AMD on the road to recovery.

4K8KW10 · 13 Jan 2020 at 21:12

EsaT said:
Won't be long unless Intel sorts their manufacturing SNAFU.
Those buy mostly what PC makers push and PC makers surely aren't happy with Intel.
Like Dell directly telling that they're going to miss their sales target because of Intel not delivering CPUs.
And cousin working in IT-support of schools of one city recently told me that some of their PC deliveries got delayed couple months because of same reason.
So once long term contracts expire, Intel is going to have to do whole lots of explaining why they should be used.

Though of course one big factor is economy and any downturn could slowdown purchases quite fast.
But also in that case Intel would have to do some serious explaining to justify their prices.

What if intel doesn't fix its manufacturing? How much time and cash have they got until they run their division arm into bankruptcy?

EsaT · 13 Jan 2020 at 21:17

4K8KW10 said:
What if intel doesn't fix its manufacturing? How much time and cash have they got until they run their division arm into bankruptcy?

Intel could keep going on for years and years.
But would expect big shareholders to start demanding answers from Intel's top management before Intel is anywhere near running out ot money.

sideways14a · 13 Jan 2020 at 21:23

Intel could be at a process disadvantage for several years, it sure as hell wont be over in 12-18 months.

Panos · 13 Jan 2020 at 21:33

sideways14a said:
Intel could be at a process disadvantage for several years, it sure as hell wont be over in 12-18 months.

Until Intel moves to chiplet architecture will have those issues. No monolithic chip can compete.
Same will happen to the GPU. The first company who stumbles on chiplet GPU going to bite the dust for years to come.

DarrenM343 · 13 Jan 2020 at 22:38

Next results from Intel will be interesting to see. At the moment a lot of the bad news I think is already priced into the Intel share price. It's much,much cheaper than both AMD and Nvidia vs earnings. When people are most negative about a good company, that's the time to keep an eye on them

. While investors wait for a turnaround, they're still earning 2% in dividends each year vs nothing from AMD and 0.26% from NV.
Jenson seems to think CPU's will eventually no longer be needed - it'll all be done on GPU. Intel's new GPU investment will be interesting to watch.
I really admire AMD for their turnaround and the challenge they've given Intel but I really wouldn't want to write Intel off

. Good things take time, they may have some surprises to come as they work on a lot of new stuff.

A quick look at the P/E ratios
AMD 239
NV 69.2
Intel 13.8

Looking forward to AMD results too. They must have had a massive quarter . How have sales gone at OCUK I wonder?

Alan1969 · 15 Jan 2020 at 12:57

CuriousTomCat said:
I refuse to buy any mainstream Intel products based solely on their absoultely disgraceful business practices over the years. A lot of people share those views. Sticking to AMD has nothing to do with being a die hard fan, even if it means buying a slower product.

Overall the 3rd gen Ryzen is a better product (the only slower bit of it is for fast shooters where you need 120fps a reflexes of a pro, a huge gpu and a low res 1080 monitor). So coupled with the ryzen being a better product, and cheaper and requiring less cooling, then you don't even need to factor in Intels shoddy business practices.

humbug · 15 Jan 2020 at 13:56

Alan1969 said:
Overall the 3rd gen Ryzen is a better product (the only slower bit of it is for fast shooters where you need 120fps a reflexes of a pro, a huge gpu and a low res 1080 monitor). So coupled with the ryzen being a better product, and cheaper and requiring less cooling, then you don't even need to factor in Intels shoddy business practices.

Right exactly

I'm not into buying £300+ CPU's, i don't need them so they are a waste of money. I don't have a 2080TI so i don't need a high clocking 9600K, even if i did have a 2080TI i still wouldn't buy a 9600K because it only has 6 threads and there are plenty of reviewers out there who say while the 9600K is 10 FPS faster than the Ryzen 3600 in games like BattleField V or One the 9600K has episodes of stutter while the Ryzen 3600 is perfectly smooth.

If you're a 2080TI maximum FPS 1080P gamer there is only one 'CPU' that you would want, and that's the 9900K, for everyother use case its a Ryzen 3000 series, a 9700K is not much better than a 9600K, you shouldn't trust its longevity.

Alan1969 · 15 Jan 2020 at 16:17

humbug said:
Right exactly

I'm not into buying £300+ CPU's, i don't need them so they are a waste of money. I don't have a 2080TI so i don't need a high clocking 9600K, even if i did have a 2080TI i still wouldn't buy a 9600K because it only has 6 threads and there are plenty of reviewers out there who say while the 9600K is 10 FPS faster than the Ryzen 3600 in games like BattleField V or One the 9600K has episodes of stutter while the Ryzen 3600 is perfectly smooth.

If you're a 2080TI maximum FPS 1080P gamer there is only one 'CPU' that you would want, and that's the 9900K, for everyother use case its a Ryzen 3000 series, a 9700K is not much better than a 9600K, you shouldn't trust its longevity.

I bought one ryzen 3600 and was so impressed with the performance and the low price that I then bought another 3600 for the wife.

Even my ryzen 3600 that has 12 threads only tends to use 4 simultaneously when gaming (I tend the have HW monitor loaded up when playing games as I like to see how many threads are being used, what the speed is, and cpu temp). I imagine that has software evolves to use more threads that my ryzen 3600 will become even faster (as what happened to my quad core phenom over the 9 yrs that I had it).

I only bought the ryzen 3600 as a stop gap until the 4th gen 16 core ryzen comes out but as the 3600 is overkill for me already I really don't need an even more powerful cpu.

humbug · 15 Jan 2020 at 16:43

Today we are getting performance at sub £200 that 3 years ago would have cost you £800, i'm not kidding, a 6900X has 8 cores but the IPC on a Ryzen 3600 is at least 25% higher which makes up for the 2 core deficit, and realistically they clock about the same.

This is why today it seems like we are getting so much CPU power for so little money, compared to just 3 years ago, we are.

Rofflay · 15 Jan 2020 at 21:00

humbug said:
Today we are getting performance at sub £200 that 3 years ago would have cost you £800, i'm not kidding, a 6900X has 8 cores but the IPC on a Ryzen 3600 is at least 25% higher which makes up for the 2 core deficit, and realistically they clock about the same.

This is why today it seems like we are getting so much CPU power for so little money, compared to just 3 years ago, we are.

They were milking us like a prize cow, Now they have scurry to compete and please. But if you had to pick a cpu from two indentical chips do you buy Intel or AMD?

I would pick AMD because Intel treated us like crap. So no matter how much they now drive to increase performance is will not work. Intel were only succesful because they had a monopoly and abused both customers and competition.

humbug · 15 Jan 2020 at 21:06

Rofflay said:
They were milking us like a prize cow, Now they have scurry to compete and please. But if you had to pick a cpu from two indentical chips do you buy Intel or AMD?

I would pick AMD because Intel treated us like crap. So no matter how much they now drive to increase performance is will not work. Intel were only succesful because they had a monopoly and abused both customers and competition.

If i'm completely honest, yeah, if i couldn't separate them on anything, i would buy AMD, like you i'm just not going to reward Intel for the shady #### in previous years.

Hagar · 16 Jan 2020 at 23:35

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51133811

Microsoft pledge to be carbon negative by 2050 removing all the carbon it has emitted since its founding in 1975. Apart from this humongous calculation, it could be a reason to buy AMD.

humbug · 17 Jan 2020 at 01:34

nkata said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51133811

Microsoft pledge to be carbon negative by 2050 removing all the carbon it has emitted since its founding in 1975. Apart from this humongous calculation, it could be a reason to buy AMD.

Why?

Hagar · 17 Jan 2020 at 06:22

humbug said:
Why?

Performance per watt for the Epyc processors.

humbug · 17 Jan 2020 at 09:32

nkata said:
Performance per watt for the Epyc processors.

Ah, yeah...

KungFuSpaghetti · 17 Jan 2020 at 14:02

nkata said:
Performance per watt for the Epyc processors.

EPYC, the vegans choice!

faceman123 · 17 Jan 2020 at 15:22

long live AMD, we would still have had QUAD CORE i7's otherwise!!! with 5% ipc each gen!!!

smilingcrow · 17 Jan 2020 at 15:53

faceman123 said:
long live AMD, we would still have had QUAD CORE i7's otherwise!!! with 5% ipc each gen!!!

Not so much long live as long may they produce good products as for about 10 years those Intel quads still managed to be better than AMD's designs.

faceman123 · 17 Jan 2020 at 16:00

smilingcrow said:
Not so much long live as long may they produce good products as for about 10 years those Intel quads still managed to be better than AMD's designs.

true but compare intels budget vs AMD's, also it's well documented how corrupt deals done by intel lead to their advantage, they couldn't care less about the consumer if they tried!

4K8KW10 · 17 Jan 2020 at 16:27

KungFuSpaghetti said:
EPYC, the vegans choice!

EPYC is faster, cheaper, more power efficient, morally and ethically the much better choice, so why not? Of course, companies such as Microsoft must adhere to energy efficiency at all levels.