• 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 mean, no one NOW actually believes the BLM founder is an actual Marxist who cares about anyone or anything but the four mansions she now owns paid for by donations. But its had a lot of useful idiots on their knees, including politicians, wow.....
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I mean how can they miss that the Ampere based CPUs,have large monolithic dies? AFAIK,they don't appear to be MCMs,and the package is the biggest ever made for a server CPU.

AMD are using small chiplets,and have the I/O made on lagging nodes,which massively reduces the amount of risk. This is why Intel has so many problems,and we have seen going to chiplets means you need to invest a lot in keep I/O power down,which monolithic designs have less of an issue with. But then making bigger and bigger chips is a risk too.

Plus existing customers can probably use drop in upgrades to existing infrastucture(AMD is famous for doing this - IIRC even the BD based HPC CPUs could drop into ones with the Phenom II based ones). Intel might have problems now,but they have a ton of experience in packaging too,ie,like AMD they are probably going to use different nodes for different parts on the same CPU(they are after all doing their own chiplets).

There is no indication that the Ampere CPUs currently or the immediate future are going that way. So they are going to be huge dies,on a cutting edge process node. That is the issue with many of these ARM based designs,they are very dependent on being on the best nodes.

Unlike the Wafer Scale Engine,which is design to get around yields by huge redundancy,what is the yields on these kind of CPUs? It's all fine and dandy showing the top models,if they end up having yield or volume issues. I would say AMD would have a better chance of making a top tier Epyc and are pricing stuff because they can.

Plus the issue is Ampere might even be paying more per 7NM or 5NM wafer than AMD. So it makes me wonder how much of this pricing is because they having lower margins,and and hope to gain share before prices go up. Is this level of pricing sustainable for them?

If there is an ARM based chip which seems actually groundbreaking - its the Fujitsu A64FX. A CPU system design for homgeneous scalability by having the functionality of a CPU and GPU,and designed to scale. Its utterly ignored by the tech press.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

From another thread.

humbug said:
It looks like for the next few years at least Intel CPU's are still monolithic, it seems Intel are using the Big + Little to make up the numbers, because if you can't match your competitor for raw core count fudge it and hope no one thinks about it too much, in marketing terms that has been Intel's MO for several years.

AMD have a central foundation die to which you literally plug cores into, want 16 cores? plug another core cluster into it, want 32 cores? plug 4 core clusters into it, 64 cores? Well plug 8 into it then.... there are limits but those limits are how many core clusters you can fit on a PCB, or how big can you make the PCB.

Its ingenious and at this stage AMD have this technology so nailed down there are no drawbacks.
Click to expand...



Can you imagine how big a 64 core monolithic CPU would have to be, even on Intel's 10nm or TSMC's 7nm? about the size Nvidia's A100 and those things are ridiculously huge, how many of those do you get out of a $15,000 wafer? 20? that's why they cost $12,000 a pop.

AMD can make those CPU's for a few hundred $ wafer cost and sell them at $4,000, that's a lot of change they are getting for it, Intel couldn't even sell them for that, its below cost.

Makes you wonder why Intel still haven't borrowed that AMD glue, maybe its not that easy.

AMD have critical tech on Intel and increasingly the are going to feel it.
 
Out of interest i ran a quick comparison on the A100 die and the Zen 3 CCD.

A100: 24 good dies.

Zen 3: 670 good dies.

$15,000 / 24 = $625 each A100 wafer cost

$15,000 / 670 = $22 each 8 core chiplet, x8 = $176 to make up a 64 core CPU.

Not as dramatic as i first thought but..

Edit: the IO die is GloFo 14nm and costs peanuts.

lYTk6J6.png


SjmloOG.png
 
It’s still a marked difference though at 3x.

I can’t help but still think that AMD are holding back an IO architecture design that’s their long term design between all their chip(lets) both cpu and gpu.
 
NinjaCool said:
April was a quite month but we can see that so far Intel’s Rocket Lake has barely been selling at Mindfactory.
GivIMoW.png
Click to expand...

So those too expensive 5800X (Red Block) aren't doing too well, AMD only sold like about as many as Intel sold...... CPU's.
 
Dave2150 said:
Overall sales, worldwide, would see huge sales of 11400 CPU's from Intel, as it's such a good value CPU. AMD need something to counter this, else I suspect AMD will lose market share each week there's no answer.

More info on this excellent budget choice here > https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/intel-core-i5-11400-review
Click to expand...

Would that big river in South America online shop be a major world wide store? the 11400 is never even in the top 20 best sellers, while the 5600X, 5800X and the 5900X now are consistently in the top 5.

The 3600 still outsells the 11400 range by multiple factors, AMD don't have to do anything, they sell 8X more CPU's than Intel.

Do you know why the 3600 sells so well? it uses no power and generates no heat, you can use its tiny box cooler, stick it in a cigar box case with a mini GTX 1060 and forget about it.

Its the perfect micro box CPU that actually has some muscle.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Would that big river in South America online shop be a major world wide store? the 11400 is never even in the top 20 best sellers, while the 5600X, 5800X and the 5900X now are consistently in the top 5.

The 3600 still outsells the 11400 range by multiple factors, AMD don't have to do anything, they sell 8X more CPU's than Intel.

Do you know why the 3600 sells so well? it uses no power and generates no heat, you can use its tiny box cooler, stick it in a cigar box case with a mini GTX 1060 and forget about it.

Its the perfect micro box CPU that actually has some muscle.
Click to expand...
The 5600X at current pricing in 2021 is incredibly poor value considering you could have brought the 8700K back near its release for almost the same price and enjoyed 4 years worth of top gaming performance by now and the fact that people pay more for a 3600 over an 11400F boggles the mind and just goes to show that mindshare will make people pay more for an inferior performing product.
 
pete910 said:
The time to buy was when it was a couple of quid a share :(
Click to expand...

The time to buy was mid march 2020, when the markets over sold off.

A sell off in the markets is a buying opportunity. The secret was to buy stocks that would do good in either a pandemic, or post pandemic, US tech fitted that requirement.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom