They can't even compete with AMD anymore....
Intel is still market-leader in most aspects and is still very much fighting AMD in equal or better position when it comes to their top-end products and benchmark results.
Also, the news is about manufacturing chips, which AMD does not do any. We should be mentioning TSMC here.
The new budget AMD mainboards cost 200+ Euros now. Intel doesn't even need to execute well when AMD is about to play itself.
And they dominate in the Steam hardware survey (gamers more likely to build their own machines)
Last generation and legacy support is for DDR4.
The new, more expensive stuff is DDR5.
On raw performance; the 13900k(+f) outperforms the 7950x. On performance per watt however, AMD holds the crown.
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/?platform=pc
Have a look at the graphic "PC Processor usage by manufacturer". The ratio hasn't changed at all since May 2021; still 70% for Intel.
edit: more numbers
Intel meanwhile has an established year old motherboard pipeline for their current socket that 13th gen can be dropped in to.
If this were 14th gen vs Ryzen 7000 the calculus would be different as all the Intel purchases would also include a motherboard.
Also, Ryzen 5000 is going gangbusters outselling everything else.
Which is why they just dropped their prices? (see, e.g., https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/amd-has-dropped-5000-se...)
You can see the 5600X price drop on Amazon happened Oct 26[0].
If you look at the Amazon best sellers[1], it gives you a pretty good idea of where things stand.
0: https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B08166SLDF?context=searc...
1: https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computer-CPU-Processors/...
- Engineering support when you're designing a new motherboard
- CPU SKUs with different use conditions. Intel Industrial rated CPUs are rated for 24/7 operation, 100% duty cycle for 10 years. I'm not aware if AMD has an equivalent.
- Long product support - CPU SKUs that are "guaranteed" to be around for X number of years. As as example, some Icelake SKUs are planned to be supported for 10-15 years. Let's use an x-ray scanner as an example. The x-ray scanner mfg needs a computer inside the machine to help process info and display images. The x-ray equipment has an intended lifespan of at least 5 years and they plan to sell/service this equipment for at least 10 years. The mfg wants to use an embedded computer that's going to be commercially available for a long time so they don't have to re-engineer and re-certify their machine. This is one reason why you see some "stickiness" with Intel.
Then you have reasons associated with vendor lock in. I mean, most people buy DEVICES, not CPUs, and device manufactures are hesitant to switch, because doing so can potentially be complicated and prohibitively costly (especially if they already have deals with their current vendors). Whereas their customers will end up buying their devices regardless of whether they switch CPU vendors or not (because of reasons mentioned above)...
Ergo, as other's have already sort of alluded, it's largely because of branding, marketing, and vendor lock in.
Intel isn't strapped for cash to do R&D, and if they are, AMD is way worse off. Go look at profit numbers for both companies over the last 5 years. It's not even close.
To pretend like intel is going to run out of money to fund R&D is just to not even understand what's going on.
It's a bit ghoulish but Intel's saving grace may be an invasion of Taiwan.
Intel is in a good place. The question people should be asking is why its so close at all if AMD is several nodes ahead. why is 5nm and 6nm TSMC only competitive with intel and not crushing it? Their performance per watt at high load (and not at idle) is AMDs biggest differentiator. When intel goes to smaller nodes they'll gain more thermal headroom to pack more and faster cores than AMD.
The current modern tech youtubers are asking many of the wrong questions. I watched gamersnexus crowing about AMD efficiency in the highest tier chips and asked "people buying race cars care about speed more than efficiency - why are you downplaying intel's ultrafast chips on 10nm+++ vs amd's smaller and more efficient nodes, and talking about their fuel mileage for a market segment differentiated by performance?"
Theres a lot of nonsense going around.
https://guidehouseinsights.com/news-and-views/efficiency-is-...
CPU efficiency is so nonlinear at high power levels as to make comparison meaningless if they aren't matched.
CPU efficiency is an interesting number to the tech youtubers who focus on it, but is not that market differentiator at the highest end most profitable part of the market, and only matters to them. The AMD 7950x is very fast chip which is much more efficient than its intel counterpart, but at the top end of the market what matters is who performs better, not their fuel mileage. You'd be investigating a number interesting to testers but not consumers likely to buy those products - its a waste of time and effort.
I guess from a practical perspective, if you aren't modifying the chip clocks then yeah, they are talking about the right thing. But from a technical perspective, I'm more interested in the underlying architecture performance, which is to say:
If the intel chip is set to a Power Limit of 100w, and the AMD chip is set to a Power Limit of 100w, what does performance look like then? Because it's nearly meaningless to run one processor at 250w and the other at 150w, then say the 150w chip is more efficient. Processor power skyrockets at high voltages and clocks, so likely the intel chip can use 50% less power for 10% less performance, if desired - Intel merely made the (correct, imo) calculus that maximal performance is more important than efficiency for this class of chip.
I think we pretty much agree - I just think it would be interested to have a more accurate architectural efficiency/performance comparison (which would also help when choosing eg. a laptop where those numbers DO matter)
As I said before, the efficiency per watt is a youtuber number. Nobody who is buying chips really cares, or if they care they watch the youtubers who talk about it nonstop already. It's the youtubers bringing it up on top tier chips who are just out to lunch and not understanding the actual selling to a market and distorting things because of numbers they care about that class customers don't.
I don't care what a 7950x does at 100w, because if I wanted that performance I would have bought a cheaper chip. It's a stupid nonsensical number unrelated to why people buy $700 high end CPUs. You don't buy that chip to save $3 worth of electricity.
This comparison is meaningless though if the processors aren't running at the same power, however :(
I'm bullish on Intel's IDM 2.0 vision in the later stages of a 10-year horizon, but as of today and for at least the next few years, this assertion is unsubstantiated bullshit.
According to their latest Q3 10-Q filing[1], Intel Foundry Services segment accounts for $576M revenue and -$289M operating losses YTD.
In contrast, Globalfoundries' last relevant 6-K filing[2] reported $3.933B revenue and $501M operating profit YTD...and oh by the way, GFS Q3 earnings call isn't until next week Tuesday, so these numbers reflect only 6 months of the current fiscal year.
The reality these numbers support is that Intel's (bleeding) cash cow is in making and selling their own chips, not fabbing other companies' designs.
Furthermore, the only named portfolio segment that's currently doing worse that Intel Foundry Services is Accelerated Computing Systems and Graphics, which has hemorrhaged -$1.275B in operating losses YTD. Even Mobileye segment generated 2.3x more revenue than Intel Foundry Services segment YTD, and is profitable despite being acquired only 5 years ago.
To be fair, AMD intentionally divested their legacy foundry capabilities a decade ago; conflating GFS with AMD in the foundry space is logically indefensible, and there's meaningful underlying reasons why AMD pivoted to fabless.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/00000508632200...
[2] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1709048/0001...
I get it if you just like the products, but there’s no comparison between the two as far as being companies.
Earning money is different from market valuation
So I'm not sure what you mean? Can you show numbers that would support "eating one's lunch"?
Although you did say to ignore financials, so which makes the analogy meaningless.
Who you consider best is very different if you are a gamer that wants 120 fps, or an investor that wants $$$.
But you can't you speak for all consumers and people on this site: I could care less about performance because even bottom end CPUs are enough for my needs. In fact, as a stockholder, Intel matters more.
I'm old enough to remember when AMD was an actual threat to Intel in the PC space but had inferior performance compared to Intel, but AMD was far cheaper and getting design wins (for a brief period in the 1990's before Intel's mega-deal with Dell and anti-competitive wrangling).
I don't have a horse in this race, I just enjoy seeing factions fight over "who's best", and how the arguments change over time.
EDIT: phrasing.
I know what you mean about the chips themselves, but that hasn’t translated into actual money for AMD yet.
A higher PE only makes sense if a business’s profit is poised to expand significantly beyond doubt. Which it almost never is.
If someone is selling a McDonalds that makes $1m a year for $5m and somebody else selling one with the same revenue for $1m either one of the seller is behaving irrationally or the second seller knows something you don't. Why would somebody give you free money otherwise?
All of the tech youtubers have been making similar points lately (LTT, GamersNexus, HardwareUnboxed).
Data centre does seem to be in AMD's favour at the moment, but I don't know enough about the space to know if their advantages will be long lived.
If you want to talk performance, here's gaming performance of Ryzen 7000 vs Intel 13th gen.[0] Needless to say, I don't see where AMD crushes Intel.
And then there's the financials.
FY21 AMD revenue 16.4 billion dollars
FY21 Intel profit 43.815 billion dollars
[0]https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-intel-core-i9-...
> Can you show numbers that would support "eating one's lunch"?
It's imprudent to swallow bold, unsubstantiated assertions without even bothering to sniff test.
Lunch[1] is on me this time.
China's chips doesn't sell well in the global market, and yet they managed to launch their space station with them
What matter nowadays? how much money it makes, or what it allows them to do?
Should we be stuck with that kind of questions again, for how long? i'd like to see people playing on Mars, so let's promote what does the job better, not what sells better
AMD GPUs perform better than Intel ones, and they do it with close to half the TDP, that's just one example
I feel like talking about intel's 1st generation video cards as if that's the entire debate and future of intel is misleading and nonsensical. Intel hasn't really made discrete graphics cards before. Their first attempt missesd.
AMD was behind nvidia and intel for years and years in their respective businesses, but here we are and things have changed. Pretending like now that AMD has a efficiency edge over intel the entire game is over, ignores the fact that intel is still performance competitive on larger nodes and also improving their efficiency every year.
Intel is a more profitable company with more than enough R&D dollars to compete against amd. If you had applied your thinking to AMD anytime before the last 3 years you would have also declared them a dead company.
It's just not a consistent way of thinking.
As far as AMD vs Nvidia, NV is not behind AMD at all. Nothing has changed there. The 4090 obliterates the 6900XT at 4K in Cyberpunk.[0] And if you enable DLSS3, we're talking a minimum framerate of 10.6 FPS for the Radeon, with a minimum framerate of 118.27 FPS for the 4090. This won't dramatically change with the 7900XTX. Nvidia competes well with AMD up and down the stack. Intel has a midrange GPU that should reach Geforce 3070 performance once the drivers mature. The encoders, XeSS upscaling, and ray tracing performance are already great.
[0]https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-nvidia-geforce...
See: CYBERPUNK 2077, ULTRA RT, DX12, TAA
[1]https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-nvidia-geforce...
See: CYBERPUNK 2077 DRIVING, MAX, PSYCHO RT, DX12, DLSS 3
FY21 AMD revenue 16.4 billion dollars
FY21 Intel profit 43.815 billion dollars
I may be long Intel, but this unqualified assertion without cite is certifiable bullshit at face value.
From the latest 10-Q filings for Intel[1] and AMD[2], this is what the numbers are saying for 2022 YTD:
(In millions) | INTC | AMD | Diff |
====================|=========|=========|=======|
Revenue | 49,012 | 18,002 | 36.7% |
Cost of sales | 27,646 | 9,802 | 35.5% |
--------------------|---------|---------|-------|
Gross margin | 21,366 | 8,200 | 38.4% |
Operating expenses | 17,900 | 6,787 | 37.9% |
--------------------|---------|---------|-------|
Operating income | 3,466 | 1,413 | 40.8% |
Net income | 8,678 | 1,299 | 15.0% |
--------------------|---------|---------|-------|
Adjusted net income | 3,580 | 1,299 | 36.3% |
- Intel's non-operating income (~80%/20% split between equity investments/interest and other) accounts for $5.098B and is 147% relative to operating income YTD! Adjusting this out of the picture tells a different story about pound-for-pound operations.
- Compared to AMD's $135M Q3 tax benefit, Intel recognized a massive $1.207B boon! Both companies swallowed operating losses this quarter (Intel -$175M v. AMD -$64M); without this tax benefit, YTD net income for both companies would have taken a hit. I keep this benefit in because Intel operates fabs, and much of that benefit was attributable to "a change in tax law from 2017 Tax Reform related to the capitalization of R&D expenses that went into effect in January 2022."
- Included in AMD's cost of sales and operating expenses are amortization of acquisition-related intangibles (Xilinx) to the tune of $1.005B and $1.499B, respectively. When this acquisition-related cost disappears, we can expect AMD's gross margins to substantially increase as you'd expect from a fabless design house.
Keeping it real.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/00000508632200...
[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2488/000000248822000...
FY21 AMD revenue 16.4 billion dollars[0]
FY21 Intel profit 43.815 billion dollars[1]
[0]https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1044/am....
[1]https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1522/...
From Intel's latest Q3 press release[1], management is guiding towards $63-64B revenue to close FY22, representing -20% decline YoY.
In contrast, from AMD's latest Q3 press release[2], management is guiding towards $23.2-23.8B revenue to close FY22, representing +43% growth YoY.
Underneath the hood, Intel's two biggest segments by huge margin are going down faster than a whore spreading herpes:
- Client Computing segment revenue is down -17.0% QoQ, -18.5% YoY; segment operating income is down -53.9% QoQ, -53.3% YoY.
- Datacenter and AI segment revenue is down -27.2% QoQ, -16.3% YoY; segment operating income is down -99.3% QoQ, -68.5% YoY.
- This quarter, Intel spun off their Mobileye segment and is expected to hold ~94% of MBLY common stock upon IPO. For Q3, this segment's revenue was up +38.0% QoQ, +26.6% YoY; segment operating income was up +11.8% QoQ, +11.4% YoY...we won't be seeing this segment soften Intel's top line decline moving forward.
- Management has made it abundantly clear that they're trying to cauterize deep operating wounds now and over the next few years: "The company is focused on driving $3 billion in cost reductions in 2023, growing to $8 billion to $10 billion in annualized cost reductions and efficiency gains by the end of 2025."
- Next year, Intel will burn ~$5.4B acquiring Tower Semi to advance their IDM 2.0 vision[3]. Prevailing macroeconomic headwinds today and throughout at least the end of next year strongly suggests this will weigh a lot more unfavorably on Intel's balance sheet moving forward given the implied cost of capital went from cheap in February 2022 when the acquisition intent was announced to sky-fucking-high today trending to the moon based on what the futures market has already priced in.
[1] https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1586/...
[2] https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1098/am...
[3] https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1527/...