Question Susquehanna's second chat with Charlie Demerjian

[uzzi38]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD_Stock/comments/eczmzx

This is not a good picture Charlie's painting of whatever's left of Intel's roadmap.

For the record, this is also significantly worse than any expectations I ever had as well. Far, far worse.

 

[dmens]

Hell, if anything Charlie is a tad optimistic on Intel's outlook. The long fall has just begun.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Hell, if anything Charlie is a tad optimistic on Intel's outlook. The long fall has just begun.

Try not to enjoy it too much.

 

[Nereus77]

We actually need Intel to hit back to keep AMD on their toes, otherwise innovation might stagnate like it did with Intel. A decade with AMD in the lead and Intel floundering like a fish out of water would be just as bad as when the tables were reversed. The best time to be a consumer was back when AMD and Intel used to trade blows often (The so-called GigaHertz Wars, Late 90's to mid 00's) which is the type of competition I'd like to see again.

I'm happy to see AMD in the lead for now. They were behind for a very long time.

 

[lobz]

@lobz They can't avoid making the GPU larger, because people do care about the graphics part. In the ultrabook form factor, there's no other option, and if you are going to buy an expensive laptop, of course some will opt for the best option, and that includes the iGPU. Manufacturers charged $200-300 extra for the Iris option, and some people went for it. You have to have a well-rounded product, otherwise some people will go elsewhere.

And I assure you if they stop on the iGPU development altogether, even Nvidia will find a way to increase use of their dGPU even for ultrabooks and convertibles.

As for the size reduction, I assume CPU core has shrunk 2x and GPU close to 2.7x. Their GPU was was large for its performance level, so it was a much needed focus. They still need at least 1 more generation of efficiency gains.

Their desktop/server is quite messy, but eventually they'll go in that road.

Oh my God, I've just seen my post... never try to multi-quote on your phone, sorry for that mess 😀

I rarely see things eye to eye with you, but here we do.

Also MERRY CHRISTMAS everyone.

 

[lobz]

We actually need Intel to hit back to keep AMD on their toes, otherwise innovation might stagnate like it did with Intel. A decade with AMD in the lead and Intel floundering like a fish out of water would be just as bad as when the tables were reversed. The best time to be a consumer was back when AMD and Intel used to trade blows often (The so-called GigaHertz Wars, Late 90's to mid 00's) which is the type of competition I'd like to see again.

I'm happy to see AMD in the lead for now. They were behind for a very long time.

I'd say, on the CPU side, we're having a preeeeeetty darned good time as consumers right now 🙂

 

[Ajay]

As for the size reduction, I assume CPU core has shrunk 2x and GPU close to 2.7x. Their GPU was was large for its performance level, so it was a much needed focus. They still need at least 1 more generation of efficiency gains.

We have no visibility into Intel’s 7nm manufacturing process, other than the fact that they just started buying production tools in August. Shrinks and electrostatic performance info is a big fat zero. I'm surprised you think the iGPU will shrink more than the cpu, both have allot of logic (though, perhaps there is less redundancy on the GPU to improve yield).

 

[lobz]

We have no visibility into Intel’s 7nm manufacturing process, other than the fact that they just started buying production tools in August. Shrinks and electrostatic performance info is a big fat zero. I'm surprised you think the iGPU will shrink more than the cpu, both have allot of logic (though, perhaps there is less redundancy on the GPU to improve yield).

2.7 is supposed to be achieved from 14nm to 10nm. I don't think they will ever set such a goal again, be it 7nm or 5nm in the foreseeable future, as it has proven to be a near-fatal decision looking back.

 

[lobz]

We actually need Intel to hit back to keep AMD on their toes, otherwise innovation might stagnate like it did with Intel. A decade with AMD in the lead and Intel floundering like a fish out of water would be just as bad as when the tables were reversed. The best time to be a consumer was back when AMD and Intel used to trade blows often (The so-called GigaHertz Wars, Late 90's to mid 00's) which is the type of competition I'd like to see again.

I'm happy to see AMD in the lead for now. They were behind for a very long time.

Yes but we need intel to hit back on actual products, not on time-stretching annoucements and certainly not on their dreadful """""""marketing""""""".

 

[KompuKare]

We actually need Intel to hit back to keep AMD on their toes, otherwise innovation might stagnate like it did with Intel. A decade with AMD in the lead and Intel floundering like a fish out of water would be just as bad as when the tables were reversed. The best time to be a consumer was back when AMD and Intel used to trade blows often (The so-called GigaHertz Wars, Late 90's to mid 00's) which is the type of competition I'd like to see again.

I'm happy to see AMD in the lead for now. They were behind for a very long time.

Well, so far AMD haven't really made any money.
So from the consumer point of view (or at least those consumers who don't just want something cheap this year - but rather take a 10 year view), it would make much more sense for Intel to flounder for the next 5 years or more with the market afterwards being divided 50/50 both in terms of marketshare, revenue, and profit.
That is what it would take for both Intel and AMD to sustain a healthy R&D programme, diverse roadmap etc.

As for Charlie Demerjian, what I find strange is that there are always so many anti-Charlie posters here. For all that he may be very biased, he has at least done some good journalism. I'm particularly thinking of the Nvidia BumbGate expose - which every other site only mentioned in passing. Of course, Nvidia weren't happy so mudracker might be a good description as far as they were concerned. But if a company tries to play their customers as fools and cover things up, any good journalist would who sniffed this should investigate. It's almost like modern sites do not want to offend their sponsors or big corporation, which is very bad for the consumer.

Of course, against modern companies and their PR and legal teams it may be very hard to take a pro-consumer stand, but I also remember way back in the print magazine days, people like Guy Kewney on Personal Computer World taking a very jaundice view of company behaviour and while I'm sure PCW's editor used to hate this when the companies started threatening, it

 

[IntelUser2000]

I'm surprised you think the iGPU will shrink more than the cpu, both have allot of logic (though, perhaps there is less redundancy on the GPU to improve yield).

There's more to it than just process. That's why their Atoms and GPUs get 2.4-2.7x shrink and their Core cores get 2x shrink.

Even with the big shrink, Gen 11 is 40mm2 using Intel's 10nm process and the GPU in Picasso is 66mm2 in GloFo's 12nm process. And Nvidia's even better in that regard.

So clearly, they have more work to do.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I'd say, on the CPU side, we're having a preeeeeetty darned good time as consumers right now 🙂

Thus far. Eventually prices will get out of control if Intel can't compete. Zen3 prices may be completely out-of-whack.