I gotta wonder just how big the % of articles like this are intended to manipulate the market ? On any news portal you are likely to see both doom and gloom it's all over and a Future brightens article in the same day.

Market manipulation as usual by Intel.
It might hurt their image if they had to admit AMD was making inroads into their once dominant market, so they make up a story to save face as to why they won't be reducing Processor pricing to compete more aggressively.
Business as usual.

ChomiqLook on the bright side everyone, at least DRAM prices will continue to fall.

:roll::roll::roll::roll:
I'm still waiting to see the after affects of those alleged price drops being passed on to the consumer.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the most of the Desktop PC using CPU's upto 7700K level? (from Dual core ~ i7 3770 ~ i7 7700k)?
So such huge market share gonna be tempt to finally upgrade their PC this year with the new Ryzen 3000 or even Ryzen 1x00/2x00 with high discounts, this market share will be lost for Intel for the next 3 years min + AM4 gonna have also another refresh next years with 7nm+ and it will be much easier to upgrade just the CPU for upto 16c. if upto Quad Core was good enough for them for last 10 years- why shopuld they jump back to intel if they will be using upto 16C Ryzen's?

HwGeekCorrect me if I am wrong, but aren't the most of the Desktop PC using CPU's upto 7700K level? (from Dual core ~ i7 3770 ~ i7 7700k)?
So such huge market share gonna be tempt to finally upgrade their PC this year with the new Ryzen 3000 or even Ryzen 1x00/2x00 with high discounts, this market share will be lost for Intel for the next 3 years min + AM4 gonna have also another refresh next years with 7nm+ and it will be much easier to upgrade just the CPU for upto 16c. if upto Quad Core was good enough for them for last 10 years- why shopuld they jump back to intel if they will be using upto 16C Ryzen's?

On paper you're absolutely right. I was in that boat - I kept my Core2Quad Q9450 (overclocked to the nines, but still nearly 9 years old when I upgraded), and went for a Ryzen 5 1600X. However, the majority of PC buyers go to a store/website, pick something in their price range that "looks fast", and don't do more research than that, which is where Intel's reputation as "the fast, premium brand" pays off, and AMD's (currently very undeserved, but nonetheless persistent) reputation as "the cheap, slow brand" hurts them. Also, people without very specific multi-core loads should really not go up to 16c - they'd be much better off with a higher clocked 6-8c CPU. Personally, I'm really looking forward to seeing how AMD's 3rd-gen Ryzen 8-cores clock, as I'd be very tempted to go for an early upgrade if they reach around 5GHz.

Upto 16c was to show the range, indeed most of them won't utilize such CPU, but when you see 6C/12T Ryzen 1600 selling for $79 and you got old 2C~4C CPU it's very hard not to go AMD, IMO AMD got the best chance that they even could not dream for , Ryzen 3000/TR 3000 launch gonna be great success IMO.
I also had Q6600 for many years, then i7 860.
Also after AMD gain's enough market share on Descktop PC- then we gonna see more optimization for their CPU's too (ahmm MS and TR 2990WX :) ).

HwGeekUpto 16c was to show the range, indeed most of them won't utilize such CPU, but when you see 6C/12T Ryzen 1600 selling for $79 and you got old 2C~4C CPU it's very hard not to go AMD, IMO AMD got the best chance that they even could not dream for , Ryzen 3000/TR 3000 launch gonna be great success IMO.
I also had Q6600 for many years, then i7 860.
Also after AMD gain's enough market share on Descktop PC- then we gonna see more optimization for their CPU's too (ahmm MS and TR 2990WX :) ).

Again, I agree in principle - if only the average PC buyer was informed enough to think like this, then we'd see some real competition. Even if AMD catches up in IPC and clocks and keeps their core count advantage, they're still unfortunately facing an uphill battle with the average consumer. The more informed buyers are, the better for everyone - but most aren't, and can't be bothered to become so either. Which is of course understandable - we all have and rely on things that we don't have a clue about the inner workings of.

