Intel expects to lose some server/data center market share to AMD's Epyc line of chips:
The pitched battle between Intel and AMD has spread to the data center, and while Intel has been forthcoming that it expects to lose some market share in the coming months to AMD, Brian Krzanich's recent comments to Instinet analyst Roman Shah give us some insight into the surprising scope of AMD's threat. Shah recently sat down with Intel CEO Brian Krzanich and Barron's reported on his findings:
Shah relates that Krzanich "was very matter-of-fact in saying that Intel would lose server share to AMD in the second half of the year," which is not news, but he thought it significant that "Mr. Krzanich did not draw a firm line in the sand as it relates to AMD's potential gains in servers; he only indicated that it was Intel's job to not let AMD capture 15-20% market share." (emphasis added).
Furthermore, Intel's problems with the "10nm" node could allow AMD to pick up market share with "7nm" (although it may be similar in performance to Intel's "10nm"):
Nomura Instinet is less bullish on further stock gains for Intel after talking to the chipmaker's CEO, Brian Krzanich. [...] The analyst said Intel's problems in moving to its next-generation chip manufacturing technology may be a factor in its potential market share losses. The chipmaker revealed on its April 26 earnings conference call that it delayed volume production under its 10-nanometer chip manufacturing process to next year. Conversely, AMD said on its call that it plans to start next-generation 7-nanometer chip production in late 2018.
[...] "We see Mr. Krzanich's posture here reflecting the company's inability thus far to sufficiently yield 10nm for volume production while AMD's partner TSMC is currently making good progress on 7nm; thus, setting Intel up for stiff competition again in 2019," the analyst said.
Here are a couple of post-mortem articles on Intel's misleading 28-core CPU demo and more:
Rather than 28 cores, Intel may introduce 20 and 22 core CPUs to compete with AMD's Threadripper 2, along with 8-core Coffee Lake refresh CPUs to compete with Ryzen.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Friday June 15 2018, @06:51AM (6 children)
Why can't AMD produce a processor that will run games better than Intel? I'd like to try AMD in my new build, but I've been burned before. You know what they say, fool me once and I'm a fool but fool me twice and what kind of fool am I? Or something like that. Either way, I don't want to have to wait for Intel's Icky Lake to make a new machine.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Friday June 15 2018, @07:01AM (4 children)
What kind of games are you running where you're actually CPU-bound?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Aiwendil on Friday June 15 2018, @07:17AM (1 child)
No idea about grand parent, but in my archive Dwarf Fortress comes to mind
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @07:30AM
Company of Heroes and Civilization make the CPU bleed its worth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @10:31PM
Not all of us are stuck at 60Hz. Hitting 120/144 Hz requires very fast single threaded performance.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Friday June 15 2018, @11:45PM
Witcher 3, Just Cause 3, Watchdogs 2, Assassins Creed Origins. Far Cry 5.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday June 15 2018, @04:06PM
Like Drussell said, most games are GPU-bound. AMD typically leads when core/thread count is important, and has produced CPUs with better price/performance.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-ryzen-2,5615.html [tomshardware.com]
Intel is trying to erase AMD's advantage with mainstream-priced 6 and soon 8-core Coffee Lake. We'll see what AMD pulls out of its hat for 7nm Ryzen 2 [wccftech.com]. 12-16 cores are rumored for next-gen Ryzen, which could make sense if Threadripper has been bumped from 16 to 32 and given the 12/14nm to 7nm die shrink. IPC should also be going up.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]