• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

bug said:
You think you can rank fanboys and conclude Intel's are worse/better than AMD's, Nvidia's, Apple's or whoever's?
Click to expand...
Thing is that even the employees are much fairer in their judgements, a thing that we haven't seen even in PC industry. And I think that is worth noted. Aren't you impressed at all I suppose?
 
trparky said:
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.
Click to expand...
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. :)
 
spending near to zero on research and development, only reducing manufacturing process to reduce manufacturing cost and increase profit
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
EarthDog said:
It depends on the licensing of the software and how it works.
Click to expand...
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.
 
trparky said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
hat said:
You can't just, for example, produce a 9900k on 10nm and get lower temps.
Click to expand...
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.
 
HD64G said:
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"
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Shatun_Bear said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Shatun_Bear said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jism said:
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.
Click to expand...
And now Jim Keller is at Intel...
 
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.
 
Manu_PT said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Manu_PT said:
Intel still has the big sharks for high-end/enthusiasts 9700k and 9900k, wich still dominate on high refresh gaming.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Shatun_Bear said:
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.
Click to expand...

trparky said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Manu_PT said:
What I mean is that there are still reasons to get Intel.
Click to expand...
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 said:
Whether high refresh gaming is a niche or not
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean an unknown user stole a secret article ?
 
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%


 
Last edited:
64K said:
Personally I hope to see AMD continue gaining market share.
Click to expand...
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.
 
trparky said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
64K said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, most definitely. If it was anatomically possible I'd kick my own ass for not buying in on AMD back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top