In that regard I agree with you, but also as Mindfactory CPU sales shows- same thing on local PC store in my country, many Ryzen PC's sold here too, the only problem is in Brand pre-built PC's that they all are Intel based, ppl that have no idea in PC's prefer to buy pre-built Dell/Lenovo/HP desktop PC with 3 years warranty on the customers site(call Dell/Lenovo service provider and they will come to you to fix)
P.S: just saw on Guru3D that TPU listed Zen 2 lineup with released date as March?:
www.techpowerup.com/cpudb/?mfgr=AMD&codename=Zen 2&sort=name

HwGeekIn that regard I agree with you, but also as Mindfactory CPU sales shows- same thing on local PC store in my country, many Ryzen PC's sold here too, the only problem is in Brand pre-built PC's that they all are Intel based, ppl that have no idea in PC's prefer to buy pre-built Dell/Lenovo/HP desktop PC with 3 years warranty on the customers site(call Dell/Lenovo service provider and they will come to you to fix)
P.S: just saw on Guru3D that TPU listed Zen 2 lineup with released date as March?:
www.techpowerup.com/cpudb/?mfgr=AMD&codename=Zen 2&sort=name

Exactly. AMD does anywhere from "good" to "amazingly good" in the DIY market, but the pre-built market is a lot bigger, and Intel pretty much owns that wholesale - and if there's anything Intel knows how to do, it's to leverage deals and market position to pressure OEMs into prioritizing their products over others, regardless of cost or performance.

I have X99 with 6 cores and I have no reason to upgrade before serious move forward on IT Market.
That mean implementation of PCI-E 5.0 and DDR5 will be my next upgrade.

It's very low improvement in real life between chipsets and IMC with DDR4 memory.
I expect 10 core CPU with DDR5 4400+ MHz during first half of 2021.

Vlada011I have X99 with 6 cores and I have no reason to upgrade before serious move forward on IT Market.
That mean implementation of PCI-E 5.0 and DDR5 will be my next upgrade.

It's very low improvement in real life between chipsets and IMC with DDR4 memory.
I expect 10 core CPU with DDR5 4400+ MHz during first half of 2021.

...that's pretty much a given, yeah. With AMD moving on from AM4 - and they've indicated that the reason for that move is DDR5 (and possibly PCIe 5.0, if it's ready), and confirmed reports that they at least can make up to 16-core CPUs even for AM4 with current technology, >10c and DDR5 is a done deal. As for DDR5 speeds, SK Hynix has demonstrated DDR5-5200 last year and DDR5-6400 this year.

mtcn77Intel had a do-whatever-I-want attitude.

And now they're paying the piper.

Good.

RealNeilAnd now they're paying the piper.

Good.

Our native news channel posted this. Contains hot sauce.

Next platform will be my most expensive platform. I plan to pay max 1500 euro for CPU-Memory-Motherboard.
Memory not over 400$, motherboard not over 400$, everything else on processor.

Vya Domus

It's simple, they couldn't do anything about it. The manufacturing side of their business has grown too large and it's starting to become unsustainable. There used to be a time when designing your chips was the biggest hurdle and the silicon itself was relatively cheap and plentiful given the size of the market. But times changed, foundries are becoming the biggest money pits in the industry, this is the price you need to pay for being a leading IC manufacturer.

The reality is that no one else tries to do what Intel does on this scale and we are now finding out why.

It's a classic "can't see the forest for the trees."

Maintaining a process leadership means squat if chip design and production efficiency/capacity falls by the wayside. Its pretty obvious the process R&D team is having too much sway inside Intel and they are undermining the overall interests in the company.

PalladiumIt's a classic "can't see the forest for the trees."

Maintaining a process leadership means squat if chip design and production efficiency/capacity falls by the wayside. Its pretty obvious the process R&D team is having too much sway inside Intel and they are undermining the overall interests in the company.

I think it's more along the lines of the requirements of maintaining a coordinated cadence across such gigantic and very different but simultaneously interdependent business sectors being pretty much impossible to fulfill, and Intel making some overly conservative decisions based on the continued belief that they'd get out of it "soon".

You might be right that the process R&D team has pushed for keeping an impossible goal rather than lowering requirements for the 10nm process, but considering how good 14nm has grown over its revisions, they don't really have a choice. Even best-case roadmaps show 10nm to be mostly inferior to 14nm except for density. Stepping back goals would likely mean scrapping the node entirely.

In a broader perspective, Intel (the CPU/chip maker, not so much the fab owner) has coped with this crisis as well as could be reasonably expected, but they've also pretty much hit the worst case scenario: fab capacity running out long before an upgrade is available, and chip sizes increasing at the same time. The only thing they could have done to make it better would be unplanned large-scale fab upgrades to 14nm, but that would both be a very expensive short term investment (as the entire purpose of it would be to alleviate pressure until 10nm arrives) and cause investors to run for the hills (as it would be a very clear admission that 10nm was nowhere close). Their current plan has two major issues: it pisses off customers (both large and small), and it is still reliant on 10nm arriving soon. The longer 10nm stays out of reach, the more precarious Intel's situation becomes both in terms of product competitiveness, production capacity, and customer goodwill. If this keeps up for another year, I wouldn't be surprised if AMD's market share came close to overtaking them. For now, they can get out of this "unscathed" (only having lost their 3+ year process advantage and a lot of customer/partner goodwill), but in a year? They'd survive (they're Intel, after all), but it would be a bloodbath.

If they'd set fab upgrades in motion in late 2016 or early 2017, they'd be in volume production already - but Intel's stocks would also have taken a significant dive, and the arrival of Ryzen would likely have been much worse for them. Intel gambled (big) on this being a short-term predicament, but they're running dangerously close to losing that bet outright. If they start fab upgrades now they won't be in volume production for at least a year, which won't help them much.

Starting to see this hit small-business bottom lines. I've got several laptops backordered; one is over a month at this point, and clients wanting to know what's taking so long on their product. Even with moving to the Ryzen lines, we're scrambling to find ways to fill customer requirements, I assume because everyone is buying them as quickly as possible. From other articles, I'm seeing the blame pointed at Intel's focus on Xeon chips. Guess I can't see how the company could bollocks this up so badly....

Well the biggest demand is coming from replacement server chips, contrary to popular belief "smeltdown" really smacked Intel chips out of the park in some cases.

R0H1TWell the biggest demand is coming from replacement server chips, contrary to popular belief "smeltdown" really smacked Intel chips out of the park in some cases.

So Intel messed up and now their giant enterprise customers are pissed at them and are demanding (yes, demanding) fixed replacement chips available yesterday? Sounds likely, at least, but it sure does screw over end-users. I had to wait 3-4 months on the laptop I'm currently writing this on, so something was definitely holding up Dell's supply chain there. If only AMD had better power management on their Ryzen mobile chips (here's hoping the recently launched 3000-series fixes that - at least they're claiming so!), this wouldn't be an issue.

Well yes the 3xxx mobile chips are really close to Intel in terms of efficiency, but seems like AMD's not making enough of them either. Though it's quite possible that GF simply isn't able to supply more (12nm) wafers & AMD seems to have prioritized desktop chips over notebooks atm.

www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-TUF-FX505DY-Ryzen-5-3550H-Radeon-RX-560X-Laptop-Review.412117.0.html

I wonder if AMD is not making enough because too many vendors are in Intel pockets instead, making it unviable to produce products that won’t shift fast enough.

R0H1TWell yes the 3xxx mobile chips are really close to Intel in terms of efficiency, but seems like AMD's not making enough of them either. Though it's quite possible that GF simply isn't able to supply more (12nm) wafers & AMD seems to have prioritized desktop chips over notebooks atm.

www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-TUF-FX505DY-Ryzen-5-3550H-Radeon-RX-560X-Laptop-Review.412117.0.html

Even if that's not the form factor I'd be looking at to check efficiency (that'd be an ultrabook, as that's where they put an effort into power optimizations and where Raven Ridge sadly fell flat), those idle power numbers (particularly them being lower than ~equivalent Intel/Nvidia laptops) are promising. Looking forward to the U series hitting the scene. Also have to say I'm rather impressed that AMD is matching Intel's performance with that at 10 watts lower CPU TDP (even if Intel still has the ST crown).