We don't really have solid info on either yet. So, for the most part it would be fair to say there is plenty of speculation in this thread, including my own. But interesting times are ahead in the very near future.
We don't really have solid info on either yet. So, for the most part it would be fair to say there is plenty of speculation in this thread, including my own. But interesting times are ahead in the very near future.That's the old Broadwell, though. Difficult to make comparisons when we don't yet have solid info on Skylake-SP.
your right - that will never happen - but it may turn out that with the redundancy in their manufacturing partners and an elegant MCM design they can have a material affect in the server HEDT space. Also, if we daydream a bit and see a future where servers need CPU's and GPU's connected in more efficient ways im thinking AMD will stay in the game there
But as we can see there are diminishing returns because if you combine Intels and NV R&D to AMDs which competes with both, we can only say that AMD is very, very efficient. Because they have to be.
if corporations get large and get too comfortable, inefficiency will rise astronomically. In that R&D cost you have all the cost including non-technical people like project managers and as usually in large corps tons of in essence not really needed manager and coordinator positions. The company (10k+ employees) I work for is market leader world-wide in the specific niche. Yet the daily inefficiencies I face are astounding. It makes we wonder WTF our competitors are doing as they clearly need to be even less efficient. In fact in many cases less people / employees would lead to more stuff getting done: less interruptions, less meetings, less bean-counters,...It's scary how inefficient these orgs are and that's why it is for me not all that surprising AMD can keep up. They shed all that dead weight because they had to.
EDIT: It also means intel isn't doomed due to the threat of AMD and ARM. They can and will have to adjust as well. Their revenue might go down a bit while their expenses will go down a lot when they start shedding dead weight.
Sandra mostly measures width of the registers. Nothing surprising, especially the multimedia results.Those scores are very uncompetitive compared to Xeon Plat, esp given that it's 180 W x 2.
That AMD just purely isn't in position to offer hardware stock to impact Intel's actual shipments. Least not to a point that Intel would slash their margins just to be "competitive".
Sandra mostly measures width of the registers. Nothing surprising, especially the multimedia results.
I hadnt thought of 4 sockets, but yeah, a 1 socket epyc = a 2 socket intel, so a 2 socket amd may well challenge a 4 socket.A pair of 7451's sound really nice to me, it would be nice to drop from 4 to 2 sockets without losing any performance, gaining it instead for less power. Hopefully the local retailer will carry some as I get a discount (15%) there.
5%=~1B$? means the market is $20B ,which sounds low.every 5% market share is 900m in revs at this point and it was 25% - also the situation was different in that intel had ways of managing AMD's market share - and AMD did their own manufacturing back then which knee capped them too. From a server perspective they have never been in this good a place before from a business model perspective. They have a competitive server offering and some might argue an elegant one in that the MCM strategy was a last resort with no money to do anything but that - the infinity fabric has so far shown itself to be a savior. AMD doesn't do their own manufacturing anymore and has redundancy so there is less risk there. OEM's are dying for an alternative that has what AMD is offering a multi year roadmapp - I'M not saying AMD is some big threat to INTC but im thinking they are in the game big time. If you look at where INTC see's their future they are looking to different places, they know the monopoly in servers is going away.
Absolute nanometer reduction is pretty much an irrelevant value to improvements.Just saying, 14nm to 7nm nodes, is an impressive 50%, but in absolute terms, a mere 7nm.
Previous node changes have been far greater absolutely.
Diminishing returns are inevitable. Dont get too excited about 7nm. 14 nm is pretty good.
5%=~1B$? means the market is $20B ,which sounds low.
Whatever. NB , amd are in a position to make some serious margins on that extra revenue. Intel would kill for amdS costs and flexibility.
But the 40% IPC improvement potential with high energy efficiency is not a trivial thing! So, yes, 50% more transistors, eh. The rest is where the fight is, closing the gap with Intel, especially as the logic density on 7nm is comparable with the 10nm Intel logic density. So, you can stick on more cores, get the IPC roughly matching Intel's, and the logic density. So what is not impressive with that?Just saying, 14nm to 7nm nodes, is an impressive 50%, but in absolute terms, a mere 7nm.
Previous node changes have been far greater absolutely.
Diminishing returns are inevitable. Dont get too excited about 7nm. 14 nm is pretty good.
The jump from GF's 14nm to 7nm is pretty big, it provides 40% higher performance and over x2 the density... Similar to the jump from 28nm to 14nm.Just saying, 14nm to 7nm nodes, is an impressive 50%, but in absolute terms, a mere 7nm.
Previous node changes have been far greater absolutely.
Diminishing returns are inevitable. Dont get too excited about 7nm. 14 nm is pretty good.
Further, the current 14nm process is designed for energy efficiency. The 7nm is an IBM design for high performance. IBM likes them high clock speeds.The jump from GF's 14nm to 7nm is pretty big, it provides 40% higher performance and over x2 the density... Similar to the jump from 28nm to 14nm.
Further, the current 14nm process is designed for energy efficiency. The 7nm is an IBM design for high performance. IBM likes them high clock speeds.
Let's not guess on speed, as we have no clue and don't want people turned off because it didn't match a guessed speed.Wauw, zen+ or zen2 at 4,7GHz or higher would be very promising indeed.
If AMD want to catch up to Intel not just for those single digit percentage points that a zen core is slower, AMD will have to match clock speeds as well.Let's not guess on speed, as we have no clue and don't want people turned off because it didn't match a guessed speed.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
That is ignorant! AMD had a CPU that ram at 5GHz. They won that fight on speed, but performance was lacking. So your ignorance saying just win on speed shows you shouldn't be present in this conversation.If AMD want to catch up to Intel not just for those single digit percentage points that a zen core is slower, AMD will have to match clock speeds as well.
Source please?GF 7nm is designed to target 5GHz frequencies.