AMD is set to become TSMC's biggest 7nm customer in 2020

If a person just wants to play ports of console games, then I'm curious to see what the comparable build specs will be for a PC when the PS5 and Xbox X are revealed.
 
$465 new.

cherry picking a sale price?

Real retail price is around $500


Good luck overclocking the lower binned 9900K when the 9900KS is taking all the good chips lol. The price SHOULD have dropped when the KS came out to represent the fact that your chances of getting a good chip just dipped.
 
Last edited:
Nope, happens with both green and red GPU's at various resolutions.
This site has plenty of data.
They get raped.
For the average person who games, in most cases Intel is the best option, which is why AMD is 3rd place.

Congrats on that value thing, blender benchmark and file zipping trophy though.
Ok
For everyday home PC use and 90% of work applications a Core i5 is enough for most people.
We just installed about 260 of 390 new HP 400 G6 ProDesks, running a 6 core coffee lake or 9500's.
The 9700K slaughters anything AMD has in its price range for gaming.
Only AMD's most expensive Ryzen chips that cost much more rival Intel, but intel is still faster by near 20 FPS in some games., about 5-7% overall though 30 games.

This is why AMD is 3rd place in this area, and by a long shot.
Yeah cause frames above most people's monitor refresh rates matter lol. Also most games coming out keep utilising more threads, look at the i5 8400 that CPU is worse off now than the R5 1600 and will continue to do so, oh and the i7 7700k lol. The Ryzen 3000 series has pulled back any distance between them. Intel are easily a year behind on AMD on manufacturing and design. 10th Gen is clearly having poor yields which is Why we're only seeing them on low TDP laptop CPUs.
 
Didn't realize 4% was a slaughter.
Dont get all defensive and bring the much more expensive 3950X into this, the 9900k slaughters the 3700x and 3800x in gaming, 8/16 vs 8/16.

By that logic, the 3950X
Gamers dont care about encoding.
The 9700k is faster then the 3950x for games and cost much less, buying a 3950x to game, "by that logic" is really stupid.
This is why, when it comes to gaming, AMD is 3rd place.

Theres some logic for you.
It may cause you to get defensive over your biased AMD opinion, you should contact PC Gamer and explain your "logic", maybe it will get your 3950 out of 3rd place for gaming. :D Ahhhhh hahaha!
 
Last edited:
Okay guys, I have a question for you: why Apple don't use AMD CPU's for MAC Pro, but uses Radeon GPU's and no nVidia?
 
Next gen consoles are 8 core 16 thread CPU's.
Giving how badly Intel's 8/16 9900K slaughters the 8/16 Ryzen 3700X and 3800X in games, it will be interesting to see what exact AMD CPU/GPU they implement into the PS5 and Scarlett.
A 3-5% performance difference in games is considered "slaughtered" now? Uh, ok. So what would that make AMD's 20-30% lead in productivity applications vs Intel? Annihilated? Decimated? Eradicated? Obliterated?
 
That's not vague. What's the source though?
3 second google search:

In 2017, the U.S. game industry as a whole was worth US$18.4 billion. U.S. gaming revenue is forecast to reach $230 billion by 2022, making it the largest market in the world. PC gaming will be both the smallest and slowest-growing segment, increasing +4.0% year on year to $35.7 billion.
 
Yeah, cause Apple is moving to 5nm. I absolutely love how news are conveyed to people these days....
And thus freeing up 7nm capacity for others, the biggest taker being AMD.

Afaik, Apple is paying for the privledge of getting new nodes first, the others get the advantage later but cheaper and more mature.
 
Okay guys, I have a question for you: why Apple don't use AMD CPU's for MAC Pro, but uses Radeon GPU's and no nVidia?
CharmsD posted about the GPU situation and though I haven't see that video, I assume it addresses those issues.

In 2006 Apple switched from the dead-end AIM alliance PowerPC CPUs to *much* faster Intel Core Duo and then quickly Core 2 Duo (and Xeon) CPUs. AMD has not had something superior to Intel and rarely something even competitive during the ensuing 12 years. With 12 years of CPU success under it's belt, there was no reason for Apple to switch to AMD over the past 2 years when AMD returned to competitiveness. Additionally, Apple sells more laptops than desktops and Intel is superior to AMD there, no contest. Easier to keep one supplier than 2.

If Intel continues to fall further behind in productivity over the next year or two, Apple may reconsider but frankly, HEDT is the tiniest fraction of Apple's business so the ROI of switching to AMD just may not be there.
 
Last edited:
CharmsD posted about the GPU situation and though I haven't see that video, I assume it addresses those issues.

In 2006 Apple switched from the dead-end AIM alliance PowerPC CPUs to *much* faster Intel Core Duo and then quickly Core 2 Duo (and Xeon) CPUs. AMD has not had something superior to Intel and rarely something even competitive during the ensuing 12 years. With 12 years of CPU success under it's belt, there was no reason for Apple to switch to AMD over the past 2 years when AMD returned to competitiveness. Additionally, Apple sells more laptops than desktops and Intel is superior to AMD there, no contest. Easier to keep one supplier than 2.

If Intel continues to fall further behind in productivity over the next year or two, Apple may reconsider but frankly, HEDT is the tiniest fraction of Apple's business so the ROI of switching to AMD just may not be there.
Thank you both with CharmsD
For the GPUs, I got some memories about the situation, thank's for clarifying.
Ive worked on G3 Blue&White (99'-03'), it was PowerPC and AMD GPU (and AMD mobo if I remember correctly) - total crap :)
We'll have to see for the CPU's part, what will happen.
Thank you again and cheers :)
 
Don't forget the next round of desktop/workstation Navi GPU products will be wanting some of that production capacity too.

Hey tech spot. AMD doesn't manufacture Silicone on behalf of for Sony or microsoft.

Any 7nm space AMD has is for AMD, not consoles.
 
For everyday home PC use and 90% of work applications a Core i5 is enough for most people.
We just installed about 260 of 390 new HP 400 G6 ProDesks, running a 6 core coffee lake or 9500's.
The 9700K slaughters anything AMD has in its price range for gaming.

Weird, you were talking about business desktops and then suddenly you're talking about "gaming" and "slaughter"...

So, what are you talking about exactly (beside doing some dubious PR for Intel)???
 
Weird, you were talking about business desktops
Nope I wasn't.
I was talking about the new consoles being 8/16 CPU's and curious about the hardware AMD will use in new consoles.
My observation about Intel's 8/16 wiping the floor with AMD's 8/16's could have been worded better, but I like to bring people back to earth once in awhile, sorry if I hurt your AMD feelies, that's the truth and the brand ignorant are unwilling to simply accept it, its annoying and childish. You can pat each other's comments on the back with likes all you want.
3rd place in gaming folks. 3rd place. Don't worry, its going to be ok.
 
Last edited:
Hey tech spot. AMD doesn't manufacture Silicone on behalf of for Sony or microsoft.

Any 7nm space AMD has is for AMD, not consoles.
AMD don't manufacture anything themselves anyway - they sold out their fabrication plants over 10 years ago, becoming GlobalFoundaries in the process. I get what you're referring to, though, but since the APU that has been designed for Sony and Microsoft is entirely AMD's product, it's more likely that they and not the console manufacturer, will book fabrication time from the likes of TSMC. It's no different to Nvidia booking fab time for their GPUs, even though the vast majority of the graphics cards using them aren't manufactured and sold by Nvidia.
 
The typical leading console could comfortably sell 15 million units in the first 12 months.

I wonder what the cost per 1000 unit price is? At $30 - or thereabouts ~450MM would be an astonishing amount of revenue per-year.

Xbox Series X looks like it is the high end SKU for Microsoft. It is appearing increasingly likely it'll be extremely powerful and similarly expensive. I can't see it costing any less than $500, possibly even more if the rumours hold true about it having a whopping 56CU GPU. Larger and faster than a 5700XT!

Looking at 15 million boxes?, yet another astonishing figure.

That high end, boundary pushing console would leave room for a lower end, cheaper Xbox SKU. AMD are going to need at least 10 million chips for the launch of those machines by the end of 2020, and a host more to fill demand in 1H 2021.

The revenue just piles up. This is why Intel is releasing a refresh of a chip on top of a new chip, they have recently announced they would rather have 70% of ALL SILICON than 90% of PC/Gaming machine silicon.

It's a brave new world again.
 
AMD don't manufacture anything themselves anyway - they sold out their fabrication plants over 10 years ago, becoming GlobalFoundaries in the process. I get what you're referring to, though, but since the APU that has been designed for Sony and Microsoft is entirely AMD's product, it's more likely that they and not the console manufacturer, will book fabrication time from the likes of TSMC. It's no different to Nvidia booking fab time for their GPUs, even though the vast majority of the graphics cards using them aren't manufactured and sold by Nvidia

The chips and technologies from these companies is fascinating, but has become dizzying, much more in recent time, than I recall. I can't visualize their end-goals other than to be a top dog manufacture' in a '3-D' chess game - way. I know they use game theory, strategy and tactics 'against' their own customers, partners, and competitors - but as with Apple that leads into strange unknown places which exceed my thoughts.
I don't have the experience or depth of knowledge to deconstruct how 'they think'.
Sometimes, I inadvertently post a comment I've thought about a lot, spurring another person to interject a "but what if this?" line.

Looking at Supermicro, they had 2.5 billion revenue in 2017, the stock looks solid - last year they hit a low of $14, to a high (current) of $24. SM may stay strong in a long game. Serious speculation there, anything may happen. Meanwhile over in chips, Nvidia, Intel, AMD, Sammy, and friends, are spreading themselves over each other and other companies. If TSMC, Samsung, GoFlo, and Intel keep their fabs up to speed, should we expect something spectacular, is all this monkey-motion just a natural shakeup in the industry or kind of a portent for things to come? I almost can't believe Intel just dropped a 5ghz+ "many cores and threads" CPU-line, it almost seems like they were holding it behind their backs all this time..

I didn't intend to drag you back into a conversation you were finished with. I'm typing and thinking out-loud to my keyboard.
 
And now a question for all the experts here:
Who invented the first programmable binary computer in the world and when?
 
Who invented the first programmable binary computer in the world and when?

Z1, Konrad Zuse, Berlin 1937-38.

WmFKmKt.jpg


Pretty, may not be the actual Z1. Additional pictures: http://www.physics.smu.edu/fattarus/zuse_z1.html
 
Back