How many years will it always take AMD CPU to beat Intel in gaming? (Who is the real Sub-Par Product here?)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.


There is no way Intel did this intentionally. They have been completely caught by surprise with Ryzen and AMD's entire multi-chip/single CPU strategy in the demise of Moore's Law. And at the same time they're having fab problems and failing to transition to their 7nm process, underscoring that Moore's Law no longer applies. No, I believe they are pretty desperate in their server and HEDT groups with market share steadily slipping away. What's remarkable is how quickly it started happening: even before Epyc and TR was released orders were being inked. Those markets are tired of Intel's monopolistic antics and ready for a switch, that's where the money is. Intel made big mistakes and it's showing.

And now Rome has showed up and a strategy for AMD to compete favorably on manufacturing efficiencies even with lower production numbers becomes apparent.

To be sure they are huge enough to weather this, there's no existential crisis at all here, but heads are rolling. You can be sure of that.

 

Yeah they have fab problems as in they can't produce enough chips for the demand without having lowered the production,everybody wishes for problems like this.
-They sell them faster then they can make them-
In the meanwhile AMD is back to discount prices trying to make a sale.
 


Being a near-monopoly doesn't mean you've a superior product. As all the analysts have said and I humbly repeat here: Intel will outsell AMD 5 to 1 in the (technically naive and emotionally driven) home-build enthusiast market for a long time on inertia alone even if Ryzen 3 does displace Intel's IPC leadership.

AMD knows that and Ryzen CPU's are just a serendipitous accident in their real business strategy to dominate in the data center where buyers are much more technically savvy and cost conscious. What should be embarrassing is to realize an accident, an artifact of other technical strategies, is making a huge monopoly react with what is obviously major unplanned changes to their product strategy and pricing structure.

BTW: I wonder how many big distributors are rethinking the smartness of those long-term contracts they signed up for with Intel. That's the way you get processors shoved down your throats whether you want them or not.
 


Reverting to older processes in order to fill the orders does suggest something to a rational person. And having been in manufacturing, i'm well acquainted with the costs of re-opening closed lines and transitioning products from one to another when it was never planned. Intel's not doing this because they want to. I can well imagine how badly singed are the eyebrows of product line managers who've been told to eat the cost of moving their product while maintaining margins. They are watching their bonuses go up in smoke as the management reserves they planned to turn into profit are being rapidly spent.
 


"Reverting" "re-opening closed lines"
How did you come up with that?
Intel made one single 10nm CPU the i3-8121U and this in small numbers,do you really believe that they switched their whole production to 10nm for this one CPU? I didn't look it up but my guess would be that they have one experimental fab for planning 10nm,and everything else still runs 14nm.


and they still sell so many 14nm products that they have to make one more fab.
 


Not processors, chipsets. To make room for processors. Poor ramp-up on 14nm. This wasn't planned. Even suggesting outsourcing to TSMC now. Intel, the process giant, is not doing this because they want to. Spin it how ya want, something's driving this craziness and it ain't rosy market projections doing it.

Poor chipset product line managers...

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-14nm-shortage-h310c,37819.html

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/276690-report-intel-will-outsource-chipset-production-to-tsmc

 


Intel typically produces chipsets on a larger node than its current-gen processors, but the delayed 10nm production has found both chipsets and chips on the same 14nm node, creating a manufacturing bottleneck as the company experiences record demand for 14nm processors.
Intel’s overall 14nm chip supply has fallen short by as much as 50 percent — but simultaneously claims that Intel only intends to outsource the production of its H310 and other entry-level chipsets to TSMC. Sources also claim that Intel’s 14nm process could fall short of demand by as much as 50 percent.
Yeah poor intel experiences record demand for 14nm processors (because ryzen is so great-they didn't have record demands earlier when people where waiting to see what ryzen would bring to the table) and can't keep up with producing chipsets to sell them...cry me a river.
Companies would kill to have this sort of "problems".
So they build another 14nm fab or even outsource to make more chipsets to sell more CPUs,oh the woes,having to invest to make a profit.
If intel really where scared they would go ahead with 10nm even at a loss,god knows they can take a huge loss and not even shrug,but instead they just respin skylake because that's enough to handle anything zen and they don't even worry enough to do good prices on their almost 4 years old tech.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,134
8
19,315
21


Not fanboy of any them (Only see AMD Fanboys (Trolling or not) on most of comments features in articles in different sites saying "AMD beats Intel cause they more something than intel".., if AMD show the promising game performance and long term upgrade free proof. Then i would of went for AMD. Again, i used play games with AMD Processors until performance hit rock bottom shortly making intention to upgrade quickly...wasting more money.

It make sense just switch to Intel which people did so you have this "long term upgrade free proof" . Not worry about wasting money after money to upgrade after another. I think people still using Intel i7 2nd/3rd Gen "the future proof has not been broken yet"







It somehow caught many "AMD Fanboys"" consumers off guard when they were surprise this price at lowest with 8 Cores / 16 Threads AMD Processor....and 12nm...or...."Rumored" 16 Core/32 Threads at lowest price...7nm...This most hilarious public stunt AMD has done.

Intel still does not see AMD as a threat, because Intel probably moving away from Desktops Products to focus on Servers and Mobile.

or

Intel just allowing AMD to step up a bit to avoid AMD from getting to point of near the bankruptcy.
 


Intel's 2018 profits alone are more than the whole year revenues for AMD and that is saying something. Intel's Q3 revenues alone were 19 Billion Dollars....$19 billion in 3 months alone and they expect to hit $70 Billion for the full year of 2018!!!!...let that sink in for a while...whilst AMD's full year revenues will be about 6 or 7 Billion....

Now I am not saying AMD are bad or anything like that, just putting things into perspective. AMD have done a fantastic job getting back into the CPU market after a pretty bad run of tech prior to Ryzen and things can only get better. For us the consumer it is also great as we have competition but putting Intel down is just a joke. They are running at full stretch and can afford a bad quarter or 2 no issues without even blinking until 10nm hits in the later half of 2019...and they have hired a bunch of new talent, until then AMD need to make hay as they are doing and good on them as ultimately without competition we will be in a bad place...And don't blame Intel for the lack of competition from AMD for many years.......Just buy a CPU that suits you and anyone who buys AMD good on them and the same goes for anyone buying Intel...If people have the money and want to buy something, it is not the wrong decision, for them it is the right decision...and playing the mine is better than yours is just so pointless...
 


Except that's where AMD has been steadily eating into Intel's market share throughout 2018:

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/277793-amd-may-regain-30-percent-desktop-market-share-by-q4-2018

"No one ever thought it would be easy for AMD to quickly claw away market share from Intel in the server market...."

https://hothardware.com/news/amd-epyc-cpus-2-percent-2018-server-7nm-rome-zen-2

Data center managers are fed up with Intel's heavy-handed monopolistic tactics and sky-high prices. All AMD has to do is have a competitive product and they will buy it JUST to keep a second-source option open to enjoy a better negotiating position on their Intel-based servers which will carve into Intel's margins. With ROME and Epyc, they have better-than-competitive CPU's so expect it to continue.

I can't pretend to know if Intel sees AMD as a threat but they sure are reacting to AMD's offerings and that's not the way a market leader behaves.


 

Gam3r01

Titan
Moderator
Claiming that intel does not see AMD as a "threat" is naive and irresponsible.
Intel fully recolonizes AMDs current position in the market and its potential. Intel would never have become the giant it is by using tactics such as underestimating its only real competitor. Thats not how a business works.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,134
8
19,315
21



Intel does not see AMD as a threat is correct. Intel is obviously taking a step back to give AMD a "Chance" to rise or else AMD would be wiped away by Intel without a doubt. When that happens, (due some laws) Intel will be forced to split..they dont want that i pretty sure. That is why they are doing the step back.
It Obvious and simple.

I mean i would of bought AMD Processors to play games but that does fit Does not meet long term gaming needs. Went back to Intel as intended.

 


That's missing the whole point...nobody's saying Intel is in any form of jeopardy. They will pivot, as they must, and it will be very interesting to see what they come up with as it's becoming obvious it can't be the usual 'tic-toc' approach in the aftermath of Moore's Law. But I also don't think AMD will be going anywhere but 'to the bank' for the near to mid term future. And even into the far term future if they continue to make competitive server CPU's to bring into the market place. Data centers have seen what will happen with a monopoly servicing them and they are eager for competition to help them with that problem.

And besides: if AMD DID kill Intel, all that would happen is they'd be the company using the same monopolistic tactics. All I want is competition so I can afford a top-of-line CPU for my home system.


 


So we are thinking the same thing then...
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
No offense, but this whole thing is moot. It's been debated, explained, argued and basically beaten to death over the last 10 years or more. Sure, Intel puts out a good top line cpu. So does AMD. Back in the K5 days, AMD actually was better, but since there's really no qualifications to the argument, the answer is also moot. There's simply far too many variables to decide a clear winner. Take BF5 for instance. The FX 8350 came in second, barely behind the i7-4790k, simply because the FX had the thread count to maximize optimization for that game, handily beating the faster i5-4690k. Yet in Skyrim, even a lowly Pentium spanked that same FX, nevermind the core series cpus.

For pure fps, yes Intel wins, barely. For budget performance, Intel can't touch AMD. For upgradability, AMD wins again. For adaptaptable broad scope performance with realistic pricing, AMD.

At the end of the day, you only get what the monitor will show, be it 60 or 144 fps, so even Intel's lead there is moot, doesn't make a hill of beans difference if amd gives 150fps and Intel gives 500fps, you get 144fps no matter what.

Basically its just a sad, beaten down argument that'll never go away until ppl stop believing that numbers in a benchmark have anything to do with real life results.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,134
8
19,315
21


After reviewing, best answer can be selected.
Intel gives gamer good fps and Upgrade-protected, Intel wins that too as they are "long term best performance " meaning you will save more money cause less upgraded is needed.

IF AMD was in this position, i would of by AMD instead..right now they almost pulling a stunt on customers.

I pretty sure people with Intel 2nd Generation and 3rd Generations i7 CPU people still use and not needed to upgrade.
&
AMD FX People had to upgrade
 

drivinfast247

Respectable
May 29, 2018
1,681
75
2,340
104
After reviewing, best answer can be selected.
Intel gives gamer good fps and Upgrade-protected, Intel wins that too as they are "long term best performance " meaning you will save way more money cause less upgraded is needed.
Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Need facts to back it up.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,134
8
19,315
21


You already see on articles each time AMD Ryzen CPU News comes up ...Only AMD Fan boys (Even if they are trolling or Not) attacks People with Intel CPU only....falling for AMD Stunt

"Having more core count and thread count" is better than Intel 8th gen....all i see Intel still beating them

Intel CPU users did not retaliate because kinda obvious you know why...their Performance is still good even today.
So i made to topic get some in-depth review both side from this forum is which good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY