Wednesday, June 26th 2019

Intel Internal Memo Reveals that even Intel is Impressed by AMD's Progress

Today an article was posted on Intel's internal employee-only portal called "Circuit News". The post, titled "AMD competitive profile: Where we go toe-to-toe, why they are resurgent, which chips of ours beat theirs" goes into detail about the recent history of AMD and how the company achieved its tremendous growth in recent years. Further, Intel talks about where they see the biggest challenges with AMD's new products, and what the company's "secret sauce" is to fight against these improvements.
The full article follows:

Introduction
We are now entering the latest chapter of the tech industry's single longest-running business rivalry. Intel and AMD have been competing for many of the same chip customers for more than 50 years.

Both firms were launched within just a few miles and a few months of each other in Silicon Valley in July 1968 (Intel) and May 1969 (AMD).

Although over the last five decades Intel has grown to more than 10 times the size of AMD - $70.1 billion versus $6.48 billion in the most recently reported annual revenues - the two companies are now competing fiercely across several market segments.

By most accounts, the competitive threat to Intel from AMD is the greatest it has been in years.

At the same time, CEO Bob Swan reminded employees just last week that "our ambitions are as big as they've ever been." In his June One Take video, Bob said that that our transformation to a "customer obsessed" company will serve us especially well as we "deliver the best partnerships" in the industry to confront a variety competitive threats.

This is the context in which the latest AMD vs Intel struggle is playing out.

Following AMD's recent product announcements at Computex and the E3 gaming conference, this profile - the latest in a Circuit News series on Intel's major competitors such as TSMC - examines AMD and the challenges that company is posing to some of our businesses.
Why AMD is now a formidable competitor
AMD is getting bigger. The company's most recent annual report notes that 2018 marked the firm's "second straight year of greater than 20% annual revenue growth," in large part due to its newest Ryzen products for desktop, and EPYC for enterprise, cloud, and datacenter.

As Intel's major CPU competitor focuses on Intel's enviable share across several market segments, AMD is attracting increasing interest on Wall Street. It was the best-performing stock on the S&P 500 in 2018, and to date this year the stock price has risen significantly.

What accounts for AMD's resurgence as a formidable Intel competitor? In part, it may be the company's strategic re-focus on premium high-performance products for the desktop, datacenter, and server market segments. (Dive deeper on this and related questions in the Q&A below with Intel competitive expert Steve Collins.)

Key AMD competitive threats are from high-end products
At a high level, the experts on Intel's Performance, Power and Competitive Analysis team say that the competitive threats that AMD poses to Intel can be summarized as follows:
  • AMD offers high performance CPUs, posing direct competition to Intel in both our core client and datacenter CPU businesses. With our announced ambitions to bring new discrete graphics to market, we are bringing new competition to both AMD's and NVIDIA's graphics businesses.
  • AMD has recently been gaining some traction in winning public cloud offerings. And competition from AMD is shaping up to be especially tough in high performance computing. HPC performance is usually driven by the number of cores and the number of memory channels (or memory bandwidth). Intel is challenged on both fronts.
  • AMD's upcoming next-generation Zen-core products, codenamed Rome for servers and Matisse for desktop, will intensify our desktop and especially server competition. The latter is likely to be the most intense in about a decade. At Computex, AMD announced that Matisse, the company's 3rd Gen Ryzen 3000 series processors, would be available starting July 7. (See "Related links" section below for details on Intel's Computex news relating to our gaming and client competitiveness.)
  • Outside of desktop and servers, Intel's competitive position in notebooks and business PCs is stronger as customers value specific aspects such as productivity performance, battery life, and overall manageability where Intel has clear advantages versus the competition.
  • By leveraging TSMC's 7nm manufacturing - AMD no longer manufactures its own chips - AMD can drive higher core counts and higher performance than it could previously with Global Foundries as its in-house manufacturer. These 7nm products will amplify the near-term competitive challenge from AMD. At Computex, Intel launched our own 10nm "Ice Lake" products - 10th Gen Intel Core - to strongly positive reviews.
Challenging period ahead
What is Intel's positioning regarding these multiple competitive threats? Today and into the near future, says Intel's AMD competitive expert Steve Collins, "we will be facing tough competitive challenges."

