Fair enough. But you should have known based on the topic.
Guys, I don't think that the hypocrisy of what intel are doing will matter to intel people.
to them its like
super special server cpu's being used for normal desktop pc's <-- 'good'
Whereas intel would paint amd's thread ripper as just
'normal' cpu's being used for super special servers <-- 'bad'
It's total nonsense but that is the flimsy distinction intel are going to cling to
The whole point of that slide deck was to just spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to middle management / upper management who would be susceptible to this manipulation, the same sort of people who would buy a Silver package over a Bronze package just because Silver sounds better.
It's working too.
Barclays and others have downgraded AMDs stock because "their server chips are inferior and can't preform due to being repurposed desktop chips"
Seriously? I saw that thread, but I can't actually believe these people are buying it.
I mean come on, AMD seems to be leading in most benchmarks, from what I can tell.
puts on tinfoil hat
I wonder if there's some collusion going on here.
Intel pays Barclays to downgrade AMDs stock, causing people to question everything AMD has been putting out.
if it's collusion, it's by trading desks (in the same way, though not exactly for the same reason LIBOR was), whose HFT machines make money off every transaction -- they need volatility to generate volume to enable their rent-extraction.
If true, that is ridiculous. Literally everyone in the industry is bashing them right now not only for being completely shown up in price:performance but also for reacting like a fucking child.
Do you happen to have some sources about the responses that the stock market and whatnot are having to this, aside from the paraphrased quote? I really don't know much about this sort of thing (stock market and politics are not really my thing), but I would be interested in reading some about it in this particular case, given how ridiculous all of this is.
Intel may be receiving a thorough lashing, but realistically no server operator is going to buy an AMD processor because Intel is talking shit.
I disagree with Intel's statements, but I don't think they are harmful to their sales. Given the server market's sensitivity to FUD they may turn out quite beneficial actually.
Honestly, I really hope that AMD keeping their cool about all of this works out well for them. I don't want them to miss out on profit or market share because they didn't want to resort to slinging mud or even really engaging in this nonsense aside from addressing the concerns in a general manner. That would really suck.
We all do - the CPU market has been starved for competition far too long. And AMD has enough troubles on the GPU side of things, so being profitable with CPUs is absolutely necessary for them to survive.
Zen definitely caught Intel by surprise. And all of those people who thought that Intel had something tucked away in case of emergency were wrong. They had nothing. What they're offering now is just a panic reaction to Zen. Is it truly a surprise that a rushed platform is shit?
Bottom line is, AMD has a better product that also costs a lot less. If Intel wants to truly hurt AMD they'll have to resort to illegal tactics from the past. Like paying off reviewers to lie on benchmarks. But that is not as easy as it once was. There are too many honest reviewers on YouTube these days. They'd be discovered immediately. But I hope they try, just so we could finally have the evidence of who's really on their payroll.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you here.
I can tell you that Rackspace is taking a more cautionary stance towards AMD than they were a month ago since the slide deck came out. I think once more benchmarks come out, RS (and other major players) will have more confidence though.
Everyone likes an underdog and AMD has made a wonderful effort to make competitive CPUs across the segment and it's going to show. I see people (and companies) buying AMD simply because of price to performance, which it's clear that Intel can't match.
1 Like
I don't think the initial cost of a CPU is quite that important, reason being that server operators also have to pay for electricity (24/7!), cooling and the physical space in the datacenter. For what it's worth, AMD's Pro-GPUs are dirt cheap compared to Nvidia's offerings, yet nobody seems to care.
Their energy efficiency on the other hand is a huge boon. If the consumer CPUs are anything to go by they are leading over Intel this time. This also keeps Intel from cranking the clocks at the cost of power consumption as they have done on their desktop parts.
Moreover the management engine found in Intel's processors has not exactly helped their image. AMD's secure memory encryption on the other hand looks excellent.
2 Likes
This is true. Under load, however, Intels chips were using a good measure more power than AMDs. Amd had a higher idle consumption, but it's a server, what percentage of its life is it going to be idle? On average, probably about 25%.
That stuff isn't a huge issue in the enterprise, with a few exceptions. DoD contractors and government servers are going to be happy to have the AMD features, simply because "muh physical security" but Intel's management engine isn't going to be a deal breaker for anyone. It's just going to be something you either live with or don't, depending on what you get.
That's exactly what I said 
Same here. I was referring to the management engine's security issues. I think the operators don't want it, at least not in it's current state. But I agree that it's not going to be a deal breaker for anything but high-security applications.
I do think that AMD's encryption features will be sought after, not because of the physical server operators, but rather because the customers of virtual private servers will demand it. It prevents entire racks being taken over by unpatched virtual machines and also keeps the hardware operator from spying on the client's data.
1 Like
I definitely read the entire post.
I never really looked at it that way. Makes perfect sense.
They are probably also going to have a slow start since the enterprise customers are rather slow adopters and where there is a huge amount of money involved, they probably want to have a stable, well-tested platform.
However, I think that start-ups and small businesses will probably adopt the chips for their better price to performance ratio and do the ground work for the enterprise adoption. I just hope that AMD will sell enough chips to be able to keep competing.
I can't help but think that intel is rudderless at the top
atom canned
intels reason - "cause the future is iot!"
real reason - no chance in hell of ever competing with arm in the mobile / tablet space
wearables canned
intel reason - "cause the future is Augmented Reality!"
real reason - no idea.. havent really followed it that closely, doubt its for the 'look over here!' reason that intel are pushing
and then this
caught napping really badly by Amd - resort to spreading fear/uncertainty/doubt cause now your worried about your core market
Guys, I love Intel, I love AMD, I love nvidia and I want them all to remain competitive for as long as possible so that the consumer (me, as I am a consumer) benefits
I just feel really iffy about Intels management at the moment.
3 Likes
Speaking of "Glue".
I'd say that better describes the TIM that Intel uses under their heat spreader compared to AMD's higher quality solder based TIM.
With Intel's latest temperature issues with their high end CPU's being fairly public, they should be careful before throwing stones... AMD appears to generally use higher quality components in their CPU construction overall.
3 Likes
I thought they did TBH, but this caught me by surprise. I mean they will have the 8000s series where 6 Core CPUs are mainstream.
Do you know how you start doing stupid shit when you are last place in mario kart on the rainbow track? This is intel doing the same.
5 Likes