- Mar 31, 2009
To be fair, back then intel's P4 was complete garbage. It was good in one thing: encoding (but just because of an instruction set advantage). That was also the time where every AMD hater tried to ridicule the FX CPUs, saying that nobody cares about gaming.
Nowadays intel's consumer CPUs have absolutely nothing wrong with them, after the core count catch-up they are actually very good products, they're just poor value compared to AMD's respective offerings (same goes for the 5500XT, it's a damn fine GPU - for $150, not for $200 ffs). Enterprise CPUs have severe security issues, but after mitigations those are just making them to have even poorer value, which seems to be almost entirely offset by their excellent sales team - or should I say sales army?
I'm not completely surprised that things are moving slower than back then, but I'm surprised that sometimes it seems they aren't moving at all
So it appears that the combo of single core advantage and breaking the 4gb barrier that the K8's had, matter/mattered much more than twice the cores and much lower power?
On the server side, Opteron addressed what was becoming a serious issue - the x86 architecture's 4GB memory limit - and Intel didn't have a remotely worthwhile response until Woodcrest, and arguably not even until Nehalem. Rome is good, but unless you need the high core counts it offers, it's not really as overwhelmingly superior as the K8 Opterons were against the mid-2000s Xeons.
On the desktop side, weird as it sounds, I think the fact that such a small percentage of Ryzens have iGPUs is really hurting AMD with OEMs, who aren't going to go to the extra mile of putting together an AMD system with a dGPU when they can save the time and money putting together an Intel system with an iGPU, which will meet the needs of probably 90% of their customers.
I agree that the lack of iGPU hurts AMD in certain segments, but as apparently the server market is both the hardest nut to crack and most lucrative, this is the area where I want to see AMD make gains, so they can become a long term proper rival to Intel.
Hasn't AMD said that they're steadily selling all of the Ryzen parts that they can make? Perhaps there's a few models that are starting to build up a stockpile, but the chiplet-based approach should allow them to make small adjustments to production to some degree to avoid this issue by increasing production to where there's more demand.
We know that they're drastically increasing their wafer purchases from TSMC as that's already been announced. They certainly wouldn't do that if they could satisfy demand with existing production.
Perhaps the simple answer is that they can't gain marketshare any faster than they currently are because they can't sell enough products to do so, at least not in any way where they could have doubled their gains or something that large.
I fear much of the increased wafer purchases they have booked from TSMC will go towards the new consoles coming out in the next 12 months.
It is AMD's own guidance which concerns me the most, as prior to hearing about it, I was fairly sure they would be gaining much more than they seem to think is on the cards.
EPYC's contribution to AMD's revenue is rather lethargic, so far. But, they claim to be on track for 10% marketshare by mid-year, and the road from 10% to 20% can be very quick, if history is any guide. Back in April 2006, the Opteron processor marked its third anniversary with 22% share. Former AMD CEO Hector Ruiz had predicted that Opteron would exit 2004 with 10%, over one and a half years after launch, which didn't happen, and he set a new target for 12% by the end of 2005. They reached 11% in 2005-Q2 already. It then doubled from there in less than a year.
I'll feel a lot more relaxed about AMD's long term prospects if and when they hit 10% server marketshare, but didn't the latest guidance from them, predict that this will be a ways off yet?