RTG3rd March – Will Discuss Polaris, Fury X2, VR, DirectX 12 and More

[Silverforce11]

Intel released the Core 2 Duo back in August of 2006. In a few months it will have been 10 years since AMD had a competitive high end part. 10 years. Intel is still chugging along even with zero competition from AMD. The theory that the market will stagnate with only one major player is ridiculous.

It has stagnated, read any review of Intel's new gen, starting from SB to IV to Haswell and now Skylake.

Tiny baby steps of improvements is stagnation. Despite major node jumps.

Can you imagine that on the GPU side? New gen ups performance by 5-10%.

Node jump performance still goes up by 5-10%.

All the while, prices creep up higher.

You are getting smaller and smaller dies for paying more and more.

Non stagnation would be something like this: Intel goes into a node jump, they keep their die sizes the same and double-up on transistors, massively improving performance. But they don't want to, don't need to because nothing is pushing them to go down this fiercely competitive and innovative approach. They make more profit just cruising along making the cheapest chips they can get (smallest die) and selling that for maximum prices.

 

[railven]

It has stagnated, read any review of Intel's new gen, starting from SB to IV to Haswell and now Skylake.

Tiny baby steps of improvements is stagnation. Despite major node jumps.

Can you imagine that on the GPU side? New gen ups performance by 5-10%.

Node jump performance still goes up by 5-10%.

All the while, prices creep up higher.

You are getting smaller and smaller dies for paying more and more.

Non stagnation would be something like this: Intel goes into a node jump, they keep their die sizes the same and double-up on transistors, massively improving performance. But they don't want to, don't need to because nothing is pushing them to go down this fiercely competitive and innovative approach. They make more profit just cruising along making the cheapest chips they can get (smallest die) and selling that for maximum prices.

Already seeing that on the GPU side, but I wouldn't call it stagnation. We're slowly paying more and more for incremental upgrades.

NV saw Intel doing it, and with no AMD to really push em, they jumped on it. Now AMD sees the money NV is making and is gonna try and cash in.

Don't forget, AMD is still a business. They did try to sell the FX 9550 for like $800 or something asinine.

The markets will dictate what these companies can get away with.

 

[DooKey]

It has stagnated, read any review of Intel's new gen, starting from SB to IV to Haswell and now Skylake.

Tiny baby steps of improvements is stagnation. Despite major node jumps.

Can you imagine that on the GPU side? New gen ups performance by 5-10%.

Node jump performance still goes up by 5-10%.

All the while, prices creep up higher.

You are getting smaller and smaller dies for paying more and more.

Non stagnation would be something like this: Intel goes into a node jump, they keep their die sizes the same and double-up on transistors, massively improving performance. But they don't want to, don't need to because nothing is pushing them to go down this fiercely competitive and innovative approach. They make more profit just cruising along making the cheapest chips they can get (smallest die) and selling that for maximum prices.

I'm not sure that Intel could deliver what you expect them to deliver and still make their biggest customers (OEMs) happy. Like it or not lower power usage is where it is at for OEMs. Also, node shifts are more and more expensive because of the increased complexity and silicon coming to the end of it's life. Someone has to pay for the R&D and guess who that is?

AMD is going to be able to make a significant IPC increase because they have a low baseline this time. There's no doubt in my mind they will be caught by the same conditions that have slowed Intel. We are going to have to get used to it.

 

[Phynaz]

You're ignoring the fact that the evolution will not be driven by competition and customer satisfaction but the sole providers profit and margins. That's a big problem for consumers. Just look at Windows 10. On the surface it looks great, but underneath consumers have had to sign their digital lives away. And there's no competitor in sight to give an opposing option. It's not so rosy eh? Also with Intel. All they do now is make little blips in improvement and charge full price each and every generation. That's not great either and again w/o in that case a strong AMD, it will continue on like that.

Look at the automobile manufacturers that make small improvements every year and charge full price each and every generation. And that's in one of the most competitive industries on the planet.

In other words, dumb argument is dumb.

 

[jackstar7]

Look at the automobile manufacturers that make small improvements every year and charge full price each and every generation. And that's in one of the most competitive industries on the planet.

In other words, dumb argument is dumb.

Someone comparing computers to cars: Check.

Now this thread is on its way.

 

[Silverforce11]

Already seeing that on the GPU side, but I wouldn't call it stagnation. We're slowly paying more and more for incremental upgrades.

NV saw Intel doing it, and with no AMD to really push em, they jumped on it. Now AMD sees the money NV is making and is gonna try and cash in.

Don't forget, AMD is still a business. They did try to sell the FX 9550 for like $800 or something asinine.

The markets will dictate what these companies can get away with.

Ofc, the market always dictate and without competition, they are free to milk consumers more, that's just the way business works and I am not blaming these companies.

I just think that competition is healthy for consumers because unless there is collusion or price fixing, we get a better deal when companies compete fiercely with each other.

 

[Silverforce11]

Look at the automobile manufacturers that make small improvements every year and charge full price each and every generation. And that's in one of the most competitive industries on the planet.

In other words, dumb argument is dumb.

Sorry but you're weird if you think cars apply to silicon tech, where they can every few years, literally double up on performance due to node shrinks.

Cars don't have those opportunities.

Despite this, consumers still get cars with better engine performance, more efficiency, more safety, more creature comfort at very affordable prices. So they compete in other ways, not on performance.

 

[jackstar7]

Sorry but you're weird if you think cars apply to silicon tech, where they can every few years, literally double up on performance due to node shrinks.

Cars don't have those opportunities.

Despite this, consumers still get cars with better engine performance, more efficiency, more safety, more creature comfort at very affordable prices. So they compete in other ways, not on performance.

As a for instance, if there were no development in the auto industry, there'd be no debate about self-driving cars, because they wouldn't exist.

 

[maddie]

Look at the automobile manufacturers that make small improvements every year and charge full price each and every generation. And that's in one of the most competitive industries on the planet.

In other words, dumb argument is dumb.

Really bad argument.

I think I can can still utilize a 30 yr+ old car assuming it's working properly. Try using a 10 yr+ old graphics card. You have to upgrade video for present game tasks. Mature industries are different, but it seems we're having another leap in automotive innovation. Electric, autonomous,etc.

 

[Game_dev]

Caveat emptor.

Part of me hopes AMD dies so all the short-sighted Intel and Nvidia lovers around here finally get what they deserve. And then the market will quickly stagnate and I'll move on to a different and more interesting hobby.

So many tech companies have failed over the last several years. Why would AMD be any different?

 

[IEC]

Look at the automobile manufacturers that make small improvements every year and charge full price each and every generation. And that's in one of the most competitive industries on the planet.

In other words, dumb argument is dumb.

Comparing semiconductor-based business to automobiles is irrelevant to this thread and a terrible analogy.

28nm --> 14nm FF with Polaris is going to be ~2x-2.5x performance, which is a leap that doesn't happen in a generation with automobiles.

 

[raghu78]

Comparing semiconductor-based business to automobiles is irrelevant to this thread and a terrible analogy.

28nm --> 14nm FF with Polaris is going to be ~2x-2.5x performance, which is a leap that doesn't happen in a generation with automobiles.

well said. Comparing automobiles to semiconductors is plain illogical.

 

[3DVagabond]

Comparing semiconductor-based business to automobiles is irrelevant to this thread and a terrible analogy.

28nm --> 14nm FF with Polaris is going to be ~2x-2.5x performance, which is a leap that doesn't happen in a generation with automobiles.

Or CPU's. :ninja:

Since CPU workloads are far less parallel and most software offers few threads we shouldn't expect that either. 10% for the same $ is pitiful though. Competition should help there.

 

[JDG1980]

Intel released the Core 2 Duo back in August of 2006. In a few months it will have been 10 years since AMD had a competitive high end part. 10 years. Intel is still chugging along even with zero competition from AMD.

AMD was at least reasonably competitive in the CPU market through 2010; Thuban stacked up pretty well to quad-core Nehalem at the same price point (which one to choose really depended on whether you prioritized single-thread or multi-thread performance). It was in 2011, when Intel launched Sandy Bridge and AMD laid the Bulldozer turd, that the competition became a rout.

And Intel has been stagnating since 2011. Coincidence? I think not.

In case you don't think there has been stagnation: The Sandy Bridge i7-2600K CPU launched at $317. Four and a half years later, we saw the mainstream Skylake launch, with the i7-6700K at $350 (and often retailing higher than that). Skylake is no better an overclocker than Sandy Bridge, maybe worse; you can generally expect about 4.5 GHz on either one without any heroic cooling efforts. So all the difference comes down to IPC and platform improvements. You're paying ~10% more for maybe 20%-30% more performance plus a couple of newer features. I call that stagnation by the standards traditionally expected of the computer industry.

When was the last time Microsoft had any competition in the desktop OS market or office suite market? Yet the continue to put out updated versions every few years so that they can continue to make money.

Is that a joke? Windows 10 is spyware masquerading as an OS. In virtually every respect it's inferior to Windows 7 - uglier, less customizable, less respectful of user privacy. Satya Nadella fired a substantial portion of Microsoft's QA team - that's why updates are mandatory and you can't opt out of telemetry, because consumers are the beta testers now. For people who actually want their OS to work for them rather than Redmond, Windows 10 is a disaster.

 

[airfathaaaaa]

well said. Comparing automobiles to semiconductors is plain illogical.

not really
yeah if you compare the entire automobile industry yes it is

but take at look at only those three companies

ferrari/porsche/ mclaren and their hypercars now that is a true analogy that you can compare it to any semiconductor each and every succesor is a technological evolution of the previous car

 

[Pariah]

It has stagnated, read any review of Intel's new gen, starting from SB to IV to Haswell and now Skylake.

Tiny baby steps of improvements is stagnation. Despite major node jumps.

Can you imagine that on the GPU side? New gen ups performance by 5-10%.

Node jump performance still goes up by 5-10%.

All the while, prices creep up higher.

You are getting smaller and smaller dies for paying more and more.

Non stagnation would be something like this: Intel goes into a node jump, they keep their die sizes the same and double-up on transistors, massively improving performance. But they don't want to, don't need to because nothing is pushing them to go down this fiercely competitive and innovative approach. They make more profit just cruising along making the cheapest chips they can get (smallest die) and selling that for maximum prices.

Intel is not developing CPU's with a priority on what you think is most important, that's why you can't see the progress that is being made. The focus of the industry as a whole has significantly shifted in recent years from absolute performance to peak efficiency. Achieving peak efficiency means sacrificing peak performance. If you're not happy with the improvements in performance between chip generations now, you're really not going to be happy with Intel's recent announcement:

Intel says chips to become slower but more energy efficient

It's not AMD's lack of pressure that is slowing Intel's performance improvements. It's a combination of technology maturation and shift in focus which Intel is predicting will eventually lead to negative performance gains.

 

[Silverforce11]

A focus on efficiency at the expense of performance is all fine and good for tablets or notebooks. We're on the desktop.

95W vs 65W... wow, amazing... not. Much prefer +50% performance instead at 95W.

Intel's push for efficiency also has a side effect of selling you ever small dies for ever increasing $$. That is not progress.

 

[Pariah]

And Intel has been stagnating since 2011. Coincidence? I think not.

In case you don't think there has been stagnation: The Sandy Bridge i7-2600K CPU launched at $317. Four and a half years later, we saw the mainstream Skylake launch, with the i7-6700K at $350 (and often retailing higher than that). Skylake is no better an overclocker than Sandy Bridge, maybe worse; you can generally expect about 4.5 GHz on either one without any heroic cooling efforts. So all the difference comes down to IPC and platform improvements. You're paying ~10% more for maybe 20%-30% more performance plus a couple of newer features. I call that stagnation by the standards traditionally expected of the computer industry.

You as well are measuring performance improvements using the wrong metrics. You're 10 years behind the rest of us if you are still comparing different CPU architectures using Mhz ratings. Intel thought they would be able to reach speeds of 10Ghz with Netburst, but history tells us they couldn't even get halfway there before technical obstacles made even 4Ghz unattainable. Remember at that time, AMD was not only competitive with Intel, they were beating them. Moving to Core, Intel managed to significantly improve performance while simultaneously dropping clock speeds by about 1 Ghz.

Read the post above I made and compare performance/watt between Skylake and Sandy Bridge. Intel hasn't stagnated, they've changed their target while you continued on the same course.

 

[Pariah]

A focus on efficiency at the expense of performance is all fine and good for tablets or notebooks. We're on the desktop.

95W vs 65W... wow, amazing... not. Much prefer +50% performance instead at 95W.

Intel's push for efficiency also has a side effect of selling you ever small dies for ever increasing $$. That is not progress.

Intel spent $2.7 billion upgrading one fab to 22nm capability. They have at least 5 of them. They produced Ivy Bridge and Haswell on that node, then had to spend more money moving to 14nm for Broadwell. Where do you think the money to pay for those upgrades comes from?

Here's a graphic comparing R&D spending for Intel, AMD and Nvidia:

That's $3 BILLION a quarter on research and development. Firstly, again, that money has to come from somewhere, and 2 what do you think Intel is developing with that money? Do you think they are just flushing the money down the toilet, or do you think it might be possible that what they are developing is increasingly more difficult and expensive to produce which is why we are having to pay more for it?

 

[Silverforce11]

@Pariah
Compare Intel's revenue & profit, then try to justify why they are selling Skylake dies of ~120mm2 for such rip-off prices? Their margins are record levels. -_-

Because they CAN, because they have no competition.

Seriously, do you really think if they had a fierce competitor that releases a bigger chip, using 125W but giving massively better performance that Intel won't make a bigger & more power hungry chip to compete? Really?!

Heck, the prices would be better, you would get much more bang for your buck. I find it impossible to defend Intel's monopolistic business strategy, it only benefits them and their share-holders.

 

[Pariah]

Another relevant article on the topic to dispute your understanding of the industry:

Why node shrinks are no longer offsetting equipment costs

Some of the major points:

-By 2020, current cost trends will push the pricetag for a leading-edge fab investment to a budget-melting $15B-$20B;

-At current spending rates, only eight chipmakmers will have the financial capability to build new fabs in the next few years.

" Lower costs per transistor aren’t even the real driving factor for semiconductor manufacturers, it’s reducing power consumption while maintaining performance, the Gartner analysts note. That’s the key functionality driving semiconductor content in mobile devices, and that’s what is driving the market now."


This article is from 2012, and the next 3 years have done nothing but prove them right. What they predicted is exactly what we are seeing.

 

[3DVagabond]

@Pariah
Compare Intel's revenue & profit, then try to justify why they are selling Skylake dies of ~120mm2 for such rip-off prices? Their margins are record levels. -_-

Because they CAN, because they have no competition.

Seriously, do you really think if they had a fierce competitor that releases a bigger chip, using 125W but giving massively better performance that Intel won't make a bigger & more power hungry chip to compete? Really?!

Heck, the prices would be better, you would get much more bang for your buck. I find it impossible to defend Intel's monopolistic business strategy, it only benefits them and their share-holders.

Surely nobody is truly ill-informed enough to believe that a company with no competition is going to worry as much about advancing the SOTA? They are going to spend their research money on building profits.

 

[3DVagabond]

From your post;

That’s the key functionality driving semiconductor content in mobile devices, and that’s what is driving the market now."

Did you miss that we aren't talking about mobile?

 

[Pariah]

@Pariah
Compare Intel's revenue & profit, then try to justify why they are selling Skylake dies of ~120mm2 for such rip-off prices? Their margins are record levels. -_-

Because they CAN, because they have no competition.

Seriously, do you really think if they had a fierce competitor that releases a bigger chip, using 125W but giving massively better performance that Intel won't make a bigger & more power hungry chip to compete? Really?!

Heck, the prices would be better, you would get much more bang for your buck. I find it impossible to defend Intel's monopolistic business strategy, it only benefits them and their share-holders.

Are you aware that Intel is selling other things besides CPU's? The Client Computing Group saw an 8% decrease in revenue for 2015. Their record revenue in 2015 had nothing to do with the cost of Skylake CPU's. If you don't have anything factual to add to this conversation and you just want to spout off stuff you are making up in your head because you think it sounds good and I won't call you out on it, then stop now.

 

[Pariah]

From your post;



Did you miss that we aren't talking about mobile?

Did you miss the point they were making that the focus of mobile market was the driving force for the direction of the entire market?