Intel internal memo highlights competitive challenges AMD poses
A recent post on Intel's employee-only portal titled, "AMD competitive profile: Where we go toe-to-toe, why they are resurgent, which chips of ours beat theirs," has found its way to Reddit and offers a fascinating glimpse into how Intel perceives one of its largest competitors and the challenges it is posing to some of its divisions.
[...] Penned by Walden Kirsch as part of "the latest in a Circuit News series on Intel's major competitors," the piece notes how AMD was the best-performing stock on the S&P 500 last year and enjoyed its second straight year of greater than 20 percent annual revenue growth in 2018. One of the reasons for AMD's resurgence, Kirsch surmises, is its strategic re-focus on high-performance products in the desktop, datacenter and server markets.
Specifically, Kirsch highlighted AMD's use of TSMC's 7nm manufacturing process, victories in public cloud offerings and its next-gen Zen-core products as factors that will "amplify the near-term competitive challenge from AMD."
[...] The company believes its 9th Gen Core processors will beat AMD's Ryzen-based products in lightly threaded productivity benchmarks as well as in gaming benchmarks. With regard to multi-threaded workloads, Intel said AMD's Matisse "is expected to lead."
Soon to be discontinued internal news series.
See also: Platform Storage Face-Off: AMD Upsets Intel
AMD Ryzen 16 Core 5.2GHz CPU Benchmark Leaked, Crushes Intel's i9 9980XE
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6 Core, 12 Thread CPU Tested on X470 Platform – Single-Core Performance On Par With The Core i9-9900K
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X Benchmarks Leaked, Crushes Intel's i9 9900K in Multi-threaded Performance
Related: Intel's Processors Lose More Performance From Vulnerability Mitigations Than AMD's
AMD and Intel at Computex 2019: First Ryzen 3000-Series CPUs and Navi GPU Announced
HP Boss: Intel Shortages are Steering Our Suited Customers to Buy AMD
AMD Details Three Navi GPUs and First Mainstream 16-Core CPU
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday June 27 2019, @05:30AM (9 children)
They had me by the "out-of-box experience", but to top that with "supplier sustained consistency, and more" is simply irresistible.
(Score: 4, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday June 27 2019, @07:59AM (1 child)
My x64 chip with artificial product segmentation is more special than your x64 chip with uniform feature set !
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:57PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by EEMac on Thursday June 27 2019, @12:18PM
To rephrase Intel's memo: the other option is a better value right now, but we're bigger, and we have bigger partnerships.
It's funny how that works until it doesn't. Just ask DEC in the 1970s, IBM in the 1980s, AOL in the 2000s, or . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:08PM
Rather than a chip, they cover al the spectrum, making the customer meltdown in the Intel experience.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:19PM (4 children)
I quit building my own systems thanks to price. Been a long time since I've been able to buy the components and put it together myself for less than the price of a complete system.
Mostly, upgrading an existing system hasn't ever been feasible. Can't do much more than shove in more RAM and a bigger hard drive or SSD. And that might cost more than just buying a whole new system. Last time I upgraded RAM was on a Pentium II system. Got it with 64M, and 2 years later upped it to 192M when RAM prices had come down some more. Gave the system a couple more years of usefulness, but it proved to be not really worth doing.
Partly, I was trying to avoid the new misfeature Intel had introduced with the Pentium III, the much hated CPU serial number. When I finally upgraded, I leapt from the Pentium II to the Pentium IV. Now we have that abominable Management Engine to deal with. The unique ID seems kind of trivial next to the ME.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday June 27 2019, @04:30PM (3 children)
I can certainly build a much nicer system for myself, cheaper, than I can buy as a package deal. Also, getting into the case, swapping things out, etc. Becomes a much easier task than, with the we used special screws/rivets to screw you out of self-repair, Consumer/Gamer Desktop computers. Sure, you can likely find a specific computer, that you won't be able to build exactly for cheaper, but it's not the case in general.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 27 2019, @07:25PM (1 child)
yeah, store bought PCs are only comparable if you aren't picky or don't mind them wasting your money.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday June 27 2019, @09:52PM
That's if you're fool enough to pay full price. I always wait for a sale. Used to get my PCs from Woot, before Amazon bought them. When I felt I needed a new computer, I'd check every day, until the special of the day was a desktop system. Might take a month, but one would eventually be offered, and I might take it, or wait for the next system.
Also, I always try for the inflection point, the point at which the cost for more capacity, speed, and power starts rising steeply.
Peak Price of a new PC has come down amazingly over the decades. A middling PC system was $2000 in the late 1980s. Most I ever spent on a system was $3000 in 1990 for a nice new higher end 486 based system. Hit $1500 by the mid 1990s, $1200 by the late 1990s, and slid under $1000 in the early 2000s. By the late 2000s, $500 was enough to get a decent system that was a step or two above the bottom end. And today? Low end laptops can be had for under $200.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by toddestan on Friday June 28 2019, @03:45AM
Nice thing about building a system for myself is that I get the system I want, with the components that I picked out. This also helps some if I want something a bit non-standard, like a decent graphics card in something that isn't a ridiculous $2500 gaming PC. Granted, I usually spend a bit more more money than a pre-built system, but often the reason the pre-built system is cheaper is because they skimped somewhere that people don't look. A cheap power supply that can barely power the stock components, slower ram, that kind of thing. Of course, nowadays this doesn't matter as much because the PC will more than likely still be plenty fast for what it's going to be used for.
With that said, the last time I built a PC was in 2012, so if I had to replace this computer (no real reason yet), I'd have to evaluate the options.