AMD's EPYC CPUs have already snatched server market share away from Intel
Intel has enjoyed a virtual monopoly in the server CPU arena for some time. However, AMD's EPYC series of processors, based on the latest iteration of Zen architecture, may change that. The first generation of these chipsets, Naples, managed to reduce Intel's market share to 99% shortly after its launch. This may sound less than impressive, but in a billion-dollar industry, it was possibly quite valuable to AMD.
The latest report on the server market by DRAMeXchange indicates that Intel's share is down to 98% by now. This represents a 100% improvement for AMD. Furthermore, the analysts estimate that the release of EPYC Rome-based silicon will result in further gains. They will ultimately result in a total market share of 5% for these CPUs by the end of 2019.
Intel is keeping AMD under 15%. For now:
Now it's easy to tell that Intel will still remain the dominant player in the market, retaining a 90-95% market share lead over AMD but Intel's Ex-CEO, Brian Krzanich, stated that his company wouldn't want AMD capturing 15-20% server market share. In fact, at the pace at which AMD is gaining their server market share, 15% doesn't really feel like a far cry from now.
[...] Looking at the market penetration rate, Intel's Purley platform has been adopted by 60% users in the server space and is expected to reach 65% in the coming year. On the other hand, AMD's EPYC Naples platform has been adopted by 70% and considering that AMD is keeping socket longevity intact with Rome, we can see the adoption rate further expanding after 7nm chips launch.
Previously: AMD Misses Q1 Earnings Target; Withdraws from High-Density Server Market
AMD Ratcheting Up the Pressure on Intel
More on AMD's Licensing of Epyc Server Chips to Chinese Companies
AMD's server marketshare hits 1% for the first time in 4 years
Related: TSMC Will Make AMD's "7nm" Epyc Server CPUs
Intel Announces 48-core Xeons Using Multiple Dies, Ahead of AMD Announcement
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 03 2018, @09:35PM (1 child)
"Whole bunch" meaning what? I run often run like 4 or even sometimes 10 at once. And in some workloads, we run like 60 or more on a machine... and not using any fancy RAM
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday December 04 2018, @04:17AM
It was an audio GUI app built on the Electric Magic Company's [em.net] ZooLib C++ Cross-Platform Framework [em.net] (MIT License).
ZooLib has robust support for cross-platform atomic operations, threading and locking. My plan was to test my app by playing a whole bunch of tracks all that the same time, with instances of these all-at-the-same-time processes running on each of the platforms that ZooLib supports.
Note that I once played fifty different MP3 files in the original BeOS' bundled audio player; it sounded just like a large, crowded public space, with wandering minstrels drawing near then receding as I raised then lowered the volume of any one MP3 playback. This was in 1998 or so; at the time it put the original Mac OS - but for PowerPC - and Windows NT _completely_ to shame; my aim was to bring that ability to as many platforms as I could - all at the same time.
But in the end, I totally bailed. I have some long-term plans for releasing some individual features that I intended for my original idea, but just a few specific features that are not presently served by any audio apps on any platforms at all.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]