Don't find either particularly enticing personally - I'm hoping 10nm CPUs aren't too far off before I spend money again. I've a second i7 system I can shuffle anything that would tie up my CPU onto anyhow which takes some of the pressure off of needing to upgrade - so far not found the 4820K holding me back for gaming.
-
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 THREADRIPPER VS INTEL SKYLAKE X
- Thread starter faceman123
- Start date
IMO its not so cut and dry this time.
Intel can't go on paying people not to use AMD's chips and manipulate the books to hide it forever, especially this time with AMD's super aggressive pricing, AMD have learned a hard lesson from last time, this time its AMD who are raging the financial war and it will cost Intel a lot more than AMD in the long run as Intel's chips are far more expensive to make and their running costs are vastly higher than AMD's
Intel need the colossal profits they are used to, they built their business around that model, AMD don't and when you consider that the 32 core EPYC chip's cost them $120 assembled and tested they are actually making huge profits. even on the ones selling for as little as $450.
AMD have survived for the best part of a decade on nothing, whatever AMD gain from here on out makes them stronger, Intel have already been forced to release 10 core HEDT CPU at half the price they would have liked and cannibalise their Exon line to stay ahead, With AMD now blowing a massive hole in that Exon line at a fraction of Intel's pricing their golden goose has just stopped laying.
This is payback.
Intel can't go on paying people not to use AMD's chips and manipulate the books to hide it forever, especially this time with AMD's super aggressive pricing, AMD have learned a hard lesson from last time, this time its AMD who are raging the financial war and it will cost Intel a lot more than AMD in the long run as Intel's chips are far more expensive to make and their running costs are vastly higher than AMD's
Intel need the colossal profits they are used to, they built their business around that model, AMD don't and when you consider that the 32 core EPYC chip's cost them $120 assembled and tested they are actually making huge profits. even on the ones selling for as little as $450.
AMD have survived for the best part of a decade on nothing, whatever AMD gain from here on out makes them stronger, Intel have already been forced to release 10 core HEDT CPU at half the price they would have liked and cannibalise their Exon line to stay ahead, With AMD now blowing a massive hole in that Exon line at a fraction of Intel's pricing their golden goose has just stopped laying.
This is payback.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,433
- Location
- Planet Earth
Sure but they will have to drop prices and any sales AMD gains is at the expense of Intel.
EPYC is more than just performance and power competitive with Exon, there is nothing that Intel have where they can say "our chips are worth $8000 more than AMD's"
If they try that mind-share will go out the window, Intel will have to come down to a pricing level that is more in line with AMD's, as they already have with Skylake-X, thousands of $ less revenue per chip... in doing so Intel's massive cashcow has fallen flat on its face, dead.
I thought the Intel DC grade CPU's come under the Xeon brand unless I've missed something?
You underestimate how hard it will be for a company employee to recommend AMD chips. The old saying is: "nobody ever got fired for going Intel". The IT departments will not risk going AMD unless they are 100% that they are reliable no matter how big the price difference. At this point I would not recommend AMD to a business/end user as it would be a support nightmare, PC enthusiasts can deal with the issues but business/end users cannot. It will take several years for AMD to gain the trust needed to make a real change but it’s definitely a good start.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,433
- Location
- Planet Earth
I am quoting this post from AT forums:
It looks like some major companies are already deploying Epyc based servers.
It looks like some major companies are already deploying Epyc based servers.
Last edited:
Yeah because Microsoft, Baidu and others just willy nilly decided to partner with AMD and sign multi-million dollar contracts for Epyc without first extensively testing the platform against what Intel is offering.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,433
- Location
- Planet Earth
Most of the issues have been around people running systems with out of spec RAM,etc which have zero to do with systems in the data centre - just like some of the issues with the SKL-X launch. The commercial systems will be running everything at stock from a limited amount of suppliers.
OFC,Intel will still sell more,and I think certain aspects AMD can't do much about(probably legacy software emulation),but again if those larger organisations are obviously spending time and effort to deploy Zen based systems,that will trickle down the stack as software companies would have an impetus to optimise for Ryzen too.
For many companies though extensively testing options is a luxury and they will simply go with what they know. In mid-level corporations, etc. it will be like turning a boat.
And yet here AMD has gotten major partners, ones that literally help run the world nearly. Them moving towards it is a very positive, and will help influence smaller ones.
Or do people actually think MS, Dropbox, Baidu and others wouldn't have made sure everything ran damn well to Intel's standard atleast.
The clear majority of their servers will be Intel until they can trust the platform. Hopefully AMD will get thing working reliably out the gate. I would like to get a Threadripper but some of my work software will not run on my Ryzen PC so I need to have an Intel PC just for that.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,433
- Location
- Planet Earth
They obviously trust the platform otherwise they wouldn't be deploying any AMD based products and it would be easier for them to just continue buying Intel anyway and do you honestly Intel would not have tried to stop them buying a single one by offering sweeteners??
The fact of the matter you are seeing a sea change in how things are going now - the market has massively changed now from even a decade ago. Its not only Intel and AMD in the field but loads of other firms chipping away at the edges. The Chinese indigenous developments could be quite significant as time progresses and this is why Intel is making weird statements which is out of character.
The fact is they won't have the luxury of being to sell their CPUs at any price anymore,and even if AMD gets 5% or 10% of Intel server sales in the next 18 months,that's further Intel revenue gone.
Have you not even seen the news today that Intel has further shuttered various IoT projects,which is more money down the drain. How much did Atom cost them?? Contra revenue cost them billions.
What do you think is paying for all this??
It easy for a company to give out a big list of company’s supporting them, when the AMD 64/x2 chips hit I was convinced they would take a big chunk of Intel’s market share but it never happened even though they were much better. I hope this time is different but it’s too early to tell. If MS does start using a lot of AMD CPU’s it will be great as they will need to optimize their software for AMD chip’s which will be a big win for AMD.
Back then Intel illegally bribed companies not to use AMD, they were even forced by the FTC to pay a few Billion to AMD as a result.
Sadly that fine never got close to the overall money and marketshare AMD hit.
Now that AMD finally launched, and launched with huge partners it's a good thing at least.
A funny Tidbit on AMD's end notes is, which directly relates back to how Intel previously used nasty tactics to prevent AMD from gaining any market share.
Dont make me say it Intel but ............... AMDPower ....................
I really hope AMD can do a similar performance in the graphics card market against NVIDIA and their silly £800-£1200 graphics cards.
We have all learnt a hard lesson over last 10 years, competition is VERY IMPORTANT in business. Because in its absence, it allows one side to capitalise on their position and take advantage of the consumers.
£2000 cpu intel ? hahhahhahah
AMD need to give me loyalty discount
I really hope AMD can do a similar performance in the graphics card market against NVIDIA and their silly £800-£1200 graphics cards.
We have all learnt a hard lesson over last 10 years, competition is VERY IMPORTANT in business. Because in its absence, it allows one side to capitalise on their position and take advantage of the consumers.
£2000 cpu intel ? hahhahhahah
AMD need to give me loyalty discount
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,433
- Location
- Planet Earth
Well TBH even at full pelt I suspect GF won't be able to out-produce Intel so Intel can simply push more volume,but the fact is Intel will need to change its pricing structure,and for a much smaller company any marketshare gained is going to be more noticeable for them anyway. In the end it is significant that MS is going to use Epyc for their Azure service - it does make me wonder whether AMD working with MS for their last consoles,has helped in that regard. I would never dream even at the height of the Athlon 64 MS ever doing that back then.