this is purely on AMD. Qualcomm managed to pull of more designs than AMD. I can buy from 5 different manufacturers in Australia.There was a time when they were almost bankrupt then AMD had to write off $100 million or so of one of the early APUs. Since then - well over a decade ago - I think they have always been crazily cautious with quantity. Often leaving huge amounts of potential sales on the table.
Wth the huge fixed costs of designs, tape-outs, validation this is a crazy strategy. It's like boasting that their grid margins are high but neglecting to mention that net margins are low due to huge fixed costs!
The other part of lack of OEM wins is that AMD most likely provide far less help wrh reference designs.
Whether Intel are or were up to their old tricks to distort the market? Maybe but there are plenty of things AMD could fix if they were interested in marketshare but have continuously failed to do.
People have more daily uses of a smartphone than they have of a computer of 1.3kg that doesn't fit in their pocket.There s a 1TB SSD, 2.8k OLED and moreover 64GB RAM, at 1079$ that s for sure more interesting than a 16GB LNL at same price.
Beside you d be surprised about how much people can shed this amount, i mean 650-700€ was the average price in France back in 2010-2012, wich amount to 1000€ nowadays, heck there s smartphones that cost more.
Do you have proof?? Cause right now if you don’t you’re making stuff up.Now with Strix Point being released we ll see how they ll react, currently Asus has an exclusivity for one or two months, previously it was Lenovo and before them HP, that s why you dont see other designs than Asus these days, they ll be launched once this timely exclusivity is over.
There's more to it than that - 3% operating margins doesn't allow you to develop relations with OEMs the way that you'd want.
Think about it - why does Asus always gets first dibs on any new Ryzen mobile launch, and Dell always last?
I recall MLID saying in his latest video that the Asus exclusivity on this latest generation of laptop chip expires roughly today.Do you have proof?? Cause right now if you don’t you’re making stuff up.
It’s more like AMD selects one OEM because they can’t supply enough and then when is supply only a few other OEMs release laptop.
Do you have proof?? Cause right now if you don’t you’re making stuff up.
It’s more like AMD selects one OEM because they can’t supply enough and then when is supply only a few other OEMs release laptop.
Kraken has 33% less GPU compute units than Phoenix (12->8), 5 less high-boost cores (8 regular + 0 compact -> 3 regular + 5 compact), this compromises all-core boost.Why would it be worse than Phoenix? Assuming that they go with a single CCX, it should have better ST, similar MT, similar sustained iGPU performance with a larger NPU and next generation efficiency.
They probably want AMD to make billions worth of glut inventory for them without having to commit to buying it at all if AMD makes it. They would likely still use that simply as a bargaining chip to get lower price from Intel and be all too eager leave AMD with the unsold product.I find this absolutely perplexing. Would think after enough time they'd get their heads together and sort this out. One are where they definitely can learn from Intel's example. Billions on the table, yeesh.
Kraken was so far supposed to be 4 classic 4 dense, has something changed?Kraken has 33% less GPU compute units than Phoenix (12->8), 5 less high-boost cores (8 regular + 0 compact -> 3 regular + 5 compact), this compromises all-core boost.
The only thing they added is an NPU. Zen4 -> Zen5 will bring some little % boost in ST, but in MT it's gonna be worse than Phoenix. You can already see it in 8600G vs 8500G, or 7640U vs 7540U
I guess my question is why then? Because if we know that AMD puts out a better product, why isn’t that landing with the OEMs? Can’t really simply just be pro Intel bias? Seems like they’re leaving money on the table unless it really doesn’t matter to the average consumer what CPU vendor is in the product they purchase.They probably want AMD to make billions worth of glut inventory for them without having to commit to buying it at all if AMD makes it. They would likely still use that simply as a bargaining chip to get lower price from Intel and be all too eager leave AMD with the unsold product.
The 2 years long inventory digestion of Ryzen APUs that AMD suffered after Q2 2022 absolutely wasn't caused by AMD not being able to supply enough silicon to partners...
Back then AMD was legally obligated to purchase so much silicon from GloFo, they had no choice, they either had to produce that much or just hand over cash to them.There was a time when they were almost bankrupt then AMD had to write off $100 million or so of one of the early APUs. Since then - well over a decade ago - I think they have always been crazily cautious with quantity. Often leaving huge amounts of potential sales on the table.
Wth the huge fixed costs of designs, tape-outs, validation this is a crazy strategy. It's like boasting that their grid margins are high but neglecting to mention that net margins are low due to huge fixed costs!
The other part of lack of OEM wins is that AMD most likely provide far less help wrh reference designs.
Whether Intel are or were up to their old tricks to distort the market? Maybe but there are plenty of things AMD could fix if they were interested in marketshare but have continuously failed to do.
Most likely combination of the many factors mentioned in this thread including inertia, kickbacks, borderline deals. Intel reportedly pays for OEMs advertising for example, while AMD is not willing to.I guess my question is why then? Because if we know that AMD puts out a better product, why isn’t that landing with the OEMs? Can’t really simply just be pro Intel bias? Seems like they’re leaving money on the table unless it really doesn’t matter to the average consumer what CPU vendor is in the product they purchase.
Now account for the fab margins and it is closer to 3% than 30% in reality.Not in client. It's 30% for Intel vs 3% for AMD.
We prefer to design products around mature silicon, but the implosion of the PC industry over the last year caused other brands to cancel many of their products, resulting in us being among the first to ship AMD Ryzen 7040 Series U-class processors, AMD RZ616 WiFi modules, and Infineon CCG8 USB-PD controllers. This means we’re at the leading edge of firmware and software development for each of these. Both the AMD and Infineon firmware is coming in hot, with the first proper feature-complete releases for both arriving just this week. Both companies have helped us along the way by creating special early point releases for our development, but these final releases are necessary to resolve launch-blocking bugs and complete testing.
Contra-revenue investments can refer to money Intel spends on OEMs and channel partners for things like market development funds (MDF) and co-marketing funds, according to a former Intel executive, who asked to not be identified to speak about internal matters.
Even when these kinds of funds are provided to OEMs, they can flow down to an OEM’s channel partners, such as when an OEM hosts an event or training, the former Intel executive said.
These kinds of funds played an increasingly important role in Intel’s ability to win business with partners as the chipmaker’s products lost their competitive edge a few years ago, said the former Intel executive. However, the company started to reduce its spending in this area a couple years ago, they added.
“Intel lost their mojo on product leadership, and the most valuable thing we were still able to offer the partners was the sales and marketing relationship and the funding,” they said.
Kraken was so far supposed to be 4 classic 4 dense, has something changed?
The simple answer is that the issue is exactly what was described in this ComputerBase post.I guess my question is why then? Because if we know that AMD puts out a better product, why isn’t that landing with the OEMs? Can’t really simply just be pro Intel bias? Seems like they’re leaving money on the table unless it really doesn’t matter to the average consumer what CPU vendor is in the product they purchase.
It's not that any tasks will be "out of reach" for a 8840hs. Lunar Lake will have a double digit lead in single threaded benchmarks vs phoenix / hawk point. And most client workloads are lightly threaded.What are those tasks that most users do and wich would be out of reach of a 8840HS.?
As for battery life it s still marketing claims, better to wait for reviews.
So far, we have a total of one leaker saying that it's 3+5. That would be a first for AMD in having an odd nunber of any core type in a shipping processor since Phenom x3. I'll file that under "believe it when I see it." Kraken is supposed to be the true follow on to Hawk Point, and should be as good as or better in most every way.Kraken has 33% less GPU compute units than Phoenix (12->8), 5 less high-boost cores (8 regular + 0 compact -> 3 regular + 5 compact), this compromises all-core boost.
The only thing they added is an NPU. Zen4 -> Zen5 will bring some little % boost in ST, but in MT it's gonna be worse than Phoenix. You can already see it in 8600G vs 8500G, or 7640U vs 7540U
AMD may be in pretty bad spot if NVIDIA and MediaTek start flooding the market with their chips. AMD has the x86 advantage now so they should be selling Strix like crazy now. Instead Intel will probably do that with Lunar Lake.So it’s funny how Qualcomm is good at supply and design wins, despite the so called Intel deals.
It’s that maybe just maybe AMD sucks at being a good laptop supplier. According to MLID, Strix was supposed to higher volume in stores than Apple’s MacBook!! I had doubts believing that and now I know that is horse ****.
Really, AMD and Intel are so lucky that an x86 license isn’t so easily obtained. Imagine if Nvidia, Qualcomm, Samsung and MediaTek had access to one. Duopolies suck.
Particularly if the Cortex-X925 is as good in performance as represented in their press materials. I mean 36% IPC. That is impressive and would definitely help Mediatek. Add a lower power Nvidia GPU, could be pretty compelling.AMD may be in pretty bad spot if NVIDIA and MediaTek start flooding the market with their chips. AMD has the x86 advantage now so they should be selling Strix like crazy now. Instead Intel will probably do that with Lunar Lake.
It's 36% performance gain, not IPC. An X925 clocked at 3.8 GHz will score ~3000 points in Geekbench 6 Single Core, on par with Lunar Lake and AMD Strix Point.Particularly if the Cortex-X925 is as good in performance as represented in their press materials. I mean 36% IPC. That is impressive and would definitely help Mediatek. Add a lower power Nvidia GPU, could be pretty compelling.