News AMD Comes Roaring Back: Analyzing CPU Sales at Mindfactory Over the Last Five Years

[Admin]

Recently compiled sales statistics show AMD's amazing comeback at German retailer Mindfactory.

AMD Comes Roaring Back: Analyzing CPU Sales at Mindfactory Over the Last Five Years : Read more

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Wowee

 

[kinggremlin]

I find it really surprising there hasn't been more of a bloodbath at Intel in upper management based on the disastrous last 5 years. You can only be smug for so long without doing anything when you're on top before everyone realizes the competition has passed you. They've gone no where in 4 years since Skylake was released, and roadmaps indicate they're not going to go anywhere until 2021. We're looking at 6 years on the same architecture and node. It's practically unfathomable for a company with the resources of Intel that they have screwed up this bad and couldn't have headed this off at an earlier point.

Intel is lucky that AMD was so buried when this started. It took 4 years of nothing for AMD to catch Intel. They're clearly going to pass them in all performance metrics in the next couple of years, while Intel continues to be stuck in 14nm hell. I can't believe that no one has been held accountable for this debacle and they just continue to listlessly drift along acting like the competition hasn't caught up and everything is going great.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

From what I see, even first-generation ryzen CPUs tie coffe lake refresh in sales numbers.

Ow.

 

[TerryLaze]

I find it really surprising there hasn't been more of a bloodbath at Intel in upper management based on the disastrous last 5 years. You can only be smug for so long without doing anything when you're on top before everyone realizes the competition has passed you. They've gone no where in 4 years since Skylake was released, and roadmaps indicate they're not going to go anywhere until 2021. We're looking at 6 years on the same architecture and node. It's practically unfathomable for a company with the resources of Intel that they have screwed up this bad and couldn't have headed this off at an earlier point.

Intel is lucky that AMD was so buried when this started. It took 4 years of nothing for AMD to catch Intel. They're clearly going to pass them in all performance metrics in the next couple of years, while Intel continues to be stuck in 14nm hell. I can't believe that no one has been held accountable for this debacle and they just continue to listlessly drift along acting like the competition hasn't caught up and everything is going great.

I'm sorry but I don't understand,what's disastrous about having growth in a market that was prognosed to be stagnant at best?
Intel is making money which is all that a company has to do.
All that intel had to do to stay ahead was to add cores and that's what they did.
Intel is still faster per core at everything we are still waiting on AMD to just get close.

 

[Loadedaxe]

I find it really surprising there hasn't been more of a bloodbath at Intel in upper management based on the disastrous last 5 years. You can only be smug for so long without doing anything when you're on top before everyone realizes the competition has passed you. They've gone no where in 4 years since Skylake was released, and roadmaps indicate they're not going to go anywhere until 2021. We're looking at 6 years on the same architecture and node. It's practically unfathomable for a company with the resources of Intel that they have screwed up this bad and couldn't have headed this off at an earlier point.

Intel is lucky that AMD was so buried when this started. It took 4 years of nothing for AMD to catch Intel. They're clearly going to pass them in all performance metrics in the next couple of years, while Intel continues to be stuck in 14nm hell. I can't believe that no one has been held accountable for this debacle and they just continue to listlessly drift along acting like the competition hasn't caught up and everything is going great.

I am sorry to burst your "someone needs fired at Intel" bubble. The sky is not falling.

AMD has not surpassed Intel. Intel is still faster than Zen even at 14nm+++++.

AMD is catching up, and its about time. But they don't deserve a medal for it. It took them 9 years.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

But they don't deserve a medal for it. It took them 9 years.

They dont get a medal, but they do get intel crushing sales.

And intel didnt improve a lot over 9 years, so they are now seeing the effects of that.

 

[TerryLaze]

but they do get intel crushing sales.

No they don't.
The only store ... in the whole world ... that has better AMD than Intel sales is this one store we all hear about every now and then.
One store in the whole world does not equal crushing ... anything.

In the last quarter AMD made about 1,5 billion compared to intels 16,5...
http://quarterlyearnings.amd.com/financial-information/quarterly-results
http://quarterlyearnings.amd.com/static-files/33ed4154-376e-4edb-9690-4bdab97e2776
https://www.intc.com/investor-relat...eports-Second-Quarter-2019-Financial-Results/

 

[Shumok]

I'm sorry but I don't understand,what's disastrous about having growth in a market that was prognosed to be stagnant at best?
Intel is making money which is all that a company has to do.
All that intel had to do to stay ahead was to add cores and that's what they did.
Intel is still faster per core at everything we are still waiting on AMD to just get close.

In these graphs, the line going down means that Intel's DIY sales and revenues are shrinking..not growing. Are you that confident that when the informed and knowledgeable users in the DIY market choose Ryzen, that this won't spill over into the other markets of less informed users as they get up to speed?
Being faster per core is not enough now. What matters is overall performance per dollar, and AMD wins here. The gaming advantage that Intel still has is insignificant with the GPU/res combination that most people play at, and when it does exist..it's usually at such high framerates it doesn't matter for most who know better.

 

[Shumok]

I am sorry to burst your "someone needs fired at Intel" bubble. The sky is not falling.

AMD has not surpassed Intel. Intel is still faster than Zen even at 14nm+++++.

AMD is catching up, and its about time. But they don't deserve a medal for it. It took them 9 years.

You are wrong. AMD is now generally faster than Intel at most price points. Not to mention all of the other advantages. I'm guessing that the 'faster' that you meant, is the low res/extreme high end GPU gaming scenario that almost never impacts real user experience because AMD is already so fast there.

 

[refillable]

Mindfactory is a retailer for DIY PCs and while it's not the only DIY retailer in the world, it is enough to represent the DIY PC trend all around the world. However, the DIY market is small in terms of total PC revenue. For the DIY market, AMD will always have the advantage. AMD is a smaller company, so their mindshare would struggle to go through the mass population. This isn't a problem in the DIY market as they are mostly knowledgeable people. AMD also commits on sockets for much longer, which isn't really an advantage for most PC sellers. But, a 1.5 B increase of revenue on Intel is only a 10% increase, and 100% increase for AMD, and growth matters. In tech, having 10 times more revenue isn't going to get you anywhere if your product suck.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

I'm sorry but I don't understand,what's disastrous about having growth in a market that was prognosed to be stagnant at best?
Intel is making money which is all that a company has to do.
All that intel had to do to stay ahead was to add cores and that's what they did.
Intel is still faster per core at everything we are still waiting on AMD to just get close.

Yes perhaps one day AMD 8 core will run as cool and sip power like 9900k ... Oh wait the 9900k is like bulldozer in that regard ...
Well then one day maybe AMD will be able to catch up with Intel on price / performance ... oh wait a second ...
Ok then, one day AMD will be able to catch up to Intel's multi-tasking ability ... oh wait AMD crushes them there without debate.
Well maybe one day AMD might be able to come close (because we're "waiting to get close") in single threaded tasks ...

Still waiting for any sign of closeness ... sigh ...

I know ... maybe if you artificially bottleneck the cpu (because that's "real world", right?) AMD can catchup a few% on frames there? (just don't include CS:GO in the results)

And I guess according to Intel, AMD still needs to catch up in internet explorer and windows media player - seriously folks, when you are reduced to bragging about being faster at windows media player and internet explorer ... its a sad day for you.

One day AMD will catch up to Intel ... one day.

 

[Groveling_Wyrm]

I find it really surprising there hasn't been more of a bloodbath at Intel in upper management based on the disastrous last 5 years. You can only be smug for so long without doing anything when you're on top before everyone realizes the competition has passed you. They've gone no where in 4 years since Skylake was released, and roadmaps indicate they're not going to go anywhere until 2021. We're looking at 6 years on the same architecture and node. It's practically unfathomable for a company with the resources of Intel that they have screwed up this bad and couldn't have headed this off at an earlier point.

Intel is lucky that AMD was so buried when this started. It took 4 years of nothing for AMD to catch Intel. They're clearly going to pass them in all performance metrics in the next couple of years, while Intel continues to be stuck in 14nm hell. I can't believe that no one has been held accountable for this debacle and they just continue to listlessly drift along acting like the competition hasn't caught up and everything is going great.

You are looking at this from a totally WRONG perspective. Remember, AMD AND INTEL are both just.......wait for it.....Businesses. That's right....for profit businesses. As long as they pay dividends to their investors, they are doing good. If they sell more products, they are doing GREAT. If they innovate, and lead the industry, then they are in the driving seat. Intel is STILL exactly that. Intel has time, and doing what they are doing results in less risk of an antitrust lawsuit against them.

Looking at the history of both companies, we have seen this issue before. Intel back in 1999 was the market leader. AMD released the popular ATHLON core processors, and got their name in the game. They took a sizable chunk of the market from Intel. Intel took about 5 years, but then they released the Core series, and then the I Series. They regained their market lead, while AMD milked the Athlon as far as they could, then released the Vishera Core, and ran that from 2012-2017, when they finally released Ryzen. AMD wallowed for over 10 years before they released a competitive processor. Why would you want to complain about Intel, who is actually STILL producing competitive processors?

AMD has, at best, caught up with Intel and is competing with them. AMD has only surpassed Intel in 1 area....number of cores. With the IPC advantage that Intel does have, if they did increase core count it could be disastrous for AMD.

 

[Groveling_Wyrm]

Mindfactory is a retailer for DIY PCs and while it's not the only DIY retailer in the world, it is enough to represent the DIY PC trend all around the world. ...

...But, a 1.5 B increase of revenue on Intel is only a 10% increase, and 100% increase for AMD, and growth matters. In tech, having 10 times more revenue isn't going to get you anywhere if your product suck.

I would disagree. 1 Company, IN GERMANY, does NOT translate to representing the world, in ANY market. Every country is it's own market, and anyone who truly says that 1 company represents the world doesn't know the world market.

And what Intel products "SUCK"? Intel may not be releasing newer, higher speed stuff, but they ARE staying competitive right now with the Ryzen. If you recall, it wasn't so long ago that AMD was TRYING to keep up with the Vishera Core, and failing at that. They were not staying competitive.

 

[kinggremlin]

You are looking at this from a totally WRONG perspective. Remember, AMD AND INTEL are both just.......wait for it.....Businesses. That's right....for profit businesses. As long as they pay dividends to their investors, they are doing good. If they sell more products, they are doing GREAT. If they innovate, and lead the industry, then they are in the driving seat. Intel is STILL exactly that. Intel has time, and doing what they are doing results in less risk of an antitrust lawsuit against them.

Looking at the history of both companies, we have seen this issue before. Intel back in 1999 was the market leader. AMD released the popular ATHLON core processors, and got their name in the game. They took a sizable chunk of the market from Intel. Intel took about 5 years, but then they released the Core series, and then the I Series. They regained their market lead, while AMD milked the Athlon as far as they could, then released the Vishera Core, and ran that from 2012-2017, when they finally released Ryzen. AMD wallowed for over 10 years before they released a competitive processor. Why would you want to complain about Intel, who is actually STILL producing competitive processors?

AMD has, at best, caught up with Intel and is competing with them. AMD has only surpassed Intel in 1 area....number of cores. With the IPC advantage that Intel does have, if they did increase core count it could be disastrous for AMD.

Have you seen the Cascade Lake X announcement from Intel? They've announced almost halving the cost of performance vs Skylake X. We already know Cascade X is going to be Skylake with a slight clock boost on the same 14nnm process. So there is nothing to offset the massive price cuts like a die shrink. Do you really believe Intel's bottom line isn't going to be hurt by these huge price cuts? They got 2 more years at least with this situation.

Intel does not have an IPC advantage. AMD has better IPC. Where Intel has the advantage is single threaded performance due to a higher clock speed. That slight advantage will undoubtedly disappear next year when AMD releases Zen 3 on 7nm+. Then what is Intel going to do?

I agree that sale figures from mindfactory are probably not representative of sales at all online retailers since AMD has bigger presence in Europe than the US. However, looking at Amazon here in the US, AMD holds the top 3 spots for CPU sales, 5 of the top 6 and 10 of the top 13. AMD is clearly outselling Intel at one of the biggest online retailers in the US as well.

 

[A Stoner]

Nothing against AMD, but they always seem to be a day late and a few mHz slow.
I got my i9-9900K a few months before AMD offered anything close enough to bite on. And even then, it would have been slower overall, and I am barely hitting 60FPS on the games I like at 4K. It would be worse with the AMD offering.
I am hoping at some point in time the power envelope works out that I can get a lower priced AMD.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I find it really surprising there hasn't been more of a bloodbath at Intel in upper management based on the disastrous last 5 years. You can only be smug for so long without doing anything when you're on top before everyone realizes the competition has passed you. They've gone no where in 4 years since Skylake was released, and roadmaps indicate they're not going to go anywhere until 2021. We're looking at 6 years on the same architecture and node. It's practically unfathomable for a company with the resources of Intel that they have screwed up this bad and couldn't have headed this off at an earlier point.

Intel is lucky that AMD was so buried when this started. It took 4 years of nothing for AMD to catch Intel. They're clearly going to pass them in all performance metrics in the next couple of years, while Intel continues to be stuck in 14nm hell. I can't believe that no one has been held accountable for this debacle and they just continue to listlessly drift along acting like the competition hasn't caught up and everything is going great.

Considering how hard they go on process tech I can easily imagine them stumbling. No one else was trying to push 10nm like they did. One of the companies we own did all the paving and asphalt for their FAB 42 and they wanted it perfect. Then they wanted it even better. They push harder than most. Its why their original 10nm design was way more dense than anyone else 7nm.

That said, if you think AMD is going to find a way to pass through the wall Intel hit you need to think again. Both are pretty much at the same wall. The main difference will be clock speed and extensions.

Intel does have plans though. They are just targeting specific markets which make more sense than desktop. Desktop is not the largest market. Mobile is larger, laptops have been outselling desktops for quite a while, and HPC is vastly more profitable, The same chips Intel may sell for $1K on desktop typically go for easily double if not way more in the HPC realm.

While Intel may not have the most cores in mobile, AMD doesn't have more and power wise its a different story. They also seem to perform better by quite a bit. In the HPC market Intel has more than just a CPU to offer. They have Optane DIMMs and FPGAs, the latter of which blows CPUs out of the water in HPC tasks, and develop an entire ecosystem from the CPU to the NIC to the SSD etc. They in turn also work closely with the software developers to optimize and fully utilize the hardware. Its a whole different and more profitable world.

I think they are right in targeting profitable markets. One of the biggest difference in desktop vs HPC is how fast they can change over. HPC takes a lot of time and IT professionaqls don't just drop everything and build a new server setup every few years and go to AMD. There is a lot more to it than that. The desktop market will be much easier for Intel to reclaim marketshare from than the server/HPC so focusing on maintaining as much there is the smarter business choice to make. I personally think AMD really needs to focus on that same market and get more answers to Intels other products, not just CPUs.

I think their biggest issue for desktop is everyone is used to such high clock speeds and they will probably only launch something to be similar in that respect although with smaller nodes it might be a lot harder.

 

[kinggremlin]

Considering how hard they go on process tech I can easily imagine them stumbling. No one else was trying to push 10nm like they did. One of the companies we own did all the paving and asphalt for their FAB 42 and they wanted it perfect. Then they wanted it even better. They push harder than most. Its why their original 10nm design was way more dense than anyone else 7nm.

Intel stumbled on 14nm. Missing their target by about a year and mothballing desktop Broadwell. Intel went from a decades long 2 year cadence to 3 years for 14nm to 5 years and counting with 10nm. Intel has not stumbled with 10nm. They have face planted and broken their nose and knocked out some teeth. It's absolutely true that Intel was more ambitious with their 10nm than other's were with their sub 14nm process. However, that isn't exactly a viable consolation as you watch your competition surpass you because they were able to hit their less ambitious targets.

While Intel may not have the most cores in mobile, AMD doesn't have more and power wise its a different story. They also seem to perform better by quite a bit. In the HPC market Intel has more than just a CPU to offer. They have Optane DIMMs and FPGAs, the latter of which blows CPUs out of the water in HPC tasks, and develop an entire ecosystem from the CPU to the NIC to the SSD etc. They in turn also work closely with the software developers to optimize and fully utilize the hardware. Its a whole different and more profitable world.

I think they are right in targeting profitable markets. One of the biggest difference in desktop vs HPC is how fast they can change over. HPC takes a lot of time and IT professionaqls don't just drop everything and build a new server setup every few years and go to AMD. There is a lot more to it than that. The desktop market will be much easier for Intel to reclaim marketshare from than the server/HPC so focusing on maintaining as much there is the smarter business choice to make. I personally think AMD really needs to focus on that same market and get more answers to Intels other products, not just CPUs.

Not sure why any of this matters. Whether you're talking about mobile, desktop, of enterprise, they all depend on the same process technology. It doesn't matter what markets Intel is targeting, they are starting with an inferior base compared to AMD. Is Intel going to be able to release a 64 core Xeon on 14nm to compete with AMD's Epyc? AMD had 0% market share in the enterprise a couple years ago. That's no longer the case, and with Intel's string of security issues which has made patched Xeons slower than Epyc and the new Zen2 based Epyc line which is significantly cheaper up front and more efficient making it cheaper to operate as well, the rate at which AMD will increase marketshare will accelerate significantly going forward.

Let's be clear, AMD is not going to pass Intel in overall market share any time soon. TMSC doesn't have the production capacity even if AMD had the product capable of doing it. However, what Intel's years long 10nm delay has done is let AMD in the door when they used to not even be a considered option. This will absolutely hurt their bottom line going forward.

 

[Groveling_Wyrm]

Have you seen the Cascade Lake X announcement from Intel? They've announced almost halving the cost of performance vs Skylake X. We already know Cascade X is going to be Skylake with a slight clock boost on the same 14nnm process. So there is nothing to offset the massive price cuts like a die shrink. Do you really believe Intel's bottom line isn't going to be hurt by these huge price cuts? They got 2 more years at least with this situation.

Intel does not have an IPC advantage. AMD has better IPC. Where Intel has the advantage is single threaded performance due to a higher clock speed. That slight advantage will undoubtedly disappear next year when AMD releases Zen 3 on 7nm+. Then what is Intel going to do?

I agree that sale figures from mindfactory are probably not representative of sales at all online retailers since AMD has bigger presence in Europe than the US. However, looking at Amazon here in the US, AMD holds the top 3 spots for CPU sales, 5 of the top 6 and 10 of the top 13. AMD is clearly outselling Intel at one of the biggest online retailers in the US as well.

Intel is big enough to absorb price cuts for literally YEARS. They have been the market leader for so long that they can absorb this hit. So this is something they CAN and WILL endure with ease. They won't be sitting on their laurels while the money wastes away, either. They are still developing. And they are planning releasing new processors. AMD sold their processors, knowing that they were not comparable, and they have survived for a LOT longer. Intel can too.

Intel has a SINGLE CORE IPC. That is what gives them more power. AMD releasing Zen 3 will likely improve on their IPC, but nothing is guaranteed on that. They have already maxxed out the Zen 2 as it stands.

What will Intel do? Same thing they always do....keep researching, keep developing. And, per their statements, releasing new processors as well. And as their history is showing with the recent releases, they are increasing core count, and getting better speeds as well, negating the possible gains that AMD might get with Zen 3. Intel has never been as forward with their developments, until they release them, as AMD does.

Neither Amazon, Newegg, nor Mindfactory account for HP or DELL, or any of the major manufacturers that purchase from Intel or AMD. THOSE are the major purchasers, and THEY are the ones that will be the greatest indicator of sales. Aftermarket sales are just a small portion of sales, and are NOT a good indicator of the market.

 

[Groveling_Wyrm]

…...….
Intel stumbled on 14nm. Missing their target by about a year and mothballing desktop Broadwell. Intel went from a decades long 2 year cadence to 3 years for 14nm to 5 years and counting with 10nm. Intel has not stumbled with 10nm. They have face planted and broken their nose and knocked out some teeth. It's absolutely true that Intel was more ambitious with their 10nm than other's were with their sub 14nm process. However, that isn't exactly a viable consolation as you watch your competition surpass you because they were able to hit their less ambitious targets.



Not sure why any of this matters. Whether you're talking about mobile, desktop, of enterprise, they all depend on the same process technology. It doesn't matter what markets Intel is targeting, they are starting with an inferior base compared to AMD. Is Intel going to be able to release a 64 core Xeon on 14nm to compete with AMD's Epyc? AMD had 0% market share in the enterprise a couple years ago. That's no longer the case, and with Intel's string of security issues which has made patched Xeons slower than Epyc and the new Zen2 based Epyc line which is significantly cheaper up front and more efficient making it cheaper to operate as well, the rate at which AMD will increase marketshare will accelerate significantly going forward.

Let's be clear, AMD is not going to pass Intel in overall market share any time soon. TMSC doesn't have the production capacity even if AMD had the product capable of doing it. However, what Intel's years long 10nm delay has done is let AMD in the door when they used to not even be a considered option. This will absolutely hurt their bottom line going forward.

You are complaining that Intel is slowing down. You fail to realize that this is NORMAL when you reach the peak of a certain technology. Costs double or triple when advancing to the next stage. And as both companies have demonstrated, they have to add or subtract or totally change certain aspects of the processor when they develop them, and THAT gets harder as time goes on.

Where exactly is Intel getting surpassed? Please elaborate. They are staying competitive in their developments, and in MANY cases still lead the market.

AMD was about to fail as a company in 2016. Releasing Zen was the biggest thing they could have done to save themselves. Then releasing EPYC was another smart move by allowing them to penetrate the server market where the money truly is. So, what Intel HAS done, was allow AMD to actually get into the game instead of being second rate. This, by definition IS GOOD for the public. Why are you complaining?

 

[joeblowsmynose]

Nothing against AMD, but they always seem to be a day late and a few mHz slow.
I got my i9-9900K a few months before AMD offered anything close enough to bite on. And even then, it would have been slower overall, and I am barely hitting 60FPS on the games I like at 4K. It would be worse with the AMD offering.
I am hoping at some point in time the power envelope works out that I can get a lower priced AMD.

Are you pretending that at 4k your GPU isn't the major bottleneck? Or do you not really understand how a CPU does or does not come into play to affect gaming framerates?

Here's a quote from Gordan Mah Ung at PCWorld:

"That criterion, however, applies only when playing games in situations where the GPU is not the limiting factor. For example, while the Core i9 outperforms the Ryzen 9, it does that using a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti and at 1080p resolution. If we use a GeForce GTX 1080, it’s mostly a tie. If you tick the resolution up to 2560x1440, it’s a tie as well, even with the 2080 Ti. Playing at 4K? It’s doesn’t really matter which CPU you’re using, because you’re GPU-bound almost all of the time. "

No one would purposely bottleneck their CPU to game, and in 99.99% of all systems out there that are used for gaming, the GPU is always the bottleneck and CPU performance doesn't come into play, but Intel would love you to believe otherwise. Of course they want to jump on the "gaming" bandwagon -- they don't have GPUs, and gaming is a huge market - they'll say anything to get a chunk of that, but in reality the GPU is what determines your games performance - and they don't have one. So their next best thing is to convince everyone how important the "Intel" brand (and thus CPUs) is for gaming. And they did that well, but its rather disingenuous.

Its their very last stronghold and they are barely, if even at all, able to defend it by trying to make people believe that CPU bottlenecked performance numbers are "real world" -- any seasoned PC enthusiast know they are not ... just like any seasoned PC enthusiast knows that Bulldozer's 5ghz does not equal 9900k 5ghz ... mhz is not equal to IPC nor single thread performance, nor necessarily gaming performance - there's many other factors that dictate performance.

For example, Steve Burke from GN has a great video showing that by simply OCing and tightening timings on RAM with Ryzen systems can improve gaming performance by up to 20% in some titles, with an across the board major improvement in FPS in all titles -- just by simply tweaking the RAM -- something that does not have the same effect on Intel based systems.


I am starting to tire of all the "...but gaming! but gaming! ... when you bottleneck the CPU its higher, see!" sentiment. Really people? Do you not understand when a CPU is bottlenecked and when it is not?

If you have a 2080ti and game at 1080p and turn settings down and raytracing off, etc. and don't game with adaptive sync, and have a 240hz monitor, then without a doubt, the Intel 9900k is the processor you want to pay the "Intel tax" for.

I just checked some 4K gaming performance numbers on an Anand review, and even the old R7 1800x and old 12 core Threadripper was outperforming 9900k in a couple titles. This is "real world".

