Makaveli
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2002
- 4,718
- 1,054
- 136
Not really. We're only talking about high-performance desktops, mostly DIY.
That is the market I'm talking about most of us on this site not the general public.
Not really. We're only talking about high-performance desktops, mostly DIY.
AMD has filed a patent for cooling a 3D stacked memory with thermo-electric coolers.Agreed, though I think TECs may actually be a way to fix the problem through y-axis cooling. Not your bog standard eBay TEC, but actually a set of tiny TECs composed of only a few thermocouples each set up in tile configuration and mounted on top of each die. AMD CPUs at least have a large network of temp sensors on each die which allows them to pinpoint hotspots (and accurately report those temps to monitoring software). All you would have to do is cycle current towards the tile on top of the hotspot to aid in rapid dissipating of heat from that locality. It would shift the hotspot away from the die and towards the IHS. TECs are usually hideously inefficient, but I suspect the power/mm2 will be low enough at individual hotspots that activating a few thermocouples in the same area wouldn't chew up that much power. It's something Intel should probably look at since I think their R&D capabilities are potentially much stronger than AMD's (at least from a budget perspective). They don't need it for 14nm, but we haven't seen their 7nm process yet.
Sure. But you're decorating this with a general "Intel is in trouble".That is the market I'm talking about most of us on this site not the general public.
I see it this way:Sure. But you're decorating this with a general "Intel is in trouble".
DIY is not a priority niche for Intel - hasn't been for a while.
They're focusing on mobile designs - also giving them the early 10nm supply - simply because that's where investing makes more sense.
But now, with AMD finally launching 7N mobile chips, Intel would gladly give away all their DIY sales just to defend their mobile market dominance.
And they probably will. At least until they can afford to make desktop chips on the cutting edge node.
Keep in mind they're doing strategic and financial planning for the next 10 years or more. Losing the DIY segment for few years is obviously a blow, but not the end of the world. Especially if they can make more money elsewhere.
Where am I wrong ?
Intel sells its products primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and original design manufacturers (ODMs). In addition, Intel products are sold to makers of industrial and communications equipment.
Its customers also include those who buy PC components and other products through distributor, reseller, retail, and OEM channels. Intel's worldwide reseller sales channel consists of thousands of indirect customers, who are systems builders that purchase microprocessors and other products from distributors.
Intel's three largest customers account for nearly 40% of revenue. They are Dell Technologies, more than 15% of sales, and Lenovo Group and HP Inc., each with about 10%.
I said nothing about Intel being in trouble. See my last sentence. I was saying technical dominance. And I said only if this keeps up, may it change that picture.The fact most OEM's in enterprise sector has secured contracts with Intel, and can offload 5,000 dollar cpu's like hotcakes in bulk quantities.
For every ryzen sold, OEM's have bought 1000 (i3 - i7)
For every EYPC cpu sold, there is probably 100 Xeon which went to OEM vendors.
So you are wrong in your assessment that intel is in trouble.
Here is intel's Sales:
Top Companies for | Find the Company - Vault
Here are your search results. We found a number of top companies offering the types of criteria you specified. Find the company that's right for you.www.vault.com
So mark unless we start seeing a mass exodus in OEM's going over to Ryzen / Threadripper / EYPC which i do not yet, even supermicro has just finally released a EYPC board, your statement is a bit over the top my friend.
Here:Where am I wrong ?
This is the same issue that makes some people struggle to understand why Intel continues to grow despite AMD offering better value.it means that AMD will continue to eat away at the market dominance and if that continues too long, then it could hurt Intel. Right now its a wait and see. Marketing or not, you can;t continue "winning" sales based solely on marketing, at some point you have to be competitive.
Again: you're comparing representatives of what these companies are selling right now.I was saying technical dominance.
Not too long ago, I suggested Intel will cut prices, IF THEY HAVE TO, in order to remain competitive. I nearly got my chewed off. Yet, here we are. AMD cannot win a price war against Intel. Intel won't like it, but they'll cut prices if they're forced to.If AMD can offer an R5 4600 @ $199 with an all-core turbo of 4.3 GHz and a 65W TDP, Intel really is in trouble.
Technical dominance has to be looked at from the perspective of Core vs Core, imho. As it stands, AMD has a node advantage, thanks to TSMC. Core vs Core, Intel is still in the lead according to this:1) Desktop - in every segment but high FPS gaming, AMD has price/performance and performance/watt locked up (as far as technical dominance.)
I agree4) Laptop - With Renoir, AMD competes with Intel 10 nm.
It is certainly not more niche than Cinebench and Blender. In fact, the people who mostly use rendering software professionally, are on HEDT and Workstation systems. And, when it comes to gaming, Intel has a whole squad of capable gaming chips; namely: 4790k, 6700k, 7700k, 8400, 8600k, 8700k, 8086k, 9600k, 9700kx, 9900kx; and now the 10th gen series.So the ONLY thing Intel has a clear lead in, is high FPS gaming, the 9900k. This chip simply ups that, except its even hotter and more power hungry, and 10 cores does not buy you anything in todays games as far as high FPS gaming, and since its harder to cool, and more power hungry, the 9900k might even beat it. (not withstanding upcoming reviews, so with a grain of salt). And BTW, high FPS gaming IS A NICHE
Intel dominates gaming across the board, not just high fps gaming. Also, are you familiar with Intel's boosting profile? The 10900k is going to be boosting more aggresively at every turn than the 9900k. This means, the 10900k will be boosting it's single core all the way to 8 cores higher than the 9900k boosts its cores. This is the same way between the 9900k and 8700kWhere am I wrong ?
Intel is competitive. Yes, they have a power deficit now, but they are still very competitive considering they are still on a five year old architecture. And that, folks, can only mean bad news for future competition.Now this does not mean that I think Intel is in trouble as a company, financially, it means that AMD will continue to eat away at the market dominance and if that continues too long, then it could hurt Intel. Right now its a wait and see. Marketing or not, you can;t continue "winning" sales based solely on marketing, at some point you have to be competitive.
I am not going into detail here, as what you and Zucker2k say does not really refute anything I have said. Aside from the fact that you think nothing will change. You think AMD will never get inroads to OEMS. You think AMD can't make enough CPU's, despite TSMC manufacturing most of the CPU. History tells us that things DO change. I already said it may or may not come to fruition, but, dispute this:Here:
This is the same issue that makes some people struggle to understand why Intel continues to grow despite AMD offering better value.
You compare CPUs based on product specs and price - like a reviewer, not like a financial analyst. You compare a representative of an Intel CPU and a representative of AMD CPU. You don't think about the economy behind it.
These companies aren't competing with infinite supply of CPUs.
Yes, AMD offers better value, wins reviews, has great press. But at this moment AMD can only make enough chips to cover ~5% of server and ~20% of consumer market.
And that's what Intel adjusts their offer for.
They can ask a price that's higher than AMD's - as long as clients are willing to pay. Because if Intel asked 2-3x more than AMD, some consumers would say: "nah, I can use my PC for a bit longer".
(Mind you: enterprises seldom have the luxury of being able to wait, so Intel actually asks 2-3x more for server chips.)
From Intel's perspective: selling 80% consumer CPUs at higher prices can yield (almost surely does) higher profit than selling 90% CPUs at prices that would match AMD's "value" and make Intel look better in reviews.
The most obvious proof of this is that Intel has (significantly) higher margins.
And of course, as AMD's manufacturing potential increases, Intel will have to become competitive on value and performance.
They plan to match AMD this year in mobile and next year in servers. Whether they succeed or not - we'll see soon enough.
High-end gaming desktops, being a low priority segment, has to wait until 2023 or something like that.
However, and that's another thing people forget, as AMD's market share goes up, they'll also raise prices.
I absolutely never said that.I am not going into detail here, as what you and Zucker2k say does not really refute anything I have said. Aside from the fact that you think nothing will change. You think AMD will never get inroads to OEMS.
I seriously don't understand this sentence. You'll have to explain...You think AMD can't make enough CPU's, despite TSMC manufacturing most of the CPU.
Absolutely not.If a company continues to provide an inferior product, eventually it will fail (or lose serious market share and sales)
I just don't understand why you're so emotional about AMD. They're doing all right without your help. And it affects your judgement.
Most of the advantage AMD has right now stems from outsourcing manufacturing to TSMC. But suddenly you start running around and praising their "technical dominance".
English must be a second language to you, so I am not going to try and explain further.I seriously don't understand this sentence. You'll have to explain...
Absolutely not.
Companies fail when they don't make money. Companies default when they don't make money and no one wants to lend them any.
There's no direct connection to quality of products.
Well, it is. And to you?English must be a second language to you, so I am not going to try and explain further.
?Now that is some grade A nonsense. Let's say AMD moved its FX series to the best TSMC had to offer at the time, or if AMD continued developing FX and released it on 7nm TSMC today, it would be a complete joke.
They had a massive crisis for few years. They got back to the expected curve. I'm not going to praise them for that. Sorry.Don't try to pretend that AMD hasn't had some massive success in the CPU market.
Technical dominance has to be looked at from the perspective of Core vs Core, imho. As it stands, AMD has a node advantage, thanks to TSMC. Core vs Core, Intel is still in the lead according to this:
No. That could be called "product dominance" (if you really need to use this word).So, Ryzen 3 roughly matched Coffelake ST throughput with a smaller physical core drawing significantly less power.
In this business that's called technical dominance.
We call this magical thinking, it happens once for one company so it must always happen right?Otherwise im willing to bet there is another Penryn hiding behind closed doors, they are waiting to pop out on us, but now is just not the right moment as its not profitable, nor is the public ready for it.
this wrong and you are wrong.No. That could be called "product dominance" (if you really need to use this word).
Basically, you've just confirmed what he said: Intel and AMD make similarly good architectures and actual advantage (chip size and power draw) is provided by the node.
In other words:
Intel vs AMD: pretty much a draw
Intel vs TSMC: currently solid lead by the latter.
We call this magical thinking, it happens once for one company so it must always happen right?
I can name so many tech companies that by that logic should be massively successful right now but aren't.lol... yeah but you have to ask where the hell did all that RnD funding go?
The RnD funding intel has done was astronomic.
They don't feel the need to launch anything revolutionary. R&D is one thing. Companies like Intel fund development all the time. Sometimes it results in a product, sometimes not. It's always some know-how gain.Otherwise im willing to bet there is another Penryn hiding behind closed doors, they are waiting to pop out on us, but now is just not the right moment as its not profitable, nor is the public ready for it, and they are feeding us the end scraps and fat off penryn until this new chip comes out.
lol... yeah but you have to ask where the hell did all that RnD funding go?
The RnD funding intel has done was astronomic.