I will say that AMD is trying hard to challenge them, and is doing pretty well. But Nvidia is still king.Yea, I don't think too many people would want 70%, in fact, no one should. Just look at what Intel did or the GPU market now with NVIDIA abusing it. I can't blame them though since a lot of people think NVIDIA is the only option.
wouldn't matter mate. amd was still selling more units of am4 hardware than am5. They still sell more am4. am5 is still too expensive for most unless they can afford and want the latest and greatest. They sell every epyc they make. They could price it to intel's level and still sell out. it's that much better than intel.I will actually disagree, even with him. AMD was selling every chip they made up until this year.My suspicion is that they were making tons of money and did not want to roll out a new platform until they absolutely had to. If you are the market leader and are eating your competitor's lunch, you absolutely do NOT rock that boat until needed.
You have to be referring to the quarter call where dr su stated they were cutting back on production even while demand hasn't fallen too much. They don't want to end up with too much product on their hands and have to lower pricing to sell them off. I think for amd it's still tough to guess how many x950's they'll sell each generation. There's a peppermasteror norrod quiote online from years ago explaining they didn't expect the 3900x and 3950x to move sales numbers that it did.A further note regarding AMD. They've admitted to intentionally (it was in headlines a bit ago, not going to dig up the source right now) not fulfilling 100% of demand (i.e. they could easily push out more 7950X3D and 7900XTX cards if they wanted). They are doing this to drive ASP. A number of market analysts suspect NVIDIA is doing the same for certain GPUs in the segment.
You have to be referring to the quarter call where dr su stated they were cutting back on production even while demand hasn't fallen too much.
Going by AMD's own statements AMD's bottleneck in products throughput is still substrate.A further note regarding AMD. They've admitted to intentionally (it was in headlines a bit ago, not going to dig up the source right now) not fulfilling 100% of demand (i.e. they could easily push out more 7950X3D and 7900XTX cards if they wanted). They are doing this to drive ASP.
I will actually disagree, even with him. AMD was selling every chip they made up until this year.My suspicion is that they were making tons of money and did not want to roll out a new platform until they absolutely had to. If you are the market leader and are eating your competitor's lunch, you absolutely do NOT rock that boat until needed.
A further note regarding AMD. They've admitted to intentionally (it was in headlines a bit ago, not going to dig up the source right now) not fulfilling 100% of demand (i.e. they could easily push out more 7950X3D and 7900XTX cards if they wanted). They are doing this to drive ASP. A number of market analysts suspect NVIDIA is doing the same for certain GPUs in the segment.
Lisa Su has done great stuff for AMD, but focusing on maintaining margins above all else will risk them everything. Just look at Intel. There was a time they worshiped margins.
Let's hope AMD plan to do something more daring and bold than small evolutionary steps with Zen 5/6. Intel seems to iterate faster than AMD so the upcoming cores must be designed with longevity in mind.
By all accounts, being the first Zen family started within a financially stable AMD and all that, Zen 5 should be more daring and may prepare bigger promises for Zen 6 to expand into.
anyway, when talking about additional cores for Ryzen 8000 and beyond, whether those would fit on the pcb, thats moot now - since clearly they are about to stack compute dies on top of the IO die with MI300. If they can do it there, they can do it on ryzen And lack of space problem solved. I presume it would alleviate the interchip latency issue as well.
They can, but SoIC is still relatively expensive and low volume for mainstream CPUs.Just saw random MI300 video on utube, didnt pay attention to it before, as i dont care about server based stuff or various AI accelerators that much, only stuff i actually get to buy myself…
anyway, when talking about additional cores for Ryzen 8000 and beyond, whether those would fit on the pcb, thats moot now - since clearly they are about to stack compute dies on top of the IO die with MI300. If they can do it there, they can do it on ryzen And lack of space problem solved. I presume it would alleviate the interchip latency issue as well.
Yea, I don't think too many people would want 70%, in fact, no one should. Just look at what Intel did or the GPU market now with NVIDIA abusing it. I can't blame them though since a lot of people think NVIDIA is the only option.
CXL does not affect the Zen 4 CCD, only the server IOD.Covid didn't delay Zen 4. It was delayed on purpose for CXL. (from Forrest Norrod)
I think Zen 2 took a lot longer than they planned because of the Fab change and new chiplet design.
Their cadence was less than 18 months at one point. Covid threw them off. But why would anyone from AMD talk to mlid? How he got Peddie to come on for an interview puzzles me months later.
Are we one day going to learn mlid was a psyops hire by AMD or Intel? I try to step away from cpu rumor talk every year and have tried to since the p1 days but every time weird discussions like this pull me back in.
I was lead to believe over the years he's an authority figure in the world of sales data and usage when I briefly brought up using marketshare from meta data sourced charts.You mean the same Jon Peddie who's "research" is to divide "some" revenue by "some" ASP, to conclude that Intel's market share of GPU exceeded AMD's. And call this "research".
Maybe the question should be - why would anyone talk to Jon Peddie...
Is it me or does it look like the Zen4c leaks show no real gain but just proportional clock/power scaling?
Might be the reason why Zen5c is rumored to be on N3 rather than N4 to show them being better...
Zen4's has a 4-wide front-end so Zen5 expanding to 5-wide would fit the leak but that's still less than ADL/RPL 6-wide.
I do wonder if Zen5 will even get parity with Raptor Coves internal latency & bandwidth or remain the same. There's plenty of room left to address for Zen6. Then again too much IPC will starve the cores. Sooner or later on package DRAM or 3D v-cache become inevitable (for Zen6).
I don't expect much of the 1st gen AI/ML accelerators but I do hope they will be good enough across generations and not become worthless after just 2 gens like the change to DLSS3.
I was lead to believe over the years he's an authority figure in the world of sales data and usage when I briefly brought up using marketshare from meta data sourced charts.
wouldn't matter mate. amd was still selling more units of am4 hardware than am5. They still sell more am4. am5 is still too expensive for most unless they can afford and want the latest and greatest. They sell every epyc they make. They could price it to intel's level and still sell out. it's that much better than intel.
Correct, and I think too much was made of that side comment of hers. Demand is falling industry-wide. Bloating the channel with product is a bad move in the middle of a global financial meltdown (which may get worse later this year/next year). It's important to remember that, at the time of that call, Raphael-X didn't even exist on the market, while Raphael prices were in steady decline.
Despite AMD "holding back product", their flagship CPU was still losing market value. Their top seller by volume was (and probably still is) AM4-based Vermeer/Vermeer-X. The only product they had at the time with an inflated ASP was the 7900XTX.
Just saw random MI300 video on utube, didnt pay attention to it before, as i dont care about server based stuff or various AI accelerators that much, only stuff i actually get to buy myself…
anyway, when talking about additional cores for Ryzen 8000 and beyond, whether those would fit on the pcb, thats moot now - since clearly they are about to stack compute dies on top of the IO die with MI300. If they can do it there, they can do it on ryzen And lack of space problem solved. I presume it would alleviate the interchip latency issue as well.
Going by AMD's own statements AMD's bottleneck in products throughput is still substrate.
They can, but SoIC is still relatively expensive and low volume for mainstream CPUs.
The availability of PS5 at least shows that indeed some limit has been lifted in Q4. Not sure if we can already conclude for all markets that demand is the limit now though.So the supply of substrate probably ended being a bottleneck some time late last year, and now the bottleneck is the demand. The overall demand is not high enough for AMD to produce at maximum available capacity.
It really doesn't matter what percentage, chasing market share for the sake of market share is foolish. AMD should look to grow its market where it's both possible and profitable for them to do so. Right now that means going even harder into server even if consumer CPU and GPU has to take a backseat.
The availability of PS5 at least shows that indeed some limit has been lifted in Q4. Not sure if we can already conclude for all markets that demand is the limit now though.
I wonder if we can get any info how big the server market backlog still is, if any. That's something I didn't follow.
Yeah contra revenue ever was Intel's sneakiest strategy - and at the end of the day it's likely that it will all get sold anyway, so even if they lose a bit by selling at a lower price to stuff the channel it is worth it for Intel to lock AMD (or ARM vendors in case of Chromebooks) out of the game.I don't think it is just market share for sake of market share.
AMD needs to achieve "escape velocity" market share, when it no longer is under Intel's thumb. I would estimate it around 35-40% of market share.
Below that, AMD is on receiving end of all sort of market distorting shenanigans of Intel. The latest one being Intel stuffing the channel to the brink of ability of channel to carry it, to the point where it was financially impossible for the channel to buy new product (which would likely be more AMD based).
We are still going through the corrective phase of this latest Intel scheme...
This is what I hate about Intel. I thought they finally had their foot in the door, and could make it to 35-40% market share, and then these things would not hurt them. At least thewy still have a chance. Genoa just rocks . I will know by personal experience in a few days when my 9654 comes.Yeah contra revenue ever was Intel's sneakiest strategy - and at the end of the day it's likely that it will all get sold anyway, so even if they lose a bit by selling at a lower price to stuff the channel it is worth it for Intel to lock AMD (or ARM vendors in case of Chromebooks) out of the game.
Alas I think this is probably a better discussion for a dedicated individual thread about x86 market shenanigans.