Zen 3 is rumored to be flaunting monumental IPC gains in early testing

If true, this has to be game over for Intel, especially on the server side. I know that Intel has the ecosystem and established IT infrastructure in place, but those kids of gains are too much to ignore.
 
Probably not game over, but the bleeding will continue. Intel is supposedly getting some pretty decent IPC gains in their new generation.... who knows if/when it'll be available however and if they will ever make a desktop part :). I'm curious if their IPC gain is going to finally close the last gap they have, gaming. If their IPC gain closes this gap to Intel, there will be 0 reason to ever go with Intel, as opposed to right now where theirs a very small use case, but still hard to advise anyone to go with Intel in todays market.
 
Ready4Dis said:
Probably not game over, but the bleeding will continue. Intel is supposedly getting some pretty decent IPC gains in their new generation.... who knows if/when it'll be available however and if they will ever make a desktop part :). I'm curious if their IPC gain is going to finally close the last gap they have, gaming. If their IPC gain closes this gap to Intel, there will be 0 reason to ever go with Intel, as opposed to right now where theirs a very small use case, but still hard to advise anyone to go with Intel in todays market.
Click to expand...

You're right, I should have said game over for the next couple of years. Intel is a sleeping giant who for sure has been awakened at this point. No more screwing around with 10nm and milking the market with miniscule IPC upgrades. I don't see them striking back a vengeance for a couple of years, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
Ready4Dis said:
Probably not game over, but the bleeding will continue. Intel is supposedly getting some pretty decent IPC gains in their new generation.... who knows if/when it'll be available however and if they will ever make a desktop part :). I'm curious if their IPC gain is going to finally close the last gap they have, gaming. If their IPC gain closes this gap to Intel, there will be 0 reason to ever go with Intel, as opposed to right now where theirs a very small use case, but still hard to advise anyone to go with Intel in todays market.
Click to expand...


But what if someone’s favorite color is blue?! ;)
 
kamikazi said:
If true, this has to be game over for Intel, especially on the server side. I know that Intel has the ecosystem and established IT infrastructure in place, but those kids of gains are too much to ignore.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?

Intel can just drop 30 billion on new research and SMOKE amd.

upload_2019-12-30_1-0-40.png


upload_2019-12-30_1-0-51.png
 
tangoseal said:
Are you kidding me?

Intel can just drop 30 billion on new research and SMOKE amd.

View attachment 211805

View attachment 211806
Click to expand...
Spending money on research doesn't automatically translate into a great product, though. You can invest a lot of money and still make a mistake (example: Intel 10nm).

A ton of Intel's R&D is already allocated to their fab technology, which AMD doesn't have to deal with. Obviously this has pros and cons but Intel's expenditures on R&D aren't solely on new architecture.

AMD is clearly the underdog, but the financials on their own don't tell the whole story.
 
Rizen said:
Spending money on research doesn't automatically translate into a great product, though. You can invest a lot of money and still make a mistake (example: Intel 10nm).

A ton of Intel's R&D is already allocated to their fab technology, which AMD doesn't have to deal with. Obviously this has pros and cons but Intel's expenditures on R&D aren't solely on new architecture.

AMD is clearly the underdog, but the financials on their own don't tell the whole story.
Click to expand...

This is very true. All I was pointing out was the massive market cap Intel owns compared to AMD. However, AMD might catch up with Intel's market valuation soon enough if they keep this level of engineering new stuff up!
 
tangoseal said:
This is very true. All I was pointing out was the massive market cap Intel owns compared to AMD. However, AMD might catch up with Intel's market valuation soon enough if they keep this level of engineering new stuff up!
Click to expand...

General Electric used to be worth a lot as well in stock valuation and now they are just trying to survive these days without going bankrupt. Market valuation has very little to do with how much free cash they have on hand to do such a investment and two research never guarantees any success. Often as a company becomes bigger they try to find more ways to diversify their income and make more, however that strains the company from their original focus and forces more of the R&D budget to go elsewhere.
 
kamikazi said:
You're right, I should have said game over for the next couple of years. Intel is a sleeping giant who for sure has been awakened at this point. No more screwing around with 10nm and milking the market with miniscule IPC upgrades. I don't see them striking back a vengeance for a couple of years, though.
Click to expand...

