Wow. I guess I have to consider the source here .
Datacenter is higher profit and is growing faster than any other segment. AMD is also growing faster in DC than any other segment.
I believe that this is the most important contributor to AMD's recent success.
Desktop in general and DIY in specific are decreasing markets. While its great that AMD has raised their ASP in desktop, they are focusing on DC:
It just happens that the people who care about performance of PCs coincide with people who care about gaming on PC.
I doubt that workstation people, in general, care about gaming on PC's (or at all).
OK, this thread has had enough, this is clearly trolling at this point.
Why is it trolling to point out a fact?
Feel free to ridicule me but the core is capable of processing at the rate much higher than what the connection between CCD and IOD allow. Will increasing the avg MemBW by 30% make it suddenly
I would say no. I mean it's better to have that increase than not have it. But the more useful thing would be wider read/write link to memory, as right now single CCD SKU won't be able to even consume this 8000MT/s sensibly. And we don't know what the new IOD will bring. If we go by HALO as the example, it's still not an equivalent of what low core counts Epycs can achieve when it comes to BW available to CCD.
At the same time, I really like Zen5 AVX512 implementation, and I hope they won't gimp it for Zen6, as not all algos are memory bound.
Going from 5600 to 8000 I am figuring at 43%. Did I get that right?
And yes, I am critisizing you for comparing L1 bandwidth to main memory bandwidth. I am also saying that increasing bandwidth to main memory and lowering latency through an improved IOD can bring surprising improvements in MT performance ESPECIALLY in bandwidth hungry applications.
Do you disagree?
Exactly. And as I keep pointing out, and even Intel has noticed, that enthusiasts affect purchasing decisions of people around them.
The companies that ignore the enthusiast segment eventually ends up dying. It's no wonder there are "gaming" versions of every computer parts and even furnitures.
Speaking of margins, the enthusiast parts have the highest margins. Do people really think the office workers care even a bit about the boring boxes under them?
DC has the highest margins, not enthusiast parts.
I'll give you this though. Gamers are one vocal minority!
I mean, seriously, Arrow Lake really got lambasted because of its sub standard gaming. If you look over the processor though, I would say it SHOULD have ben lambasted for its poor showing in MT overall. It actually does a decent job of non-latency constrained ST.
Pretty straightforward, having the highest performing parts in a given generation is more than just it's per-unit ASP and margin. It is ALSO a marketing tool. It's existence pays for more marketing reach than most any other marginal increase in marketing expenditures. This is in the managerial accounting textbooks as having a premium offering in a given market segments generates it's own market momentum where the moat is performance/suitability to task and the products are effectively interchangeable.
X3D has paid for itself more through it's marketing effects than it ever did in per unit margins (data center excluded as I don't know the one and outs of that game well enough).
Granted. It is good to be king .
I think AMD will continue to hold the gaming crown with their X3D parts, but if I were Intel, I would be figuring out how to recapture the DC market they are bleeding. AMD made more revenue that Intel did last year on DC parts. Ouch. That hurts if your Intel.
You don't want to be losing market share in the fastest growing, highest margin market segment.
History shows you can't ignore the enthusiast even though datacenter will get you more profits.
If you read about history of 3dfx, they got an immense boost because it managed to bring 3D graphics quality not too far from SGI's immensely expensive workstations to the affordable consumer PC.
Let's compare enthusiast focused company versus datacenter only one.
1. Datacenter chips are potentially tens of thousands of dollars. So they don't need to learn about cost efficiency.
2. Datacenter chips are extremely power hungry. So they don't need the latest power management techniques.
3. Datacenter volumes are far less, meaning they need to cater far less in terms of support. Client volumes are massive, meaning you need to focus on every detail, complaints, and whims of the consumer.
Over time, eventually the enthusiast only company looks at datacenter and says "Hey look at the massive revenue potential". And they take their learnings regarding power efficiency, cost efficiency, and great customer support and absolutely dominate the datacenter.
Yea, about that ....
Considering the exponentially rising cost of die shrinks, any company that is relying on high volume, lower margin parts (which desktop and laptop are) is going to go under. All that wafer space costs a butt ton of money.
There is a reason AMD has stated that they are data center FIRST focused.