• 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 Zen 3 (Ryzen 4000) already in the works

Scougar said:
Really think AMD need to hit the nail in further. Force Intel to have to innovate with their products. Delaying gen 4.. might be better ROI, but they also need to win the market and become the only option for a time. Remind people they are out there... Show up in chain stores etc.
Click to expand...

+1

AMD is laughing stock when it comes to the masses and the sheep.

I was speaking to a guy the other day who said he would never buy AMD. He then went on to say the only laptops he trusted was alienware too.

Brand name counts for a lot. And AMD's brand is pretty much cheap crap to most folk. Intel has dominated the market for too long. AMD needs to stay on top for a considerable amount of time and they need to keep on top of intel for things to change. It will take at least 5-10 years before any real dent is made into intels market share. So they need to do as much as they can within that period of time before resting on their laurels.
 
They are doing phenomenal in the CPU space right now, if they rest they make it easy for Intel to re-establish with marketing, which frankly is what they have the money for.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
+1

AMD is laughing stock when it comes to the masses and the sheep.

I was speaking to a guy the other day who said he would never buy AMD. He then went on to say the only laptops he trusted was alienware too.

Brand name counts for a lot. And AMD's brand is pretty much cheap crap to most folk. Intel has dominated the market for too long. AMD needs to stay on top for a considerable amount of time and they need to keep on top of intel for things to change. It will take at least 5-10 years before any real dent is made into intels market share. So they need to do as much as they can within that period of time before resting on their laurels.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately brand name counts for a lot. When I bought my 1700 one of my mates who is fairly IT illiterate asked me why did I buy the budget brand. (－‸ლ)
 
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1534...-lisa-su?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
You should expect that we’re going to be very aggressive with the CPU roadmap. We think Zen 2 is the best CPU core out there today, and we’re very proud of it. We’ve completed the family and Zen 3 is doing really well, we’re very pleased about it and you’ll hear more about it in 2020. Rather than ask me the question three times Ian [laughs], let me clear: you will see Zen 3 in 2020!
Click to expand...
 
opethdisciple said:
Unfortunately brand name counts for a lot. When I bought my 1700 one of my mates who is fairly IT illiterate asked me why did I buy the budget brand. (－‸ლ)
Click to expand...

Problem is those people make up like 95% of the market. Maybe even more.

Which is why AMD have to assert themselves whilst they can.

USER benchmark changed its algorithms for marking cpus last year.

This proves that they have to not only be the best they have to smash Intel for the masses to take notice.

If AMD can make a processor which is cheaper and say double the power of an equivalent Intel processor then people would start to take some real notice.

The only people buying are enthusiasts and non Intel fan boys. They need the masses because without them Intel with time will likely become number one again their tactics are very under hand.
 
apostolis_kt said:
At a friends workplace the IT boss swears by xeon processors and wouldnt know what Epyc is.
Click to expand...
From what I can tell, even IT bosses these days get more excited by a new phone or tablet than the underlying hardware.

It's all about gizmos and gadgets.

Likewise most people in our IT think AMD is a cheap knock-off like Cyrix. In fact mention AMD and you're quite likely to get a story about how they used a Cyrix processor back in the 90s or something.

The reality is, many pros see Intel is the professional choice. The only professional choice.
 
Mindshare doesn't take as long as it used to too change, with all the modern day social media crap. Everyone is more but less aware these days.
The average Joe catches a few memes slagging intel and hes sold.
 
opethdisciple said:
Yep. In one of my past jobs when we was doing a hardware refresh I recommended Epyc based servers and they all scoffed and said no way has to be Intel.
Click to expand...

Its not as straight forward as it being better though is it. Where i worked we provided the infrastructure and the dev teams then installed whatever systems and programs they needed to on them. So, there's nothing wrong with us as an Infrastructure department going out and switching from Intel to AMD and changing hardware but if there are any issues after that point, its our fault. I know businesses are technically all on one team etc, but the blame game is real. We did move to AMD eventually it just took an extra generation of convincing. So just because there's a better option out there doesn't mean that its a case of going to it right away.
 
It should take long for AMD stats to improve on Steam. Plus there are a lot of laptops playing casual on steam. I can think of a few friends who gave their kids their old laptops to play their steam games etc.
Those weren't AMD :P
 
random_matt said:
You know AMD now have 40% marketshare right?
Click to expand...
The bulk of sales are OEM where Intel is King and even more so with laptops.
Don't confuse AMD's massive success at certain stores for retail boxed CPUs with the much wider and much larger market.
It's a long haul to build the orders for OEM desktops and laptops and they can't rush it as can they even supply 40% of the overall market this year if they had the orders?
Highly unlikely as they are reliant on 3rd parties to fab the chips.
Too much success too quickly can lead to problems.
They need to grow at a sustainable rate as if they let down a major OEM badly it will hurt their reputation and might compromise their future sales.
The real test is the next few years whilst they have a window to get large OEM orders with Intel supply constrained and at a very low point in general.
They need to get major orders for the bread and butter chips as the flagship £400+ chips aren't where the OEM volume is.
They need desktop APUs to compete below £200 which they still lack.
If they become too successful quickly, they might become supply constrained for the retail parts as they would prioritise OEM so the prices at retail might rise.
They have a lot to juggle.
 
Grim5 said:
perfect.

that could mean 400mm2 is more than enough for next gen consoles like we've seen from the chip showing by Phil Spencer.

150mm2 for the cpu and 250mm2 for the gpu
Click to expand...

150MM2 is including the 8 CU GPU and all the IO. Unlike the CPU it does not have separate IO and CPU chiplets. We already know a 8 core CPU chiplet with 32MB of L3 cache(8MB per CCX against 4MB per CCX for the APU),is around 70MM2~80MM2.

So assuming they go for less L3 cache like the APU,the CPU part of the XBox SOC must be well under 70MM2,and considering they don't need as much IO either,probably not much more than 100MM2 for the CPU and IO part. It might mean they have more the 250MM2 to spare for the GPU part.

Also apparently they are using 7NM EUV,which is denser,for the APU. If they do the same for the consoles,they could pack even more CUs per mm2,compared to the desktop Navi die which is on the previous 7NM process.

Plus if the rumours are true,the PS5 is meant to be less powerful,as it has much less GPU CUs,but OTH,it might make it appreciably smaller regarding the SOC it uses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom