AMD's CPU sales are miles better than Intel
pcguide.com
pcguide.com
Personally, when I first got access to an Epyc, I was underwhelmed by the performance. For numerical performance it was slightly worse than M2 or cheap old Intel processors. I'm now a bit skeptical of reviews.
There might be valid comparisons for specific Epyc generations and their Xeon counterparts. But processors are a bit like car engines. Power and torque numbers doesn't tell the whole story.
Datacenter processors are optimized for different scenarios. Use the wrong processor for the wrong job, and you get abysmal performance. We have an AMD system which won't win any speed records, but that thing has enormous number of memory channels and PCIe lanes, so it's basically a semi with an extra long trailer.
Fittingly, that processor lives in a storage cluster and delivers tremendous amount of I/O both in IOPS and throughput. Same processor would look silly in a compute cluster, though.
Maybe this is Intel's new marketing strategy. Astroturfing has been around for decades now; Microsoft was doing it in the early 2000s.
Or you could back up your claim with actual data.
Why would that be particularly relevant when comparing the performance of specific individual chips?
Should have insisted on a Framework, by the sounds of it, it would actually have at least not worse battery life.
They have a new socket so even if you bought a motherboard a few months ago that wouldn’t work.
I hate that Intel 16th gen Lunarrow Lake is not Made by Intel, literally no reason to buy from them.
Being 2nd best when there's only two choices for x86 CPUs makes them the worst at everything.
AMDs x3D chips are exceptionally good for gaming but are relatively very poor for MT “productivity” stuff (this gen seems to be a lot better at that, though).
13/14th gen also seemingly also had somewhat better price/performance overall than AM5 chips.
Just look at how many products people buy based on cost alone
They kept missing market after market after market. It’s insane how many chances they had, and they blew them all.
Anyway, now they are a taxpayer’s problem, for the same reason that Boeing is.
People think of Intel as just doing CPUs, but they had a massively broad impact, from scientific computing libraries to compilers, to plenty of other hardware offerings. It's not actually obvious they needed to jump onto mobile, GPU, etc, they just needed to continue to have the best processors around. They don't any more, at least not obviously.
They can 100% survive as the second-best US-based processor producer, esp if they focus and do well, but they cannot be as large as they are and be number 2. Intel has 5x the employees of AMD.
When that stopped, they were left with mediocre designs and the albatross, but several process nodes behind others on TSMC. The hidden handicaps became apparent and made the problem worse.
I remember saying ‘unless it has something to do with their connectivity solutions, none, because they no longer have a viable edge compute architecture for our use cases’, but I was assured they were willing to ‘co-develop’ and I may be surprised. Indeed the end of this statement alone was surprising, because why would any company of Intels scale want to co-develop with a mid size enterprise for an internal facing use case?
I won’t go into great detail but it turns out: - they had no new product in the pipeline, I never did figure out what there was to ‘co-develop’
- their solution was to install $1k NUCs at the edge instead of $100 RPI derivatives
- their busy bodies were willing to discuss just about anything because they evidently did not have a very firm remit, and we had our own busy bodies that also loved to pursue passion projects that had no business value
- they evidently had a lot of these ‘solutions’ teams that were kind of roaming around to… do something… with large companies, that was not really related to selling hardware or services
It just struck me as incredibly odd that a notoriously stubborn company that was so content to focus on ultra high margin products was wasting so many resources talking to customers about point solutions that would never scale into a meaningful business.
I ended up giving the CTO my grim assessment on the initiative and going to focus on other things. A part of me thought maybe I was just missing something and the teams would come back with something useful, but I never heard about any of it again. Good riddance.
Intel is still tons more successful than 99.9% of companies out there. Specifically, they're still doing a $54 billion/year revenue, making it the ~260th largest company in the US (by revenue). This entire "if you're not leading, then you're losing" type of winner-takes-all mindset is fairly silly.
You are literally leaving money on the table if you pick a processor not leading one of these (or being very good at 2-3 of these).
Sure, Intel isn't leading in any of these either – except maybe backwards-compatibility –, but there are more characteristics we care about than just the three you listed.
AMD has been doing pretty well from a strategic point of view, specifically in high volume data centre SKUs, and so it's hard to see Intel being given as wide a window this time. And there are now also other players looking to take some market share, most notably Nvidia, but also all the big players are looking at their own in house ARM silicon.
The road back for Intel is not going to be nearly as wide and smooth as it was for Core.
In some years Dell profitability basically depended on them not selling any AMD, because if they did, they would get the massive subsidy from Intel. These company were losing market share because they couldn't sell AMD systems, but that was preferable to not getting rebates.
This lead to massive anti-trust style lawsuits in Europe, the US, Japan and other places, and basically it lead to a 10 year legal battle that only ended because AMD was simply out of money to continue to fight the legal fight. So the made a settlement to get some cash.
If intel didn't have such insane market dominance, incredibly balance sheet and high margin for all the legal battle and all the fines, AMD would have really, really hurt them in the 2000s. But they could sustain the fight long enough and when AMD made a misstep, and Intel didn't, AMD crushed.
AMD kind of saved itself with consoles sales and then managed to turn it around with Zen.
Also Tsmc keeps 50+% margin so does Amd so actual cost of processor is less than 20% of sale price. Intel foundry seems uncompetitive let alone it's current processor architecture.
Depends on how you define that, I’d bet that 99.9% of all companies aren’t losing billions of $ every quarter while their revenue is declining even more. Also while simultaneously failing in pretty much every market segment they operate in..
And the same way as Boeing, Intel spent a fucking lot of money doing stock buybacks.
Looking back at the charts it's to the tune of US$ 14bi just in 2020, another US$ 13bi in 2019, US$ 10bi in 2018 and the trend continues into 2011, a brief respite during the 2008-2010 crisis period.
US$ 152bi has been spent by Intel since 1990 in stock buybacks but the largest share of it is from the past 10-15 years.
Anyway, would love to hear if anyone has some decent quality data about these chips reliability.
Your video links to Intel CPUs doing remarkably poorly before the latest microcode update. Parent was presumably trying to determine if Intel has actually fixed (or at least mitigated) the problem, which your video (much as I love Gamers Nexus) doesn't really have an answer for.
But with the recent failures of intel CPUs it's had me looking into AMDs to find the equivalent. I don't want to risk my investment not lasting because it just burns out over time.
(Also I like the fact that each generation doesn't have a new socket unlike intel)
The X3D chips have way larger caches so they punch well above their weight on many workloads that are traditionally cache bound. And with the 9000 series they figured out a better assembly method so they work even better than the 7000 or 5000 series ones.
https://gamersnexus.net/cpus/rip-intel-amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-c...
The cpu naming is so bad and confusing, I think it’s deliberate to confuse consumers that aren’t up to date.
Luckily, after my computer locked up and rebooted enough times, I realized it always happened while saving the game. I replaced the C: drive's NVME and that fixed the problem, so that upgrade can be put off again for a while.
Every generation of processor requiring unique slot, remote backdoor integrated in motherboards and multiple vulnerabilities found in recent years is what forced me to switch to AMD several years ago, and my AM4 socket is supported up to this day, even new versions of processors are still provided.
The only thing holding back the wave is windows... and microsoft themselves seem somewhat open to the idea of not using x86 anymore.
However, for the top tier of computation, vectorization, memory bandwidth and PCIe lanes are still important.
My personal AMD laptop: thin, light, quick, long battery life. Pleasant experience.
I think lots of people still buy Intel because AMD now charges a notable premium for their understandably vastly better hardware.
It's also not accounting for things like the absolute flood of N100 mini pcs (since they're typically not gaming rigs) that sell for barely anything compared to the cheapest AMD offer. Granted they also suck, but Intel seems to have really invested themselves into the Chinese style quantity over quality, selling lots and lots of cheap crap which will influence any sort of percentage survey massively.
Iirc, the Nvidia 1000 series gpus were still the most common ones according to the stream survey even when the 4000 series was being released. And when Ryzen was first released, there was still a sizeable fraction of steam users on core2duo processors.
The delta this month was +1.2% for AMD, so would that imply that 80% of people bought AMD, and 20% Intel? In August AMD seems to have actually had negative delta, maybe from people selling the effed up 13/14th gen for cheap? Idk.
two guys are bargaining for who gets to use a public fairgrounds. it's trump and some European guy. the fairgrounds are public, there should be no charge. trump will say "i will kick you in the foot every time you use these fairgrounds when i want them". the European will object, "that's not fair! that's bad business! it's a public fairground we all agree it's fair use". trump will reiterate that he does not care, he will kick you. the European can either agree or trump will stomp the foot.
if trump agrees with all the economists that tariffs are bad business and never implements them, he'll never get a deal. he has to credibly threaten tariffs to have bargaining power. he's very convincing doing this
personally, i believe the the amount of tariffs will be smaller than most people expect. but i wouldn't be surprised if i'm wrong.
You may be referring to Intel future plans to use their own factories again with 18A, but I had the impression from the tech press that 18A volume will not be so great until 2026 (assuming things go well).
Besides that, Intel is not known for selling chips cheaply, so I would expect them to also increase prices if tariffs force their competitors to do so.