kondaminOh i remember, i also remember AMD making the same mistake as intel did going in to deep debt building more fabs than they had demand right before the financial crisis (and buying ATI.)
Athlon and Phenom were successful products amd was gaining market share they were growing and would have probably made it if they didn't do the dumb stuff they did.

going fabless was a must to get out of debt, not the reason they are where they are today.

Dunno if you've noticed, but fabs are an extremely hard business to run... the successful and profitable ones (or... one, rather) is the one that does that and ONLY that. Really focusing in on production gives tsmc that edge nobody else has. Intel and samsung and others are caught up in other things, wasn't always this way, there used to be tons of fabs to choose from, but as time goes on, it gets more and more and more complicated, and as a result, consolidated.

So to me, it sounds like you're saying "Yeah amd, could make its own chips, could not, doesn't really matter'

Well.... I don't think its quite as simple as that.

JustBenchingHuh? They are selling less parts than Intel, what wizardry are you talking about? I don't even know why we need to talk about something that is entirely factual, Intel has been dominating in both ST and MT for more than half a decade at almost every price point.

If it wasn't the case you would come up with examples of amd chips that were faster than Intel at the same price point. Bu they don't exist, that's why you avoided the question and instead went on a red herring.

Intel is only 40% bigger in revenue than AMD, including fab operations, in recent quarters.

qcmadnessIntel is only 40% bigger in revenue than AMD, including fab operations, in recent quarters.

Considering amd is an 800b$ company vs a 400b$ intel, it seems intel is doing great for being such a small company.

Now Intel can start spending that AMD fighting money on fighting ARMpit chips. Amazing how that works.

JustBenchingHuh? They are selling less parts than Intel, what wizardry are you talking about? I don't even know why we need to talk about something that is entirely factual, Intel has been dominating in both ST and MT for more than half a decade at almost every price point.

If it wasn't the case you would come up with examples of amd chips that were faster than Intel at the same price point. Bu they don't exist, that's why you avoided the question and instead went on a red herring.

Of course Intel is selling more - they are much bigger compared to AMD and can flood the market with CPU - something AMD is struggling.

However, it is very simple - Intel is LOSING marketshare on all fronts, for last 10 years. They are dominant market player, so if dominant market playes is losing marketshare to competitor, only reason I can think of is that competitor have better c/p ratio and better product.

Yet, you claim that Intel have better offering and it is even dominating in both ST and MT - yet losese marketshare? So, most customers are simply AMD fans or just plain stupid (although goes without saying that being a fan of any company - Intel, AMD, nVIdia or Coca Cola equals to being stupid).

iameatingjamDunno if you've noticed, but fabs are extremely hard business to run... the successful and profitable ones (or... one, rather) is the one that does that and ONLY that. Really focusing in on production gives tsmc that edge nobody else has. Intel and samsung and many others are caught up in other things, wasn't always this way, but its get more and more and more complicated as times goes on. I don't think its quite as simple as what you say.

Yes, also look what happend to many fabs... They gone under the water, or stuck on old processes - they are producing, but not competing. So, no way in hell AMD could run GloFo and survive - heck, Intel also wouldn't survive without US jumping in.

Darmok N JaladThere was a time when this seemed impossible. Just goes to show what a decade of good vs bad execution will do to a near-monopoly situation.

I know right? They are in the same boat for GPU %... it seems impossible to get back but ya never know. They did that vs the titan Intel.

Aleksandar_038Of course Intel is selling more - they are much bigger compared to AMD and can flood the market with CPU - something AMD is struggling.

However, it is very simple - Intel is LOSING marketshare on all fronts, for last 10 years. They are dominant market player, so if dominant market playes is losing marketshare to competitor, only reason I can think of is that competitor have better c/p ratio and better product.

AMD is bigger. 800b $ market cap vs 400b $ market cap.

Intel is selling drastically more cpus than amd. Your claim is that Intel has WORSE cpus but they are selling vastly more? Yeah, right

Aleksandar_038Yet, you claim that Intel have better offering and it is even dominating in both ST and MT - yet losese marketshare? So, most customers are simply AMD fans or just plain stupid (although goes without saying that being a fan of any company - Intel, AMD, nVIdia or Coca Cola equals to being stupid).

Its not a claim, it's true. If it wasn't true you would also actually tell me which generation was that not true? Ald rpl rpl+ and ARL all offer more st and vastly more MT performance at most price points. It's not even close actually. For example the 13600k, a 300$ Intel cpu not only was vastly faster in MT than it's competition, the R5 7600x, it was also faster than the much more expensive R7 7700x. It was also vastly faster than the much newer and 50% more expensive 7800x 3d. That's in 2022, and since then the gap has only grown bigger, with arrowlake being far ahead of amd at their respective price points. Intel's 200$ and 300$ chips are as fast or faster than AMD's 450$ and 700$ chips. The gap is freaking massive.

Darmok N JaladThere was a time when this seemed impossible. Just goes to show what a decade of good vs bad execution will do to a near-monopoly situation.

Now we need Intel situation to happen to NVIDIA. They are WAAAAAY to comfortable sitting at the top of the throne for waaaaay too long.
On the other hand, that will make AMD absolute monopoly. Which would be weird considering the position AMD was in 10 years ago, but something that will suck for us consumers.

Ideal would be for NVIDIA to struggle for few years, AMD to improve significantly in GPU segment and for Intel, well, it would be ideal if they greatly improved in CPU and GPU segment. They were already doing great with ARC and then they just dropped it because of chasing Ai for some dumb reason. Intel CPU's aren't bad, but their policies are still like they are the monopoly of the old. They really need to drop the 2 generations only per platform bollocks so people start actually buying their shit and sticking with it. Like, why would I bother locking myself in platforms that are dead by design when AMD allows me to just sit on their platform and actually upgrade CPUs within 1 generation of a platform?! You have to be absolutely stupid to even consider Intel because of this alone unless you buy something and use it for 10 years and then throw it away. What a crazy concept! Have Ryzen 7700X from the launch and buy 10800X3D or whatever will be called in a year or two in the future. Or even 9800X3D depending on situation. Or go all out compute with 10950X, some insane 64 core beast or whatever it will be when it comes out. You have so many options. On Intel, you can get Core Ultra 5 270. Or whatever it's called. And that's your only option really as a "new version". And then it's a dead platform.

RejZoRHave Ryzen 7700X from the launch

Why would you buy a megaslow 7700x that launched at 400$ when you could have bought a vastly faster 13700k that you can keep for much longer instead of having to throw it away? Wild concept, right?

JustBenchingWhy would you buy a megaslow 7700x that launched at 400$ when you could have bought a vastly faster 13700k that you can keep for much longer instead of having to throw it away? Wild concept, right?

That was just an example how you have a lot of options.

RejZoRThat was just an example how you have a lot of options.

You do, but all the options are vastly slower than Intel for the price. So the choice is basically between buying something a lot slower today that you can upgrade later on without the need of a new mobo, or buy something faster and keep it longer. I don't see one being better than the other, yet you made it seem like buying the slow product is the only choice.

Im still for example running a 12900k , a CPU that is slower than the 13700k. I still use it cause it's fine for my needs. If I went for the 7700x instead it would have been upgraded a long time ago.

This is all thanks to Zen introduction back in 2017.
While I don't quite like how AMD steers their development focus nowadays,
it's fair to admit that back then Intel had much more money and manpower,
and yet, here we are, Intel now struggling to keep up the pace.

Intel's server and AI solutions are generation(s) behind AMD's. Intel's own GPU project is doomed (iGPUs are doomed as well because of partnership with Nvidia). They keep releasing sort of protype generations - every generation since 11th there's something ... something strange, not quite flawless or polished. Server companies don't really like these changes with each generation of CPUs. Instead of fixing what was wrong and building up a solid foundation and expanding it further with next generations, they like to do experimenting and try to do multiple bigger changes in single generation.

Rocket Lake (11th gen) - HT on all cores, native AVX-512 support
Alder Lake (12th gen) - introducing hybrid P-core and e-core architecture, introducing scheduling issues, HT on P-cores only, AVX-512 support fused off
Raptor Lake (13th & 14th gen) - brute forcing clocks with no regard to efficiency and exceeding voltage that degraded CPUs, HT on P-cores only, no AVX-512 support
Arrow Lake & Arrow Lake Refresh (15th gen) - no HT, no AVX-512, P- & and e-cores are physically mixed, not clustered as before
Bartlett Lake - OEM only, not really a new generation, reused Raptor Cove cores but with no HT, up to 12 P-cores only, no AVX-512
Nova Lake (16th gen - not released yet) - HT on P-cores only, native AVX-512 support on all types of cores, introducing P-cores + e-cores + LP e-cores (in SoC) combo in desktop (another scheduling issues), bringing back clustered cores of same type (unlike Arrow Lake mashup), bringing big LLC (modular, cache size depends on core clusters - one P-core stands for 12 MB LLC cache and one 4e-core cluster stands for 12 MB LLC, which means 6P+12e CPU will have 108 MB of LLC, LPe-cores with no access to bLLC)



What comes after Nova Lake? Another xxxx Lake with P-cores only, HT on, AVX-512 supported ... gamer's dream might finally come true?

I wish Intel success, as we desperately need more competition. We all see what monopoly in GPU market translates to.
Intel needs another Sandy Bridge-like success. I really hope they will achieve it, as this will also put a lot of pressure on competitors.

JustBenchingYou do, but all the options are vastly slower than Intel for the price. So the choice is basically between buying something a lot slower today that you can upgrade later on without the need of a new mobo, or buy something faster and keep it longer. I don't see one being better than the other, yet you made it seem like buying the slow product is the only choice.

Im still for example running a 12900k , a CPU that is slower than the 13700k. I still use it cause it's fine for my needs. If I went for the 7700x instead it would have been upgraded a long time ago.

I bought 9800X3D now. Was thinking of 7800X3D and then 9700X and ultimately just grabbed 9800X3D coz I mostly just game and do some light general compute which is fine with this one. But I'm almost certain there will be another generation and depending on market 4th generation. So, plenty of options to upgrade to while just keeping the same board and same RAM. One of things I dread about Intel so much that you need to swap everything every damn time and it's so annoying.

The litmus for this was seeing that Cisco is using AMD processors in there 9550 switches. That isn't small or trivial. To use AMD for an entreprise grade high performance switch suggests that Cisco sees AMD processors as a stable mature platform at a good value. That's no small feet.

As usual, the same bunch showing up with nothing but thread derailing and ragebaiting. I commend people for even bothering to reply.

Contrary to the claims, consumer perception has already shifted and marketshare numbers reflect exactly that.

kondaminIt’s a shame amd is fabless now, would have been so much better if they were in this position making their own chips

Separation of labour is probably one of the biggest reasons for their success, losing their fab was a blessing in disguise. You can't hope to do everything by yourself, not in such a complex industry. Which is why I think all the taxpayer "investment" is not gonna help them in the long run, I'd bet against intel, It's a company that is gonna fail unless it's gonna keep being subsidized.

I am still pissed that they bought ATi :shadedshu:

starfalsI know right? They are in the same boat for GPU %... it seems impossible to get back but ya never know. They did that vs the titan Intel.

The obvious VERY big difference is that both, AMD and NVIDIA are relying on TSMC. AMD caught up with Intel because Intel messed up their manufacturing roadmap and had to stay on 14nm(+++++) for many years instead of the planned progression to 10nm and 7nm. Then Intel had that degradation debacle with the 13th and 14th gen Core CPUs (Vmin shift instability). Also a manufacturing issue on Intel's end. To this day, Intel is forced to manufacture (literal) core components at TSMC because their own manufacturing is way too shitty to be competitive.

There is no scenario where TSMC only stumbles for YEARS with regard to NVIDIA products exclusively. That is just not realistically going to happen unless AMD somehow manage to bribe TSMC into sabotaging NVIDIA products only.

RogueSixThe obvious VERY big difference is that both, AMD and NVIDIA are relying on TSMC. AMD caught up with Intel because Intel messed up their manufacturing roadmap and had to stay on 14nm(+++++) for many years instead of the planned progression to 10nm and 7nm. Then Intel had that degradation debacle with the 13th and 14th gen Core CPUs (Vmin shift instability). Also a manufacturing issue on Intel's end. To this day, Intel is forced to manufacture (literal) core components at TSMC because their own manufacturing is way too shitty to be competitive.

There is no scenario where TSMC only stumbles for YEARS with regard to NVIDIA products exclusively. That is just not realistically going to happen unless AMD somehow manage to bribe TSMC into sabotaging NVIDIA products only.

Even mighty Intel relies on TSMC. And yes, stagnating in 14nm era is the main reason why Intel is facing current conditions.

FrickWhat would have happened without that cash infusion/selling? Dragging GloFo into the future would have been a huge undertaking, requiring more debt and even more losses, while not having good products to make (Bulldozer), ans designing new stuff. Even after selling AMD struggled financially, for years. The point is they might not have made it to Zen at all had they kept GloFo.

I do not know what the alternate history would have been if they hadn't wasted billions on new fabs and ATI.
They were making billions every quarter, and if you are making that much money you can maintain a couple of fabs and upgrade them every so many years.
Yes a scanner costs hundreds of millions, but a scanner like that will remain in service for many years over a couple of nodes and generate a many more hundreds of millions.

Bulldozer didn't live up to the expectations It wouldn't have mattered if they had TSMC make it or Glofo

Aleksandar_038heck, Intel also wouldn't survive without US jumping in.

For the huge capital required to operate a foundry, the small amount of money given by the USG is insignificant, and while it was initially promised as a subsidy, it later took the form of purchasing shares.

The USG chose to support Intel based on its need for domestic advanced semiconductor manufacturing, and Intel 18A is the most advanced semiconductor technology, so the USG desperately needs Intel's 18A and subsequent nodes to meet its own requirements.

Intel claimed from the very beginning that they could develop its business on its own without government intervention, and that the money from the CHIPS Act could be used to accelerate the foundry. Intel has had a bit of a cash crunch in the past, but it is not the kind of company that needs a government bailout, and if you invest 90 billion in the short term, it is normal to be a little tight on money, while providing working capital remains well within Intel's capacity.

On the contrary, without the antitrust laws provided by the government, AMD would not be able to survive.

BoxCutterSeparation of labour is probably one of the biggest reasons for their success, losing their fab was a blessing in disguise. You can't hope to do everything by yourself, not in such a complex industry. Which is why I think all the taxpayer "investment" is not gonna help them in the long run, I'd bet against intel, It's a company that is gonna fail unless it's gonna keep being subsidized.

AMD is making billions in profits, they afford some staff.
Intel was run in to the ground by management that didn't understand technology, and the guy who put them back on the course of technical superiority was basically misled into overextending by building more fabs than was sustainable by politicians that wanted to spread chipsact money.

Without that misstep intel could have lasted in zombie mode for many many years.

I think the next 10 years will be super interesting in the CPU race, at least for the high end, the consumer level stuff is getting hurt badly with all the pricing hikes that keep happening

AthenaI think the next 10 years will be super interesting in the CPU race, at least for the high end, the consumer level stuff is getting hurt badly with all the pricing hikes that keep happening

I think it’s going to wind down, the past 7 years were eventful after the lost decade of 4 core sky lake.
servers are being held back by heat due to density.

And we’re heading in to a serious economic correction.
So things will cool down a bit until someone find a way to have chips run at 6ghz at 300C

freeagentI am still pissed that they bought ATi :shadedshu:

Yes, but would ATi still be alive today if that hadn’t happened, or would they have been consumed by another company, perhaps even NVIDIA? Schrödinger’s cat at this point.