"Intel in jeopardy" from insiders. Much much worse than what they tell.

Astrowind

[H]Lite
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
116
Your point has been addressed many times. Keep bragging about your games being 4% advantage average you’ll never notice while being much slower at everything else which you will notice.

As of this post, AMD > Intel. A fact you can make friends with or deny, but a fact it will remain.

For the record, I don’t “love” AMD. My 3900x has been my first AMD build since Athlon X2s first hit. Everything in between has been Intel for me. I’m just not delusional.
If you've had both Intel and AMD in recent years, can you confirm if Intel CPUs are faster on the desktop (like closing/opening windows)? Because leaks on the Comet Lake look promising (even if Ryzen 4000 CPUs are around the corner as well). I may consider the i3-10300.
 

RamonGTP

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,890
But he's right. Intel remains better for gaming overall and in severely CPU bound games it's still a substantial difference (more than 4%).

AMD may be better than Intel for you but it isn't for me and many other gamers, still. Especially those who care about the highest framerates (so not 1440p/4k with max details). And don't use averages here, that's not a good idea (oh and we are really missing some frametimes/min. framerates numbers here). I play a lot of different games but there's also a lot of games I don't play. And if some of the games I play* happen to benefit from Intel's strengths well... you get the picture.

I still frequently recommend AMD for new gaming builds especially on strained budgets. There's undeniably a lot to like about AMD CPUs now. And that's great!

*the majority of the games I sink the most hours into actually fall in that category so you could say I'm biased but the point remains
I think that 4% figure is inflated if anything considering hardly anyone is CPU bound. Most people playing at 1080p aren’t doing it with a 2080Ti. Averages are hugely important considering we are talking about general gaming performance and the general gaming public. If you’re going to cherry pick the GPU, the game, the resolution and game settings and you don’t want to be misleading with your interpretation of the data, then you must also cherry pick who actually plays like that, which is almost nobody.
 

kalston

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,033
No it's not true that hardly anyone is CPU bound. Heck eSport is no small thing and that's always as CPU bound as can be.

There are plenty of popular CPU bound games out there, like WoW or SC2 for example. Just going by this list https://store.steampowered.com/stats/ I can tell you at least 5 of the titles will be CPU bound for a large number of players (you can cross check that with the most popular GPUs and resolutions) because they are so easy to run for recent GPUs.

But to give you an idea in SC2 they measured 15% at stock and 11% when OCed: https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/ * and for the record SC2 is a game where performance still does matter despite it having simple graphics - with lots of units on screen even a 9900ks can drop to an uncomfortably low framerate at times. But with an AMD CPU it will happen more often. I'm not playing the game anymore but I do own it and know exactly how it performs in real life. Same with WoW (and many others).

Not only that but games have very varied loads, for example in a game like Assassin's Creed (I played Origins and I am burning through Odyssey right now, so again this is real life experience) you'll go from one place where you are hopelessly CPU bound (rooftop of the cities) to one where you are GPU bound (outside a city and down on the ground). It is admittedly difficult for reviewers to take that into account, but in real life it is a big deal... to some.

I am not disagreeing that AMD is a way better deal for the general public right now. And Intel's gaming edge has shrunk so much it might well be gone in the near future, even for demanding people like myself. Though I doubt Intel will stay idle.

*IDK why they found CS:GO to run faster on AMD than Intel when every site out there found the opposite. But sadly we rarely know much about how the tests are conducted, I am always wary of benchmarks for that reason
 
Last edited:

Jandor

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
527
well looks like intel is going out of business
Well. Depends. Desktop APU is not out yet. So if you need a desktop with an iGP, plenty cores, and don't care about the graphics, Intel is still the best.They have until around July to take the best of that business before AMD beats them there too. But for sure, on laptops, Intel is finished too. Icelake or even projected Tigerlake limited to 4 core and also 4Ghz are simply not able to catch any market share if ever Intel doesn't want them to be sold for free. I am quite confident the companies making laptops would be ok to upgrade their E and E2 series laptop with those Tigerlake iGPU if their price are kept low as the previous AMD series.
 

RamonGTP

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,890
If you've had both Intel and AMD in recent years, can you confirm if Intel CPUs are faster on the desktop (like closing/opening windows)? Because leaks on the Comet Lake look promising (even if Ryzen 4000 CPUs are around the corner as well). I may consider the i3-10300.
I don't notice any difference between a modern and comparable AMD vs Intel system for basic desktop usage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

Jandor

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
527
If you've had both Intel and AMD in recent years, can you confirm if Intel CPUs are faster on the desktop (like closing/opening windows)? Because leaks on the Comet Lake look promising (even if Ryzen 4000 CPUs are around the corner as well). I may consider the i3-10300.
Clearly not CPU bound. This is mostly RAM cache, SSD speed and maybe number of cores on the same line of CPU because some other application or OS using resources. Furthermore it's on the unnoticeable side today. You're going to find milliseconds differences. This is also bound on how you manage the double-click on your mouse and OS or how fast your keyboard talks to your PC over the air.
As of today, whatever Intel declares, AMD CPU are of better value. Intel is clearly not technologically on par with AMD and it doesn't want to make better prices for it's older technology but prefers to rename it and announce useless exceptional enhancements. I would consider an 8 core Zen+ like the 2700 or 2700x or even a 2600 at less than $100 against an i3 10300 provided Intel doesn't slash completely the price of their CPU (like $50 for an i3) which I seriously doubt.
Also I wouldn't advise to wait for Tigerlake despite Intel announcements as they already did that on multiple occasion on their failed 10nm process, and for 5 years of lies now. Next move from Intel will be with 7nm in 2021 or, if the insiders are right, massively in 2023. Not sure how Intel will handle the period in between. Maybe asking Samsung for help and manufacturing on their 7nm line would be one of their best strategical move because AMD is still making progress with new technology more cores and faster every year.
Also buy a graphic card. Not sur if you need dektop offiice performance and in the case a Nvidia 1030 is farily enough or something for gaming at Full HD which would be a less than $300 card depending on what you need (from $150 to 300$ or you would need a much better CPU)
 

noko

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
4,648
I think that 4% figure is inflated if anything considering hardly anyone is CPU bound. Most people playing at 1080p aren’t doing it with a 2080Ti. Averages are hugely important considering we are talking about general gaming performance and the general gaming public. If you’re going to cherry pick the GPU, the game, the resolution and game settings and you don’t want to be misleading with your interpretation of the data, then you must also cherry pick who actually plays like that, which is almost nobody.
Unless they are using RTX with reduced settings :D
 

blackmomba

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
147
Do people really think Intel's lagging CPU division is going to tank the entire company in just a few years?

Really...?
No I don't think so, but I do think that some people are actually justifying a 4% advantage in games and a 50% disadvantage in everything that's multithreaded which is pretty wild IMO
 

PhaseNoise

2[H]4U
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
2,369
No I don't think so, but I do think that some people are actually justifying a 4% advantage in games and a 50% disadvantage in everything that's multithreaded which is pretty wild IMO
Well, devil's advocate - if you game a lot, and your heavily-threaded workloads are either not present or not time sensitive, you could say that wasn't a horrible choice.
 

ochadd

Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
929
Intel isn't going anywhere. They are losing massive amounts of mind and market share. I'm a guy that buys servers and I'm refreshing with AMD for the very first time in my 20 year career. That's where Intel could end up in trouble 10 years down the line. When I move to AMD it's likely I'll be there for a long time, maybe another 20 years. I don't want VMs migrating across ecosystems so as I'm adding machines I'm adding more of the same. If I were upgrading my home gaming PC today it would also be AMD. I'm still buying Intel office desktops and laptops though.
 

cyclone3d

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
13,266
Intel isn't going anywhere. They are losing massive amounts of mind and market share. I'm a guy that buys servers and I'm refreshing with AMD for the very first time in my 20 year career. That's where Intel could end up in trouble 10 years down the line. When I move to AMD it's likely I'll be there for a long time, maybe another 20 years. I don't want VMs migrating across ecosystems so as I'm adding machines I'm adding more of the same. If I were upgrading my home gaming PC today it would also be AMD. I'm still buying Intel office desktops and laptops though.
Same here. Going AMD for the 2 locations I am replacing servers at this year.

I really don't mind migrating from Intel to AMD. Windows OSes are way way better than they used to be about just working when doing large hardware changes though it won't be as much of a change as far as the OS knows since they are VMs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

Jandor

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
527
Weird they are building a 4-5 billion dollar new fab in Hillsboro Oregon while going out of business.
Strange business decision :ROFLMAO::D
Mind that TSMC is investing much more at the same time and Samsung is supposed to be ahead in investment.
Same here. Going AMD for the 2 locations I am replacing servers at this year.

I really don't mind migrating from Intel to AMD. Windows OSes are way way better than they used to be about just working when doing large hardware changes though it won't be as much of a change as far as the OS knows since they are VMs.
AMD and Intel made a deal at Athlon 64 launch to give exchange information on any new standard in x86, and licensing for free, because Intel would had to take the license on X64 extended functionalities because Intel was too late to promote its own, so it's quite easy for AMD and Intel to make a CPU with mutual compatibility.
 

grambo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
1,173
No I don't think so, but I do think that some people are actually justifying a 4% advantage in games and a 50% disadvantage in everything that's multithreaded which is pretty wild IMO
I bought a 9700K over a 3700X (similar price in Canada on Black Friday sales) because I literally only play games and do general browsing/media consumption with my PC. Do I think the 5-10% delta in gaming performance will be noticeable? No, and since I pay at 1440p max detail/144Hz the difference is probably less than 5%, but I may as well choose the CPU which provides better performance/$ today, and that is at stock, I haven't tried overclocking it yet. Based on history and what we are seeing today, I don't think multi threading/more cores is going to matter in gaming in the lifetime of this CPU, could be wrong of course.

Just saying there are edge cases where Intel makes sense in the desktop world with current product stack.
 

vjhawk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2016
Messages
199
Don’t forget that the 9700k you justified buying axed multithreading because in its greed Intel wanted to further differentiate between the i9 9900k and i7 9700k lineup. In contrast the 8700k did have multithreading but only six cores rather than the 8 cores of the current 9700k.

So to sum up:
Intel
8700k 6 cores 12 threads
9700k 8 cores 8 threads
9900k 8 cores 16 threads

Vs
AMD
3700x 8 cores 16 threads
3900x 12 cores 24 threads
3950x 16 cores 32 threads

Preferences aside, You see the huge difference in core count and threads, right?
 

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,745
Desktop volume +7% and client computing only up 2% but down 4% desktop selling price. Interesting, price cuts are hurting. $3.5 Billion in stock repurchase and 25,3 Billion debt.. wow. Where's the R&D? Also, GAAP EPS is flat.




Intel-Q4-2019-Earnings-Infographic.jpg
 

Jandor

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2018
Messages
527

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,745
Could be even better, I don't care. Their products are uninteresting. It's like a friend who's buying iPhone since Apple became top of the market, not because iPhone is good but because he's following the path of the leader. Not my way of seeing things. I'm not a follower. I make my own path.
U REBEL. Really if you like/perfer/whatever IOS, then iphone is it. Pretty bad analogy, x86 has many OS choices. Probably the most of any Architecture ever. Phones are bound. Apple - ios or other - android variant (mostly).

I do agree, Intel desktop has been the most uninteresting subject these past couple years. Maybe a bit more than a couple.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Sniper|3d-R|

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Oct 30, 2000
Messages
4,788

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,745
Datacenter growth has averaged 20% a year over the last five years, intel is forecasting "data-centric businesses climbing by high single digits".. Leaving the rest for someone else in the low teens percent to pick up. 7 Billion last Q x 12% for the other guy x 4 Quarters per year. $7B x 4 = $28B x 12% = $\3.36B for the other guy. Now we have total of about $10B in revenue and $2B in profits for AMD. This would tend to support a share price of $100.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

drklu

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
2,304
Which one is that? D1X is already built. AFAIK, they started doing an expansion of D1X last year.... https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2012/10/intel_set_to_expand_its_hillsb.html

Being transparent, I live in Oregon and work for Intel at a campus not far from D1X.
I also live in Oregon and have a bit of inside knowledge because our company was hired to do a ton of work there, the project is called D1X MOD 3 and yes it is another expansion onto Mod 1/2 https://www.oregon.gov/deq/Programs/Documents/Intel-LUCSmap2.pdf . I guess I worded that wrong in my first post as its not an entire new fab but an expansion on the existing. This new expansion is even larger then the last two with an additional sub-grade basement level and they are pushing the schedule hard to get it operational (even shutting down the parking structure we are building as well if that means getting it done on time although we just opted to do a second shift instead). If you work near there you must have seen the dozens of tower cranes and mobiles in addition to one of the largest or if not the largest mobile crane in the world to set the roof truss assemblies. It is absolutely massive, and should be being assembled right now. The scale of these projects is insane, some of the biggest projects we have.
 

defaultluser

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
12,973
Datacenter growth has averaged 20% a year over the last five years, intel is forecasting "data-centric businesses climbing by high single digits".. Leaving the rest for someone else in the low teens percent to pick up. 7 Billion last Q x 12% for the other guy x 4 Quarters per year. $7B x 4 = $28B x 12% = $\3.36B for the other guy. Now we have total of about $10B in revenue and $2B in profits for AMD. This would tend to support a share price of $100.
Be reasonable. The last time AMD was rising witth this kind of momentum, it was on MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS easily-corrected Intel fuckups. And Hector Ruiz was stupid enough to buy ATI on credit, instead of delaying one of their new fabs (you don't make major purchase like that while you're doing other things, or it takes 5 years to produce a result).

And Phenom TLB bug was the biggest new core architecture fuckup ever seen.

I don't see Lisa Su fucking up that horribly anytime soon. There have been some minor Zen bugs, but all have been swiftly patched . The companies revenue has DOUBLED in the last three years, and that's much better percentage growth than Intel is seeing.

Further, Intel can't just rely on their fab advantage to carry them through tis - they're going to be taking lots of margin off Comet Lake to compete with Zen 3. Intel; has stated that they can't deliver something on 10nm with more than four cores in it before the end of the year, so they have no competition for Renoir. And expect Zen 3 to bring AVX512 instructions to the server room (I's Intel's only major advantage).

Apple is the reason TSMC can afford to build so many top-end fabs, and they can depend on that business. Intel has been eclipsed by Apple for cutting-edge fab demand, and it seems Intel has permanently stumbled while trying to catch-up.

But AMD can still make bank by waiting a year after Apple is done with new fabs
 
Last edited:

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,745
Be reasonable. The last time AMD was rising witth this kind of momentum, it was on MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS easily-corrected Intel fuckups. And Hector Ruiz was stupid enough to buy ATI on credit, instead of delaying one of their new fabs (you don't make major purchase like that while you're doing other things, or it takes 5 years to produce a result).

And Phenom TLB bug was the biggest new core architecture fuckup ever seen.

I don't see Lisa Su fucking up that horribly anytime soon. There have been some minor Zen bugs, but all have been swiftly patched . The companies revenue has DOUBLED in the last three years, and that's much better percentage growth than Intel is seeing.

Further, Intel can't just rely on their fab advantage to carry them through tis - they're going to be taking lots of margin off Comet Lake to compete with Zen 3. Intel; has stated that they can't deliver something on 10nm with more than four cores in it before the end of the year, so they have no competition for Renoir. And expect Zen 3 to bring AVX512 instructions to the server room (I's Intel's only major advantage).

Apple is the reason TSMC can afford to build so many top-end fabs, and they can depend on that business. Intel has been eclipsed by Apple for cutting-edge fab demand, and it seems Intel has permanently stumbled while trying to catch-up.

But AMD can still make bank by waiting a year after Apple is done with new fabs

Intel share price is artificially inflated by buybacks and should actually be going down. Investors in intel are short sighted and not looking past the current numbers into the poor forecast.

Guess I confused you by switching up on companies from Intel to AMD. I was talking about AMD when I typed "This would tend to support a share price of $100." and "leaving the rest for someone else" merely implies AMD, who else would it? Was I being too coy? I am being more than reasonable.

;)
 

SixFootDuo

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,565
I spent the last 10 minutes smirking and rolling my eyes at most of the posts on this tread.

One. clearly there is an age and intellect disadvantage deeply embedded within many of the thought processes here. No, no and no. Not going to happen.

To put this into context here, Intel is the ocean and AMD is a single grain of sand.

This is their 15 minutes of fame.

BUT, I think all of this is amazing for all of us. Competition is grand and Intel has no doubt been shocked back into reality. This was very much needed.

It's been painful for me personally knowing Intel prices could have been cheaper and that consumers could have gotten more Intel tech on their CPU's than they were given over the past several years.

Intel playing catch up is going to take sometime to recover from, no doubt about that. But, Intel is not going anywhere and Intel can MORE than compete with AMD.

Intel's research budget is 10x more than the profits of AMD's cpu business. Think about that for a moment. All of this information is out there for anyone to go and read.

Mike Tyson took a good punch every once in awhile ... but he always got the last laugh and the knockout.

I'm sure Intel will soon enough have some great products for us consumers.

I'm excited to see what AMD's next Ryzen's does to bolster intels future CPU plans. Boy this is going to get goooooooooooood!!!!!!!!!
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,243
It's been painful for me personally knowing Intel prices could have been cheaper and that consumers could have gotten more Intel tech on their CPU's than they were given over the past several years.
Intel's original plans had 10nm octo-core CPUs available in consumer sockets years before Ryzen released.


I'm also hoping that the 'shock' of the reality of their own four-year slip and that real competition arose in the meantime gets them back on track ASAP. If Zen 3 eclipses Intel in single-core performance, not just at best trade places, that's really the end for them to enthusiasts, especially gamers, until Intel can get volume production of their upcoming architectures at their newest production lines.
 

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,745
I spent the last 10 minutes smirking and rolling my eyes at most of the posts on this tread.

One. clearly there is an age and intellect disadvantage deeply embedded within many of the thought processes here. No, no and no. Not going to happen.

To put this into context here, Intel is the ocean and AMD is a single grain of sand.

This is their 15 minutes of fame.

BUT, I think all of this is amazing for all of us. Competition is grand and Intel has no doubt been shocked back into reality. This was very much needed.

It's been painful for me personally knowing Intel prices could have been cheaper and that consumers could have gotten more Intel tech on their CPU's than they were given over the past several years.

Intel playing catch up is going to take sometime to recover from, no doubt about that. But, Intel is not going anywhere and Intel can MORE than compete with AMD.

Intel's research budget is 10x more than the profits of AMD's cpu business. Think about that for a moment. All of this information is out there for anyone to go and read.

Mike Tyson took a good punch every once in awhile ... but he always got the last laugh and the knockout.

I'm sure Intel will soon enough have some great products for us consumers.

I'm excited to see what AMD's next Ryzen's does to bolster intels future CPU plans. Boy this is going to get goooooooooooood!!!!!!!!!
same old nteresting counter-argument - embrace intel's failures and their money will solve everything argument. Intel can't even get pcie4.0 right, let alone a competitive cpu out.

"intel will soon enough" "intel will have the last laugh and knockout" well first intel has to get up off the canvas. lol.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,243
same old nteresting counter-argument - embrace intel's failures and their money will solve everything argument.
When the argument AMD shareholders are peddling is that Intel will stay down despite all evidence to the contrary, then yeah, it's good a good reminder to point out that Intel has budgets, revenue, and marketshare that eclipse AMDs by an order of magnitude at a minimum.

Intel can't even get pcie4.0 right
They hadn't planned to do PCIe 4.0, so failing to do it on a product not originally designed for it isn't a solid point of criticism. It's also not a point from a performance perspective aside from reviewers and bored forum members that have nothing else to except race synthetic benchmarks.

One can get better real world performance by using 3DXpoint with drives that don't come close to eclipsing PCIe 3.0 NVMe speeds in sequential performance.

"intel will soon enough" "intel will have the last laugh and knockout"
If one were to make a logical forecast based on past history, this would be the one to make. Personally I'd prefer for AMD to continue to innovate and at least keep pace.
 

the_real_7

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
1,217
Intel has been in worse situations before the Pentium 4 was a mess at the end with the Prescott, AMD came hard with the amd x2 architecture . . . as for where Intel stands it not bad shape but it finally has a competitor , Intel design on processors is still better its just on 14nm hurting the efficiency of there design. AMD next quarter will come hard and beat Intel ,problem is always has been for AMD is they don't understand how the make the memory system work as fast as Intel has. AMD is winning by core count and power efficiency not but architecture design , if AMD can barely beat 7 year old design by Intel now what happens in 3 years from now , do the math
 

Master_shake_

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
10,717
Intel has been in worse situations before the Pentium 4 was a mess at the end with the Prescott, AMD came hard with the amd x2 architecture . . . as for where Intel stands it not bad shape but it finally has a competitor , Intel design on processors is still better its just on 14nm hurting the efficiency of there design. AMD next quarter will come hard and beat Intel ,problem is always has been for AMD is they don't understand how the make the memory system work as fast as Intel has. AMD is winning by core count and power efficiency not but architecture design , if AMD can barely beat 7 year old design by Intel now what happens in 3 years from now , do the math
Intel can't get their process to work.

They are at a stand still until they get it solved it's only been what 5 years?

We are in uncharted territory.
 

defaultluser

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
12,973
Intel has been in worse situations before the Pentium 4 was a mess at the end with the Prescott, AMD came hard with the amd x2 architecture . . . as for where Intel stands it not bad shape but it finally has a competitor , Intel design on processors is still better its just on 14nm hurting the efficiency of there design. AMD next quarter will come hard and beat Intel ,problem is always has been for AMD is they don't understand how the make the memory system work as fast as Intel has. AMD is winning by core count and power efficiency not but architecture design , if AMD can barely beat 7 year old design by Intel now what happens in 3 years from now , do the math
AMD is using the same trick Intel used to sink Phenom 1: the large an efficient L2 cache on Core 2 Duo, AND use MCM to make a quad-core :D

AMD is doubling the size of L3 cache again for Zen 3, and most are expecting the consolidation into a single 8-core chip (will also improve memory latency).

I'm not sure what the plan is going forward for AM5, but we will see soon enough. Zen 4 on AM5 + DDR5 is where AMD will be in TWO YEARS, which will be the year when Intel finally catches up with AMD on PCI e 4.0 support, AND on 10nm with more than 4 cores.

But until sometime in 2021, Intel will, have neither of those things. And we still have yet to see ho much of a memory access improvements you get with the new Zen 2 APU's memory controller.

Intel can't react quickly like they did in 2006, because they have so many more different products. When creating anew processor architecture, it becomes more "how many of our different products can we assemble for this next platform introduction, not "how quickly can we prioritize on releasing new 10-core Tiger Lake parts?" Nope, they think about the next iteration of Thunderbolt integrated inside, or the next version of Optane, etc. It's much easier to ride the momentum of 14nm for your processors, while their attention is split more than ever before.
 
Last edited:

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,745
Intel has been in worse situations before the Pentium 4 was a mess at the end with the Prescott, AMD came hard with the amd x2 architecture . . . as for where Intel stands it not bad shape but it finally has a competitor , Intel design on processors is still better its just on 14nm hurting the efficiency of there design. AMD next quarter will come hard and beat Intel ,problem is always has been for AMD is they don't understand how the make the memory system work as fast as Intel has. AMD is winning by core count and power efficiency not but architecture design , if AMD can barely beat 7 year old design by Intel now what happens in 3 years from now , do the math
Chiplet is far more cost efficient than monolithic dies. I'm doing the math and already did some in previous posts. 14nm to 7nm does not necessarily even double intel's core count per chip. Intel even getting to 7nm in production quantity in the near future is assuming a lot right now. They are still building the Fabs to even produce at this node. As far as "intel builds a better processor" - look for that to disappear soon. Probably by Zen4 in 2021. Meanwhile AMD continues to go wider with more cores in chiplets as well as improving single core efficiency,
 

TurboGLH

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
571
They hadn't planned to do PCIe 4.0, so failing to do it on a product not originally designed for it isn't a solid point of criticism. It's also not a point from a performance perspective aside from reviewers and bored forum members that have nothing else to except race synthetic benchmarks.

One can get better real world performance by using 3DXpoint with drives that don't come close to eclipsing PCIe 3.0 NVMe speeds in sequential performance.
So useless, and completely unplanned.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-gets-the-jitters-plans-then-nixes-pcie-40-support-on-comet-lake
 

Factum

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
1,943
1. Charlie has been predicting Intel's death since like...forever. /yawn

2. Intel rules Enterprise, at my work we have 0 AMD CPU's and since I am the one calling the shots on what hardware we use I can tell you I have zero plans to order any servers with AMD CPU's.
Why?
Multiple reasons
This is Enterprise, not little Jimmy's gaming rig.
AMD has tried before, last time with "Operton"...and then they became irrelevant again. That is my perception of them since "AM386"....they never seem to have the staying stamina, before they slip into irrelevancy again.
We are not putting a new vendor in our designs without a MAJOR business case. The added validation, support structure, architectural knowledge etc. would be to big a headache.
Intel has proven over the DECADES to a be a STABLE supplier....AMD has shown to be a yoyo.
Besides hardware is the cheap side of Enterprise...+$15K CPU's mean nothing.
There is a reason ~95% of Enterprise servers run Intel CPU's...

Sorry to burst your bubble....nah...not really.
 

Mega6

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,745
1. Charlie has been predicting Intel's death since like...forever. /yawn

2. Intel rules Enterprise, at my work we have 0 AMD CPU's and since I am the one calling the shots on what hardware we use I can tell you I have zero plans to order any servers with AMD CPU's.
Why?
Multiple reasons
This is Enterprise, not little Jimmy's gaming rig.
AMD has tried before, last time with "Operton"...and then they became irrelevant again. That is my perception of them since "AM386"....they never seem to have the staying stamina, before they slip into irrelevancy again.
We are not putting a new vendor in our designs without a MAJOR business case. The added validation, support structure, architectural knowledge etc. would be to big a headache.
Intel has proven over the DECADES to a be a STABLE supplier....AMD has shown to be a yoyo.
Besides hardware is the cheap side of Enterprise...+$15K CPU's mean nothing.
There is a reason ~95% of Enterprise servers run Intel CPU's...

Sorry to burst your bubble....nah...not really.
Welcome to the American Enterprise IT thought process. No wonder China is going to rule the world.

oh, and when intel figures out this one, start patching yet again, wonder how much performance this will cost.

CacheOut is the Latest Speculative Execution Attack for Intel Processors
 
Last edited:

Factum

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
1,943
Welcome to the American Enterprise IT thought process. No wonder China is going to rule the world.

oh, and when intel figures out this one, start patching yet again, wonder how much performance this will cost.

CacheOut is the Latest Speculative Execution Attack for Intel Processors
I am not from the US...nice fail ;)
(My sentiments are kinda the norm in the business....like I said this is not little Jimmy's gaming rig, this is ENTERPRISE)

You have any documentation on any successfull attacks in the wild?
You just don't change Enterprise due to 1 year.
Nor 2 years.
After 3 years the interest might start to slowy grow.
But so far, since the 1990's AMD has never had the stamina to stay head for years.
Poke me in 4-5 years...then we can have this talk again.

And stop posting about enterprise when you are clearly clueless about enterprise...
 

delita

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
1,537
1. Charlie has been predicting Intel's death since like...forever. /yawn

2. Intel rules Enterprise, at my work we have 0 AMD CPU's and since I am the one calling the shots on what hardware we use I can tell you I have zero plans to order any servers with AMD CPU's.
Why?
Multiple reasons
This is Enterprise, not little Jimmy's gaming rig.
AMD has tried before, last time with "Operton"...and then they became irrelevant again. That is my perception of them since "AM386"....they never seem to have the staying stamina, before they slip into irrelevancy again.
We are not putting a new vendor in our designs without a MAJOR business case. The added validation, support structure, architectural knowledge etc. would be to big a headache.
Intel has proven over the DECADES to a be a STABLE supplier....AMD has shown to be a yoyo.
Besides hardware is the cheap side of Enterprise...+$15K CPU's mean nothing.
There is a reason ~95% of Enterprise servers run Intel CPU's...

Sorry to burst your bubble....nah...not really.
You and everyone else. I've been trying to push my customers to AMD due to the shortage for months now and they'd rather wait on increasingly longer wait times than switch to something they aren't comfortable with. And this isn't even just on the server side, a lot of time it scales right into the client side which, lets be honest, the average user wouldn't know what kind of processor they had in their work issued notebook. But people have this stigma about AMD for some reason, despite you showing them graphs, talking about the shortage that likely isn't going anywhere any time soon. It's definitely interesting. On the server side though, I get what you're saying. It's a big leap.
 

ND40oz

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
11,560
Same here. Going AMD for the 2 locations I am replacing servers at this year.

I really don't mind migrating from Intel to AMD. Windows OSes are way way better than they used to be about just working when doing large hardware changes though it won't be as much of a change as far as the OS knows since they are VMs.
If you're on VMware, EVC modes are either Intel or AMD, so vMotion won't work at all between platforms. You'll need completely new clusters of all AMD hosts to switch over and you'll need shut down the VMs to do so. It's not exactly just a trivial change of just hardware.
 
Top