News AMD Will Hold 20% of Server CPU Market in 2023, Analysts Say

[bit_user]

I'm not getting into a whole thing about Intel and Windows phones.

Not only is Intel new to the driver scene for capable GPUs, but the devs made the games to run on existing hardware. If you make the games so they run on Intel hardware they will run better on that than AMD hardware.

That's quite a claim. Do you have any evidence to support it?

AMD has completely stagnated in the GPU department.

They objectively did not. The RX 7000 includes quite a few enhancements, optimizations, and innovations.

​

The reasons Nvidia was able to leapfrog them are a bigger process node jump and that it countered their Infinity Cache by packing the 4000-series with L2 cache. Meanwhile, AMD reduced its top spec GPU from 128 MB of Infinity Cache to just 96 GB, presumably because they are/were planning a 192 GB or 288 GB version with stacked 3D cache. Also, the RTX 3000 series was at a process node disadvantage and now they're on a node that's ahead of what AMD is using. But, all that L2 cache is adding a lot of cost, which every gamer just loves to complain about.

Still, this is not what "stagnation" looks like:

 

[rluker5]

I'm not getting into a whole thing about Intel and Windows phones.


That's quite a claim. Do you have any evidence to support it?


They objectively did not. The RX 7000 includes quite a few enhancements, optimizations, and innovations.

​

The reasons Nvidia was able to leapfrog them are a bigger process node jump and that it countered their Infinity Cache by packing the 4000-series with L2 cache. Meanwhile, AMD reduced its top spec GPU from 128 MB of Infinity Cache to just 96 GB, presumably because they are/were planning a 192 GB or 288 GB version with stacked 3D cache. Also, the RTX 3000 series was at a process node disadvantage and now they're on a node that's ahead of what AMD is using. But, all that L2 cache is adding a lot of cost, which every gamer just loves to complain about.

Still, this is not what "stagnation" looks like:

My console claim is mostly just a tautology.
And if AMD were stagnating they would have made RDNA2 *1.5 on 5nm. 7680 shaders, 384 bit bus and 192 MB infinity cache.
Is RDNA3 that good?

 

[TerryLaze]

That's quite a claim. Do you have any evidence to support it?

Isn't that the go-to accusation of every amd fanboy ever though?!
That all the compilers and all the dev tools are made to produce code that runs much better on intel.

 

[bit_user]

Isn't that the go-to accusation of every amd fanboy ever though?!
That all the compilers and all the dev tools are made to produce code that runs much better on intel.

It was a comment about GPUs. It seems to suggest the only reason Intel GPUs' performance is lacking is that games weren't specifically targeted at them. I simply asked for evidence of this.

FWIW, I've got nothing against Intel GPUs, in principle. I'm looking forward to the rumored Alchemist refresh, later this year.

Speaking of dev tools, I've been impressed with what I've seen of Intel's support for GPU compute. Their continued support for OpenCL is the main reason I'm interested.

 

[TerryLaze]

It was a comment about GPUs.

I thought it was about consoles in general which would include the cpu.

 

[msroadkill612]

I can only imagine this is purely within the private sector. Much of the government space is dominated by Dell/Intel builds, by contract.

I see - special non expiring contracts which prohibit choosing better alternatives?

 

[msroadkill612]

Really? I thought that government supercomputers were dominated by Cray (which HP bought). I'm not doubting you, I'm just really surprised.

Yeah, it's pretty incredible, eh?

Worse, Intel do have the contract for one govt supercomputer, & its been perennially delayed, has resulted in huge write-offs & will surely be cancelled. The clients have bought amd gear to tide them over during the delay.

 

[KyaraM]

It was a comment about GPUs. It seems to suggest the only reason Intel GPUs' performance is lacking is that games weren't specifically targeted at them. I simply asked for evidence of this.

FWIW, I've got nothing against Intel GPUs, in principle. I'm looking forward to the rumored Alchemist refresh, later this year.

Speaking of dev tools, I've been impressed with what I've seen of Intel's support for GPU compute. Their continued support for OpenCL is the main reason I'm interested.

I'm quite impressed - and satisfied - with the driver development for their GPUs. They are really committed to improving in that area and steadily improving performance, which is great to see and the right thing to do. Hope it continues like this and we will see further improvement in the future. I'm personally looking forward to seeing how Battlemage will fare. Rumor has it that it will be quite a jump. We will see.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Worse, Intel do have the contract for one govt supercomputer, & its been perennially delayed, has resulted in huge write-offs & will surely be cancelled. The clients have bought amd gear to tide them over during the delay.

I really don't get that. If I were making those decisions in government, Intel would've lost that contract. The government is supposed to be for the people, not for a corporation.

 

[bit_user]

I really don't get that. If I were making those decisions in government, Intel would've lost that contract.

It's exceedingly expensive to do a wholesale replacement of a supercomputer that's late coming online. Not to mention that they take so long to design & build that there's little chance whatever you replace it with would be working before the original system is brought online.

Instead, what they do is put financial penalties into the contract, which Intel has already had to pay.

The government is supposed to be for the people, not for a corporation.

From the government's perspective, they don't want to put all their eggs in one basket. So, they tend to spread the contracts around. The last 3 big supercomputers bought for US National Labs were from: IBM/Nvidia, Intel, and AMD.

 

[msroadkill612]

I really don't get that. If I were making those decisions in government, Intel would've lost that contract. The government is supposed to be for the people, not for a corporation.

having more than 1 supplier for super computers is a big thing for them.

 

[Avro Arrow]

having more than 1 supplier for super computers is a big thing for them.

I get that, but it's not like Intel is going to die if they lose the contract. After all, they are still the market leader. It's simple business though. If you can't fulfill a contract, you lose it.

 

[bit_user]

I get that, but it's not like Intel is going to die if they lose the contract. After all, they are still the market leader. It's simple business though. If you can't fulfill a contract, you lose it.

Without that contract, Intel probably would've cancelled Ponte Vecchio before it ever saw the light of day. Seriously.

It's probably a lot better for the entire ecosystem, if the government doesn't always go with the same suppliers, every time.