Intel: We 'Forgot' to Mention 28-Core, 5-GHz CPU Demo Was Overclocked

[mlee 2500]

Must be nice having a monopoly in the data-center, and very little real competition on the desktop.

Intel has no real competition at the desktop level? What? The first generation of Ryzen was released that got Intel running for cover. Have you not been keeping up with current events the past 15 months? Regarding server level CPUs, AMD does not have the R&D funds to get there to match competition. Yet.

Ryzen's success long term may change that long term. Also keep in mind AMD is the only microprocessor company that is split three ways developing and producing a CPU, GPU, and APU (specifically PS4/XB1 console APUs). Neither Intel nor Nvidia do all three at the desktop/laptop/console level.

People have been saying that every decade or so since the 80's. Cyrix or Via anybody? I'm not saying nobody ever enters the market with an x86 chip. Just that the best anyone does is briefly achieve rough performance parity for a few years before disappearing entirely. That's different from being competitive.

I don't think that it's even remotely reasonable to compare Cyrix and Via to AMD. First, AMD started about 2 decades earlier than either Cyrix or Via.

Second, AMD has not only been near or at parity with Intel in the past, but at some point had actually surpassed them, performance-wise, at least in the Thunderbird Athlon and Duron, during the Pentium 3/Pentium 4 transition era. If there were other times that they'd outdone Intel, I don't know, as I was sort of out of the PC game in general for several years.

Your assessment is way off.

Did AMD slack off for a while? Yes. But then again, so did Intel - not to mention their slipping up a bit in the late P3 early P4 days.

Except that when Intel "slacks" they still have over 90% of all sockets, >80% of the PC's at their worst. When AMD slacks, they're not even in the market. There's no "assessment" that's wrong...it's empirical, historical fact.

Real competition would be great, but as anyone who bought thousands of Opeteron servers in the early 2000's will tell you, all that price-pressure on Intel is fleeting if the "competition" doesn't stick around, and the folks that got burned are allot more hesitant to play that game again.

 

[King_V]

Must be nice having a monopoly in the data-center, and very little real competition on the desktop.

Intel has no real competition at the desktop level? What? The first generation of Ryzen was released that got Intel running for cover. Have you not been keeping up with current events the past 15 months? Regarding server level CPUs, AMD does not have the R&D funds to get there to match competition. Yet.

Ryzen's success long term may change that long term. Also keep in mind AMD is the only microprocessor company that is split three ways developing and producing a CPU, GPU, and APU (specifically PS4/XB1 console APUs). Neither Intel nor Nvidia do all three at the desktop/laptop/console level.

People have been saying that every decade or so since the 80's. Cyrix or Via anybody? I'm not saying nobody ever enters the market with an x86 chip. Just that the best anyone does is briefly achieve rough performance parity for a few years before disappearing entirely. That's different from being competitive.

I don't think that it's even remotely reasonable to compare Cyrix and Via to AMD. First, AMD started about 2 decades earlier than either Cyrix or Via.

Second, AMD has not only been near or at parity with Intel in the past, but at some point had actually surpassed them, performance-wise, at least in the Thunderbird Athlon and Duron, during the Pentium 3/Pentium 4 transition era. If there were other times that they'd outdone Intel, I don't know, as I was sort of out of the PC game in general for several years.

Your assessment is way off.

Did AMD slack off for a while? Yes. But then again, so did Intel - not to mention their slipping up a bit in the late P3 early P4 days.

Except that when Intel "slacks" they still have over 90% of all sockets, >80% of the PC's at their worst. When AMD slacks, they're not even in the market. There's no "assessment" that's wrong...it's empirical, historical fact.

Real competition would be great, but as anyone who bought thousands of Opeteron servers in the early 2000's will tell you, all that price-pressure on Intel is fleeting if the "competition" doesn't stick around, and the folks that got burned are allot more hesitant to play that game again.

Huh, these graphs seem to suggest you're exaggerating rather enormously.

https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=5CZ&channel=fs&biw=2022&bih=1325&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=d6oiW5eOM6rb5gK8jJewAg&q=cpu+market+share+by+year&oq=cpu+market+share+by+year&gs_l=img.12...0.0.0.72137.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.img..0.0.0....0.jdJULjUgnr0

 

[mlee 2500]

Must be nice having a monopoly in the data-center, and very little real competition on the desktop.

Intel has no real competition at the desktop level? What? The first generation of Ryzen was released that got Intel running for cover. Have you not been keeping up with current events the past 15 months? Regarding server level CPUs, AMD does not have the R&D funds to get there to match competition. Yet.

Ryzen's success long term may change that long term. Also keep in mind AMD is the only microprocessor company that is split three ways developing and producing a CPU, GPU, and APU (specifically PS4/XB1 console APUs). Neither Intel nor Nvidia do all three at the desktop/laptop/console level.

People have been saying that every decade or so since the 80's. Cyrix or Via anybody? I'm not saying nobody ever enters the market with an x86 chip. Just that the best anyone does is briefly achieve rough performance parity for a few years before disappearing entirely. That's different from being competitive.

I don't think that it's even remotely reasonable to compare Cyrix and Via to AMD. First, AMD started about 2 decades earlier than either Cyrix or Via.

Second, AMD has not only been near or at parity with Intel in the past, but at some point had actually surpassed them, performance-wise, at least in the Thunderbird Athlon and Duron, during the Pentium 3/Pentium 4 transition era. If there were other times that they'd outdone Intel, I don't know, as I was sort of out of the PC game in general for several years.

Your assessment is way off.

Did AMD slack off for a while? Yes. But then again, so did Intel - not to mention their slipping up a bit in the late P3 early P4 days.

Except that when Intel "slacks" they still have over 90% of all sockets, >80% of the PC's at their worst. When AMD slacks, they're not even in the market. There's no "assessment" that's wrong...it's empirical, historical fact.

Real competition would be great, but as anyone who bought thousands of Opeteron servers in the early 2000's will tell you, all that price-pressure on Intel is fleeting if the "competition" doesn't stick around, and the folks that got burned are allot more hesitant to play that game again.

Huh, these graphs seem to suggest you're exaggerating rather enormously.

https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=5CZ&channel=fs&biw=2022&bih=1325&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=d6oiW5eOM6rb5gK8jJewAg&q=cpu+market+share+by+year&oq=cpu+market+share+by+year&gs_l=img.12...0.0.0.72137.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.img..0.0.0....0.jdJULjUgnr0

They suggest to ME that YOU can look at a charts which overwhelmingly demonstrate AMD's failure to be competitive for decades, and instead focus on my numbers being off by ~10% because you have nothing else.

Now go look at them again, and ask yourself who's exaggerating when you say that AMD has "Intel running for cover".

 

[King_V]

No.

Except that when Intel "slacks" they still have over 90% of all sockets, >80% of the PC's at their worst.

Ergo, at Intel's worst, AMD had less than 20%, according to your statement.

Intel's best had them at just over 80%.

At Intel's WORST, AMD had just short of 50% - so, about 2.5 times what you indicated.

AMD, at their WORST, had what you said was the best they had.

But, this:

Do you mean to say that numbers I provided without any research at all

is the problem. You engaged in fanboy-ism by doing that, and you just admitted it. You simply spit out numbers without having any clue how accurate or inaccurate they were.

You try to play number games by saying they were off by less than 10%. You can only say that if you try to very narrowly tailor what you stated Intel's best was versus their actual best, and only by using absolute rather than relative percentages.

But, again, by the same standard you use, AMD could've only had 19% at Intel's worst (because you said Intel had over 80%). Let's even call it 20% (or 19.999 etc) since you said >80% for Intel, and that could cover 80.0000001%.

Just visually, I'll ballpark AMD's peak share at 48%. That means AMD's actual share at Intel's worst was 240% of what your statement would indicate.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@King_V ahaha, did he actually that? The "without any research" bit, seems to have edited it out of his post if he did. If so, wow, what a response to being proven wrong. 'The numbers I stated may have been incorrect, but that's only because I made them up without knowing what I'm talking about!'

Smh...

 

[mlee 2500]

No.

Except that when Intel "slacks" they still have over 90% of all sockets, >80% of the PC's at their worst.

Ergo, at Intel's worst, AMD had less than 20%, according to your statement.

Intel's best had them at just over 80%.

At Intel's WORST, AMD had just short of 50% - so, about 2.5 times what you indicated.

AMD, at their WORST, had what you said was the best they had.

But, this:

Do you mean to say that numbers I provided without any research at all

is the problem. You engaged in fanboy-ism by doing that, and you just admitted it. You simply spit out numbers without having any clue how accurate or inaccurate they were.

You try to play number games by saying they were off by less than 10%. You can only say that if you try to very narrowly tailor what you stated Intel's best was versus their actual best, and only by using absolute rather than relative percentages.

But, again, by the same standard you use, AMD could've only had 19% at Intel's worst (because you said Intel had over 80%). Let's even call it 20% (or 19.999 etc) since you said >80% for Intel, and that could cover 80.0000001%.

Just visually, I'll ballpark AMD's peak share at 48%. That means AMD's actual share at Intel's worst was 240% of what your statement would indicate.

Fair Enough! I'll totally concede that I should not have used specific unsupported numbers.

I also contend, and to my single, sole point throughout this thread, that AMD has never represented lasting, real competition to Intel. And that all the data and numbers being referred to overwhelming support that conclusion.

You can call me a fan-boy if you like, but that's hardly the case.

 

[King_V]

@King_V ahaha, did he actually that? The "without any research" bit, seems to have edited it out of his post if he did. If so, wow, what a response to being proven wrong. 'The numbers I stated may have been incorrect, but that's only because I made them up without knowing what I'm talking about!'

Smh...

Fair Enough! I'll totally concede that I should not have used specific unsupported numbers.

I also contend, and to my single, sole point throughout this thread, that AMD has never represented lasting, real competition to Intel. And that all the data and numbers being referred to overwhelming support that conclusion.

You can call me a fan-boy if you like, but that's hardly the case.

The data do not support that - because if they never represented lasting, real competition to Intel, they likely would've gone out of the CPU market, wouldn't they?

You seem to have an overly stringent definition of competition. But, if they sent Intel scrambling recently, that's clearly something.

I think others have mentioned it, and I, like them, thought Intel was developing things more slowly and cautiously, but had their better products in the pipeline to smack down AMD if they ever picked up the pace in the CPU market. Clearly, that's not the case.

Plus, I don't expect AMD's market share to gain and Intel's to drop significantly in the short period of time that Ryzen has existed.

 

[giovanni86]

No.

Except that when Intel "slacks" they still have over 90% of all sockets, >80% of the PC's at their worst.

Ergo, at Intel's worst, AMD had less than 20%, according to your statement.

Intel's best had them at just over 80%.

At Intel's WORST, AMD had just short of 50% - so, about 2.5 times what you indicated.

AMD, at their WORST, had what you said was the best they had.

But, this:

Do you mean to say that numbers I provided without any research at all

is the problem. You engaged in fanboy-ism by doing that, and you just admitted it. You simply spit out numbers without having any clue how accurate or inaccurate they were.

You try to play number games by saying they were off by less than 10%. You can only say that if you try to very narrowly tailor what you stated Intel's best was versus their actual best, and only by using absolute rather than relative percentages.

But, again, by the same standard you use, AMD could've only had 19% at Intel's worst (because you said Intel had over 80%). Let's even call it 20% (or 19.999 etc) since you said >80% for Intel, and that could cover 80.0000001%.

Just visually, I'll ballpark AMD's peak share at 48%. That means AMD's actual share at Intel's worst was 240% of what your statement would indicate.

Fair Enough! I'll totally concede that I should not have used specific unsupported numbers.

I also contend, and to my single, sole point throughout this thread, that AMD has never represented lasting, real competition to Intel. And that all the data and numbers being referred to overwhelming support that conclusion.

You can call me a fan-boy if you like, but that's hardly the case.

2005. AMD beat intel. It was a fact. Go check the history books, i owned a AMD athlon 64. They trumped the P4's at the time. Took intel a few years before AMD went out of view.