News Intel-powered Aurora supercomputer fails to dethrone AMD-powered Frontier on Top500 list, again — claims spot as fastest AI supercomputer with HPL-...

[TerryLaze]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here... They have 23.6% of the market in units sold, but 33% of the market in revenue. That means they're selling more high cost parts...

It means they might have a bit higher margin than intel but that doesn't mean that they have a high margin.

According to their own numbers they have a 23% profit margin from datacenter.
541 income from 2377 revenue.
But they make like 6% from client...
86 from 1368
https://www.amd.com/en/newsroom/pre...rts-first-quarter-2024-financial-results.html

intel has about 16% profit margin from datacenter.
482 from 3036
but they have 35% from client.
So why would intel bust their backs to make 16% if they can make easy 35% ???
https://www.intc.com/news-events/pr...-reports-first-quarter-2024-financial-results

 

[thestryker]

It means they might have a bit higher margin than intel but that doesn't mean that they have a high margin.

According to their own numbers they have a 23% profit margin from datacenter.
541 income from 2377 revenue.
But they make like 6% from client...
86 from 1368
https://www.amd.com/en/newsroom/pre...rts-first-quarter-2024-financial-results.html

intel has about 16% profit margin from datacenter.
482 from 3036
but they have 35% from client.
So why would intel bust their backs to make 16% if they can make easy 35% ???
https://www.intc.com/news-events/pr...-reports-first-quarter-2024-financial-results

What does this have to do with anything? You said Intel doesn't want to sell for cheap, and yet that's exactly what they're forced into doing to keep server market share because AMD has better products and can command a premium price.

 

[TerryLaze]

What does this have to do with anything? You said Intel doesn't want to sell for cheap, and yet that's exactly what they're forced into doing to keep server market share because AMD has better products and can command a premium price.

Intel having to sell for cheap in server is why intel doesn't sell much to server anymore...that's what I said from the beginning, you missed the whole point.
Look at how much revenue intel has in client compared to datacenter, they just shifted most of their business to client.

 

[thestryker]

Intel having to sell for cheap in server is why intel doesn't sell much to server anymore...that's what I said from the beginning, you missed the whole point.
Look at how much revenue intel has in client compared to datacenter, they just shifted most of their business to client.

Intel still makes up over 70% of the x86 server market what nonsense are you talking about them not selling much.

 

[TerryLaze]

Intel still makes up over 70% of the x86 server market what nonsense are you talking about them not selling much.

From the link above.
Client= $7,533 with 35% profit
datacenter= $3,036 with 16% profit
Which is the larger number?!
Why would intel care to sell a lot to servers for 16% profit when they already sell a lot more to client for 35% profit?

Intel Corporation Supplemental Operating Segment Results
		Three Months Ended
(In Millions)		Mar 30, 2024		Apr 1, 2023
Operating segment revenue:
Intel Products:
Client Computing Group
Desktop		$	2,461			$	1,879
Notebook			4,681				3,407
Other			391				481
			7,533				5,767
Data Center and AI			3,036				2,901
Network and Edge			1,364				1,489
Total Intel Products revenue		$	11,933			$	10,157

 

[thestryker]

From the link above.
Client= $7,533 with 35% profit
datacenter= $3,036 with 16% profit
Which is the larger number?!
Why would intel care to sell a lot to servers for 16% profit when they already sell a lot more to client for 35% profit?

Intel Corporation Supplemental Operating Segment Results
		Three Months Ended
(In Millions)		Mar 30, 2024		Apr 1, 2023
Operating segment revenue:
Intel Products:
Client Computing Group
Desktop		$	2,461			$	1,879
Notebook			4,681				3,407
Other			391				481
			7,533				5,767
Data Center and AI			3,036				2,901
Network and Edge			1,364				1,489
Total Intel Products revenue		$	11,933			$	10,157

Those numbers have literally nothing to do with shipping volume or products. The reality is Intel still moves a lot of server products, but they're not making anywhere near the margins they're used to. This is a bad thing and it's driven by the fact that AMD currently makes better high end products on a cheaper manufacturing process that are seeing good adoption rates.

 

[TerryLaze]

Those numbers have literally nothing to do with shipping volume or products.

Oh for sure, revenue has literally nothing to do with shipping volume, other than it's the amount of money they get for the amount of product they sell, but other than being a reflection of how much they sell it has nothing to do with how much they sell.

The reality is Intel still moves a lot of server products, but they're not making anywhere near the margins they're used to. This is a bad thing and it's driven by the fact that AMD currently makes better high end products on a cheaper manufacturing process that are seeing good adoption rates.

So according to you the small margin of 6% that AMD has in client is because they make worse products on a more expensive process that are not seeing good adoption.

 

[TheHerald]

AMD has in client is because they make worse products on a more expensive process that are not seeing good adoption.

Yes

 

[helper800]

Yes

I will just leave this here as a data point.

 

[TheHerald]

I will just leave this here as a data point.

The last peak was at Q4 2012, just after they launched Bulldozer and Piledriver. Says all that needs to be said, no?

 

[helper800]

The last peak was at Q4 2012, just after they launched Bulldozer and Piledriver. Says all that needs to be said, no?

It certainly puts things into contrast. AMD has clawed itself back to their peak from 12 years ago, except now they have good products in Ryzen and Epyc vs. the seppuku that was Bulldozer and Piledriver.

 

[TheHerald]

It certainly puts things into contrast. AMD has clawed itself back to their peak from 12 years ago, except now they have good products in Ryzen and Epyc vs. the seppuku that was Bulldozer and Piledriver.

AMD peaked with zen 3, was slapping Intel on every metric that counts. Zen 4 is meh. Too far behind in both ST and MT. They are selling server parts and they are happy about it, don't really bother with us plebs. It is what it is.

 

[helper800]

AMD peaked with zen 3, was slapping Intel on every metric that counts. Zen 4 is meh. Too far behind in both ST and MT. They are selling server parts and they are happy about it, don't really bother with us plebs. It is what it is.

We just need to hope for another return to form with Zen5. The better AMD does, the better Intel will have to do, and it's all for our benefits.

 

[TerryLaze]

We just need to hope for another return to form with Zen5. The better AMD does, the better Intel will have to do, and it's all for our benefits.

With the current rumors it doesn't look.
If it has c cores then that part of the CPU will lose performance since the c cores can't boost to the same clocks, and the remaining full cores will have a 10-15% increase in performance since that's what tsmc has claimed. So overall it might be very little improvement.
But then again intel might remove hyperthreading so their new models might not be much faster either.

 

[helper800]

With the current rumors it doesn't look.
If it has c cores then that part of the CPU will lose performance since the c cores can't boost to the same clocks, and the remaining full cores will have a 10-15% increase in performance since that's what tsmc has claimed. So overall it might be very little improvement.
But then again intel might remove hyperthreading so their new models might not be much faster either.

I think it will be very reminiscent of the Alderlake release from Intel. They will probably have some scheduling quirks to work through but 8% in single threaded clock-for-clock on the 'P' cores should put a theoretical product stack in line with current Intel offerings at the least and anything beyond that will be reaching towards Intel's next release. We shall see what happens.

 

[thestryker]

Oh for sure, revenue has literally nothing to do with shipping volume, other than it's the amount of money they get for the amount of product they sell, but other than being a reflection of how much they sell it has nothing to do with how much they sell.

Riddle me this: what does client sales and revenue have to do with server sales and revenue? Does it tell you anything about server sales and revenue?

So according to you the small margin of 6% that AMD has in client is because they make worse products on a more expensive process that are not seeing good adoption.

What are you talking about? I'm only talking about the server space. You keep bringing up client as if it has any relevance to the server space. They are two different businesses.

 

[TerryLaze]

Riddle me this: what does client sales and revenue have to do with server sales and revenue? Does it tell you anything about server sales and revenue?

What are you talking about? I'm only talking about the server space. You keep bringing up client as if it has any relevance to the server space. They are two different businesses.

You riddle me this, if you sell tomatoes and screwdrivers, and tomatoes sell really well and for a big profit but screwdrivers are expensive for you to make and sell less and for less of a profit.

Which one of these would you put more effort into selling?

Intel isn't putting much effort into server sales right now because it would cut into their client sales that are doing extremely well right now.

 

[thestryker]

You riddle me this, if you sell tomatoes and screwdrivers, and tomatoes sell really well and for a big profit but screwdrivers are expensive for you to make and sell less and for less of a profit.

Which one of these would you put more effort into selling?

Intel isn't putting much effort into server sales right now because it would cut into their client sales that are doing extremely well right now.

So you think that Intel is having to sell their products at less of a margin due to effort because the margin is lower. That's some absolute nonsense if I've ever seen it. No point in continuing going in this circle.

 

[helper800]

So you think that Intel is having to sell their products at less of a margin is due to effort because the margin is lower. That's some absolute nonsense if I've ever seen it. No point in continuing going in this circle.

As if the amount of "focus," for lack of a better word, is determinative to your profit margin on a product. If I try really, really, hard can I sell snow to an Eskimo for a profit margin of 1000 dollars per cubic meter?

More effort =/= more revenue / profit.

 

[bit_user]

AMD peaked with zen 3, was slapping Intel on every metric that counts. Zen 4 is meh.

Zen 4 isn't bad. It did what was needed to beat Alder Lake, in fact. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel pretty effectively countered with Raptor Lake.

Too far behind in both ST and MT.

It's not really behind in MT performance. The R9 7950X even beats the i9-14900K on MT performance, more often than not. Stock-for-stock:

Source: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k/6.html
​

Of all their rendering benchmarks, the only one the i9-14900K actually took was Cinebench.

Also, the R9 7900X beats the i7-13700K almost as often, though it's a little closer. Then, the i7-14700K managed to pull ahead with those 4 extra e-cores.

They are selling server parts and they are happy about it, don't really bother with us plebs. It is what it is.

I pretty much agree. Zen 4 was designed primarily for servers and laptops, with desktop as more of an afterthought. That's why it doesn't clock as high (and loses a lot of efficiency, when you try).

Zen 4 also faces a sort of interesting dilemma. Both because it's less complex than Golden Cove and it's made on a denser process node, the cores are much smaller. When juiced to hit more competitive clock speeds, this gives it a higher thermal density than Raptor Cove faces. Worse, Ryzen 7000's heat dissipation problems are compounded by the thick IHS, which results in something of a thermal bottleneck for the higher-powered Ryzens.

The evidence all seems to indicate that Zen 4 was simply designed to run at lower clockspeeds, more typical of server and laptop CPUs. Either AMD didn't prioritize taking a lead on the desktop, or they didn't expect Raptor Lake to be so competitive - maybe both.

 

[TheHerald]

Zen 4 isn't bad. It did what was needed to beat Alder Lake, in fact. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel pretty effectively countered with Raptor Lake.


It's not really behind in MT performance. The R9 7950X even beats the i9-14900K on MT performance, more often than not. Stock-for-stock:

​

​

​

​

​

Source: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-14900k/6.html​

​

Of all their rendering benchmarks, the only one the i9-14900K actually took was Cinebench.

Also, the R9 7900X beats the i7-13700K almost as often, though it's a little closer. Then, the i7-14700K managed to pull ahead with those 4 extra e-cores.


I pretty much agree. Zen 4 was designed primarily for servers and laptops, with desktop as more of an afterthought. That's why it doesn't clock as high (and loses a lot of efficiency, when you try).

Zen 4 also faces a sort of interesting dilemma. Both because it's less complex than Golden Cove and it's made on a denser process node, the cores are much smaller. When juiced to hit more competitive clock speeds, this gives it a higher thermal density than Raptor Cove faces. Worse, Ryzen 7000's heat dissipation problems are compounded by the thick IHS, which results in something of a thermal bottleneck for the higher-powered Ryzens.

The evidence all seems to indicate that Zen 4 was simply designed to run at lower clockspeeds, more typical of server and laptop CPUs. Either AMD didn't prioritize taking a lead on the desktop, or they didn't expect Raptor Lake to be so competitive - maybe both.

Not this again man, the 7950x was insanely more expensive than the 13900k. The 13900k was closely priced with the 7900x, the 13700k with the 7700x etc. Yes, amd did indeed drop prices after 13th gen launched, that's exactly because they were getting rofl stomped at every category.

The 13900k was a lot faster in games, as fast in mt and faster in st, while being substantially cheaper. Dropping prices doesn't mean you have a good product, quite the opposite. Even the fx8350 was a good choice in 2015+ since it cost as much as a dual core i3 at the time, but doesn't mean it was a good product.

The only pro amd has right now is platform longevity, it's criminal for intel not to offer that right now, but that's a platform pro not a cpu pro.

 

[bit_user]

Not this again man,

Believe me: I had the same reaction to your post.

the 7950x was insanely more expensive than the 13900k.

No, it really wasn't. If you look at the price data from PcPartPicker for both CPUs, holiday pricing of the i9-13900K was in the range of $600 - $660, depending on which part of the 2022 holiday shopping season you look at. The lowest pre-Christmas price was $590.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Dh...core-processor-bx8071513900k?history_days=730
​

In contrast, the R9 7950X actually undercut the i9-13900K by selling for between $550 and $570:

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/22...e-processor-100-100000514wof?history_days=730
​

The 13900k was closely priced with the 7900x, the 13700k with the 7700x etc.

Fictional pricing, only. Not in the real world.

The 13900k was ... as fast in mt ...

I just showed that it wasn't! Compared to the i9-13900K, the R9 7950X was:

• 2.1% faster in Cinebench R23 (not shown)
• 9.5% faster in Blender
• 6.6% faster in Corona 8
• 6.0% faster in Keyshot 11
• 9.7% faster in V-Ray

That's not "as fast". If the tables were turned, there's no way in heck you'd let it slide that an AMD CPU that got beat by those margins was "as fast" as an Intel model!

 

[thestryker]

The evidence all seems to indicate that Zen 4 was simply designed to run at lower clockspeeds, more typical of server and laptop CPUs. Either AMD didn't prioritize taking a lead on the desktop, or they didn't expect Raptor Lake to be so competitive - maybe both.

FWIW RPL was never even supposed to exist in the first place which might have something to do with it. If AMD had been assuming they'd be competing against the first arch on a new node they wouldn't have expected a 6ghz beast that's for sure.

 

[TheHerald]

Believe me: I had the same reaction to your post.


No, it really wasn't. If you look at the price data from PcPartPicker for both CPUs, holiday pricing of the i9-13900K was in the range of $625 - $660, depending on which part of the 2022 holiday shopping season you look at.

​

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Dh...core-processor-bx8071513900k?history_days=730​

​

In contrast, the R9 7950X actually undercut the i9-13900K by selling for between $550 and $570:

​

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/22...e-processor-100-100000514wof?history_days=730​

​

Fictional pricing, only. Not in the real world.


I just showed that it wasn't! Compared to the i9-13900K, the R9 7950X was:

• 2.1% faster in Cinebench R23 (not shown)
• 9.5% faster in Blender
• 6.6% faster in Corona 8
• 6.0% faster in Keyshot 11
• 9.7% faster in V-Ray

That's not "as fast". If the tables were turned, there's no way in heck you'd let it slide that an AMD CPU that got beat by those margins was "as fast" as an Intel model!

What in the world are you saying? Your links with the prices, it clearly shows the 7950x being more expensive than the 13900k up until January. But that doesn't matter either.

Check the 7700x. It's a mild downgrade over previous gens 12700k. But okay, zen 4 was great.

 

[bit_user]

What in the world are you saying? Your links with the prices, it clearly shows the 7950x being more expensive than the 13900k up until January.

You have to read those charts like someone who's actually wanting to buy one. In other words, look at the lowest-price sellers. If you do that, you'll see what I'm talking about.