• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD on the road to recovery.

I think for as long as AMD don't make another costly mistake like Bulldozer they will grow.

I have always believed that AMD are more capable than Intel, this will see them right, what AMD don't have is money to throw away or room to make mistakes.
 
Lokken86 said:
Intel are stagnating and AMD have them on the run right now. They could catch up a lot more with the EPYC servers alone which utterly destroy the price/performance that Intel are offering. I hope so as I can't be arsed with Intels laziness any more TBH.
Click to expand...

I have an impression that people are getting, bored, tired and annoyed with Intel, that number is increasing, more and more people are starting to see AMD as something more interesting and a real alternative to greying stogy Intel.
 
NinjaCool said:
True but one thing that has been lucky for AMD and that is intel becoming stuck in a 10nm development hell!
Remember the 7nm Ryzen was supposed to be fighting again Intel's 10nm Icelake but that sure as heck is not going to happen now :p
Click to expand...

Was Bulldozer AMD's bad luck? no, it was incompetence and bad decisions.

What you might call AMD luck, others call Intel incompetence.

Intel's inability to compete with TSMC and AMD in technology for that matter is on Intel.
 
EsaT said:
While Intel stock hasn't really seen notable changes from all speculative code execution vulnerabilities, along with problems in manufacturing and lacking answer to core count scaling ability of AMD's modular design.
Click to expand...

Oh they very much have. Down from $58 to $48 in the last 6 months, in the same period AMD are up from $15 to $28

ZWCZh7l.png


https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/INTC
 
So as you can see, fabricating a wafer at any other foundry than GloFo is basically double jeopardy for AMD. Simply put, these were/are shackles that still bind the company to its former whole. All of that, however, might change with GlobalFoundries officially dropping out of the race and materially changing the nature of their relationship with AMD. See, the understanding between both companies was that GlobalFoundries will continue to churn out new process nodes and AMD will keep buying – with the former no longer happening the latter can now be, well, amended.
Click to expand...

In this case GloFo are the ones not keeping their end of the deal, they are not supplying new processing nodes so why should AMD be tied to paying GloFo for something they are not getting?

Hopefully this is now the end of AMD being strapped to GloFo.
 
LePhuronn said:
It makes me chuckle to see the likes of that Jamie fellow on the 9000 series thread banging on about "prove to me that AMD have the superior product" when all it takes is to look at these stock price increases and the technologies released that have fueled it.

Cutting edge process node, scalable chiplet design across their entire product stack, an interconnect system that can only improve over time, reduced costs and reliance on monolithic dies, an architecture devoid of most of the recently discovered vulnerabilities. All of the things that Intel does not have. Blue Team may have the advantage in pure grunt in their cores (which is why the 9900K is going to batter every 8 core out there for now), but that's it.

AMD stock price goes up, Intel stock price goes down. Surprising?
Click to expand...

Intel have better clock speed, but that really is it, for now... even the IPC is no better.

Ryzen 3000 will give Intel a real head ache.
 
GloFo promised 10% higher clocks for the same volts 12nm vs 14nm, that has been delivered, just, on mainstream depending on chip its Ryzen 1### 3.8Ghz - 4.1Ghz to Ryzen 2### 4.2Ghz - 4.4Ghz.

Add to that through microcode tweaks (the CPU's internal firmware) AMD managed to squeeze and extra 3 to 4% IPC, so a total performance jump Ryzen 1### to ryzen 2### of about 13%, pretty good for a tweaked new node refresh.

Coffeelake, which includes the core 9000 series has 3% higher IPC in single core workloads and 4% lower IPC in SMT workloads.

Ignoring the increased core counts and just on per core performance: Ryzen 3000 is Zen 2, it has tweaks at the hardware level, rumours are 10 to 15% higher IPC, i'm going to ignore that and go with very slightly better IPC than from Ryzen 1### to 2###, call it a nice round 5%, add another 10% clock speed bump and we are looking at 4.6 to 4.8Ghz with a per core performance about 2% higher than the core 9000 series, because of the 5% added IPC.
Lets say the core 9000 series overclocks to 5.2Ghz, that's about 10% higher clock speed with about 2% lower per core IPC.

Yes that still gives Intel the per core performance crown, but its only 8% and with half the cores, and if i'm only being a little bit conservative with my estimates the best Intel are doing is matching AMD on singular core performance while losing everywhere else.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom