Salty and behind the times much?
The 4900HS blows away intel laptops on just about any standard test that is computationally expensive. The videos by professional reviewers all over the web. They just offer more cores and consume less power in the process. The cost of offering more cores is there is less silicon/power available for graphics. AMD's next gen APU for laptops will address this shortcoming and switch over to Navi which will blow away anything Intel has for some time to come (Until Intel's fabs can get their head out of their tail and start making progress on smaller nodes. <10nm...which doesn't appear to happening any time soon.)
NVIDIA will continue to be a problem for AMD. I will admit that. But there's a "synergy" o r "Halo effect" growing around AMD's high end products and that's carrying over to their GPU division. The 5700XT still offers the best bang for the buck in it's category. The 2070 is slower. The 2070Super is $100 more for <5% difference.
The super high end (2080ti's) are < 3% of the market for AIB (let alone all chips including APU/iGPUs) That said having a high end topper is critical to a brands image. NVIDIA does very well here. However AMD is dumping a tremendous amount of money back into R&D (including RTG) and still turning an excellent profit. Their 3000 series is selling better than they hoped. Their debt is quickly dwindling.
This is about Graphics and still not convinced that an 8 core laptop APU is viable - 6 more + better graphics would have probably been more viable.
"(Until Intel's fabs can get their head out of their tail and start making progress on smaller nodes. <10nm...which doesn't appear to happening any time soon.)"
Salty and behind the times much? You can bet that there are more than a few parts in Intel labs manufactured at 7nm (TSMC 4/5nm equiv). Pretty sure there are no AMD parts that are smaller than a 10nm class product (TSMC 7nm)
The 10nm issues at Intel provided a golden opening for AMD - which was unable to significantly capitalize on those issues. So regardless of process/lithography (which honestly is an interesting thing to ponder, but makes up zero % of decisions to buy one product over another - it may matter to people like Us - but we are basically a statistically insignificant market) Intel has still kept it's lead - that's not conjecture or speculation - it is demonstrable facts in the Quarterly reports. Not fanboy, wishful thinking or unicorns and rainbows - Quarterly reports are facts.
Zen 3 may set the world on fire - and Big Navi may absolutely overshadow Ampere. But history shows that ALL of the Zen product launches were to be the final nail in Intel's coffin - people took the already aggressive AMD marketing message and filtered that through the fever dreams of the most adamant AMD Fanboys and decided that Intel will be obliterated... I am sure AMD wish the community of AMD supporters would tone it down - you can never live up to fever dream specs.
Not that different than Camaro vs Mustang or Samsung vs LG or any of the other rivalries - we all have our preferred team - but when that Mustang beats your Camaro in 4 out of 5 races - you can talk about "sun was in my eyes, rules weren't clear, thought end was the 4th telephone pole, not the 5th" Does not change the fact that in those 5 races, the Mustang won 4.
"NVIDIA will continue to be a problem for AMD. I will admit that. But there's a "synergy" o r "Halo effect" growing around AMD's high end products and that's carrying over to their GPU division."
Not sure about a Halo effect but not important.
" However AMD is dumping a tremendous amount of money back into R&D (including RTG) and still turning an excellent profit."
Yeah, no on both dumping a "tremendous" amount of money into R&D and also on the turning an excellent profit. Don't confuse increasing Y over Y or Q over Q as being excellent profit. The quarterly reports are pretty easy to read - and no where are there enough revenues to allow dumping a tremendous amount of money or turning an excellent profit. AMD has made great strides financially from the previous arch to Ryzen 1 - retiring the long standing debt is positive step.
Q12020 (Jan-March) they (AMD) had a net income (profit) of $162M - same period Nvidia was on track for $2.8B in R&D spending for 2020 - so can assume ~$700M on R&D for the 1st Q. Intel is on track to spend ~$13.5B in 2020 on R&D - so ~$3.375B in Q1. So even if they put that entire $162M in R&D - their competitors (to be fair, Intel is not a fair comparison - due to being in so many more segments other than CPU and GPU) - Nvidia is putting more than 4x AMD's total quarterly profit into R&D in the same period - and Q12020 was AMD's 2nd strongest Q since the Ryzen 1 launch. Q42019 was $170M on $2.11B in revenues. And AMD is splitting that meager R&D budget between CPU and GPU - Nvidia is almost completely laser focused on GPU.
This is more about the scale of their competitors. All these #s can be found through a Google search.
Dr Su has done an excellent job on executing the basics (which her predecessor did not do) and has improved the future of AMD greatly - but they are no where she expected them to be at this point - after launching several generations... This is a tough space - was always going to be an uphill struggle - Intel on one end and Nvidia on the other... Doesn't matter what the company is - going into a mature space with one or more large entrenched competitors would never be easy.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram