make investors antsy. A 1 or 2% market share loss might actually represent 10% or more PtoE ratio drop. It all depends on what their margins to overhead is.
Man that VM migration chart is straight FUD. Hyper-V explicitly has a cross CPU migration option for differing boxes. More performance, less cost, less power = buy. I don't care if Intel's chips were "designed for the data center" wtf does that even mean. Both support running the workloads I need.
"Inconsistent supplier" - That is due to Intel's anti-competitive practices back in the day by providing "rebates" to keep customers loyal to Intel by locking AMD out of lucrative customers. I really hope the EU court rules against Intel next year and crushes them with the $1billion fine.
More like their tactics of reducing supply of the 440BX chipset to motherboard makers who would dare build a competing Athlon motherboard.
I'm less worried about the trash talking and more worried about a potential return to the old "OEM deals behind closed doors" anti-competitive shenanigans that they had a pocket change settlement over back in the A64 days. What's gonna stop them from just giving OEMs offers they can't refuse once again? They're most of the market so would not be difficult, and their past history makes that easy to imagine coming back into play.
same here. Im still running X58 because I havent had that much reason to upgrade. I have a 6-core 12 thread Xeon. Might look into upgrading next year just for other features though. DDR4, M.2 SSD's, faster IPC, lower Power consumption, new instruction sets, PCIE 3.0 ( maybe 4.0 by next year), Integrated USB 3.1 with front Panel USB-C connectors ( I have USB 3.0 on my board). Also Oculus says I don't meet the minimum requirements even though I do. ( I have been using a DK2 since launch) Waiting for The NAND shortage to go away so I can get a decent size SSD. All in all is mostly not the processor thats making me want to upgrade my platform at this point.
I just upgraded off of X58 for features (including USB3.0 and type C) and because a bunch of my USB2.0 ports stopped working properly.
This is what I am worried too. AMD has a goldmine in their hands that could potentially get them back into the game for real, but Intel still has so much power that they can try to screw AMD with dishonest deals. Now, Intel got punished for it (even though it was too little too late) once so I doubt they would try to do the exact same thing again but I guess there is no shortage of asshole stunts in their bag of tricks.
But would Lisa Su be as content to take such a meager settlement as her predecessor, if history repeats itself again?
![[H]ard|Forum](styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}