These are a few key points on how Intel's products compare to AMD's, points that Intel will be underscoring in the challenging period ahead.
  • Intel 9th Gen Core processors are likely to lead AMD's Ryzen-based products on lightly threaded productivity benchmarks as well as many gaming benchmarks. For multi-threaded workloads, such as heavy content creation workloads, AMD's Matisse is expected to lead.
  • In the longstanding industry debate over benchmarks - whose to use? - Cinebench is often used by AMD, since it favors high core/thread count and represents one of the best-case benchmarks for AMD. Intel believes that Cinebench is not a representative benchmark for general platform evaluations and real life workloads. Intel continues to work with press on using real applications for evaluating performance, to produce pieces such as this one from PCPerspective.
  • In general, Intel's mainstream Xeon server products will be challenged on throughput-oriented benchmarks that scale well with core count. Architecturally, AMD's Rome product for servers is improved over 1st generation EPYC, but Xeon is still expected to have cache and memory latency advantages. For this reason, Intel still expects Xeon to be competitive on applications that require fast response times and are sensitive to memory latencies like database, analytics, web serving, and so on.
Intel's secret sauce
Intel's secret sauce is not a single ingredient. Rather, it is the six pillars of innovation - process, architecture, memory, interconnect, security, and software - that the company laid out at last year's Intel Architecture Day. Intel is uniquely positioned, given our assets, to to deliver leadership products leveraging these six pillars.

Our competitive experts believe that Intel's ambition to achieve long-term leadership will hinge on successful execution to these six pillars.

Software, one of the six pillars, has long been an unheralded Intel advantage. A key piece of our company's competitive strategy is to highlight our software smarts vis-à-vis AMD. Intel-designed software or software code contributions - which can touch everything from the Linux kernel to Adobe Lightroom - can capitalize on unique features in Intel architecture.

These often under-the-hood software assets differentiate Intel from AMD and can deliver a better experience to end users and customers. One metric of Intel's software strength: Our company's 15,000 software developers. That number is more than all of AMD's employees.

A final but essential point that Intel's competitive team underscores is that Intel versus AMD is not just a chip-to-chip matchup. Intel's unique strengths lie in the unequalled breadth of our overall portfolio across business, mobile, desktop, gaming-as well as platform advantages including Optane memory, WiFi, Thunderbolt, Turbo Boost 2.0, and other technologies.

A high-profile example of Intel's focus on platforms is Project Athena, a multi-year innovation program that aims to deliver a new class of advanced laptops. Another key Intel advantage is all the built-in acceleration for emerging workloads such as networking and AI. Features like Intel Deep Learning Boost, along with all the software and framework optimizations, create clear differentiation versus AMD.

Steve Collins Q&A: Why AMD is resurgent, and what we must do next
To provide additional color and context on the Intel-AMD competitive environment, we talked recently with Steven Collins. He is the Director of the Data-centric Competitive Assessment group on our company's Performance, Power and Competitive Analysis team.

Q. Why does it matter that AMD is going to TSMC for manufacturing?
  • It means that they have the flexibility to use whatever process technology they want, whatever process is best for their products. TSMC offers an advantage in terms of process node advancements. [See the Circuit News competitive profile on TSMC.] They're using their 7 nm process, and with that they get a per-core frequency bump and lower power, which means they can scale to more cores per processor.
  • On top of that, AMD made improvements in their 2nd generation Zen core and their disaggregated chiplet-based architecture scales cores efficiently. Therefore, on workloads that are heavily threaded, including heavy content creation and most server workloads, they'll get great performance results. And on price, we expect their pricing to be significantly below ours. So they'll likely get good performance-per-dollar. That's what they're going to compete on, and that's the risk to Intel.
Q. So that raises the obvious point: How do we respond when people say "Wow, AMD is charging a lot less for their products than Intel."
  • It's not well understood that Intel actually offers the market a larger selection of product pricing. While the press often likes to focus on Intel's top price points being higher than AMD's top price, few people recognize that Intel also offers lower entry pricing than AMD. So Intel offers more price point choices to our customers.
  • Additionally, I would say users don't buy a chip. They buy a system. They buy a whole solution that includes software enabling, vendor enabling, validation, technical support, manageability, out-of-box experience, supplier sustained consistency, and more. So, yes, while an OEM or ODM might buy a chip, the end user doesn't generally buy only a chip. We believe that our product pricing vis-à-vis AMD reflects the great deal of added value that specifically comes from buying Intel with our decades of unmatched investments in validation, software, and security.
  • Especially for enterprise customers, acquisition cost is just one part of the total cost of ownership. Customers using an alternative solution may need additional validation, optimization, debugging, and certifications - all normal cost adders when introducing a new solution in an IT environment. Additionally, some software is licensed per core and therefore more cores from the AMD solution results in higher licensing costs.
  • Performance challenges absolutely exist, but we will continue to position our value and our advantages. Some innovations we bring to the table that deliver customer value may not always result in higher performance benchmark scores, or the value of the innovation goes beyond standard benchmark results. We price to what our customers value.
  • Intel is a premium brand. At times, and on some workloads, we might dip below on performance, like the second half of this year. At other times, and on other workloads, we are 3x or more the performance. Our pricing will continue to reflect the value we deliver to our customers.
Q. What accounts for AMD's competitive resurgence? Did TSMC turn AMD into our biggest competitor, or is it AMD's focus on higher-end desktop and server parts?
  • From 2006 to 2017, AMD had positive net income only three of the twelve years. I'm not sure we can point to a single thing that turned AMD around. But I do think it's was absolutely rooted in the strategic changes AMD initiated in 2015/2016 that narrowed and simplified their focus. AMD shifted to focus on higher margin or premium segments, specifically high-end client, datacenter, graphics for gaming. And they continued their investment in their semi-custom and console business.
  • Rather than going after lower-margin, low-end products, they refocused on how to win higher-margin business. AMD added much-needed clarity since they were previously distracted by markets that didn't align with their strengths. They simplified their investments and roadmap and started leveraging best-in-class foundries. Most importantly, they executed to that strategy. Having a clear focus and direction helps enable great execution.
  • I also believe AMD's comeback was a result of being very product-centric. A top priority for AMD was building great products - high-performance compute and graphics solutions - from definition to development to delivery.
Q. How do you think we should be looking overall at the Intel-AMD competitive picture right now?
  • Well, first, it's clearly a challenging time. We have significant competitive challenges to navigate. That said, I think we have a great strategy and a great roadmap.
  • While it has been a number of years since we've faced a similar competitive environment (in the early 2000s with 1 GHz barrier, integrated memory controller, 64-bit, and so on) Intel has risen to every situation and almost always emerged better and stronger.
  • Our focus needs to be on getting our execution in shape as soon as possible. We're in a competitive time partly because of our execution issues, whether that's related to our process technology node, or to our products that intercept those nodes. So I think that execution to our roadmap and strategy will help tremendously.
  • Beyond product execution, we need to lean on our software expertise and strength and amplify our software differentiation - now more than ever.
  • Finally, in competitive times, overall marketing, ensuring our customers understand our differentiated value proposition, along with customer obsession, are critical. Now more than ever, we need to lean into our sales and marketing teams to help carry us through these product challenges.
Q. And your last point touches on our cultural transformation, too.
  • Yes. AMD's next gen 7nm-based products amplify our competitive challenges. While it has been a number of years since we've faced similar competition, Intel has risen to every situation and almost always emerged better and stronger. Are we acting as One Intel or are we stepping on each other's toes? Are we facing our challenges with truth and transparency?
  • Are we listening to our customers and designing the right things in the first place? I think it all goes back to these things. As we succeed at these cultural transformations, I believe our overall competitiveness will improve too.
  • I'd encourage all employees to browse the Intel resources at the bottom of this story, especially competition.intel.com. This is where, for example, we will publish data on AMD's upcoming Zen 2-based systems.
  • Finally, I would say that even in the face of strong competitive challenges, when all 107,000 of us behave as One Intel, as CEO Bob Swan has said, we are unstoppable.
Source: Hardwareluxx
Add your own comment

123 Comments on Intel Internal Memo Reveals that even Intel is Impressed by AMD's Progress

#51
EarthDog
trparky, post: 4070471, member: 170376"
Again, as I said previously, you can limit the number of cores that the software sees inside the virtual machine. For instance, if you only have an MSSQL server license for six cores then limit the virtual machine to six cores and be done. There are ways around software licensing issues while thinking intelligently about how to pack as much computing power as possible in as little space as necessary. More servers equal more required physical space, power usage, cooling, and other added costs. If you can reduce that you can spend the saved money on other parts of your business.
If I say the earth is flat twice, it doesnt make it a correct statement. :)

It depends on the licensing of the software and how it works. I get what you are saying and in some cases that is generally correct, but it isn't as black and white as it seems. ;)

In a DC environment (ive worked for major phrama, a huge water utility in DC area, and AWS) the only 'way around software licensing'is doing things the right and legal way (smaller companies can be dubious). I'm not saying your example isn't legal, note, just generically speaking.

But it isnt as easy as stuffing high density units in racks and spinning them up for success. :)
Posted on Reply
#52
dont whant to set it"'
spending near to zero on research and development, only reducing manufacturing process to reduce manufacturing cost and increase profit
makes lots esnce,yet delivered much? well dfferent approaches, monotitihc desight encompassing much of not all, vs modular, scalble design.
le: performance for and or per user/ vs mass amounts of calculus capabilityes per chip ie Intel /AMD, I 've done the same thing since I have found that a Cpu Core is way smaaler that the chip within It resides soI went scalar, I/o' ing to another chip jst for compute sake, tought experiment decade ago at least.
Posted on Reply
#53
trparky
EarthDog, post: 4070482, member: 79836"
It depends on the licensing of the software and how it works.
This I understand, it depends upon how restrictive the licensing is. If you run open source software you tend to not run into these pesky licensing issues.
Posted on Reply
#54
hat
Enthusiast
trparky, post: 4070471, member: 170376"
Now if only they can get their thermals under control because many of Intel's enthusiast chips run very damn hot. This is where 10nm is desperately needed.
A die shrink alone isn't going to be enough. You can't just, for example, produce a 9900k on 10nm and get lower temps. We're packing billions of transistors into a very small space with processes like 14nm and smaller. Ideally, along with that node shrink you should also have a more efficient architecture which can do more work with less clock cycles. Think of the jump between Netburst P4 chips and the Core 2 Duo chips that followed. You had a hot, inefficient chip that ran at a high clock speed followed by a cooler, much more efficient chip that outperformed the previous lineup with around half the clock speed, depending on which two chips in particular you're comparing.

Zen is efficient because it runs at a low clock speed, produced by a low power process not intended for high performance PC parts. It's a pretty good architecture, so it's competitive, but the high end Intel chips, like the 9900k, still outperform it... but it does so while running hotter and gulping more power. Intel is simply at the end of the line of what they can do with the *lake architecture. They need another Core 2 Duo. They need a chip that, at 3GHz or so, can perform competitively with the 9900k, with room to clock higher.
Posted on Reply
#55
trparky
hat, post: 4070490, member: 32804"
You can't just, for example, produce a 9900k on 10nm and get lower temps.
I'm not expecting a massive reduction in thermal output, even five to ten degrees lower while running at the same clock gives you a little more breathing room when it comes to cooling the chip down.
Posted on Reply
#56
kings
HD64G, post: 4070408, member: 95052"
This memo proves something that most of us didn't suspect: The Intel fanboys are worse than Intel empoyees in their blindness for the reality CPU market is facing. So, the next reply to any Intel fanboy should be: "You are worse than an Intel employee and although they have a serious reason to protect their company they see clearer than you"
Fanboys are in the forums shouting at each other... for the people who work in these big companies, it's just a job.

In some companies, employees are even encouraged to use some products from the competition, to have a sense of how they work and to have more critical thinking.
Posted on Reply
#57
Shatun_Bear
Intel are scrambling. Worse position they've been in since Athlon 64, maybe even worse as this time they're helmed by a band-aid choice of a CEO, Bob Swan. A man that has no understanding of the main products Intel develops vs a MIT powerhouse who studied electrical engineering for her PhD.
Posted on Reply
#58
Jism
Shatun_Bear, post: 4070508, member: 166032"
Intel are scrambling. Worse position they've been in since Athlon 64, maybe even worse as this time they're helmed by a band-aid choice of a CEO, Bob Swan. A man that has no understanding of the main products Intel develops vs a MIT powerhouse who studied electrical engineering for her PhD.
And that swordblade type of competition mentaliy is exactly what consumers and enterprises, need.

That Ryzen 3 is going to kick ass. It's confirmed already. The initial zen base paves the frigging future for AMD, led by Jim Keller, lol.
Posted on Reply
#59
Manu_PT
Shatun_Bear, post: 4070508, member: 166032"
Intel are scrambling. Worse position they've been in since Athlon 64, maybe even worse as this time they're helmed by a band-aid choice of a CEO, Bob Swan. A man that has no understanding of the main products Intel develops vs a MIT powerhouse who studied electrical engineering for her PhD.
Not worse than Athlon 64 days, because by that time there was literally no reason to buy Intel, they were done. And right now as you can read from their own employees that reckon AMD is more competitive, Intel still has the big sharks for high-end/enthusiasts 9700k and 9900k, wich still dominate on high refresh gaming. Once AMD can beat them, then Intel is done.
Posted on Reply
#60
Fabel
Jism, post: 4070510, member: 91255"
And that swordblade type of competition mentaliy is exactly what consumers and enterprises, need.

That Ryzen 3 is going to kick ass. It's confirmed already. The initial zen base paves the frigging future for AMD, led by Jim Keller, lol.
And now Jim Keller is at Intel...
Posted on Reply
#61
Fatyen
What a bunch of non sense in that article, Intel superior security, more core server CPUs carry more costs (inter alias). The way I see Intel's superiority is by milking the hard earned cash if their customers for unrespectable improvements.
Thanks to Hector Ruiz, AMD went fabless (post ATI acquisition). They were still struggling to churn out competitive products at that time. However, with the hiring of Lisa Su and Jim Keller, the whole team got a new direction and concentrated all their focus on their strengths, one step at a time (introducing Llano etc..). What we see today is a complete different AMD, with product offerrings giving sleepless nights to Intel and joy to customers and clients. This is only the start of AMD, Intel will have even more migraine from them and the market will continue to increasingly benefit. Zen 2 is not even released and such disruption in performance, efficiency and price have been attained. That architecture is so radical that Zen 3 will annihilate Intel like never before. When, Zen 2 and APU based Zen 2 will be released, there will be further waves of greatness.
Posted on Reply
#62
Shatun_Bear
Manu_PT, post: 4070515, member: 168799"
Not worse than Athlon 64 days, because by that time there was literally no reason to buy Intel, they were done. And right now as you can read from their own employees that reckon AMD is more competitive, Intel still has the big sharks for high-end/enthusiasts 9700k and 9900k, wich still dominate on high refresh gaming. Once AMD can beat them, then Intel is done.
That's one hell of a niche. Either way, the 12-core 3900X or 16-core 3950X are coming. Judging by the leaked review, AMD now has a sizeable IPC advantage as well as core count advantage, Intel's only hope is the frequency on that 9900K pushed way past it's optimum resulting in a hot and inefficient mess.
Posted on Reply
#63
trparky
Manu_PT, post: 4070515, member: 168799"
Intel still has the big sharks for high-end/enthusiasts 9700k and 9900k, wich still dominate on high refresh gaming.
High refresh gaming may be the cool thing to have around these parts and other enthusiast circles but if you ask most casual gamers high refresh gaming is classified as one of those "nice things to have" but certainly not something that's worth breaking the bank to get it. For those "casual gamers" AMD is certainly well past the point of being good enough, and that scares Intel for the market for high refresh gaming isn't exactly big.
Posted on Reply
#64
Fatyen
What a bunch of non sense in that article, Intel superior security, more core server CPUs carry more costs (inter alias). The way I see Intel's superiority is by milking the hard earned cash if their customers for unrespectable improvements.
Thanks to Hector Ruiz, AMD went fabless (post ATI acquisition). They were still struggling to churn out competitive products at that time. However, with the hiring of Lisa Su and Jim Keller, the whole team got a new direction and concentrated all their focus on their strengths, one step at a time (introducing Llano etc..). What we see today is a complete different AMD, with product offerrings giving sleepless nights to Intel and joy to customers and clients. This is only the start of AMD, Intel will have even more migraine from them and the market will continue to increasingly benefit. Zen 2 is not even released and such disruption in performance, efficiency and price have been attained. That architecture is so radical that Zen 3 will annihilate Intel like never before. When, Zen 2 and APU based Zen 2 will be released, there will be further waves of greatness.
Posted on Reply
#65
Shatun_Bear
Fabel, post: 4070520, member: 188557"
And now Jim Keller is at Intel...
The fruits of his work there will not be seen for 3 years at least.
Posted on Reply
#66
Manu_PT
Shatun_Bear, post: 4070522, member: 166032"
That's one hell of a niche. Either way, the 12-core 3900X or 16-core 3950X are coming. Judging by the leaked review, AMD now has a sizeable IPC advantage as well as core count advantage, Intel's only hope is the frequency on that 9900K pushed way past it's optimum resulting in a hot and inefficient mess.
trparky, post: 4070524, member: 170376"
High refresh gaming may be the cool thing to have around these parts and other enthusiast circles but if you ask most casual gamers high refresh gaming is classified as one of those "nice things to have" but certainly not something that's worth breaking the bank to get it. For those "casual gamers" AMD is certainly well past the point of being good enough, and that scares Intel for the market for high refresh gaming isn't exactly big.
Agreed, casuals will go AMD 100% and they don´t even need to wait for ZEn 2. Ryzen 5 2600 at 120€ right now in my country, that´s the best perf vs price product, R5 3600 won´t beat that.

What I mean is that there are still reasons to get Intel. We can see from the early reviews that latencies are still an issue. and altho they don´t affect every application, they do affect a lot still. Wether high refresh gaming is a niche or not (wich I honestly doubt according to twitch communities), there are still reasons to grab Intel. While on the Athlon 64 days there were none, not a single one, only fanboyism or "brand preference" (for some silly reason).
Posted on Reply
#67
Fabel
Shatun_Bear, post: 4070527, member: 166032"
The fruits of his work there will not be seen for 3 years at least.
Coincidentally there is no real answer to AMD on Intel roadmaps until 2022+
Posted on Reply
#68
Shatun_Bear
Fabel, post: 4070530, member: 188557"
Coincidentally there is no real answer to AMD on Intel roadmaps until 2022+
Yeah, Intel's desktop roadmap looking ahead is 14nm+++, then 14nm++++, then 10nm in 2021/22. Shocking.
Posted on Reply
#69
trparky
Manu_PT, post: 4070529, member: 168799"
What I mean is that there are still reasons to get Intel.
Oh most definitely, certainly if you want the best of the best of the best and you don't care how much you have to pay to get that kind of performance then Intel is going to be the one to go to to get that kind of performance.
Manu_PT, post: 4070529, member: 168799"
Whether high refresh gaming is a niche or not
OK, it may not be a niche market in the traditional sense but when you compare the size of the high refresh gaming market to the whole of the entire gaming market, the high refresh gaming market is quite small. All things are relative here.

So with that in mind, the way I see it is that Intel is scared here because they're simply not accustomed to being no longer the king of the market in every single market segment. For the longest time, Intel was your only choice if you wanted to be a gamer, high end or otherwise. This has changed, Intel is no longer sitting on the golden throne of every single market segment and they can't handle that; their ego can't handle it. AMD came along and popped it and now Intel doesn't know what to do. Like the schoolyard bully that just took a punch to the gut, they're looking like a deer in the headlights.
Posted on Reply
#70
Xuper
Do you mean an unknown user stole a secret article ?
Posted on Reply
#71
64K
AMD is definitely gaining CPU marketshare but they are still way behind Intel especially in the server market. Personally I hope to see AMD continue gaining market share.

2018 In billions of dollars:
Platform CPU Segment BreakdownIntelAMD
Desktop$ 12,220$ 946
Notebook$ 20,930$ 1,218
Server$ 21,155$ 312
Total CPU Revenue$ 54,305$ 2,476
Total Company Revenue$ 70,800$ 6,475
CPU % of Total77%38%


https://seekingalpha.com/article/4247790-intel-vs-amd-battle-market-share
Posted on Reply
#72
trparky
64K, post: 4070546, member: 148270"
Personally I hope to see AMD continue gaining market share.
I don't think AMD will have to worry about that, I see a lot of growth in AMD's future. I just wish I had gotten in at the ground floor with AMD stock back in 2015, I would have made some serious gains.
Posted on Reply
#73
64K
trparky, post: 4070548, member: 170376"
I don't think AMD will have to worry about that, I see a lot of growth in AMD's future. I just wish I had gotten in at the ground floor with AMD stock back in 2015, I would have made some serious gains.
No doubt. I remember their share price fell to under $2 at their low point. It's just under $30 now. A 1,500% profit in 3 years.
Posted on Reply
#74
trparky
64K, post: 4070552, member: 148270"
No doubt. I remember their share price fell to under $2 at their low point. It's just under $30 now. A 1,500% profit in 3 years.
Yeah, most definitely. If it was anatomically possible I'd kick my own ass for not buying in on AMD back then.
Posted on Reply
#75
Crustybeaver
kings, post: 4070271, member: 180022"
Intel will compete just fine, they have CPUs to cover all the market. Sure, AMD will have more cores in the high-end, but this does not always translate into higher performance for some tasks and the majority of consumers don´t buy CPUs with more than 6/8 cores.

To say that AMD has no competition from Intel, it's like saying that Nvidia has no competition from AMD, which is wrong. They just don´t have the supremacy like the past 10 years or pré-Ryzen era!

But overall, this is going to be good to help AMD distance itself from the impression many people have that they are "a second tier brand".
Well in the world of GPUs, they very much are second tier.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment