Did AMD miss a big opportunity in 2017?

[cbn]

That is not an answer.

That is just more DEFLECTION.

No. I answered your question point blank.

 

[Mockingbird]

No. I answered your question point blank.

No, you didn't.

Colgate sells more toothpaste than any other company in the world.

That still doesn't explain why Kmart shouldn't buy toothpaste from Procter & Gamble.

Likewise, Intel sells more x86 processors than any other company in the world.

That still doesn't explain why Dell shouldn't buy x86 processors from AMD.

 

[mattiasnyc]

No. I answered your question point blank.

"why" was the key word.

 

[cbn]

Likewise, Intel sells more x86 processors than any other company in the world.

That still doesn't explain why Dell shouldn't buy x86 processors from AMD.

Start back at this post again--> https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ortunity-in-2017.2526160/page-3#post-39168435

This post too---> https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ortunity-in-2017.2526160/page-4#post-39172547

 

[cbn]

"why" was the key word.

Oh I get it. He is asking a rhetorical question as he has already provided the answer here-->

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ortunity-in-2017.2526160/page-4#post-39172536

You clearly have ZERO understanding of how to run a business.

Businesses like to have more than one supplier for each type of products they are buying because:

1. If supply from one supplier gets interrupted, business can still get supply from other suppliers.

2. It gives business more power to negotiate prices.

Why waste time asking time asking rhetorical questions?

 

[tamz_msc]

You clearly have ZERO understanding of how to run a business.

Businesses like to have more than one supplier for each type of products they are buying because:

1. If supply from one supplier gets interrupted, business can still get supply from other suppliers.

2. It gives business more power to negotiate prices.

What you're referring to is Apple's business, if Dell could get Intel to supply Iris Pro based CPUs with EDRAM for cheap, we would have seen them in ultrabooks and AIOs already.

Intel will never have interruptions in supplying CPUs to OEMs - how else can they post 60% margins year-after-year. Intel's OEM business for this segment of the market is basically untouchable at this point.

 

[cbn]

Mockingbird,

AMD is small company. They cannot be a strong supplier for too many categories.

You must not realize this because you wrote the following:

Who knows? Maybe there is a huge earthquake that shutdown four of Intel's fabrication plants.

 

[mattiasnyc]

Oh I get it. He is asking a rhetorical question as he has already provided the answer here-->

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ortunity-in-2017.2526160/page-4#post-39172536

I think he's looking for an actual well reasoned argument from you. From what I can see you've only reiterated what you claimed. That's not an argument, that's just reiteration. And I don't think it was rhetorical.

 

[cbn]

I think he's looking for an actual well reasoned argument from you. From what I can see you've only reiterated what you claimed. That's not an argument, that's just reiteration. And I don't think it was rhetorical.

No he understands. Here is a good example:

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ortunity-in-2017.2526160/page-3#post-39170018

Err, what?

The majority of desktop PCs the OEMs (Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer) sell uses integrated graphics.

That doesn't mean that people who buys these computers want slow processors like the A12-9800.

Consumers want Zen in some form over A12-9800, but that doesn't change the fact that anyone who wants a desktop system with better than Intel GT2 graphics will also want a dGPU.

Do you see the problem now? (The APU really doesn't fit anywhere in the consumer space but mobile)

This is one reason I think the only place on desktop for AMD iGPU is workstation (ie, FirePro) graphics.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ortunity-in-2017.2526160/page-3#post-39171721

Plenty of consumers don't need anything better than Intel GT2 Graphics.

So even Mockingbird can agree there isn't much purpose to having these consumer APUs in desktops.

 

[Mockingbird]

I don't think I am going to reply to cbn anymore because he can't seem to answer anything other than regurgitating a few talking points over and over again.

What you're referring to is Apple's business, if Dell could get Intel to supply Iris Pro based CPUs with EDRAM for cheap, we would have seen them in ultrabooks and AIOs already.

Apple is really the exception.

Apple doesn't have to worry much about prices because its fanboys are all willing to eat up its prices.

Dell will pump out literally anything as long as there is demand for it.

If, let's say, 20% of Dell customers want to buy computers with AMD processors, AMD will definitely have them for sale.

Intel will never have interruptions in supplying CPUs to OEMs - how else can they post 60% margins year-after-year. Intel's OEM business for this segment of the market is basically untouchable at this point.

When I said "interuptions" I don't mean that Intel would completely stop production of its processors.

Rather, I am talking about some circumstances that cause production of its processors to drop below normal rate.

This would cause constrain in supply and hence increase in prices.

 

[cbn]

I don't think I am going to reply to cbn anymore because he can't seem to answer anything other than regurgitating a few talking points over and over again.

I'll give one more shot at answering your question:

Why would it be better to source from a single supplier than multiple suppliers?

Most large businesses would attempt to source from at least two different suppliers.

It could be a lot more efficient for a large business to go with one supplier if having the second supplier increases costs or wasn't able to fill in supply if the first supplier dropped production.

 

[Mockingbird]

I'll give one more shot at answering your question:



It could be a lot more efficient for a large business to go with one supplier if having the second supplier increases costs or wasn't able to fill in supply if the first supplier dropped production.

Well, since you provided a thoughtful response, I will reply.

OEMs (HP, Lenovo, Dell) like to have two suppliers is to provide leverage for price negotiations.

Let's say that Intel sells Core i5-XYZ for $150 and AMD sell Ryzen 5-XYZ for $150 also.

Both performs about the same.

Now, let's say that Dell sells both Intel and AMD systems.

Dell buys 40,000 Core i5-XYZ and 10,000 Ryzen 5-XYZ.

If Intel wants to raise the price of Core i5-XYZ to $180, Dell can make the credible threat that it would now only buy 30,000 Core i5-XYZ and instead buy 20,000 Ryzen 5-XYZ.

Now, you may say: well, it costs more to develop two different motherboards with different chipsets, etc.

That's true, but in return, OEMs get leverage against Intel.

Now, let's say that Dell only sells Intel systems.

Dell buys 50,000 Core i5-XYZ and 0 Ryzen 5-XYZ.

If Intel wants to raise the price of Core i5-XYZ to $180, Dell has no choice but to accept the price hike.

 

[cbn]

Well, since you provided a thoughtful response, I will reply.

OEMs (HP, Lenovo, Dell) like to have two suppliers is to provide leverage for price negotiations.

Let's say that Intel sells Core i5-XYZ for $150 and AMD sell Ryzen 5-XYZ for $150 also.

Both performs about the same.

Now, let's say that Dell sells both Intel and AMD systems.

Dell buys 40,000 Core i5-XYZ and 10,000 Ryzen 5-XYZ.

If Intel wants to raise the price of Core i5-XYZ to $180, Dell can make the credible threat that it would now only buy 30,000 Core i5-XYZ and instead buy 20,000 Ryzen 5-XYZ.

Now, you may say: well, it costs more to develop two different motherboards with different chipsets, etc.

That's true, but in return, OEMs get leverage against Intel.

Now, let's say that Dell only sells Intel systems.

Dell buys 50,000 Core i5-XYZ and 0 Ryzen 5-XYZ.

If Intel wants to raise the price of Core i5-XYZ to $180, Dell has no choice but to accept the price hike.

Yes, all that makes sense to me.

But there also needs to be an understanding on AMD having a low volume of chips. So if AMD launches on both Desktop and Laptop (rather than on just Laptop) their and the OEM's position might be weakened overall.

 

[Mockingbird]

Yes, all that makes sense to me.

But there also needs to be an understanding on AMD having a low volume of chips. So if AMD launches on both Desktop and Laptop (rather than on just Laptop) their and the OEM's position might be weakened overall.

So what you are saying is that there would be so much demand that AMD simply won't be able to product enough processors.

In that case, AMD would go to another foundary.

 

[cbn]

So what you are saying is that there would be so much demand that AMD simply won't be able to product enough processors.

In that case, AMD would go to another foundary.

I don't think the issue is one of fab capacity. I think the central issue is strategic use of limited resources (ie, money).

Not only did AMD limit the APUs on launch to laptops, but they also limited the SKUs to 15W as well.

 

[cbn]

I'm not following you. The GPU performance is (mostly) irrelevant to the target audience that buys an APU/iGPU. They just need high enough performance for non-gamer graphic tasks. The amount of CU units activated will be irrelevant for my purchase decision for one, for all I care it's just three out of 11.

How is AMD not able to compete against Intel when they have always offered beter price to performance, and as of Raven Ridge, now also offer better performance/Watt, which is the most critical metric?

1.) When you mention "price to performance" you are thinking of the retail box processors (the processors used in DIY builds). This same "price to performance" relationship is not reflected in the AMD vs. Intel pre-built desktops.

2.) Performance per watt matters really only for laptop.

So combine #1 and #2 and that is two reasons why I think AMD should focus on mobile first for the APUs.

In this post I compared prices of AMD APU desktops to Intel Core i3 desktops on both Jan. 2014 and Jan 2016.

Back when I wrote the post on January 2016, I remember the Retail box A8-7600 was going for around $80 and the Core i3 was usually $120. (SIDE NOTE: The PC part picker price history on both the A8-7600 and Core i3 4150 is here and here)

But notice that when comparing prices of the Pre-builts the Kaveri A8 APU desktops were not $40 less than the Core i3 desktops as we would expect going by retail box pricing. Instead the Pre-builts with Kaveri A8 APUs were $70 more!

That is a huge swing in pricing.

 

[Mockingbird]

In this post I compared prices of AMD APU desktops to Intel Core i3 desktops on both Jan. 2014 and Jan 2016.

Back when I wrote the post on January 2016, I remember the Retail box A8-7600 was going for around $80 and the Core i3 was usually $120. (SIDE NOTE: The PC part picker price history on both the A8-7600 and Core i3 4150 is here and here)

But notice that when comparing prices of the Pre-builts the Kaveri A8 APU desktops were not $40 less than the Core i3 desktops as we would expect going by retail box pricing. Instead the Pre-builts with Kaveri A8 APUs were $70 more!

That is a huge swing in pricing.

The problem with your comparison is that it's open to confirmation bias and cherry-picking.

You can find a computer with Core i5 that's cheaper than a computer with Core i3 because the former is on-sale, there is stock cleaning of the former, etc.

That DOESN'T mean that the Core i5 processor costs less than the Core i3 processor.

 

[Mockingbird]

I don't think the issue is one of fab capacity. I think the central issue is strategic use of limited resources (ie, money).

Not only did AMD limit the APUs on launch to laptops, but they also limited the SKUs to 15W as well.

Well, I am obviously only taking about products that AMD offers alternatives to.

Obviously, if Intel raise the price of the Core i7-7700HQ and AMD don't have a similar product, OEMs won't be able to do anything about it.

 

[Glo.]

AMD does not sell alternative to every single product that Intel sells.

Intel also does not sell alternative to every single product that AMD sells.

...but for similar products that BOTH Intel and AMD sell,

WHY WOULD IT BE BETTER TO SOURCE FROM A SINGLE SUPPLIER THAN FROM MULTIPLE SUPPLIERS?



Why won't you answer the question?

Internal companys policy, and agenda's.

Simple as it can be.

Not always best technology wins.

 

[USER8000]

Its quite easy to answer why Ryzen launched first. The same basic chip is used in three product lines,including commerical ones which are very high profit margin and need longer validation times. Also since it is a new CPU on a new node with integrated chipset functions onboard it is easier to validate and debug than a larger volume APU.

Plus AMD also has probably realised by releasing a solid higher end CPU,it acts as halo marketing for their lower end offerings,especially after Bulldozer. It means more people will buy a Raven Ridge laptop based on this.

Once AMD had gotten to grips with Ryzen,then they could move onto Raven Ridge which is more complex as it is a proper SOC with an onboard GPU,and improved boosting mechanisms over Ryzen. It also will be a much larger volume part. I would also expect it would have taken a longer time to market than Ryzen due to its added complexity. Raven Ridge will take advantage of the months of microcode and BIOS updates which improved performance and stability with Ryzen which is essential for the kind of systems Raven Ridge will be found in. Another area to look at is the Vega integrated GPU. Drivers for that need to be working too,and even AMD hinted that it was a big effort to get drivers upto scratch for Vega,and its not shocking as it has a lot of new features.

 

[cbn]

The problem with your comparison is that it's open to confirmation bias and cherry-picking.

That comparison was based on the lowest priced PC at Newegg in the APU category and the Core i3 category using all the listings.

Same situation exists today:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 8000 601190693 600337482 601290493 600184108 4814&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE (A8 APU desktop starts at $539.99 plus $4.99 shipping)

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 8000 4814 601286691&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE (Core i3 7100 desktop starts at $399.99 plus $4.99 shipping)

Here is Ryzen 3 for comparison:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 8000 4814 601296368&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE (Ryzen 3 + GT 1030 start at $599.99 plus $4.99 shipping)

 

[Mockingbird]

That comparison was based on the lowest priced PC at Newegg in the APU category and the Core i3 category using all the listings.

Same situation exists today:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 8000 601190693 600337482 601290493 600184108 4814&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE (A8 APU desktop starts at $539.99 plus $4.99 shipping)

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 8000 4814 601286691&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE (Core i3 7100 desktop starts at $399.99 plus $4.99 shipping)

Here is Ryzen 3 for comparison:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 8000 4814 601296368&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE (Ryzen 3 + GT 1030 start at $599.99 plus $4.99 shipping)

Oh, look!

You can get computers with Core i5 for around the same price as computers with Core i3!

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 601286692&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=96

This is EXACTLY what I mean when I am talking about confirmation bias and cherry-picking.

Also, obviously computers with Ryzen 3 currently are going to be more expensive because 1) they require discrete graphics and 2) they are only available from vendors like CyberpowerPC and iBUYPOWER which always sell overpriced PCs regardless of processors

 

[cbn]

Oh, look!

You can get computers with Core i5 for around the same price as computers with Core i3!

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 601286692&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=96

This is EXACTLY what I mean when I am talking about confirmation bias and cherry-picking.

Those computers have Linux. Furthermore, you are using the "All Sellers" option for your comparison rather than limiting to Windows computers at Newegg (as shown below):

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 8000 4814 601286691&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE (Core i3 7100 starts at $399.99 plus $4.99 shipping)

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 601286692 8000&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE&page=1 (Core i5 7400 starts at $429.99 plus $4.99 shipping)

 

[Mockingbird]

Those computers have Linux. Furthermore, you are using the "All Sellers" option for your comparison rather than limiting to Newegg.

My comparison was for Windows computers at Newegg:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 8000 4814 601286691&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE (Core i3 7100 starts at $399.99 plus $4.99 shipping)https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...4814 601286691&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100019096 601286692 8000&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE&page=1 (Core i5 7400 starts at $249.99 plus $4.99 shipping)https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...92 8000&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&order=PRICE&page=1

Well, here you go:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883101530

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6V66005057

PCs with Windows 10.

 

[cbn]

Well, here you go:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883101530

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA6V66005057

PCs with Windows 10.

OK, so now Core i5 7400 ends up being $30 more expensive than Core i3 7100.

P.S. I corrected my typo of "$249.99" to the proper amount of "$429.99" in post #123.