• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Intel is losing against AMD

ManofGod said:
The truth is, all I am seeing is a bunch of wordy responses in the hope that they can make plausible excuses for Intel and bury the message that AMD is seriously kicking some butt. :) But the reality is that 2.5 or so years ago, AMD was in serious financial and market share trouble and now they are not. The good thing is, the facts will speak for themselves and those who try to bury message or only embarrassing themselves.

As for clock speed, it is the only advantage they have now and that will not hold out much longer. Clock for clock, AMD is actually ahead now. Oh, and you mentioned AMD graphics at one point, I believe, and even in that realm, they are doing much, much better. :) Competition is good, unless you own Intel Stock. Now, if you owned AMD stock earlier, you are definitely making much more money now.
Click to expand...


I'm not making excuses for Intel.

I strongly dislike Intel for their years of unfair and illegal business practices and suing anyone and everyone who dared to try to compete with them.

I just ordered a Threadripper 3960x. I fully acknowledge AMD is having a moment right now, and I am very excited about it as I have been looking forward to it for 15 years.

I'm just cautioning against irrational exuberance. The odds of them still being in the lead over Intel 3-5 years from now is from where I am sitting relatively small.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm not making excuses for Intel.

I strongly dislike Intel for their years of unfair and illegal business practices and suing anyone and everyone who dared to try to compete with them.

I just ordered a Threadripper 3960x. I fully acknowledge AMD is having a moment right now, and I am very excited about it as I have been looking forward to it for 15 years.

I'm just cautioning against irrational exuberance. The odds of them still being in the lead over Intel 3-5 years from now is from where I am sitting relatively small.
Click to expand...

Oh, if it were Hector still in charge, I could agree with the relatively small. However, with Lisa in charge, they are not taking their foot off the pedal but going full bore, not slowing down, pedal to the metal. Money alone, which is all Intel has left, will not bring them to the forefront again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mega6
like this
ManofGod said:
Oh, if it were Hector still in charge, I could agree with the relatively small. However, with Lisa in charge, they are not taking their foot off the pedal but going full bore, not slowing down, pedal to the metal.
Click to expand...

Did you get your limited-edition Lisa Su action figure yet?

Have you installed it in your alter with appropriate lighting?

ManofGod said:
Money alone, which is all Intel has left, will not bring them to the forefront again.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes -- money is all Intel has. Stay Faithful!
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Further reality check: considering their history, would you put your life savings into AMD stock, knowing what it will take for them to even remain competitive?

You can scream 'yes' on an internet forum, but we all know what you'd really do.
Click to expand...

Their history is not relevant, since they are not repeating their history. Would you put all your life savings into Intel? Yeah, no one would nor would they do that with AMD nor any other.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yet Intel is still beating AMD in lightly threaded loads on a process node twice the size of AMD...

That to me is the only fact that matters in this discussion, and evidence that their architecture is leaps and bounds ahead of even Zen2. All they are missing is a good process, which they will have in 2021.
Click to expand...

"Beating"? Only in the slightest of ways and even then, that process node is not the same as it once was and has been highly refined so the difference is not as much as you might think.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Did you get your limited-edition Lisa Su action figure yet?

Have you installed it in your alter with appropriate lighting?



Yes, yes -- money is all Intel has. Stay Faithful!
Click to expand...

Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, just saying. :D
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Key word: appearing
Consider that Intel hasn't stopped their tick-tock cadence, but rather had a delay. Which means that their technologies further in the pipe are still coming.
Click to expand...

Not really, they don't have 6 years worth of CPUs that are going to pop out once they fix the process mess. When a pipeline stalls. It stalls. Stuff stops coming out and stuff stops going in.


Intel already has 'the better core', and that core isn't nearly the best that they could do today if they had their fabs in line today.
Click to expand...

It's essentially equal today. I have seen clock to clock comparison between Zen 2 and Intels current. AMD wins just about everything except gaming and AMD even has a couple of gaming wins. AMD clearly has better SMT, gaining more from SMT than Intel does.


Now you're talking about aftermarket sales at a single vendor in a single country.
Click to expand...

It looks like a reasonable proxy to me, as any place reporting this kind of data, is reporting something similar, and it makes sense. Intel has basically flopped hard for most enthusiasts, and bang/buck buyers.

I know this is a minority of the market, but IMO, the enthusiasts are the leading indicators in the market. Enterprise is slow to change and tied up in contracts. That doesn't mean Intel is better for this market, it's just means there is more inertia.

Intel has a legitimate edge in laptop parts since AMD hasn't released 7nm APUs, but when it does, that could really change the laptop battlefield as well.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I guess that's why chipmakers never shrunk process nodes in the single core era?

Smaller node produces less heat, and requires less voltage.

Less heat means you can crank up voltage and gain higher clocks OR build a more complex core with higher IPC inside the same thermal envelope.

Don't mistake AMD's difficulties with hitting the same clocks as Intel for an inherent problem with smaller processes.
Click to expand...

I don't have to look at AMD. Intels own 10nm process is well down on clock speed.

Intel has process advantage right now for lightly threaded loads, because ultra mature 14nm clocks to 5GHz and beyond, and thermals are a non issue, if you are lightly threaded.

Not acknowledging this is arguing in bad faith.
 
Snowdog said:
Not really, they don't have 6 years worth of CPUs that are going to pop out once they fix the process mess. When a pipeline stalls. It stalls. Stuff stops coming out and stuff stops going in.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that?

They just release the latest one. It's not like they need to produce the ones that would have been released 'between' in order to get their latest architecture out.

Snowdog said:
It's essentially equal today. I have seen clock to clock comparison between Zen 2 and Intels current. AMD wins just about everything except a gaming and AMD even has a couple of gaming wins. AMD clearly has better SMT, gaining more from SMT than Intel does.
Click to expand...

If you're quoting today, which I am not, then you're comparing an ancient architecture on an old process node to the best AMD can produce, whilst ignoring Ice Lake. Remember that AMD still doesn't have a mobile competitor to Skylake, and Ice Lake is well ahead of that.

Snowdog said:
It looks like a reasonable proxy to me
Click to expand...

Retail sales to OEM orders? Sorry.

Snowdog said:
Intel has basically flopped hard for most enthusiasts, and bang/buck buyers.
Click to expand...

Well yeah. I've had a hard time recommending Intel since AMD got most of the bugs out of Zen+ SKUs. Zen 2 makes more sense for almost every application.

Snowdog said:
Enterprise is slow to change and tied up in contracts. That doesn't mean Intel is better for this market, it's just means there is more inertia.
Click to expand...

Even as Intel has issues supplying 14nm dies, they're still selling what they produce, just like AMD. However Intel is still producing dies at significantly higher volume, and for much more mature platforms.

Remember that AMD is supply constrained by TSMC.

Snowdog said:
Intel has a legitimate edge in laptop parts since AMD hasn't released 7nm APUs, but when it does, that could really change the laptop battlefield as well.
Click to expand...

This one's a hard 'maybe'. AMD has never had a like-for-like advantage in efficiency outside of Netburst vs. K7 derivatives.

The likelihood that they'll go toe to toe with Ice Lake is exceedingly small.

Last check, they're about half the battery life of Skylake.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
That is an irrelevant metric. Intel also has about 4 times more shares outstanding than AMD does, so in order for them to reach parity, AMD's stock would need to be about 4 times the value of Intel's stock.
Click to expand...
What is being discussed is the investment value and return which is directly related to share price. As an investor, the number of outstanding shares is irrelevant.
 
Snowdog said:
It's essentially equal today. I have seen clock to clock comparison between Zen 2 and Intels current. AMD wins just about everything except gaming and AMD even has a couple of gaming wins.
Click to expand...

And stuff like this just muddies the waters. Clock to clock means nothing. Performance is a combination of clock speed and the capability of the core (what we usually incorrecltly call IPC) In isolation neither of them mean anything at all. If you are winning by driving a lower IPC core to a higher performance level by increasing clocks, you are still winning.
 
Mega6 said:
What is being discussed is the investment value and return which is directly related to share price. As an investor, the number of outstanding shares is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

In that case the absolute stock value is also irrelevant.

Of course AMD's stock value is better now than it was a few years ago. They were damned near bankrupt a few years ago with nothing to speak about except a pie in the sky Zen architecture that no one really believed would be any good at all, based on their track record.

Back then good money was on that they would have run out of money and been in Chapter 11 by now, especially considering all the bonds they had coming due.

Now they look like they will survive long term and be a healthy company. Share price better be higher based on that :p
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
In that case the absolute stock value is also irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You make no sense. As an investor you purchase a stock at market value. The only other case besides share price is if it splits, in which case the share price halves and the amount of shares owned doubles.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
In that case the absolute stock value is also irrelevant.

Of course AMD's stock value is better now than it was a few years ago. They were damned near bankrupt a few years ago with nothing to speak about except a pie in the sky Zen architecture that no one really believed would be any good at all, based on their track record.

Back then good money was on that they would have run out of money and been in Chapter 11 by now, especially considering all the bonds they had coming due.

Now they look like they will survive long term and be a healthy company. Share price better be higher based on that :p
Click to expand...
So as an investment, Amd is way better. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.
 
Mega6 said:
So as an investment, Amd is way better. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.
Click to expand...


I'm not proving myself wrong about anything. You are the one who confused things by bringing investments into a conversation about performance, which is why I interpreted your comment about share prices as an ill informed measure of comparative success to Intel.

Either way, from an investment perspective, yes, if you were ballsy enough to put money into a company everyone thought was failing, you really made out with this one. Hindsight being 20-20, it worked out, but was it a wise investment? I'm not sure. It was very high risk, and as luck had it that risk paid off.
 
Snowdog said:
I don't have to look at AMD. Intels own 10nm process is well down on clock speed.

Intel has process advantage right now for lightly threaded loads, because ultra mature 14nm clocks to 5GHz and beyond, and thermals are a non issue, if you are lightly threaded.

Not acknowledging this is arguing in bad faith.
Click to expand...


Let's check back in again in 3-5 years. If Intel doesn't hvae a small but comfortable performance lead over AMD again at that point, I'll eat my hat.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
If you're quoting today, which I am not, then you're comparing an ancient architecture on an old process node to the best AMD can produce, whilst ignoring Ice Lake. Remember that AMD still doesn't have a mobile competitor to Skylake, and Ice Lake is well ahead of that.
Click to expand...

Ice Lake performs worse than Skylake.
 
I really don't care who is "winning". However, I do care that there is competition. We should always have competition as it benefits us, (the consumers.) I am proud to have bought an AMD processor recently as I've only had Intel CPUs in my builds.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I guess that's why chipmakers never shrunk process nodes in the single core era?

Smaller node produces less heat, and requires less voltage.

Less heat means you can crank up voltage and gain higher clocks OR build a more complex core with higher IPC inside the same thermal envelope.

Don't mistake AMD's difficulties with hitting the same clocks as Intel for an inherent problem with smaller processes.
Click to expand...
What about Intel's 10nm refresh and inability to reach 14nm clocks on the same architecture?


Zarathustra[H] said:
Yet Intel is still beating AMD in lightly threaded loads on a process node twice the size of AMD...

That to me is the only fact that matters in this discussion, and evidence that their architecture is leaps and bounds ahead of even Zen2. All they are missing is a good process, which they will have in 2021.
Click to expand...
This is the second time I see you state this without something to back it up or with the qualifier that it only applies to low core count CPUs, and even then it is a far cry from being leaps and bounds ahead. AMD chose its architecture because it provided them marginally worse per core performance at worst and huge core count advantage at best.
 
Meeho said:
This is the second time I see you state this without something to back it up or with the qualifier that it only applies to low core count CPUs, and even then it is a far cry from being leaps and bounds ahead. AMD chose its architecture because it provided them marginally worse performance at worst and huge core count advantage at best.
Click to expand...

I'm ignoring that on purpose, because the core count has NOTHING to do with AMD's core count advantage. That is 98% due to their TSMC process advantage, and 2% chiplets, which can easily be done my anyone who manufacturers chips.

The reason to focus in on low core count CPU's is because it reduces the impact of the process difference, so you can focus in as much as possible on just the core arch.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm ignoring that on purpose, because the core count has NOTHING to do with AMD's core count advantage. That is 98% due to their TSMC process advantage, and 2% chiplets, which can easily be done my anyone who manufacturers chips.
Click to expand...
That is simply not true. You don't think Intel would be doing vastly better with their 10nm process had it had to produce small chiplets instead of huge monolithic dies?

And you're still ignoring that Intel does NOT have arch/performance advantage when it comes to higher core count CPUs even when they have more cores!

The reason to focus in on low core count CPU's is because it reduces the impact of the process difference, so you can focus in as much as possible on just the core arch.
Click to expand...
This is not an academic issue where you get to pick and choose isolated factoids. You can't proclaim Intel's huge architecture advantage while they're getting their ass kicked left and right with better performing and cheaper CPUs. AMD chose an architecture that provides them that ability. Yes, the node advantage sure helps, but it's only half the story, as their GPU arch decisions sure weren't overcome by 7nm.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm not proving myself wrong about anything. You are the one who confused things by bringing investments into a conversation about performance, which is why I interpreted your comment about share prices as an ill informed measure of comparative success to Intel.

Either way, from an investment perspective, yes, if you were ballsy enough to put money into a company everyone thought was failing, you really made out with this one. Hindsight being 20-20, it worked out, but was it a wise investment? I'm not sure. It was very high risk, and as luck had it that risk paid off.
Click to expand...
I didn’t bring it up share price first
It paid off
Thanks
 
Meeho said:
That is simply not true. You don't think Intel would be doing vastly better with their 10nm process had it had to produce small chiplets instead of huge monolithic dies?

And you're still ignoring that Intel does NOT have arch/performance advantage when it comes to higher core count CPUs even when they have more cores!


This is not an academic issue where you get to pick and choose isolated factoids. You can't proclaim Intel's huge architecture advantage while they're getting their ass kicked left and right with better performing and cheaper CPUs. AMD chose an architecture that provides them that ability. Yes, the node advantage sure helps, but it's only half the story, as their GPU arch decisions sure weren't overcome by 7nm.
Click to expand...

The low threaded example is important for the same reason when we do in game CPU benchmarks we run at low resolution.

In low threaded examples we remove the thermal bottleneck caused by Intel still being on an older process and get more of a preview of how they might perform if that thermal bottleneck were not there on a smaller, newer process node.

I have already repeatedly stated that I agree that AMD has an advantage today. I am predicting forward and trying to get an understanding of what things might look like on the future when Intel has a new process. For this analysis it is CRUCIAL to omit the high core count chips.

Not doing so displays a fundamental lack of understanding of how these things work.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
The low threaded example is important for the same reason when we do in game CPU benchmarks we run at low resolution.
Click to expand...

To help intel CPUs look better than they really are by playing completely to it’s only slim strength left.

Zarathustra[H] said:
Not doing so displays a fundamental lack of understanding of how these things work.
Click to expand...

i love it when people end their posts like this as if to prove the content is superior above all else.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
The low threaded example is important for the same reason when we do in game CPU benchmarks we run at low resolution.

In low threaded examples we remove the thermal bottleneck caused by Intel still being on an older process and get more of a preview of how they might perform if that thermal bottleneck were not there on a smaller, newer process node.

I have already repeatedly stated that I agree that AMD has an advantage today. I am predicting forward and trying to get an understanding of what things might look like on the future when Intel has a new process. For this analysis it is CRUCIAL to omit the high core count chips.

Not doing so displays a fundamental lack of understanding of how these things work.
Click to expand...

Have you not learned, if your not an AMD fanboy and HATE intel you are shunned on these forums.
 
thesmokingman said:
Dudes, stop feeding the insanity here. When someone says Zen is an ok design, that's all you need to know! :vomit:
Click to expand...
Well then should take intel about a year to design, build and push out a superior architecture that’s better than ok.

.. waiting...

oh, it’s late. Again.
 
Mega6 said:
To help intel CPUs look better than they really are by playing completely to it’s only slim strength left.



i love it when people end their posts like this as if to prove the content is superior above all else.
Click to expand...

don't forget wprime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mega6
like this
bWa4CZIWRKFl6s1J.jpg


making the 28 core cpu from intel useless in one easy move.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yet Intel is still beating AMD in lightly threaded loads on a process node twice the size of AMD...

That to me is the only fact that matters in this discussion, and evidence that their architecture is leaps and bounds ahead of even Zen2. All they are missing is a good process, which they will have in 2021.
Click to expand...

Clock speed does still matter no doubt. Clock the Intel and AMD parts at the same freq and guess who isn't in the lead no more.

Yes all due where it is due to Intel on their refining of their 14nm fab process. AMDs 7nm parts can't clock to 5ghz no doubt. If you are only using one thread and you are not pushing max cache space ect sure right now Intels 5ghz boost still wins the day. So ya gaming that hasn't been optimized for AMD still favors intel a little bit. (although lets all get realistic no one and I seriously mean no one can see the difference between 220 and 240 FPS... anyone claiming otherwise is full of shit)

Of course AMD will be hitting with Zen3 and 7nm+ before Intel has any sort of answer. If 2019 hurt for Intel (rocked for AMD) which ever way round you want to view it. 2020 is going to be even more of the same. Intels latest i9 proves they have no more gas in 14nm and 10nm is an admitted bust. Intel 7nm is set for 2021. So basically AMD is going to hit a very very first with Zen 3. They are going to launch and Intel is really going to have nothing at all to launch... a refresh of a refresh of a refreshed refresh part would be a bigger PR disaster then just releasing nothing in response to the 4000 chips.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top