So... Jim Keller (re)joined AMD in 2012, and Zen 2 smoked Intel in 2019. He joined Intel in 2018, so I expect results by 2025 ;) ... Maybe sooner, since Intel of 2018 has a lot more resources than AMD of 2012. Intel's fab trouble has really set it back, because of the long design pipelines.
 
posted this in the Intel section, seems relevant here.

AMD balance sheet is actually superior to Intel.

Intel
total cash: 12.02B
total debt: 29.48B

AMD
total cash 1.21B
total debt 1.11B

And yes, intel is behind, and falling further away rapidly. the 5GHz / 14nm wall is hitting them hard. Revenue is falling, they are propping up the share price with buybacks in the billions instead of using it for R&D. Intel spent spent $4.5 billion on share repurchases during the third quarter versus $3.2 billion on R&D. Do you know that the CEO of intel is a Finance guy? Not an Engineer like the past. This shows you Intel's true direction.
 
Gideon said:
General Electric used to be worth a lot as well in stock valuation and now they are just trying to survive these days without going bankrupt. Market valuation has very little to do with how much free cash they have on hand to do such a investment and two research never guarantees any success. Often as a company becomes bigger they try to find more ways to diversify their income and make more, however that strains the company from their original focus and forces more of the R&D budget to go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

GE has been executing bizarre offerings with 70's era Big Blue ideology since the late 90's.

I know guys that worked on their public cloud offering. Oracle seems more plausible than the Garbo GE was wasting $ on.

GE sold their lightbulb concern.

That would be like Intel selling off their networking division.
 
Mega6 said:
posted this in the Intel section, seems relevant here.

AMD balance sheet is actually superior to Intel.

Intel
total cash: 12.02B
total debt: 29.48B

AMD
total cash 1.21B
total debt 1.11B

And yes, intel is behind, and falling further away rapidly. the 5GHz / 14nm wall is hitting them hard. Revenue is falling, they are propping up the share price with buybacks in the billions instead of using it for R&D. Intel spent spent $4.5 billion on share repurchases during the third quarter versus $3.2 billion on R&D. Do you know that the CEO of intel is a Finance guy? Not an Engineer like the past. This shows you Intel's true direction.
Click to expand...

WOW, their debt is getting out of hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
kamikazi said:
You're right, I should have said game over for the next couple of years. Intel is a sleeping giant who for sure has been awakened at this point. No more screwing around with 10nm and milking the market with miniscule IPC upgrades. I don't see them striking back a vengeance for a couple of years, though.
Click to expand...

I don't think we'll see anything that can challenge AMD the way it used to, much less beat them for 12-18 months and that's probably being generous.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't think we'll see anything that can challenge AMD the way it used to, much less beat them for 12-18 months and that's probably being generous.
Click to expand...

That means a lot coming from you. Glad I bought some AMD stock a few years ago. Just wish I bought more.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't think we'll see anything that can challenge AMD the way it used to, much less beat them for 12-18 months and that's probably being generous.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But worse things have been said in even darker times when the shoe was on the other foot.
 
tangoseal said:
Are you kidding me?

Intel can just drop 30 billion on new research and SMOKE amd.

View attachment 211805

View attachment 211806
Click to expand...


Money doesn't buy Magic. You have to play your cards right. AMD did this time. Intel fucked up. Intel has a lot more portfolio of products and their R&D does not revolve around everything CPUs.

30 billion can buy a shit ton of engineers, but it only takes a few really good ones to make the magic. Money doesn't guarantee a better product, good brains and time does.
 
Rizen said:
which AMD doesn't have to deal with.
Click to expand...

AMD has a bigger long-term question: will TSMC continue to be able to deliver?

What's the plan for when they inevitably do not?

What's the plan when TSMC decides that someone else is more deserving of their fab capacity?

This is why Intel stayed in the fab business; it's biting them in the ass today, but it has delivered long-term and will likely continue to deliver long-term.

At the very least, TSMCs current process family has been fairly successful, and thankfully while Intel is experiencing their rare stumble, AMD has something actually worth producing!
 
kamikazi said:
If true, this has to be game over for Intel, especially on the server side. I know that Intel has the ecosystem and established IT infrastructure in place, but those kids of gains are too much to ignore.
Click to expand...
I'm absolutely looking at EPYC during the next refresh cycle.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
AMD has a bigger long-term question: will TSMC continue to be able to deliver?

What's the plan for when they inevitably do not?
Click to expand...
Move to another fab.

IdiotInCharge said:
What's the plan when TSMC decides that someone else is more deserving of their fab capacity?
Click to expand...
Move to another fab.

IdiotInCharge said:
This is why Intel stayed in the fab business; it's biting them in the ass today, but it has delivered long-term and will likely continue to deliver long-term.
Click to expand...

It hasn't delivered long term. Everything fab-wise is off. They are capacity strained when with AMD coming along they should have some breathing room. But they don't. It really looks like they offered to fab for others without making sure they have enough for their own personal designs.

Now is there a possibility in the far future for the capacity problems to pay off? Sure. But they haven't proved it yet. It looks like most of the engineers were dedicated to opening up more fabs for third party designs then their own.
 
kac77 said:
Move to another fab.
Click to expand...

Which means redesigning ICs. Yes, it's the right answer, but it's not an easy thing to do. Only Samsung appears to be in the running for advanced large scale production outside of TSMC and Intel, and we don't really know how much Samsung is really in the running.

That's why the question will hang over AMDs head. Maybe there'll be someone to produce their designs, and maybe they'll have to improvise like Intel is with 14nm. History being a guide points more to the latter than the former, and that's without really considering just how much harder future die shrinks will be.

kac77 said:
It hasn't delivered long term.
Click to expand...

99% of the x86 market isn't 'delivering'?

kac77 said:
They are capacity strained
Click to expand...

Sure; they planned to have already been on 10nm for years now, and to already have 7nm shipping. Instead of moving forward and upgrading fabs, they've had to roll back some to 14nm and backport their newer designs to 14nm as well. That really throws a wrench in capacity!

kac77 said:
when with AMD coming along they should have some breathing room.
Click to expand...

No one knew if AMD would ever deliver again -- and no one knew if TSMC or anyone else would crack < 10nm either. Both happening is a great stroke of luck for AMD, and that happening while Intel stumbled at 10nm? Crazy.

kac77 said:
It really looks like they offered to fab for others without making sure they have enough for their own personal designs.

Now is there a possibility in the far future for the capacity problems to pay off? Sure. But they haven't proved it yet. It looks like most of the engineers were dedicated to opening up more fabs for third party designs then their own.
Click to expand...

I don't really get the 'third-party' angle. Yeah, they flirted with it, back when they were lying to themselves about how their own fab progression was going, but do you really expect them to prioritize third-party production over producing their products?

If they had their 10nm fabs running at full tilt right now, that they'd be producing something other than as many Intel CPUs as they possibly could?
 
Interview with CTO Mark Papermaster is up: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1526...-mark-papermaster-theres-more-room-at-the-top

I would say that for the most part it's a fluff piece. I can tell that basically all the responses are canned and no detail is really laid out nor does the interviewer really press for more info on any of those subjects. But there are a few notable quotes in there. Such as AMD's goal to beat the "industry standard" of 7% gains per year. And of course the immediate expectation of IPC gains for Zen 3 being much higher (or similar to gains made from Zen 1 to 2). And TSMC capacity is also briefly talked(glossed) over. There are a few other tid bits. The whole article can really be skimmed in a few minutes.
 
Im in the pipe for a new shiny and smellin' like new chip, 4700x when they come out. I'll give it to my 6 year old to play his games on with me over the lan.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
AMD has a bigger long-term question: will TSMC continue to be able to deliver?

What's the plan for when they inevitably do not?

What's the plan when TSMC decides that someone else is more deserving of their fab capacity?

This is why Intel stayed in the fab business; it's biting them in the ass today, but it has delivered long-term and will likely continue to deliver long-term.

At the very least, TSMCs current process family has been fairly successful, and thankfully while Intel is experiencing their rare stumble, AMD has something actually worth producing!
Click to expand...

It always amazes me when you comment that AMD has tied their hopes to TSMC and how that is a looming question of a possible issue, then in another thread you have no Issue with Nvidia doing the same thing and has for years.
 
Gideon said:
It always amazes me when you comment that AMD has tied their hopes to TSMC and how that is a looming question of a possible issue, then in another thread you have no Issue with Nvidia doing the same thing and has for years.
Click to expand...

Nice to get personal!

And you're going to have to work pretty hard to even begin to show that I don't have a problem with Nvidia tying their hopes to TSMC. It's precisely because Nvidia has been held back by TSMC before that AMD using TSMC to compete with Intel is a reason for worry.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Here's the thing: TSMCs 7nm process works. Nvidia has been the leading GPU company basically since AMD bought ATi and spent years just trying to produce a GPU with a full featureset.

Nvidia has consistently moved to new nodes without drama, unlike AMD.

The only reason to introduce doubt is personal.
Click to expand...

You only ever seem to doubt AMD, just like in this quote, you were even good with the idea Nvidia might use Samsung as well until Nvidia denied that rumor. It's a observation, it's only a attack in your mind.
 
Master_shake_ said:
must be why 10nm is so successful.
Click to expand...
They probably spent 500 million on that. If they dropped 10 billion into R&D 10nm would be just fine.

Intel will NOT allow AMD to lead for long. They are chipzilla forms reason. They have bank and investors galore.
 
tangoseal said:
They probably spent 500 million on that. If they dropped 10 billion into R&D 10nm would be just fine.

Intel will NOT allow AMD to lead for long. They are chipzilla forms reason. They have bank and investors galore.
Click to expand...

their lack of products going forward kinda rule them out of a lead wouldn't you say?

well i guess they could release the same thing over and over agai.....oh wait.
 
tangoseal said:
They probably spent 500 million on that. If they dropped 10 billion into R&D 10nm would be just fine.

Intel will NOT allow AMD to lead for long. They are chipzilla forms reason. They have bank and investors galore.
Click to expand...
That's not really how it works at this level though. This is cutting edge engineering on the nano-scale, they are running up against the laws of physics. You can't just throw money at the problem to make it work. They were too ambitious with their density goals for 10nm and more money wouldn't have made the process work. It's why everyone else moved to EUV processes.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
AMD has a bigger long-term question: will TSMC continue to be able to deliver?

What's the plan for when they inevitably do not?

What's the plan when TSMC decides that someone else is more deserving of their fab capacity?

This is why Intel stayed in the fab business; it's biting them in the ass today, but it has delivered long-term and will likely continue to deliver long-term.

At the very least, TSMCs current process family has been fairly successful, and thankfully while Intel is experiencing their rare stumble, AMD has something actually worth producing!
Click to expand...
Yeah like I said there are pros and cons - but fabs are extremely expensive to build, operate, and innovate with, and (IMO) AMD is better as a focused company working on a narrow scope of products with the cash they have available. That's basically what Lisa Su has done, and it's worked very well turning the company around.
 
Rizen said:
That's not really how it works at this level though. This is cutting edge engineering on the nano-scale, they are running up against the laws of physics. You can't just throw money at the problem to make it work. They were too ambitious with their density goals for 10nm and more money wouldn't have made the process work. It's why everyone else moved to EUV processes.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to tell me hiring 5 more women won't make a baby develop faster in the womb? Guess I'll need to be more creative if I expect to convince her we need them
 
tangoseal said:
Are you kidding me?

Intel can just drop 30 billion on new research and SMOKE amd.

View attachment 211805

View attachment 211806
Click to expand...
Let's analyze this with a comparison.

Boeing : Market Cap 187B$.
SpaceX : Market Cap... Private. Funding 3 B$, but not for what I'll be explaining (but for some even more weird stuff).
Frankly speaking SpaceX is so little compared to Boeing that it's crappy to compare. It's just ridiculous. They have no history vs Boeing. You wouldn't bet a dime on it if you're financial and look at the financial records. If you were a financial guy you would just say that SpaceX is a hoax.
NASA launched a competition between the two for a crowded ship and both answered. Boeing is a half failure, not yet ready, not sure will ever be, even missed a launch, will cost double (90M $) per launch. SpaceX is ready is on third test to be validated, costs 55M$ per launch.
 
Jandor said:
Let's analyze this with a comparison.

Boeing : Market Cap 187B$.
SpaceX : Market Cap... Private. Funding 3 B$, but not for what I'll be explaining (but for some even more weird stuff).
Frankly speaking SpaceX is so little compared to Boeing that it's crappy to compare. It's just ridiculous. They have no history vs Boeing. You wouldn't bet a dime on it if you're financial and look at the financial records. If you were a financial guy you would just say that SpaceX is a hoax.
NASA launched a competition between the two for a crowded ship and both answered. Boeing is a half failure, not yet ready, not sure will ever be, even missed a launch, will cost double (90M $) per launch. SpaceX is ready is on third test to be validated, costs 55M$ per launch.
Click to expand...

SpaceX doesnt sell weapons to every country on Earth like Boeing. But quite possibly they will in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top