News Report: AMD Chip Shortage Caused by Packaging Issues, PlayStation 5

gdmaclew

Distinguished
May 20, 2008
1,444
19
19,465
97
Please tell me how "AMD's Zen-3 based Ryzen 5000 series CPUs are flying off the shelves faster than AMD can make them ".
That's not physically possible. Maybe you should have said they are flying off the shelves as fast as AMD can make them.
 

jkflipflop98

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2006
1,497
43
19,320
3
Please tell me how "AMD's Zen-3 based Ryzen 5000 series CPUs are flying off the shelves faster than AMD can make them ".
That's not physically possible. Maybe you should have said they are flying off the shelves as fast as AMD can make them.

That would depend on our definition of "fast", wouldn't it?

If we surmise that AMD chips average less than 1KPH on the production line, but fly off the shelf at a speed of 15KPH, they would indeed be flying off the shelf faster than they were made.

Or maybe AMD is just really bad at putting together shelving. In which case, the processors are flying off said shelves faster than AMD can put together new ones.
 

Jesse_20

Honorable
Dec 11, 2015
466
5
10,965
93
Please tell me how "AMD's Zen-3 based Ryzen 5000 series CPUs are flying off the shelves faster than AMD can make them ".
That's not physically possible. Maybe you should have said they are flying off the shelves as fast as AMD can make them.
Sure it is. It takes months to fully build a CPU, whereas it took moments for it to disappear from the shelf. That's technically "Faster".
 

gdmaclew

Distinguished
May 20, 2008
1,444
19
19,465
97
That would depend on our definition of "fast", wouldn't it?

If we surmise that AMD chips average less than 1KPH on the production line, but fly off the shelf at a speed of 15KPH, they would indeed be flying off the shelf faster than they were made.

Or maybe AMD is just really bad at putting together shelving. In which case, the processors are flying off said shelves faster than AMD can put together new ones.
No it wouldn't. I stated "as fast as" as a comparative not a measurement of velocity.
 

HideOut

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
405
11
18,795
1
So its the PS5's fault? I mean the Xbox twins both use this basic silicon too. And they (well at least the series X) arn't available either. But its the fault of 1 item? The series X is even more difficult to get.
 

Chung Leong

Prominent
Dec 6, 2019
333
93
760
0
Please tell me how "AMD's Zen-3 based Ryzen 5000 series CPUs are flying off the shelves faster than AMD can make them ".
That's not physically possible. Maybe you should have said they are flying off the shelves as fast as AMD can make them.
From an aerodynamic standpoint, both scenarios are impossible.
 
Reactions: Jesse_20

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
This is why I disagree with the investors that say Intel should go FABless. TSMC is at capacity, although they are building more FABs but that will take time to build, equip and spin up. AMD now is at the mercy of TSMCs capacity unless they go elsewhere for additional capacity but then you are playing a dangerous game since it would be a different process tech that may not perform the same way as TSMCs.
 

Jesse_20

Honorable
Dec 11, 2015
466
5
10,965
93
This is why I disagree with the investors that say Intel should go FABless. TSMC is at capacity, although they are building more FABs but that will take time to build, equip and spin up. AMD now is at the mercy of TSMCs capacity unless they go elsewhere for additional capacity but then you are playing a dangerous game since it would be a different process tech that may not perform the same way as TSMCs.
And then you also have the parts necessary for the fabs to create chips, which are now at a premium as well. More fabs, no matter who owns them, isn't going to help if the supply to build the chips themselves is lacking. Fabs are just the process.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
And then you also have the parts necessary for the fabs to create chips, which are now at a premium as well. More fabs, no matter who owns them, isn't going to help if the supply to build the chips themselves is lacking. Fabs are just the process.
I guess this is good news for Intel in that when AMD can't supply the needed chips they will go to Intel to obtain what they need.

But its bad news for us. We need AMD to be competitive and to be competitive they need to be able to design and provide the products. Strangely I did see this sort of coming. A single FAB can only handle so much. TSMC has AMD CPUs/GPUs, nVidia GPUs, Apple CPUs and many other customers.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
But its bad news for us. We need AMD to be competitive and to be competitive they need to be able to design and provide the products.
Companies exist to make money and industry-wide shortages are great for companies: they don't need to be competitive when everything they are able to manufacture sells out instantly regardless of price or relative performance. That's an ideal market for them.
 

Groveling_Wyrm

Distinguished
Looking back to the industrial revolution, this exact type of situation happened. Companies became dependent on other companies. Looking at what the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts and other rail magnates did in the 1820-1920's is that they absorbed other companies and made their own products. This is the same business plan that Intel has, by keeping it all in-house. AMD is now feeling the pain of their decision to separate from Glo-flo and go with TSMC. They have no choice but to rely upon TSMC now.

It is now very likely that TSMC will increase the cost of their products, to offset the cost of purchasing new fabs to increase production. Be ready to pay more for your Ryzens....
 
Reactions: purple_dragon

travsb1984

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2011
12
3
18,515
0
Please tell me how "AMD's Zen-3 based Ryzen 5000 series CPUs are flying off the shelves faster than AMD can make them ".
That's not physically possible. Maybe you should have said they are flying off the shelves as fast as AMD can make them.
"faster" is a rate. Your logic is assuming its a summation. I'll simplify... A store gets a shipment of processors, it then sells them in 1 week but it'll take AMD 2 weeks to make enough processors for a second order. Therefore the processors were sold "faster" then AMD could make them. If you're going to troll on grammatical errors you should always triple check yourself before hitting post to avoid looking really bad...
 

Jesse_20

Honorable
Dec 11, 2015
466
5
10,965
93
I guess this is good news for Intel in that when AMD can't supply the needed chips they will go to Intel to obtain what they need.

But its bad news for us. We need AMD to be competitive and to be competitive they need to be able to design and provide the products. Strangely I did see this sort of coming. A single FAB can only handle so much. TSMC has AMD CPUs/GPUs, nVidia GPUs, Apple CPUs and many other customers.
Intel is now going under because of the very fact that they still do all manufacturing in house. The price of Fab/Node research is existential to maintain. Intel ultimately could not support the research, and now they have seriously fallen behind AMD.
But you might have misunderstood my other statement about supply. The actual components that go into producing the microchip (Silicon, transistors, packaging... all the core components necessary are now in short supply world-wide. This means Intel is just as affected as someone like TSMC. Probably more, considering TSMC's market share in microchip production.
 
Intel is now going under because of the very fact that they still do all manufacturing in house. The price of Fab/Node research is existential to maintain. Intel ultimately could not support the research, and now they have seriously fallen behind AMD.
Intel is making twice the money the last three years, if they are going under it's not now, they might be in a few years but now they are doing better than ever and multiple times better than AMD.

Profit margin for intel paying oh so much for their FABs is 28% while AMD being smart about it and paying TSMC has a 10% margin.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/profit-margins

Also we have no idea what intel has and how far behind or ahead they are in technology, right now switching to 10nm can only mean less money for intel or in the best case the same amount of money so just the fact that they aren't releasing it doesn't tell us anything.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
Intel is now going under because of the very fact that they still do all manufacturing in house. The price of Fab/Node research is existential to maintain. Intel ultimately could not support the research, and now they have seriously fallen behind AMD.
But you might have misunderstood my other statement about supply. The actual components that go into producing the microchip (Silicon, transistors, packaging... all the core components necessary are now in short supply world-wide. This means Intel is just as affected as someone like TSMC. Probably more, considering TSMC's market share in microchip production.
Intel going under? They made $73 billion last year (2019). They have their hands in more than just CPUs. They are far from going under.
 

JayNor

Prominent
May 31, 2019
214
33
610
0
Intel ultimately could not support the research, and now they have seriously fallen behind AMD.

Recent rumors say Intel is building Xe-HPG GPUs on TSMC N6, and already has parts back in the lab. Wouldn't that mean Intel has a processing lead on AMD now?
 

spongiemaster

Commendable
Dec 12, 2019
885
405
1,260
0
Recent rumors say Intel is building Xe-HPG GPUs on TSMC N6, and already has parts back in the lab. Wouldn't that mean Intel has a processing lead on AMD now?
Not until you can buy it. Comparing products on the market to products in development isn't really a useful comparison.
 

Jesse_20

Honorable
Dec 11, 2015
466
5
10,965
93
Sorry... "Going under" would be better read "falling behind". I did not mean to imply they were on the verge of going out of business or into bankruptcy. IT was meant as a comparison to AMD's tech improvements vs Intel's over the past few years.
Intel's woes with 10nm are because they had several issues they were unable to iron out while developing the 10nm process. The need to research this slowed them down and allowed AMD to jump ahead in performance, because they did not have to research and design a new fab technique. They were able to focus on creating a quality product and leaving the manufacturing headaches to someone else.

I understand the desire to build in-house, if for no other reason than to control production from start to end. But this comes at a cost, and was more than Intel could chew on. Now they are suffering the consequences while they look to outsource chips for a bit and narrow the focus as they should have awhile back. Specialization is an expensive luxury...One that Intel was unable to sustain indefinitely.
 

stancilmor

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2013
8
1
18,520
1
Intel going under? They made $73 billion last year (2019). They have their hands in more than just CPUs. They are far from going under.
Intel made $73 billion in 2019 shows the sad state of business. Facebook made over $70 billion in 2019 just from people looking at Facebook (advertising). Intel has done a heroic effort in extending DUV lithography. It's unfortunate that Intel delayed ordering EUV equipment (light sources).

As for solving the supply/demand problem, I'd much rather the manufacturers increase the prices to invent in increased capacity, than the demand be quelled by bots buying up all the supply and selling the items for increased prices. The only solution I see to bots is to slow down the purchasing interface to slower than human speed. This would at least allow the humans to compete with the bots.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS