• 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 to unveil Zen 4 CPUs at CES 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't disagree with you about the long-standing performance (and per-watt) of the aging Zen3 architecture, but I wasn't comparing that to begin with. But whilst we're on the point of process nodes, Intel have had a poor time with their process nodes for a while. AMD Zen3 is on TSMC 7 nm which Intel have only just managed to get competitive with (Intel 7), which in turn has offered them the similar perf-per-watt but with them pumping more juice to get ahead.

How do you know that ST performance of the 5800X3D is in fact lower than that of Alder Lake in gaming? I reckon it is actually faster, at least in the games that have responded well to the extra cache. I don't know of any specific testing that has been done to explore this.

Intel 7 is Intel's 10nm renamed, they claim its as good as TSMC 7nm.

It would be more correct to say that CB R23 ST performance is not the be all end all of gaming performance. This is very clearly shown with the 5800X3D which is about on par with a 5700X in CB R23 ST but is on par with a 12900K + DDR5 in games across a AAA biased suite and if you are into the sim or strategy stuff the 5800X3D is the fastest part on the planet for those kinds of games.

Anybody who is trying to extrapolate how Rocket Lake and Zen 4 will perform in games based on CB R23 ST numbers is going to be wide of the mark because the switch to DDR5 and doubling of L2 cache will help gaming performance but it does not impact CB r23 ST performance.

This guy gets it ^^^
 
It would be more correct to say that CB R23 ST performance is not the be all end all of gaming performance. This is very clearly shown with the 5800X3D which is about on par with a 5700X in CB R23 ST but is on par with a 12900K + DDR5 in games across a AAA biased suite and if you are into the sim or strategy stuff the 5800X3D is the fastest part on the planet for those kinds of games.

Anybody who is trying to extrapolate how Rocket Lake and Zen 4 will perform in games based on CB R23 ST numbers is going to be wide of the mark because the switch to DDR5 and doubling of L2 cache will help gaming performance but it does not impact CB r23 ST performance.
It is latency that dictates gaming performance. Used to be memory latency, but now with bigger and bigger cache sizes thats not as important anymore, at least for the 3d cache sku

Thats why cometlake with tuned memory, getting down to 36ns latency can beat the 5950x even with a sever single thread disadvantage
 
Just seen an article which shows a AMD slide confirming "Market Availability" or AM5 and Zen 4 on 15th Spetember

Nice I'm getting excited now I'm basically gonna build a whole new pc in a few months: either zen4 or Raptor lake, ddr5 memory, new mobo, pcie5 ssd and rtx4090
 
Nice I'm getting excited now I'm basically gonna build a whole new pc in a few months: either zen4 or Raptor lake, ddr5 memory, new mobo, pcie5 ssd and rtx4090
I goot a 5950X but the willy waver in me will find it hard to resist an upgrade even though totally unwaranted, may hold out to Zen4 3D though
 
What domination, the server market is 90% intel 10% AMD, lol. The enterprise market is concerned with safety, and with all these security flaws that AMD has it makes sense that Intel dominates in that regard. Especially the new hertzbleed vulnernability that can executed remotely, that's pretty nasty.
 
What domination, the server market is 90% intel 10% AMD, lol. The enterprise market is concerned with safety, and with all these security flaws that AMD has it makes sense that Intel dominates in that regard. Especially the new hertzbleed vulnernability that can executed remotely, that's pretty nasty.
Your pro Intel talk is starting to really get me cheesed off now. Yes Intel has marke share in teh server market but they are loosing more and more of that share every day and it would seem Epyc has Intel beaten in the server space which will only give AMD more market share. As for safety, where was you when all teh Intel bugs were being reported. Learn some perspective. You are so blinkered to only focus on Itel it would seem you have zero idea abot other products
 
There is no pro Intel talk, im just giving you the actual numbers. It's funny reading about amd domination in a market space where they are basically non existent, don't you think? Yet you don't consider that "pro AMD talk".

The latest security vulnernability, which is also the most severe one (it can actually be executed remotely, which is pretty much nuts), only affects the latest amd (zen 2 / zen 3) and the old intel products.
 
Zen 4 will continue with domination, while Intel can't even release new product https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/16/amd_beats_intel_in_cloud/

What Cloudflare said about it.

We evaluated Intel’s latest generation of “Ice Lake” Xeon processors. Although Intel’s chips were able to compete with AMD in terms of raw performance, the power consumption was several hundred watts higher per server - that’s enormous. This meant that Intel’s Performance per Watt was unattractive.

 
What Cloudflare said about it.



Intel is in big trouble, creating new architectures takes time, and they have yet to beat Zen 2/ Zen 3, while AMD doesn't slow down, Zen 5 design is finished, while Zen 4 is manufacturing. They also have 3 versions for every workload, original, 3dcache and cloud, and we have yet to see Xilinx + Pensando products integration that will increase performance in these specific workloads even more, i don't see a bright future for Intel. Intel have legacy systems, old clients, but almost every new client choose AMD, and when you see a list of Top supercomputers, AMD dominates them. Server market is slow, but AMD is eating their market share, Intel know that, and they don't have solution for that.
 
There is no pro Intel talk, im just giving you the actual numbers. It's funny reading about amd domination in a market space where they are basically non existent, don't you think? Yet you don't consider that "pro AMD talk".

The latest security vulnernability, which is also the most severe one (it can actually be executed remotely, which is pretty much nuts), only affects the latest amd (zen 2 / zen 3) and the old intel products.
Well i suspect a great deal of teh 90% Intel market Share would be running older Xeons so they may well be vulnerable to no? I think post here were refering to performance and efficency in the server market as you well know. No one here believes AMD has a bigger server market share, you just twisted teh implied refrence of domination to mean teh only thing Intel is actually stringer then AMD in
 
Intel is in big trouble, creating new architectures takes time, and they have yet to beat Zen 2/ Zen 3, while AMD doesn't slow down, Zen 5 design is finished, while Zen 4 is manufacturing. They also have 3 versions for every workload, original, 3dcache and cloud, and we have yet to see Xilinx + Pensando products integration that will increase performance in these specific workloads even more, i don't see a bright future for Intel. Intel have legacy systems, old clients, but almost every new client choose AMD, and when you see a list of Top supercomputers, AMD dominates them. Server market is slow, but AMD is eating their market share, Intel know that, and they don't have solution for that.

I think Intel will get their #### together eventually. or If not they could be on a slow protracted Nokia road, AMD are rapidly gaining a reputation for product excellence and executing them on time, relentlessly. Competence. Intel are heading in the opposite direction at the same pace. Intel are becoming a meme.

One of the problems, IMO, is like narcissists Intel's need to always be in the spotlight, Intel always want eyes on them, they are constantly talking about what they are doing, they have very detailed roadmap's many generations in to the future, which of course people hold them to it, and then they can't execute those roadmaps.

AMD's roadmaps are never more than 2 generation in to the future and they give absolutely nothing away "Zen 4 Genoa 96 core 2022 and Zen 4C Bergamo 128 core 2023" and that's only because they already have working silicon, so they know for a fact what they are saying will happen, they don't talk about things 4 years in to the future that's only on the drawing board, they are building a reputation for trusting in what they say by only talking about things they already have working, Intel's mentality is very much Look at me... Look at me.... Look at me...... so they are constantly talking about #### that is nothing but hot air and bluster.

Intel are a massive $70 Billion company, but that revenue is slowly shrinking and they have massive debts, in 2016 Intel's margins were 67%, they are now 50% and still falling.

In 2015 AMD's revenue was less than $1 Billion, with margins of 33%, in 2022 they are predicted to earn $22 Billion with margins of 50%, and still growing, AMD are 100% debt free, AMD recently made the largest semi conductor purchase in history, the Xilinx acquisition, at $50 Billion it was the most expensive semi conductor purchase ever, its AMD that are now able to spend the really big money in gobbling up competitors, Suits style.

Several more years of this and yes Intel could be in trouble.
 
Last edited:
Well i suspect a great deal of teh 90% Intel market Share would be running older Xeons so they may well be vulnerable to no? I think post here were refering to performance and efficency in the server market as you well know. No one here believes AMD has a bigger server market share, you just twisted teh implied refrence of domination to mean teh only thing Intel is actually stringer then AMD in
Yeah, as i said, they have old clients because they were far longer in the game, but when it comes to new clients, they choose AMD. Google, Microsoft, Amazon etc, they are biggest companies in the world, and they all choose AMD, and each client brings tons of money for AMD, so better to have 1 big customer, than 50 little customers that Intel have, and also don't forget that Intel is dirty, they bribe customers or even offer them free upgrade just to stay with them, and that means no money for Intel, but better no money than going to AMD? :) Intel spents too much money on marketing, bribes and talks, while AMD is focusing on the products, smart play, good tactic etc, Lisa Su know how to play game.
 
Well i suspect a great deal of teh 90% Intel market Share would be running older Xeons so they may well be vulnerable to no? I think post here were refering to performance and efficency in the server market as you well know. No one here believes AMD has a bigger server market share, you just twisted teh implied refrence of domination to mean teh only thing Intel is actually stringer then AMD in
I've no idea to be fair, I think intel transitioned to their 10nm icelake for a while now, dunno for how long.

The sapphire rapids that are full GC cores of course are going to walk all over the zen 3 cores. Ofcourse by that time we might or might not have zen 4 epycs, time will tell, but for the time being intel has the faster and more efficient core. Of course it's also way more expensive to produce, at least in terms of die size, but I think the server market can afford to pay for that.

As a consumer though, I don't really care about the server space to be honest with you.
 
Intel need their renewed interest in being a foundry to 3rd parties to succeed I imagine.
As they lose marketshare and their margins drop, it becomes harder for them to invest enough in the fabs to be able to compete with TSMC.
I know that they are now using TSMC for some cutting edge nodes, but I can't see that they can offload all of their premium designs to TSMC.

So if they can gain traction as a 3rd party foundry and sell a lot of low to mid range GPUs, that would help the volume of chips going through the fabs.
Both seem a stretch right now and I don't count on anything with Intel until it hits retail as their recent track record is so poor.

With TSMC investing so much in new fabs, it means AMD might not be so volume constrained in the future.
It's easy to see them both growing strongly over the next 2 or 3 years with Intel falling back further.
Beyond that, it depends on too many unknowns.
The new packaging and ever more modular tile based approaches open up new opportunities.
 
Last edited:
Wendell, for those who don't know Wendell is tech support for tech support, a really clever guy why has the ears of all the highest ranking people in this industry.

He made an interesting point on MLID, he puts part of AMD's success down to a difference in how Intel and AMD approach the industry, Intel design their products very much behind closed doors and then say to potential customers "this is our new thing, this is how it works so from here on this is how you do things"
In the past this has always worked for Intel because they had the scale to be dictatorial like that, and crucially it forces people to use Intel products, it looks them in to Intel.

AMD have a very different approach, they go to their potential customers and ask "what is it exactly that you want, tell us and we will design and build it" they then work with them in developing the product, they figure what Microsoft and Amazon want is probably what everyone wants, even if they don't know it yet.
AMD are saying "no need to spend Billions in developing your own custom chips, we will do that for you, just tell us what you need"

Intel need their renewed interest in being a foundry to 3rd parties to succeed I imagine.
As they lose marketshare and their margins drop, it becomes harder for them to invest enough in the fabs to be able to compete withTSMC.
I know that they are now using TSMC for some cutting edge nodes, but I can't see that they can offload all of their premium designs to TSMC.

So if they can gain traction as a 3rd party foundry and sell a lot of low to mid range GPUs, that would help the volume of chips going through the fabs.
Both seem a stretch right now and I don't count on anything with Intel until it hits retail as their recent track record is so poor.

With TSMC investing so much in new fabs, it means AMD might not be so volume constrained in the future.
It's easy to see them both growing strongly over the next 2 or 3 years with Intel falling back further.
Beyond that, it depends on too many unknowns.
The new packaging and ever more modular tile based approaches open up new opportunities.

This is a brilliant point, AMD sold off their fabs more than a decade ago because they realised it was going to be too expensive to keep up with the industry, its better to work with a fab that has many other customers and with that the revenue to stay ahead of the curve, in this case TSMC.

Intel cannot keep up with TSMC because frankly in the way they are operating right now they cannot afford it, they are spending R&D on developing GPU's, CPU's and bunch of other stuff and their fabs, Intel want to become a leading fab with customers, a competitor to TSMC, well, pretty soon thyey are going to have to make a decision about that, they are way behind the curve and bleeding R&D money all over the place on things that are not conjunctive to that future.
 
There is no pro Intel talk, im just giving you the actual numbers. It's funny reading about amd domination in a market space where they are basically non existent, don't you think? Yet you don't consider that "pro AMD talk".

The latest security vulnernability, which is also the most severe one (it can actually be executed remotely, which is pretty much nuts), only affects the latest amd (zen 2 / zen 3) and the old intel products.

I think citation is needed for that last comment seeing that Intels own security advisory states that "All Intel® Processors are affected." (see: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-00698.html)

Also worth noting that it was Intel that requested that the Hertzbleed details be kept private for a long time (from Q3 2021 till June 14th) even though they haven't produced a patch and seemingly aren't going/able to do so.

This following Spectre which affected Intel vastly more than AMD doesn't look good at all. As for numbers, yes Intel dominates in market share but the rate at which AMD is taking market share is impressive, from 5% at the start of 2020 to 11% now, it's a slow market to accept change but the momentum is definitely heading AMDs way, with this latest delay to Intels server chips that's just going to increase.
 
I think citation is needed for that last comment seeing that Intels own security advisory states that "All Intel® Processors are affected." (see: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-00698.html)

Also worth noting that it was Intel that requested that the Hertzbleed details be kept private for a long time (from Q3 2021 till June 14th) even though they haven't produced a patch and seemingly aren't going/able to do so.

This following Spectre which affected Intel vastly more than AMD doesn't look good at all. As for numbers, yes Intel dominates in market share but the rate at which AMD is taking market share is impressive, from 5% at the start of 2020 to 11% now, it's a slow market to accept change but the momentum is definitely heading AMDs way, with this latest delay to Intels server chips that's just going to increase.
They haven't managed to reproduce it, as far as I understand, on alderlake. From the official page of hertzbleed.


And yes, I know the server market is a really slow moving one, which is actually my point. By the time AMD can actually get any significant foothold, Intel has the time to have an answer ready. Doesn't mean their answer will be a good one, I'm just saying they have the time. Whether they fail or not, is up to them.

We don't know much about zen 4 right now, so going by what we already have, which is Zen 3 vs Golden Cove, the Golden Cove is faster and more efficient, while the Zen 3 due to the chiplets is way cheaper to create. I would assume, if there is one market that can afford to pay for big monolithic chips, it's the server market, so Intel will have the edge there, until of course a zen 4 epyc shows up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom