Another reason the Chiplet design is better for high multicore CPU's. The yields on the intel CPU's of that size will be much lower than AMD's. So AMD can sell cheaper and will most likely be making more money on the chips.
Intel's 10th-gen 18-core beats Core i9-9980XE by 11%, Ryzen remains faster
- Thread starter mongeese
- Start date
Daniele 00
Posts: 159 +121
Quote from Kashin: "Actually, the exact opposite is true. They don't have to do anything radical BECAUSE they dominate the market. They've been stuck on 14nm for several years because they had no competition and no reason to move forward."
that big BECAUSE you wrote is wrong.
I personally dislike an IT company that choose to stop development for marketing reasons. IT companies are supposed to develop... reasearch... innovation... etc. They are NOT supposed to sit down carelessy, "BECAUSE they already dominate the market" or "BECAUSE there is no competition".
In the latter sentence you throw responsability on other company for not doing "competition". A part the fact the main compatitor had not the budget Intel had... do you think "lack of competition" is a reason to stop to develop new technologies and to watch to the future? How dare you to defend a company who choose to invest 0 on innovation? Arent you an IT appassionate like me and others here?
I dubt Intel will be able to bring innovation and competition in the next future, considering their poor performance of last years.
that big BECAUSE you wrote is wrong.
I personally dislike an IT company that choose to stop development for marketing reasons. IT companies are supposed to develop... reasearch... innovation... etc. They are NOT supposed to sit down carelessy, "BECAUSE they already dominate the market" or "BECAUSE there is no competition".
In the latter sentence you throw responsability on other company for not doing "competition". A part the fact the main compatitor had not the budget Intel had... do you think "lack of competition" is a reason to stop to develop new technologies and to watch to the future? How dare you to defend a company who choose to invest 0 on innovation? Arent you an IT appassionate like me and others here?
I dubt Intel will be able to bring innovation and competition in the next future, considering their poor performance of last years.
I do believe the i5 lineup, beyond a few exceptions, is no longer the go to CPU lineup to buy for gaming. A case can be made for the 9600k if you OC it to 5GHz (or close to that), but the CPU+cooler puts the price too close to 3700x price levels at 300$ or more. If you don't plan on OCing then you are much better off with an R5 3600 and a B450 mobo.
The fact that EPYC is providing 64 Cores for 6500$ and the Xeon alternative cost 15000$ and offer less performances is saying everything about chiplet.
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
You are even being very generous here, as the XEON alternative (8280 L) costs $17.9k and is a 28C/56T CPU with six channel memory support and 48 PCIe 3 channels vs. the Eypc 7742 which costs $6.9 k (64C/128T, eight channel memory support, 128 PCIe 4 channels = 256 PCIe 3).
The more close comparison would be the 32C/64T Epyc 7452 (memory and PCIe channel support is the same as for 7742) @ $ 3.4k.
amstech
Posts: 2,661 +1,824
To gain corporate and large enterprise business, AMD will have to keep this up for years. That's nice the 3900X and 3950X do everything for much cheaper. Most of those companies don't care about pricing as much as they do reliability and service.
Intel's long standing reputation will continue to hold for awhile, and the business sector is still dominated by their CPU's.
AMD would have to keep this up for half a decade just to get their foot in the door again on corporate/large business model implementation. Not trying to rain on their parade, but with contracts, business relationships and large scale computing, owners/CEO's and investors don't care about its 5% or 15% faster. Speed hasn't been an issue with large scale computing, todays desktop and server CPU's are more then enough for most business's.
No one is going to look at a few benchmarks and go 'OMG, we need to switch to AMD pronto'. Doesn't work like that.
Again, not trying to shade or demean AMD's awesome Ryzen conglomerate.
Intel's long standing reputation will continue to hold for awhile, and the business sector is still dominated by their CPU's.
AMD would have to keep this up for half a decade just to get their foot in the door again on corporate/large business model implementation. Not trying to rain on their parade, but with contracts, business relationships and large scale computing, owners/CEO's and investors don't care about its 5% or 15% faster. Speed hasn't been an issue with large scale computing, todays desktop and server CPU's are more then enough for most business's.
No one is going to look at a few benchmarks and go 'OMG, we need to switch to AMD pronto'. Doesn't work like that.
Again, not trying to shade or demean AMD's awesome Ryzen conglomerate.
Dimitrios
Posts: 1,243 +1,024
What do you mean? One of shadiest things INTEL did was bribe Dell and other companies to use INTEL products. They were getting "rebates" which was bribe money. Hell even BESTBUY pushed INTEL products since I was the top Computer sales crew. We were told to sell INTEL products because BESTBUY gets an incentive. Our crew was disciplined if we didn't push a lot of INTEL laptops and desktop pc's. This was BESTBUY in the early 2000's in Milford, CT.
Anyway AMD won like 6-10 years back from INTEL bribing companies but the damage was already done.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Yes but was it illegal before the courts deemed Intel's practice to be? If so then it wasn't illegal, until after the courts ruling. And by definition can only be seen as shady not illegal. Now if they were found guilty again, that would be a different story. People keep talking as if Intel got away with illegal practices. That in my mind is not the case. I'm allowing you the opportunity to back up your words.
People really underestimate just how huge the blow Intel's bulcrap was to AMD. The sad part? They never stopped doing it, they just got better at hiding it. The short term money AMD got from the lawsuits is meaningless in the long run.
The court doesn't make the law, they just get presented the evidence and decide if a law was broken. Intel knew perfectly well what they were doing and they have an army of people working for their legal side.
Intel lost in multiple courts around the world. For example: in the US Intel had to pay $1.25 billion to AMD at the end of the lawsuit, the EU fined Intel for 1.45 billion, Korea fined Intel 25 mill because they were giving rebates to Samsung, Dell, HP, Gateway, Acer, Fujitsu, Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi (and many others) to not use AMD CPUs, Japan found Intel guilty too and so on and so on. This was happening on a global scale.
All OEMs were forced to accept the rebates or get much worst deals that could put them out of business if their competition accepted the rebates and they didn't (it wasn't just rebates either, stock priority was another "benefit"). This is illegal and there's no what ifs or anything to debated about it. AMD was literally shunned out of the market completely.
Yes it was very illegal even before the court decided to condemn Intel. Such laws on anti-competitive behavior are fairly common knowledge.
The court doesn't make the law, they just get presented the evidence and decide if a law was broken. Intel knew perfectly well what they were doing and they have an army of people working for their legal side.
Intel lost in multiple courts around the world. For example: in the US Intel had to pay $1.25 billion to AMD at the end of the lawsuit, the EU fined Intel for 1.45 billion, Korea fined Intel 25 mill because they were giving rebates to Samsung, Dell, HP, Gateway, Acer, Fujitsu, Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi (and many others) to not use AMD CPUs, Japan found Intel guilty too and so on and so on. This was happening on a global scale.
All OEMs were forced to accept the rebates or get much worst deals that could put them out of business if their competition accepted the rebates and they didn't (it wasn't just rebates either, stock priority was another "benefit"). This is illegal and there's no what ifs or anything to debated about it. AMD was literally shunned out of the market completely.
Last edited:
Dimitrios
Posts: 1,243 +1,024
Thank you! I didn't feel like typing all that. My point to the other commenter was that INTEL got where they were from cheating.
In the case of the EU, yes it was - the 1952 Rome Treaty started the ball rolling in this area, but really it was the Maastricht Treat of 1992 set out the full EU laws on competition (revised again in 2007).
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
So you are saying Intel's practices were effecting EU. And EU was one of the courts that passed judgement.
Bp968
Posts: 277 +195
Im not convinced that will happen. This time the game is different. AMD doesn't have to keep up with Intel's fabrication capabilities, Samsung or TSMC handle that part of the puzzle for them.
What I do know is it is all more exciting now thanks to AMD.
amghwk
Posts: 1,547 +1,539
MS-DOS does run on AMD. Anyway, what does upgrading an OS has to do with your reply? Or with this thread at all?
Yeah, come-on with your next must-win-an-arguement post.
I'm not saying anything, merely acknowledge your question as to whether Intel's actions were against the laws of the countries in which they operated in. If a shop keeper sells a product that's labelled as being 500g, but only issues 480g, that's breaking a law (in the EU Common Market, at least); whether or not said vendor is caught, tried, and found guilty is another matter.
I wouldn’t count on it. Remember, AMD is no longer tethered to GlobalFoundries and everything points to TSMC and Samsung advancing rapidly in process tech
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
The offense still has to be within the country you are implying, in order for your point to be valid.
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
While I do not disagree that AMD needs to work on getting mind share in the corporate space, it is important to point out that customers do not buy their PCs or servers from AMD or Intel but Rather from Dell EMC, HPE... so the CPU itself does not matter as much since the relationship is with the OEM rather than the parts suppliers.
And cost does matter, even in the office PC space. One of my former employers purchased PCs mostly from HP (Pro Desk and Elite Desk Models). They were usually i3 / i5 based models. When I pointed out that the same desktop with an AMD APU (that was before 2017, I.e. no Ryzen yet) cost €50-100 less per machine but had twice the memory (that was relevant for our work), they decided to try one and then switched to AMD based Elite Desk systems. The vendor was the same and so was support.
Of course there are also people like one head of IT who I "fondly" remember that had not even heard of AMD. For him, PC = Intel. That was also the same people who replaced our laptops (those remained Intel based) with iPads and wondered why the USB-C hub he had ordered did not work with his iPad pro), so getting mind share is important.
This is also why Intel is probably giving out a lot of incentives to OEM / vendors to make sure Intel remains the recommended / visible option. After all, this did work very well in the original Athlon days when they went as far as paying electronics stores to not carry any AMD based systems.
So while I think OEM do not mind selling AMD based systems, they are not exactly pushing their customers towards them.
In the server space, this is probably different as you need to consider the density that you can achieve within the given power / cooling constraints. If there is one server in the office basement it does not matter that much, but for large server farms it does imho.
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
If I remember correctly they were also investigated and fined in South Korea, Japan, the US....as their actions were against anti trust law.
Is this the processor displayed last year that had all 18 cores/ 36 threads running at 5GHz, then the next day we find out that they "forgot" to mention that the demo was on an industrial cooled chiller and wasn't possible to ever come to market in 2019.
Did you guys see the latest Intel CPU bug: another 10% loss in performance.
Did you guys see the latest Intel CPU bug: another 10% loss in performance.
I don't think corporations would ignore the price difference, if their servers suddenly cost 50% less, or of their security is higher, because AMD CPUs are much safer than Intel.
Also, don't forget the startups. They don't have the legacy contracts, all they want is to start quickly and cheaply. We're living in era where lots of young companies become de-facto standard in just a few years. They would be happy to sign contracts with someone who is offering them same performance, and increased security, at 70% discount.
Also, don't forget the startups. They don't have the legacy contracts, all they want is to start quickly and cheaply. We're living in era where lots of young companies become de-facto standard in just a few years. They would be happy to sign contracts with someone who is offering them same performance, and increased security, at 70% discount.
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 5,420 +10,166
One could equally argue the 5 billion they paid for ATi could have prevented them from getting slammed by core 2 and playing the catch up game for a decade. Imagine if phenom II had come out in 2006 to fight intel instead of 2009 when the i7s were rolling out.
ATi saved AMD from a situation that ATi/AMD themselves created. This is like a man being drunk, passing out, and getting ejected from hsi car crashing into a tree walking away unscathed because he was drunk, and therefore ragdolled out of the accident. He still caused the accident.
Not to mention, RTG has been on the roped for several years now, with nvidia dominating the GPU market. If AMD splits their resources between the 2, then nvidia and intel will gang up on them again. It's a very difficult position to be in.
yRaz
Posts: 6,381 +9,403
Just because nVidia has the graphics crown does not mean they are dominating the GPU market. AMD has a graphics card in every console, nVidia has the desktop market.
Similar threads
