|
WhyteRyce posted:That's an old slide and not representative of what Intel was saying publicly for some time. Doesn't really matter how old it was if it was a official roadmap. WhyteRyce posted:Intel hasn't publicly said or admitted to 7nm being massively delayed and I think the future roadmap plans were based around 7nm not being pushed out at least a year. PCjr sidecar posted:The analyst line was that... PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jul 28, 2020 |
#
¿
Jul 28, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:What does the original road map in this context mean? Yeah they changed the road maps but so what? If AMD released a road map saying Zen3 was going to be out later this year last year and then released another one later saying 'nope we changed it now its 2021' everyone including me would call it a delay too. WhyteRyce posted:Who cares about whatever roadmap stuff BK pitched or promised and tossed out in the context of what Swan is responsible for. Intel is still trying to cope with getting 10nm out right? And that started development in 2014 or so. Lots of things, mistakes included, get 'baked' into products from the get go so even though BK is long gone now the fallout from his decisions will still be felt for a long time to come. Hell even their 5nm process development started under BK I think so even after 7nm they might still be dealing with major manufacturing issues for all we know. WhyteRyce posted:I really find it hard to believe that BS would willingly put himself into that position. WhyteRyce posted:saying he was just a sacrificial goat Quote me where I said exactly this. To be clear: I'm not saying this at ALL and I don't have a clue how you got that out of what I posted. FWIW too I don't think BS can do much of anything to speed up or magic away Intel's process troubles. Everything I've read about process development seems to suggest that doing anything at all new is incredibly difficult, risky, expensive, and takes lots of time (years) and so careful planning is typically required 3-5yr in advance to get things done. Because of that mistakes made early on can result in multi year delays to get fixed. That sure does seem to be the situation Intel is in here with 10nm and I see no reason to be terribly optimistic about their 7nm process that they were once so sure of. quote:Intel is "very pleased" with the progress it is making on its 7-nanometer manufacturing technology, which might come as a surprise given that it's still not shipping 10-nanometer 'Cannon Lake' processors in volume, and won't until the end of next year. As it turns out, Intel has a separate team working on 7nm.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2020 05:15
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Again because it's in the context of Bob Swan and Murthy's responsibilities. Yes I know they just released info about new delays recently, I'm pointing out that it was already delayed and has been for a long long time. That the old road map is old doesn't suddenly mean that it no longer counts somehow. WhyteRyce posted:False equivalence? WhyteRyce posted:Bob's behavior and level of transparency have nothing to do with hard technical problems and the limits of physics so I don't know why you are bothering to try and equate the two. Quote me exactly where I said BS was to blame for technical issues with Intel's 10/7nm processes. WhyteRyce posted:I never said you said this Are you drunk posting or something??
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2020 05:48
|
|
|
I'd say they're better off than AMD was back than because the *cove cores are looking to be at least decent even they end up held back by the process + Intel doesn't have to rely on a 3rd party foundry to make them. As near as anyone can tell it looks like AMD will be highly fab limited forever at this point so even if they had a chip that out performed Intel's by 1000% Intel would be able to still stay in business for quite a while since AMD can only supply a fraction of the x86 market.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:What does "fab limited" mean? gradenko nailed it. I actually think AMD is more fab limited now than they were back in the K6 days. Back then they could supply something like ~25-30% of the x86 market. What they can do with Zen2 and up cores is either take big ol' chunks out of the x86 server market from Intel or force them to drop prices a bunch which would hurt quite a bit for Intel's financials but the company wouldn't be at risk of going under.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2020 07:18
|
|
|
I don't know enough about Samsung's fab capacity to say for sure but I think AMD and pretty much everyone else looking to make parts on a post 14/12nm process else would almost have to be assesing them as a supplier if for no other reason than as a back up in case TSMC runs into issues.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2020 07:31
|
|
|
Mr.PayDay posted:In reality the Enterprise and Server market prints money and Intel owns 90 % of the Cloud, Data Center and 24/7 High end critical business SLA infrastructures and dominates the virtualization backends. The general rule of thumb is to go by the Opteron days and point out it took them ~2yr to get ~20% of the x86 server market and so its assumed it'll take about that long to do the same today. Epyc has been out for a while now but also didn't start ramping production well apparently until 2018-ish and since then AMD has been getting more market share slowly but steadily over time. Due to their fab limitation I don't think they'll ever be able to kick Intel out of the x86 server market (or any market other than consoles apparently) and perhaps its also slowing them down some now too but its faaar from unreasonable to assume at this point that they can take a big chunk of the x86 server market away from Intel for at least a year or 2 going forward. Mr.PayDay posted:Beside that, every tech and gaming magazine labels Intel as the fastest gaming CPUs If you want to ignore value and focus on 1 or 2 things Intel can still eke out some thin wins here and there but otherwise they're rather disappointing to buy right now in general for desktop/HEDT and even laptops are starting to look better for AMD (though that is a very recent change and not many models are out there still).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2020 10:38
|
|
|
Yeah Opteron was a long term branding that spanned multiple architectures. I suspect they retired it because of the stink that stuck to the brand after the Bulldozer versions tanked their x86 market share to nothing. The K7 and K8 based Opterons did quite well though and did offer significant performance and value advantages over the Intel competing chips of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2020 12:09
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:In the short term, at least... but AMD somehow survived making useless garbage for a decade so I'm sure Intel has some space to unfuck themselves. AMD made it work by giving up their fabs which while it saved the company also meant they'd be eventually forced into a situation like they currently are with TSMC's 7nm supply no matter what. Having your own fab is great if you can keep your ASP's up while selling volume. You're pretty much printing money in that scenario! But if you're forced to make big cuts in your ASP's, even while selling volume, you'll start burning through cash fast since fabs and the constant R&D needed to stay competitive requires heaps of cash to keep running. Personally, unless their 7nm process turns out to be as big of a shitshow* as their 10nm did, I don't think Intel is going anywhere but I also think they're not going to be the same going forward either. *there are rumors of serious issues with it but so far nothing at all like with 10nm edit: nothing is stopping them from doing that. They might not WANT to do it for various business reasons but wouldn't stop them. That is part of the reason why I'm not too worried about Intel disappearing. \/\/\/\/\/\/ PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Nov 22, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
I don't think that idea washes since the new chip is supposed to have a 228W+ power mode which is what is enabled to get those (quite good BTW) bench numbers at something like 5Ghz+ clocks. They're quite clearly willing to blow out the power budget to get the performance they need so cutting AVX512 to save on power doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2021 12:56
|
|
|
VorpalFish posted:I wouldn't be surprised to see alder lake p cores beat zen3 cores in performance, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're more efficient as well. All the leakers are saying they're burning around ~250-300w to get the chip to ~5.2Ghz+, which is where those real nice performance numbers are coming from. It wouldn't surprise me if at lower clocks (3Ghz or less) that they'd be more efficient than Zen3, and should make them great for laptops, but at high clocks they seem to be every bit as bad if not worse than RKL. My WAG is its a process issue and not a design issue due to how bad the power scaling is at those clocks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
Those are some solid value overclockers. Right up there with some of the Durons and Core 2 Duos, with FSB OC'ing too!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
redeyes posted:drat glitches keep happening. Supposedly that glitch can effect Intel systems too. Its some sort've issue with the Geforce driver and that MS update and not AMD's software or the CPU. He mentions in the vid that if you don't install that Microsoft update the issue mostly goes away.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
Hooly gently caress they made the power worse than Zen4?! I guess being on top the benchmark charts, even if the wins are often by degrees too small to matter, really brings the sales in. edit: wow even with top end AIO's its thermal throttling quite a bit. Usually down to mid 4Ghz range or less even in games. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Oct 20, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
Beef posted:The whole idea is that Intel offers cheaper SKUs that have a bunch of special-purpose accelerators disabled. The accelerators, going by the the commentary from the STH guys about Sapphire Rapids, are the main reason to buy that chip. If you don't use them they hardly make any sense to buy in the first place since otherwise it'll just get utterly spanked by Genoa for most applications. Seems kinda dumb from a institutional standpoint to me too since the accelerators would really benefit from wide adoption to help justify software support. But then Intel has pretty much flubbed widely introducing the AVX512 stuff too so this would be just more of the same I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2022 13:21
|
|
|
Beef posted:The economics for datacenter CPUs are totally different than client. Intel is huge and can throw lots of resources at a given product to try and jump start adoption, but as they've shown with AVX512, if you limit the products that support it too much that doesn't much matter. Their accelerators are powerful and could be compelling if they get widespread support, yes even if some of the use cases are niche now, but if they don't get support they'll be a waste of money and die space.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Saukkis posted:If the premise is that there are some features that only few customers want If it was truly only something that a relative handful of customers wanted Intel wouldn't bother in the first place. They have to have volume to keep their fabs profitable. By making the features widely available they'd open the door to widespread adoption which could only help them sell more in the long run if support takes off. By paywalling it that possibility is pretty much 0 and they have to hope that those "few" customers will sign up to get shafted on pricing while competing against Genoa. You'd might as well have argue that Intel should've paywalled AVX512, heck AVX256 while you're at it, years ago too lol My WAG is the shareholders pushed for the Intel VIP's to try something, anything, to get more money in and this was what squeezed out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2022 18:23
|
|