Would you recommend a gaming system for a person who doesn't need that much power? No.
Are you still influencing their purchasing decisions? Yes.
... and we are still talking about a fraction of a fraction of the Desktop market that is going down in volume over time.
Gaming focus seems to be the wrong strategy for x86 manufacturers if the outcome is to be profitable.
Also what standard did AMD ever introduced besides HBM?
3DNow! was a first in x86 for SIMD, Intel then countered with SSE
AMD was the first with 64bit. At the time Intel was fixated on moving everyone to VLIW with Itanic.
AMD was first with dual core. Intel countered with Pentium D.
AMD was first with functionally discrete chiplets. Intel followed with tiles only with ARL.
AMD was first with DDR while Intel tried to move the industry to RAMBUS memory so they could get licensing from us all.
AMD was first with an APU having a powerful graphics engine built in. Intel followed later but was slow to do so since they were making so much money on package deals including the graphics chip, processor and other chips on the mb.
Competition is good.
I'm sure you could find a few if you look around. One you are using right now though would be x86-64, or you know, AMD64 as it was once called
. And before you say it was based on an Intel design, think about what Intel was trying to do back then. Force IA64 on the world while leaving x86 to die off. I think it worked out for the best in the end.
AGREE!
Hybrid core as a concept is great but software side was never there.
Intel offer far more advanced packaging but it results in a product with some inferior characteristic.
People care about AVX512 because Intel used to be the benchmark but now they're falling behind.
It's hard to swallow if you offer something then taking it away.
People are bashing Intel because they expect Intel offer something better.
Hybrid core appears to be a counter to SMT. I am not convinced it is an effective counter for the reasons you stated and a few more. Mostly, I don't believe that the PPA is as good. AMD adds ~15% die size and receives 40% MT performance improvement. That seems pretty hard to beat.
AVX512 was a disaster in the Intel implementation as it not only took a great deal of transistors, it also resulted in greatly increasing heat when utilized.... so much so that they had to clock down the core to accommodate it.
AMD has perfected what Intel introduced. Same thing with SMT.
That and two generations of desktop CPUs that had/have high failure rates.
... and there is always that. Same thing happened in the race to 1Ghz.
They didn't.
They just like SMT.
Yes they did. AMD's SMT is very potent and an extraordinary PPA addition while Intel's was not.
Also didn't AMD CEO once Said real men have fabs 🤣🤣
INDEED! And look how that turned out. What AMD found out is that they couldn't complete with a company that was amortizing their fab spend over a factor of 10 more chips than they were.
Ironic that Intel would fall prey to the same misguided business model that AMD did.
The only thing I will give AMD credit for, is Epyc and it's derivatives for the desktop, a HEDT system that is low latency, well done ! My 7960x just runs and reminds me of the x99 days.
I would (and do) argue that AMD has correctly targeted their designs as "Server First" as this provides them with the highest margins for the least volume.
All other variants for consumers are then derived from that architectural base.
AMD has provided a unique architectural add on for gamers with their X3D products. Very inventive. Just pack on a butt ton of L3 cache to limit the latency penalty of any main memory hits.
Facebook
Twitter