Intel's 80% Desktop Marketshare, 92% Server Marketshare

[4K8KW10]

Marginal updates? They have given us probably the largest updates generation to generation since Ryzen was introduced for the last 15 years now. They have reworked their chip designs, architecture and very are very different updates that are very far from marginal. Are you sure you are not looking at Intel 14nm for marginal updates?

They probably mean Intel that has given more or less 2-3% year-to-year performance improvement in the last decade.

 

[cliffy]

Personally, I think AMD will struggle long term to take further market share, simply as they don't have their own fabs. I just can't see them being a threat, unless they A). Own their own fabs again (extremely expensive, so unlikely) or B). Enter a more concrete partnership with TSMC to reserve more capacity. I don't think AMD can afford option A with current revenues, and for B, I think Apple will always be able to outbid for wafer capacity from TSMC.

At the end of the day, you can have the best CPU design for any given task, but without manufacturing capacity, it amounts to nothing.

I know you love Intel but please explain to my why Intel having its own FAB is such a big deal, you seem to be extremely focused on this point lately but please explain

A) Why Intel have been stuck for so long on 14nm when having their own FAB is such a benefit
B) why Intel themselves have struggled with shortages in chip production over the last few years

I know you do not tend to respond to questions that do not follow your personal opinion but i would love to hear your logic, if there is any...

 

[Minstadave]

I know you love Intel but please explain to my why Intel having its own FAB is such a big deal, you seem to be extremely focused on this point lately but please explain

A) Why Intel have been stuck for so long on 14nm when having their own FAB is such a benefit
B) why Intel themselves have struggled with shortages in chip production over the last few years

I know you do not tend to respond to questions that do not follow your personal opinion but i would love to hear your logic, if there is any...

Expect a post and run from Dave. He doesn't enter discussions that challenge his world view.

 

[4K8KW10]

I think the opposite. It's only the beginning of the times of losing market share for Intel.
They will lose a lot more in the coming years.

Both to AMD, and to ARM.

 

[cliffy]

Expect a post and run from Dave. He doesn't enter discussions that challenge his world view.

Thats what irritates me so much about it. I do not ind he has a different opinion but i would like to understand his logic and reasoning but everytime i try and engage in a converstaion he bails which is why i just believe him to be a troll

 

[mmj_uk]

Marginal updates? They have given us probably the largest updates generation to generation since Ryzen was introduced for the last 15 years now. They have reworked their chip designs, architecture and very are very different updates that are very far from marginal. Are you sure you are not looking at Intel 14nm for marginal updates?

Since Ryzen launched the updates have been very marginal and we've had what 3 chipsets? my point is the latest Ryzen CPU's should at the very least be the same price today than when Ryzen first launched but AMD have chosen to go in the other direction as they're milking it for all its worth. 3800XT was a prime example 100mhz extra boost, an X on the end of the label and an extra £50 on the price rather than releasing at the same price and lowering the 3800X.

Intel have been at their weakest the last few years and rather than capitalise by offering cheap CPU's, looking to win over new customers and sell in large quantities, they've gone for maximum profit so you have situations where people see that Intel are not that much more expensive and stick with what's reputable and/or what they have good experiences with rather than chance it with AMD.

Intel can afford to get lazy and greedy as they dominate market share, AMD can't they need to increase market share whiie they're very much on top, not just milk their very small market share as much as possible until Intel can get their act together.

 

[4K8KW10]

AMD Has Scaled Ryzen Faster Than Any Other CPU in the Past 20 Years
AMD Has Scaled Ryzen Faster Than Any Other CPU in the Past 20 Years - ExtremeTech

"The benchmarks AMD showed during its Zen 3 unveil showed a single-threaded CB20 score of 631 and claimed a 640 for the 5950X. Zen 1 scored a 381 in the same benchmark back in 2017."

 

[cliffy]

Since Ryzen launched the updates have been very marginal and we've had what 3 chipsets? my point is the latest Ryzen CPU's should at the very least be the same price today than when Ryzen first launched but AMD have chosen to go in the other direction as they're milking it for all its worth. 3800XT was a prime example 100mhz extra boost, an X on the end of the label and an extra £50 on the price rather than releasing at the same price and lowering the 3800X.

Intel have been at their weakest the last few years and rather than capitalise by offering cheap CPU's, looking to win over new customers and sell in large quantities, they've gone for maximum profit so you have situations where people see that Intel are not that much more expensive and stick with what's reputable and/or what they have good experiences with rather than chance it with AMD.

Intel can afford to get lazy and greedy as they dominate market share, AMD can't they need to increase market share whiie they're very much on top, not just milk their very small market share as much as possible until Intel can get their act together.

You got to be joking surely. The IPC gains for Ryzen have been massive over the last 3 years, Zen 2 to 3 in particular

 

[denigor777]

Companies stick to what they know. They want stability and as insane as it sounds some people would probably double up on Intel to compensate for any performance difference.

They fear the unknown basically. Having a server go down could cost a company millions so they are risk averse.

I think it's becoming less and less of an issue, As companies move more and more IT to cloud. Azure, AWS and Google are more savvy/not amd scared. They can move workloads if a server goes down too.

 

[Dave2150]

I know you love Intel but please explain to my why Intel having its own FAB is such a big deal, you seem to be extremely focused on this point lately but please explain

A) Why Intel have been stuck for so long on 14nm when having their own FAB is such a benefit
B) why Intel themselves have struggled with shortages in chip production over the last few years

I know you do not tend to respond to questions that do not follow your personal opinion but i would love to hear your logic, if there is any...

Hey Cliffy. The answers to your questions are quite simple and obvious, so I was reluctant to spend time pressing keys on my keyboard to reply.

Basically, if AMD had their owns fabs, they could manufacture many more CPU's. This would allow them to gain market share vs Intel. Last quarter, they actually lost market share, as reported by the BBC in the opening post.

Intel have 15 fabs of their own, which allows them to produce millions of CPU's more than AMD each year.

In regards to your other questions:

A) Why Intel have been stuck for so long on 14nm when having their own FAB is such a benefit

They've been stuck on 14nm as developing 10nm or 7nm is very difficult.

B) why Intel themselves have struggled with shortages in chip production over the last few years

There's huge worldwide demand for CPU's, which will only get worse over time. Intel can also sell every CPU they produce, despite having huge manufacturing capacity. Intel actually spent billions doubling their manufacturing in the last 3 years.

Intel announced a few months ago that they'll be purchasing additional wafers from TSMC, this will allow them to produce even more CPU's, so will likely further increase their marketshare. In addition, TSMC currently have a more advanced process than Intel, so the Intel CPU's produced by TSMC will allow Intel huge performance gains.

This is bad news for AMD, as it'll increase the price TSMC charge per wafer and will mean less wafers/CPU's for AMD, which will likely cause it to lose further market share.

 

[Curlyriff]

Since Ryzen launched the updates have been very marginal and we've had what 3 chipsets? my point is the latest Ryzen CPU's should at the very least be the same price today than when Ryzen first launched but AMD have chosen to go in the other direction as they're milking it for all its worth. 3800XT was a prime example 100mhz extra boost, an X on the end of the label and an extra £50 on the price rather than releasing at the same price and lowering the 3800X.

Intel have been at their weakest the last few years and rather than capitalise by offering cheap CPU's, looking to win over new customers and sell in large quantities, they've gone for maximum profit so you have situations where people see that Intel are not that much more expensive and stick with what's reputable and/or what they have good experiences with rather than chance it with AMD.

Intel can afford to get lazy and greedy as they dominate market share, AMD can't they need to increase market share whiie they're very much on top, not just milk their very small market share as much as possible until Intel can get their act together.

Yeah sorry but I can't honestly take anything you post serious if that is what you believe. We have seen 40-50% increase in performance across board since Ryzen 1 released. Sorry but the data is literally there to prove it. The XT series was the only example and it was an XT not X on then for those. They were however in the same generation. Generation to generation (3 years) has been massive. Sorry but your whole post is full of inaccuracy and mumbo jumbo.

 

[Deleted member 209350]

These numbers are only going to get worse for intel in the upcoming months/years. AMD is chipping away more and more, especially in the server market where demand is getting higher and higher, and no company is gonna spend more on inferior chips

 

[cliffy]

Hey Cliffy. The answers to your questions are quite simple and obvious, so I was reluctant to spend time pressing keys on my keyboard to reply.

Basically, if AMD had their owns fabs, they could manufacture many more CPU's. This would allow them to gain market share vs Intel. Last quarter, they actually lost market share, as reported by the BBC in the opening post.

Intel have 15 fabs of their own, which allows them to produce millions of CPU's more than AMD each year.

In regards to your other questions:

A) Why Intel have been stuck for so long on 14nm when having their own FAB is such a benefit

They've been stuck on 14nm as developing 10nm or 7nm is very difficult.

B) why Intel themselves have struggled with shortages in chip production over the last few years

There's huge worldwide demand for CPU's, which will only get worse over time. Intel can also sell every CPU they produce, despite having huge manufacturing capacity. Intel actually spent billions doubling their manufacturing in the last 3 years.

Intel announced a few months ago that they'll be purchasing additional wafers from TSMC, this will allow them to produce even more CPU's, so will likely further increase their marketshare. In addition, TSMC currently have a more advanced process than Intel, so the Intel CPU's produced by TSMC will allow Intel huge performance gains.

This is bad news for AMD, as it'll increase the price TSMC charge per wafer and will mean less wafers/CPU's for AMD, which will likely cause it to lose further market share.

I think your answer to point A demonstrates very clearly the benefits of not having your own fab. Even looking at point B it seems oursouring to other FABS is the key as even with huge investment Intel still have not been able to keep up

You say you could not be bothered to reply as the answers were obvious but i and many others have questioned your decision making process and reasoning. By taking the time to explain your logic i can now see your point of view even though i do not completely agree with you. For me the key argument against is not been able to keep up with improved manufacturing processes, TThis alone has allowed AMD to over take them by at least 1 gen if not 2 and with TSMC investing so much capitol in building new Fabs to increase production i see Intel falling further behind

 

[Dave2150]

I think your answer to point A demonstrates very clearly the benefits of not having your own fab. Even looking at point B it seems oursouring to other FABS is the key as even with huge investment Intel still have not been able to keep up

You say you could not be bothered to reply as the answers were obvious but i and many others have questioned your decision making process and reasoning. By taking the time to explain your logic i can now see your point of view even though i do not completely agree with you. For me the key argument against is not been able to keep up with improved manufacturing processes, TThis alone has allowed AMD to over take them by at least 1 gen if not 2 and with TSMC investing so much capitol in building new Fabs to increase production i see Intel falling further behind

I think it's more important to sell as many CPU's as possible, whether they are on 14nm, 7nm, 20nm etc. Lets say Intel had closed down their fabs a few years ago - there'd be less CPU's made and thus sold, since Intel would be buying all their capacity from TSMC/Glofo, just as AMD are. Prices would explode, and it takes many, many years to build new fabs to supply the demand.

Also, I'd prefer to be in the position where I have my own fabs. Even if you have a 'bad' 5 or 10 years, where your process isn't the best in the world, you can just buy the wafers/manufacturing from the leader. This is exactly what Intel are doing, while they continue to work on their own manufacturing technology.

 

[cliffy]

I think it's more important to sell as many CPU's as possible, whether they are on 14nm, 7nm, 20nm etc. Lets say Intel had closed down their fabs a few years ago - there'd be less CPU's made and thus sold, since Intel would be buying all their capacity from TSMC/Glofo, just as AMD are. Prices would explode, and it takes many, many years to build new fabs to supply the demand.

Also, I'd prefer to be in the position where I have my own fabs. Even if you have a 'bad' 5 or 10 years, where your process isn't the best in the world, you can just buy the wafers/manufacturing from the leader. This is exactly what Intel are doing, while they continue to work on their own manufacturing technology.

Problem with thatis in a few years time AMD will be generations ahead of Intel and no one will want the Intel chips. Plus with TSMC upping their production line i am sure AMD will be looking to secure a plentiful supply of waffers going forward. Intel are just falling to far behind the curve and they clearly do not have the in house ability to move to 7,5 or3nm anytime soon, Like with 7nm AMD will beat them to the punch for 5 and 3nm and the benefits that will provide will be a lot greater than they are currently even.

Also i really do not care who sells the most chips currently or ever for that fact. i care about having the best all round tech in my home system, if Intel regains the crown i will move back to them but i see zero correlation in chip sales and a consumer deciding on whether to go AMD or Intel. If that was true no one would want a Ferrari and every one would want a Ford, i know which of the 2 i would choose

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Intel as a semi conductor company is huge,and only Samsung can match it in volume of IC sales. It's no wonder they can supply more chips than AMD,and this is why most OEM prebuilt PCs and laptops still have Intel CPUs. It was the same problem AMD had during the Athlon 64 era,where Intel used its supply advantage to push PC makers to use its CPUs.

 

[DeathStorm]

The tarnish is on Intel and Nvidia for their dirty, anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices.

Intel is not safe from the threat of going under. Actually, this is a real possibility, once we hit the end of road for conventional semiconductors - more or less 5 years.

This is nonsense on stilts, Intel still generates the bulk of sales despite having a clearly inferior product. They are in no danger of going under any time soon, sure they're doing lots of damage to their business but it takes years of stupidity to lose such a lead let alone 'go under'.

Look to IBM for an example of what I mean.

 

[Grim5]

This is nonsense on stilts, Intel still generates the bulk of sales despite having a clearly inferior product. They are in no danger of going under any time soon, sure they're doing lots of damage to their business but it takes years of stupidity to lose such a lead let alone 'go under'.

Look to IBM for an example of what I mean.

IBM changed their business model, Kodak did not. There is no gaurantee that the industry leader will not fold

 

[Grim5]

Problem with thatis in a few years time AMD will be generations ahead of Intel and no one will want the Intel chips. Plus with TSMC upping their production line i am sure AMD will be looking to secure a plentiful supply of waffers going forward. Intel are just falling to far behind the curve and they clearly do not have the in house ability to move to 7,5 or3nm anytime soon, Like with 7nm AMD will beat them to the punch for 5 and 3nm and the benefits that will provide will be a lot greater than they are currently even.

Also i really do not care who sells the most chips currently or ever for that fact. i care about having the best all round tech in my home system, if Intel regains the crown i will move back to them but i see zero correlation in chip sales and a consumer deciding on whether to go AMD or Intel. If that was true no one would want a Ferrari and every one would want a Ford, i know which of the 2 i would choose

TSMC is doing major upgrades, they're looking to build up to 10 new Fabs in the US. Samsung is also looking to be up to 2 new Fabs

 

[Curlyriff]

TSMC is doing major upgrades, they're looking to build up to 10 new Fabs in the US. Samsung is also looking to be up to 2 new Fabs

This I gave my response above to Dave with C when he only had two choices with AMD failing in both completely missing that everything in the supply chain can expand as needed given time etc and this certainly seems to be the case with TSMC where they could saturate the market just enough to support all their customers whilst not collapsing their price per waffer. There will be huge documents and models designed about how many fabs they can bring online to keep competitive edge, supply and give maximum return on investments although I have never seen any news about 10 being the number. Arizona is first on list and will be up in 3 years (so probably 4) and will cost around $3.5 billion to construct with another $9 billion in further development over the following decade.

To add to that they had just built a new fab for 3nm production and should be ready to start mass production end of 2022. Although this a much smaller scalled fab they generally construct in stages building out capacity. It is same for their Fab 14 & Fab 18 locations which will increase by 33% during their next construction phase.