Question What happened with Intel?

[Endre]

Hello!

I’m on an Intel platform and for the majority of my life I’ve been an Intel fanboy.
But what happened with Intel?

AMD is boasting about launching CPUs with 16-32-64 cores, being run smartly by Lisa Su, while Intel continues to release 14nm CPUs with 8-10 cores that won’t be able to compete against new CPUs from AMD!
Intel 10th gen seems to be a failour right from the beginning!
Intel is no longer relevant!
Intel seems to be run by weak minded leaders (to say the least).

What are your thoughts on this matter?

 

[ohio_buckeye]

I'm more of an AMD fan so keep that in mind. But I think personally that Intel over time got used to being in the lead, and delivered incremental upgrades, just enough to appease everyone. My thinking is that they got kind of lazy and more concerned about profits.

I also feel that AMD laid an egg with FX. I feel that when they released Ryzen, that intel did not see that coming. Or at least not to that point. Now that AMD has been able to start getting market share and getting some cash, the fight is on. Intel is defintely not dead. They are a far larger company than AMD is. So in my view, if AMD is smart, they need to keep punching and not give intel a leg up. But they probably learned some hard lessons the last few years.

It will be interesting to see. But you can see how intel has been scrambling to get new products out with more cores etc. It seems like they didn't really get interested there until Ryzen. But at that point they had to respond somehow. In the end, competition is better for both sides.

 

[USAFRet]

You're looking at one single comparison. Intel is much more than simple consumer grade CPU's.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/stock-comparison?s=revenue&axis=single&comp=INTC:AMD

They're doing just fine.

 

[Newtonius]

In terms of CPU popularity only:

It is what it is. Not to dwell too much on the past, but AMD has achieved a milestone in their technology and have played it humbly. These new chips were so successful that AMD was completely unprepared by the sheer amount of praise and orders that came to them. Their new line-up of chips had stocks that were depleted over and over again and that was simply because, as AMD stated, "we didn't expect the response to be so positive". Or something along those lines.

Intel on the other hand has no more room to keep going with 14nm and are stuck on the +++ refresh of the same fab. A bad time that happens to giants who grow comfortable at the top of the mountain.

To me personally, I'm happy to see competition between the two, it means cheaper prices all around. My first ever build was AMD, albeit the 8350 which is now undergoing a lawsuit, but I'm the kind of guy who buys what's practical for the price. And right now, it's AMD that delivers.

P.S you can see in my signature that I use both AMD and Intel. If AMD was as good back then as it is now, my server CPU would've been AMD.

P.P.S Intel still has other areas in the industry that AMD has no foothold in competition, if anything AMD still has to rely on intel for certain features and micro-architecture.

 

[QwerkyPengwen]

I agree that competition is important for both sides and most importantly the consumer.

I however, don't care either way and will just go with whatever is a couple generations older on the used market for a much lower price.

I am however kind of excited with what AMD is doing though and hope that they do with their GPU's what they've done with their CPU's and start punching above their weight class.

I expect to see high end GPU's from AMD for a better price than Nvidia that matches high end Nvidia in the next couple years, but I am also expecting the GPU's to run hot and pull a lot of power to run that well, so I am personally gonna wait a few years to see what happens and if it ends up being AMD that starts winning performance benchmarks AND can do it with low heat output and power draw just like with Pascal, then I will probably upgrade from my 1080 Ti at that point LOL.

My next CPU upgrade when my 6700K starts to become irrelevant will most likely be a Ryzen CPU.
Probably 4000 series as my 6700K will still easily last me until 6000 series at the very least right now (and I will totally buy the 4000 series chip second hand for a much lower price LOL cuz I'm cheap like that)

 

[Endre]

You're looking at one single comparison. Intel is much more than simple consumer grade CPU's.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/stock-comparison?s=revenue&axis=single&comp=INTC:AMD

They're doing just fine.

Yes, but isn’t strange that now we must recommend AMD CPUs instead of Intel ones? (Desktop, workstations & servers).

 

[Endre]

In terms of CPU popularity only:

It is what it is. Not to dwell too much on the past, but AMD has achieved a milestone in their technology and have played it humbly. These new chips were so successful that AMD was completely unprepared by the sheer amount of praise and orders that came to them. Their new line-up of chips had stocks that were depleted over and over again and that was simply because, as AMD stated, "we didn't expect the response to be so positive". Or something along those lines.

Intel on the other hand has no more room to keep going with 14nm and are stuck on the +++ refresh of the same fab. A bad time that happens to giants who grow comfortable at the top of the mountain.

To me personally, I'm happy to see competition between the two, it means cheaper prices all around. My first ever build was AMD, albeit the 8350 which is now undergoing a lawsuit, but I'm the kind of guy who buys what's practical for the price. And right now, it's AMD that delivers.

P.S you can see in my signature that I use both AMD and Intel. If AMD was as good back then as it is now, my server CPU would've been AMD.

P.P.S Intel still has other areas in the industry that AMD has no foothold in competition, if anything AMD still has to rely on intel for certain features and micro-architecture.

My first PC, from 2004, had an AMD CPU too! AMD Duron 950MHz. 😀

 

[ohio_buckeye]

Don't be so proud of that LOLOL. That said, I'm on an ASRock ab350 pro 4 board. Running a ryzen 7 1700x I picked up used from a friend for around 100 dollars. It's now overclocked to 3.8ghz, and will probably serve until I upgrade to a 4000 series cpu. It's amazing the amount of performance you can buy for little money today.

I was looking yesterday, you can buy on eBay an older Dell tower with an i7 3770 and 8gb of ram for about 150. If you took a system like that, upgraded the power supply, went to 16gb of ram, and maybe a 1650 super, or a 1660 or something along those lines, you'd have a still serviceable system for a little while I would think.

 

[USAFRet]

Yes, but isn’t strange that now we must recommend AMD CPUs instead of Intel ones? (Desktop, workstations & servers).

There is no "must".
I recommend what works for a particular user.
Might be Intel, might be AMD.

 

[QwerkyPengwen]

Yes, but isn’t strange that now we must recommend AMD CPUs instead of Intel ones? (Desktop, workstations & servers).

Sounds like you are too young to know this, but AMD was the first one to release a dual core CPU, and for the longest time AMD had the better CPU's with more power and at a better price than Intel.

But that slowly changed, and it just took AMD all this time to make a comeback.

But AMD was the first and they were the King.

And with Lisa Su at the helm now, they are taking back the crown and throne from Intel to put it rightfully where it belongs on top of their head and under their butt.

AMD also used to have the better GPU's too, and again, that slowly got taken away by Nvidia, but again, with Lisa Su at the helm, that's gonna probably change.

 

[Newtonius]

Yes, but isn’t strange that now we must recommend AMD CPUs instead of Intel ones? (Desktop, workstations & servers).

It's not a must, pure hardcore gamers will benefit from intel over AMD due to intel's superior single core performance. AMD has better multi-core performance and thus productivity is highly recommended with AMD now, which is what they're well known for even since the beginning.

Depending on someone's needs, recommending which brand will still differ but for those who want both gaming and work AMD is where the money and performance is at currently.

 

[drea.drechsler]

...
What are your thoughts on this matter?

Put your head back in the days when the best AMD had was a water-cooled 4/8 core power hog based on Excavator and their sales year-on-year were steadily dropping against an Intel product lineup that had commanding performance leads at all price points in all segments.

Consider also that a new architecture and process node each are major capital investment. It's going to be really, really hard to make a business case that will convince the board of the major investments needed to drop the (even then failing) efforts at 10nm. After all, there's all those other divisions that don't have the same kind of monopoly and need the investment in the face of real competition. It's pretty simple, just milk the cash cow and build up the other areas while you wait for AMD to finally cave.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

We'll see if they do cave. The other part of it is that AMD is starting to get more market share. In fact, if I recall, I think Microsoft is beginning to use some of their epyc and Rome CPUs in azure data centers. Which are basically server versions of ryzen. Plus Intel was having supply problems a few months back. If these things keep up, AMD is here to stay.

But I've been around a while and AMD always seems to come back. My first computer was a commodore 64 at 5 years old. My first PC was an AMD K6 200 MHz way back in the day. I remember dad and I looking at Pentium 2 400mhz CPUs and they were like 400 dollars at Microcenter, and there was no way we were going to get that. We went to Best Buy, and they were having a sale on AMD K6-2 chips. 100 bucks for 450 MHz. Back in the day man, that was speed if anyone else remembers that. One of my favorite games was lords of the realm from Sierra way way back, and Sid Meier's Gettysburg. Similar to the ultimate general games, but better.

As far as ipc, they are right there with them now. If they can market properly and capitalize on the opportunity they've got, I think they are going to do well. Having the new Xbox and ps5 based on their current products is sure not going to hurt either.

 

[drea.drechsler]

We'll see if they do cave....

I don't think they will And the reason for that is Lisa Su; she seems to be what AMD never had before, which was a forward-looking CEO mapping a 15 year future for the corporation.

But what people don't seem to realize is that what makes Ryzen, or more precisely Zen2, so revolutionary is the manufacturing efficiences the chiplet design brings. They can get fabulous yields on each (very expensive) 7nm wafer even in early manufacturing runs, just bin the chiplets to the right SKU. That's why they can sell these things so cheaply, helping to get back market they lost during FX.

 

[InvalidError]

The main thing that happened to Intel is 10nm getting delayed by 3+ years and the process still not being up to speed yet. Can't make significantly more advanced architectures without a more advanced process to maintain similar clocks while keeping TDP in check.

 

[drea.drechsler]

Sounds like you are too young to know this, but AMD was the first one to release a dual core CPU, and for the longest time AMD had the better CPU's with more power and at a better price than Intel.
...

And AMD's AM-64 architecture displaced Intel's IA-64, Itanium. And AMD came with the first high-performance bus, Hypertransport. And AMD was first to take the memory controller onboard the CPU to improve performance.

AMD has been a major inovator at least as much as Intel. When you're an innovator you are taking chances so the FX debacle has to be put in context. Don't ever forget Intel brought us Pentium Pro's and Netburst.

The real story with the FX was how hard it was for AMD to recover and the reasons they lacked the resources to recover as rapidly as Intel did with Netburst.

 

[Endre]

Sounds like you are too young to know this, but AMD was the first one to release a dual core CPU, and for the longest time AMD had the better CPU's with more power and at a better price than Intel.

But that slowly changed, and it just took AMD all this time to make a comeback.

But AMD was the first and they were the King.

And with Lisa Su at the helm now, they are taking back the crown and throne from Intel to put it rightfully where it belongs on top of their head and under their butt.

AMD also used to have the better GPU's too, and again, that slowly got taken away by Nvidia, but again, with Lisa Su at the helm, that's gonna probably change.

Intel is the original CPU company.
Intel was founded in 1968 and they invented the x86 microprocessors.

AMD was founded in 1969.

Intel starded making CPUs for IBM in 1981 and made AMD their second-source manufacturer for the x86 microprocessors.

AMD created the first x64 processor in 2003: Athlon 64.

AMD was always on “more cores” while Intel w relied on “faster speeds per core”.
But today AMD matches Intel in speed per core too!
AMD has the more advanced technologies now: PCIe 4.0; 7nm process etc.

We’ll see who wins the fight by 2025!

 

[drea.drechsler]

....
We’ll see who wins the fight by 2025!
...

With competition back, we, the consumers are winning.

One other thing that's hard to ignore about the timeline of innovation and lowered cost for the consumer in the desktop CPU market is those periods in which CPU performance per dollar was high low and innovation lagged were periods when AMD was in decline.

Without competition it's hard to justify the big investments needed for innovation.

EDITED: made a correction

 

[ohio_buckeye]

I don't think you will see who wins by 2025. I think that a few years ago a lot of people were thinking we were hitting the limits. Obviously not though.

 

[USAFRet]

I don't think you will see who wins by 2025. I think that a few years ago a lot of people were thinking we were hitting the limits. Obviously not though.

We've always been 'hitting the limit'.

Drives could never go over 1TB per platter.
"DO NOT buy a new computer WITHOUT a CD-ROM/Sound Card combo"
"No-one, and I mean no-one NEEDS a Pentium, at least not at home."
etc
etc

 

[ohio_buckeye]

What's wild, I remember hearing years ago, there being talk that we'd have to stay using motherboards with fiber optic on them because copper was hitting it's limits and they didn't think they could transmit much more data across it. That has probably been 20 years ago lol.

 

[drea.drechsler]

I don't think you will see who wins by 2025. I think that a few years ago a lot of people were thinking we were hitting the limits. Obviously not though.

Even if they have for IPC or clock speeds (the traditional ways of improving performance) they'll just give us more performance in other ways. Like focusing on better power management to keep package thermals in check along with modular designs allowing crazy core/thread counts even while keeping manufacturing costs in control.

 

[drea.drechsler]

...
"No-one, and I mean no-one NEEDS a Pentium, at least not at home."
...

That one's really funny...and says volumes about where we are now. Microsoft alone made fast processors necessary with their steady stream of 'improvements' placing increasingly heavy burdens on the system just 'at the prompt'. Linux users tried to quell that beast, but they have failed.

Only too recently people claimed "you'll never need more than 4 cores and 4Gb memory", now they're saying "6 cores/12 threads and 16Gb is as much as you'll need even for AAA titles gaming". Yet even today just clicking around in Windows you can feel the difference with 8 cores/16 threads. With two monitors, two or three web browsers open with half a dozen tabs each it's especially noticeable. So much so even the much ridiculed user who buys a system just for browsing the web can be excused for wanting one, especially since the cost is so low now.

 

[xravenxdota]

Think is.Intel has brand loyalty fans doesn't matter what s@#t they sell people will buy it.Intel charge you a premium for Hyperthreading, 5ghz etc etc.Where amd all cpu's are unlocked.Intel actually made people believe you can't have more than 4c on a desktop cpu.Ryzen beg them differ.On a neutral point i wasn't impressed with the 3xxx models cept for the 3950x and the new threadripper as i see no need to upgrade from a r5 2600 to an r5 3600 in 1440p.Like i say the wheels have turned for all there scaly tactics some years ago.I won't count them out But...They losing to a company at the moment that has 5% of there R&D budget

Not all is bad as a 8700k are still a solid performer(i hate the 9900k and ks)not worth the price then you might as well get a 3950x.Even on there budget options you can get a 9100f and a 9400f for next to nothing these days.But again i will add a few bucks and get a r5 2600 which has HT.So intel only has themselves to blame for releasing products with high prices.Intel even said amd's not real world performance.They actually measured performance on MS excvel.Like really.....Intels hurt and they are desperate and they will feed people s@#t and people will eat it.....That's just my point of view.

 

[drea.drechsler]

...
They losing to a company at the moment that has 5% of there R&D budget
...

Be careful about that comparison. As previously noted, Intel is far more than just a microprocessor company so R&D costs encompass a lot more product developments. And especially, AMD is fabless so process development is a burden of TSMC and Global Foundries (their principle if not only wafer suppliers). Not knowing much about wafer agreements, I'd say that AMD bears a share of those costs in their raw material costs and not as a part of their R&D.

Don't compare apples to oranges.