QuickSync is the other one benefit of Intel currently. If you can greatly use QuickSync features in the software you use regularly, then Intel still is an attractive choice.

Else ... there's not really more benefit with Intel over AMD anymore at all. I mean, honestly, the current pros and cons list would be just a bit embarrassing for Intel if you laid it all out there.

Truth.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Intel stumbled on 14nm. Missing their target by about a year and mothballing desktop Broadwell. Intel went from a decades long 2 year cadence to 3 years for 14nm to 5 years and counting with 10nm. Intel has not stumbled with 10nm. They have face planted and broken their nose and knocked out some teeth. It's absolutely true that Intel was more ambitious with their 10nm than other's were with their sub 14nm process. However, that isn't exactly a viable consolation as you watch your competition surpass you because they were able to hit their less ambitious targets.



Not sure why any of this matters. Whether you're talking about mobile, desktop, of enterprise, they all depend on the same process technology. It doesn't matter what markets Intel is targeting, they are starting with an inferior base compared to AMD. Is Intel going to be able to release a 64 core Xeon on 14nm to compete with AMD's Epyc? AMD had 0% market share in the enterprise a couple years ago. That's no longer the case, and with Intel's string of security issues which has made patched Xeons slower than Epyc and the new Zen2 based Epyc line which is significantly cheaper up front and more efficient making it cheaper to operate as well, the rate at which AMD will increase marketshare will accelerate significantly going forward.

Let's be clear, AMD is not going to pass Intel in overall market share any time soon. TMSC doesn't have the production capacity even if AMD had the product capable of doing it. However, what Intel's years long 10nm delay has done is let AMD in the door when they used to not even be a considered option. This will absolutely hurt their bottom line going forward.

I would barely call it surpassing. The 7nm thats out there is inferior to even the current 10nm.

It matters what market is targeted. As I said desktop can change much easier and faster than enterprise or HPC. Desktop is simple, the best product for the price in volume. Thats how AMD can take such a swing, although in Germany its a bit skewed since they did have a FAB there which may change results, in market share. In the same time frame server marketshare has not taken as big of a swing due to there being vastly more factors than just more cores. Its a higher margin market and it demands more than just a CPU with more cores. Intel is putting more resources into it. They plan to move server CPUs to 10nm in 2020,, some, and I bet we will see 7nm server and mobile chips before desktop in 2021. And at best TSMCs 7nm+ will compete well with Intels 10nm but not with Intels 7nm.

What FPGA does AMD have? What equivalent to Optane DIMMs do they have? How well does AMD work with vendor channels, hardware vendors and software developers? There is a lot for AMD to build out. Intel isn't worried about desktop because they can regain it much easier than enterprise/HPC and mobile is where their stuff does vastly better since everything is low power by design.

Personally I think Intel could replicate AMDs design of CCXs with a separate I/O chip on package and be just as efficient even on 14nm. Having smaller dies with less cores would help keep power and heat down and more spread out compared to Intels current monolithic design. Considering they are banking on Forevos for their future designs I bet we will see something similar, be it more advanced than AMDs design, where different parts use different process technologies all stitched together.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

... So, what Intel HAS done, was allow AMD to actually get into the game instead of being second rate. This, by definition IS GOOD for the public. Why are you complaining?

This is what I heard too. Intel was all like ...

"We have too much money, and our investors are complaining how rich they are getting from their Intel stocks, I think we should 'allow' AMD to catch up for a while, so while they launch their new Zen architecture, let's just sit on 10nm for four years pretending we're having some difficulties or something. This will be good for the public." -- in fact I think it was this dialogue that got Brian Krzanich fired ....

Yeaaahh .... No.

AMD has fought their way back, and while there certainly will be many more rounds to come, AMD is doing ALL the bruising in this one, I don't think its really debatable.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the competition. I mean ,Intel promising 2x+ better performance per dollar in HEDT than their last gen? I would be so happy as an Intel enthusiast that the HEDT gouging is finally abating. They wouldn't be doing that at all (Investors are NOT liking that news I promise you), unless they felt AMD is currently a very serious threat in all areas. (very least HETD)

So let's all stop pretending that what Intel has been doing for the last 2.5 years has nothing to do with what AMD is forcing them to do.

I know I wouldn't be happy with a $500 four core processor in 2019 ... just sayin'.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

I would barely call it surpassing. The 7nm thats out there is inferior to even the current 10nm.

...

Not sure that we know this as a fact ... We do know that Intel 10nm as very initially planned was slightly more dense than TSMC's planned 7nm ... not "way more" dense as you purported in an earlier post. It was quite close actually, maybe a few percent.

7nm+ should be 20% more dense than 7nm according to TSMC - this would leap frog Intel's 10nm. Not sure the difference between Intel's 10nm and 10nm+ or timeframes but we do know that they can rock those +'s pretty well

So, I am not 100% confident that Intel hasn't made some revisions to their very aggressive 10nm design in order to actually get things working as they are currently - and the only direction in that regard would be looser, not tighter.

If you have any source or docs on this , I am actually curious about this ...



Overall though, at the end of the day node size isn't really all that relevant - but its a good "feature" for fanboi arguments I guess (sorry AMD fans, but this one is true). Performance, cooling, cost/perf, etc. is what defines a CPUs strength (sorry Intel fans this is also true) ... while a node may roughly indicate which CPU might be hotter, perform better etc. its only the final numbers in those areas that count. Node size is marketing.

 

[kinggremlin]

I would barely call it surpassing. The 7nm thats out there is inferior to even the current 10nm.

The 10nm process that tops out at 4 cores and clock speeds lower than the 14nm mobile CPU's they are replacing vs the 7nm 64 core enterprise CPU AMD just announced? Oh yea, Intel's 10nm is clearly neck and neck with TMSC's 7nm as a usable process...

It matters what market is targeted. As I said desktop can change much easier and faster than enterprise or HPC. Desktop is simple, the best product for the price in volume. Thats how AMD can take such a swing, although in Germany its a bit skewed since they did have a FAB there which may change results, in market share. In the same time frame server marketshare has not taken as big of a swing due to there being vastly more factors than just more cores. Its a higher margin market and it demands more than just a CPU with more cores. Intel is putting more resources into it. They plan to move server CPUs to 10nm in 2020,, some, and I bet we will see 7nm server and mobile chips before desktop in 2021. And at best TSMCs 7nm+ will compete well with Intels 10nm but not with Intels 7nm.

There you go again about the market. AMD has already launched their 7nm Rome CPU's. Where is Intel? Well, according to you, Intel is smartly targeting only the Ultrabook market right now with 10nm, because that's where the money is. Why sell enterprise CPU's for thousands, when you can sell mobile CPU's for hundreds?

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12436/intel-10nm-dualcore-cannon-lake

"Back in 2013, the company planned to make CPUs produced using its 10nm technology available in 2015. "

If desktop is so simple where are the 10nm Cannonlake desktop CPU's that were supposed to be released in 2015? Oh right, they got cancelled because Intel decided to focus on the Ultrabook market in 2019 instead because that's where the money is. It all makes sense now...

So, what Intel HAS done, was allow AMD to actually get into the game instead of being second rate. This, by definition IS GOOD for the public. Why are you complaining?

Are you fishing for likes with this? Nobody in this thread complained about competition, what are you talking about? However, competition as a result of Intel falling on its face for 4 years, has not benefited the public as much as if they had stayed on schedule and continued kicking AMD's butt. What Intel has been doing has had no effect on AMD's development of Ryzen. If Intel had stayed on schedule with their roadmap, we would still have Zen 2 today with at worst the same prices, but instead of having to choose between Zen 2 and Coffee Lake, we would have the choice between Zen 2 and a much faster and more efficient Intel product stack. Sure the Intel stack would cost more, but you would be getting a clearly better product, and Intel would still have to price their CPU's sensibly vs AMD's much improved Zen 2 (ie, no $600 quad core from Intel). So how exactly do we the consumer benefit from having inferior options to choose from?

Also, Wyrm, you keep repeating points I have already disproved while asking question I already answered. And you seem to have a problem with basic terminology like what IPC is. Core count and clock speed having nothing to do with IPC. Despite your attempt to invent new things like single core IPC, AMD still leads Intel in the IPC that the rest of us are familiar with.