• 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.

Intel's long stagnation at 14nm

I didn't say it was solely down to TSMC, I used the word "part" for a reason. AMD chiplet design and infinity fabric is genius.

Regarding Ampere Vs RDNA2, well AMD get close to NV whilst using less power. FPS/Watt is better for RDNA2 and imo that is because TSMC 7nm is so good even with a worse architecture. I am excited to see RDNA3 with chiplets and how well it works.
 
Haz123 said:
I didn't say it was solely down to TSMC, I used the word "part" for a reason. AMD chiplet design and infinity fabric is genius.

Regarding Ampere Vs RDNA2, well AMD get close to NV whilst using less power. FPS/Watt is better for RDNA2 and imo that is because TSMC 7nm is so good even with a worse architecture. I am excited to see RDNA3 with chiplets and how well it works.
Click to expand...
Your post was clear, but some people find it hard to accept that as good as AMD are right now, part of their success is because they are partnered with the current fabrication champions.
When Intel were the fab champs, the same was true of them.
It's very basic stuff and to deny that highlights a major disconnect from reality.
Typical more and more these days as we have seen in politics across the pond.
Being a fantasist is a dangerous road to take.
 
It's not "hard to accept", it's just not the thermonuclear super advantage all the nay sayers claim it is. You say being a fantasist is a dangerous road to take and I'd agree, but people continually drooling "but AMD are only there because of TSMC" is the dictionary definition of "fantasist". Like I said before, if TSMC 7nm is so godlike, why doesn't RDNA 2 stomp all over Ampere? It's the superior node to Samsung 8nm, is it not?

AMD are in their current position because
  1. architectural brilliance
  2. Intel's arrogance, complacency and ineptitude
  3. TSMC 7nm
In that order. And Zen and Zen+ on GloFo proves it.
 
"Then you could argue TSMC's 7nm has played a factor."

There's no argument, the chips are fabbed on that node and it is a good one and has helped to bring the best out of their excellent architectures.
To suggest that it is not a factor implies that the choice of fab makes no difference.
If that was the case, why not use a more mature and cheaper node?
We know why, because power consumption and also probably clock speeds would be worse.
Density would be impacted meaning that using 8 chiplets for 64 cores wouldn't be possible.
Give TSMC at least some credit as they are really helping AMD.

Nobody in this thread is saying that TSMC are the main reason for AMD's success.
You are arguing with people who aren't even commenting here.
But the fact that you begrudge giving TSMC any credit says it all really.
 
smilingcrow said:
Nobody in this thread is saying that TSMC are the main reason for AMD's success.
You are arguing with people who aren't even commenting here.
But the fact that you begrudge giving TSMC any credit says it all really.
Click to expand...

Not in this thread, but clearly you are aware of the other threads and your supporting role in them :p
 
jigger said:
Not in this thread, but clearly you are aware of the other threads and your supporting role in them :p
Click to expand...
I am aware that because I am generally neutral towards tech companies and not rabidly pro AMD, that some non neutral parties take that as meaning I am pro Intel.
As a DAW user, Intel have been the clear choice prior to Zen 3 and I have commented on this.
I find it laughable when people extrapolate from that to put me firmly in the Intel camp.
If I wanted HEDT or higher I’d go AMD.
As a DAW user that generally prefers integrated graphics, AMD have only recently released a decent APU to retail.
So I have been frustrated by AMD’s lack of products in the sector that matters to me.
That doesn’t take away from my appreciation for all the excellent Zen 3 products out there.
So many on here seem to lack the ability to interpret a nuanced viewpoint that isn’t based on a tribal ‘us versus them’ mindset.
I don’t mind clearly saying if I dislike a company.
I dislike Apple for many reasons, yet I type this on my one Apple computer, a Mini 5.
I am a pragmatist.
Android 8 inch tablets are generally crap and iOS gets all the love from DAW developers, Android isn’t usually supported at all.
So even if I had disliked Intel over 3 years ago when I built my desktop, I would still have chosen them as that made the most sense at the time.
If I was building today then AMD would be the obvious first choice.
But no regrets as my Intel still gives me all I need, no need to upgrade.
That’s the thing with pragmatic decisions, they are based more on logic than tribalism, so they tend to work out.
 
smilingcrow said:
I am aware that because I am generally neutral towards tech companies and not rabidly pro AMD, that some non neutral parties take that as meaning I am pro Intel.
As a DAW user, Intel have been the clear choice prior to Zen 3 and I have commented on this.
I find it laughable when people extrapolate from that to put me firmly in the Intel camp.
If I wanted HEDT or higher I’d go AMD.
As a DAW user that generally prefers integrated graphics, AMD have only recently released a decent APU to retail.
So I have been frustrated by AMD’s lack of products in the sector that matters to me.
That doesn’t take away from my appreciation for all the excellent Zen 3 products out there.
So many on here seem to lack the ability to interpret a nuanced viewpoint that isn’t based on a tribal ‘us versus them’ mindset.
I don’t mind clearly saying if I dislike a company.
I dislike Apple for many reasons, yet I type this on my one Apple computer, a Mini 5.
I am a pragmatist.
Android 8 inch tablets are generally crap and iOS gets all the love from DAW developers, Android isn’t usually supported at all.
So even if I had disliked Intel over 3 years ago when I built my desktop, I would still have chosen them as that made the most sense at the time.
If I was building today then AMD would be the obvious first choice.
But no regrets as my Intel still gives me all I need, no need to upgrade.
That’s the thing with pragmatic decisions, they are based more on logic than tribalism, so they tend to work out.
Click to expand...


People pointed out that AMD had Ryzen’d Nvidia in the graphics market harder than they did Intel in the CPU market and that got 4 people upset, leading to the “AMD only munson’d Nvidia this hard because of TSMC” and without TSMC Nvidia and Intel wouldn’t have taken such a beating from AMD. Which is laughable when you consider the nodes AMD have used, but you already know this.

It’s a running forum joke now.
 
Are you just being argumentative now, or is a lazy Sunday making you a bit thick? OK, let me use different words and sentences to those used previously if they're causing you some mither.


To all those people, regardless of directly posted on this thread or these forums in general, who say that AMD's current leadership is because of TSMC's 7nm node, I call manure.

AMD didn't have TSMC's N7 when Zen made massive gains against Intel. AMD didn't have TSMC's N7 when Zen+ drew parity with real world single core tasks, and surpassed Intel in multithreaded workloads. This was jointly AMD's architectural brilliance and Intel's hilarious incompetence and complacency. If TSMC's N7 is the magic bullet, why were the first two generations of Zen so good without it?

Both of these factors remain with the birth of Zen 2. Only then does TSMC's N7 play a part in AMD establishing dominance. The power requirements and transistor density of that node have been a boon for Zen 2's design, however, even then there is an argument that TSMC's N7 was not a requirement for the Zen 2 architecture. Some have suggested the chiplet system could have been achieved on GloFo's 12nm. Hence "could argue", but it is a purely hypothetical argument since TSMC's N7 was used and AMD designed Zen 2 for that node so we'll never know anything different.

Furthermore, if TSMC's assorted 7nm nodes are the godlike magic bullet detractors and idiots claim it is, why doesn't RDNA 2 handily smash Ampere? Doesn't matter if the architecture is inferior, TSMC is the magic and does all the work, right?

Horse manure.

So no, AMD's lead is not because of TSMC's 7nm family, it is 3rd place in the list of contributing factors, with that 3rd place open to theoretical discussion regarding Zen 2; it's incredibly unlikely Zen 3's 8 core CCX design and 3D stacked cache could be achieved on GloFo 12nm.


Any clearer now, or am I still going over your head?
 
“Then you could argue TSMC's 7nm has played a factor."

Of course it does, it doesn't need a novel to confirm that.
But how much of a factor?
Answer on my desk tomorrow by 9 A.M. in less than a million words please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom