Lisa Su announced it a quarter or two ago, I believe during an earnings call. I should note, though, that AMD typically talks in terms of revenue share, though not always, so they were probably referencing revenue share but I'm not positive about that.
Thanks, unfortunately I've had no luck finding a reference to such in the last 5 earnings call transcripts. They mostly just seem to mention the % revenue growth and how many new public instances are available. So probable that it was mentioned in one of their other events.
Even during the time Intel had 90% server market share, they never sold processors anywhere near the MSRP.
They clearly aren't getting enough profit off of each server chip to fund future nodes, that's for sure.
Well, they sold them for roughly MSRP at retail. But you're quite correct that all OEM and large scale purchases only pay a fraction of MSRP. Hence the caveat at the end of my statement that the numbers aren't accurate in absolute terms, but the ratios between them should be about right. Primary point was that the performance/$ of the top end SKU can be close to half that of the first step down. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that while Intel isn't nearly as uncompetitive in the hyperscaler/cloud arena as general benchmarks would imply thanks in large part to their accelerators, they're still far enough behind that they can't charge the margins of a 'top end' SKU.
I didn’t even notice that. I went back and checked how Genoa was presented and it was compared against Milan 7763. They also had plenty of benchmarks of Milan against Rome.
The saving grace here is that it was a “preview” and not a launch so it may not have any significance.
Agreed that it most likely has little to no significance, especially given the other issues with the performance claims in their presentation. But it certainly was an interesting omission.