10mo ago

For the first time ever, AMD outsells Intel in the datacenter space

www.tomshardware.com

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/18817227

Hardware @lemmy.world

misk @sopuli.xyz

10mo ago

For the first time ever, AMD outsells Intel in the datacenter space

www.tomshardware.com /pc-components/cpus/for-the-first-time-ever-amd-outsells-intel-in-the-datacenter-space

32 comments

I predicted in 2017 stock price over $100 when that happened.
Took about 3-4 years longer than expected, but still congratulations to AMD, on their successful fight back from the brink of bankruptcy.
- Not to diminish the hard work AMD has put in, but it's at least partially related to Intel's ongoing issues with quality assurance (or the lack thereof, rather), and thus it's arguable that they hold a stronger position at least partially due to Intel's weakness in the last 10 years.
  
  Having a usable product while your opponents continually shoot themselves in the foot is a viable market strategy.
  
  Absolutely, if Intel hadn't been sleeping on their laurels for 5 years on desktop performance, and had made 6 and 8 core CPUs themselves before Ryzen arrived. Ryzen would not have been nearly as successful. This was followed by the catastrophic Intel 10nm fab failures, allowing AMD to stay ahead even longer.
  So absolutely, AMD has been helped a lot by Intel failing to react in time, and then failing in execution when they did react.
  Still I think congratulation is in order, because Ryzen was such a huge improvement on the desktop and server, that they absolutely deserve their success. Threadripper was icing on the cake, and completely trashed Intel in the workstation segment.
  And AMD exposed Intel's weakness in face of real competition. Arm and Nvidia had already done that in their respective areas, but AMD did it on Intel's core business.
  
  Their market cap crossed paths well before that the 14th gen issues. Intel seems to be rushing things specifically because they're trying to catch up to AMD, and is sacrificing too much to get there.
  
  Not security?
Intel's market cap: 98b $
AMD's market cap: 230b $
- Their P/E is 125
  One fucking hundred and twenty five.
  That's more than twice Nvidia. It's completely disconnected from reality.
Granite Rapids is probably going win some of that back: a lot of the largest purchasers of x86 chips in the datacenter were buying Epycs because you could stuff more cores into a given amount of rack space than you could with Intel, but the Granite Rapids stuff has flipped that back the other way.
I'm sure AMD will respond with EVEN MORE CORES, and we'll just flop around with however many cores you can stuff into $15,000 CPUs and thus who is outselling whom.
- https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/server/epyc/4th-generation-9004-and-8004-series/amd-epyc-9754.html
  Launched June of 2023
  128c/256t
  $11,900
  400w TDP
  https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/240777/intel-xeon-6980p-processor-504m-cache-2-00-ghz/specifications.html
  Launched Q3 of 2024
  128c/256t
  $17,800
  500w TDP
  I don't think Granite Rapids are going to flip it back in Intels favor
- It's not just cores - it is higher performance per rack unit while keeping power consumption and cooling needs the same.
  That allows rack performance upgrades without expensive DC upgrades - and AMD has been killing dual and quad socket systems from intel with single and dual core epycs since launch now. Their 128 core one has a bit too high TDP, but just a bit lower core count and you can still run it in a rack configured for power and cooling needs from over a decade ago.
  Granite rapids has too high TDP for that - you either go upgrade your DC, or lower performance per rack unit.
- It's not just performance, though. It's also trust. If performance per watt was all that mattered, AMD would have cornered the server market years ago. Intel held on because they were considered rock solid stable--very important in a server. That trust was completely broken by the recent instability issues.
  
  I didn't think the consumer-level chip immolation carried over to their xeons?
  If it did, holy crap, they're mega-ultra-turbo-plaid levels of screwed.
Intel's flagship 128-core Xeon 6980P 'Granite Rapids' processor costs $17,800, making it the company's most expensive standard CPU ever. By contrast, AMD's most expensive 96-core EPYC 6979P processor costs $11,805.
Jesus Christ when did we break 20 cores?
- have you actually been living under a rock or something
  
  CPUs have multiple cores now? Amazing.
- I got a new laptop last month for $2200US, it has 24 cores. i9-14900HX
- These are server CPUs, not something you wanna put in your laptop or desktop.
- 2016 i believe

32 comments