edit: Below is wrong, see author of article's reply below for why. Preserving for record.
They have been holding back review samples of their latest i9s so reviewers wouldn't do head-to-heads with this new 3950X (but people have anyway, and the 3950X crushes the i9). See Linus Tech Tip's review of the 3950X this morning for citation.
Linus tested the 8-core i9-9900KS, which came out a few weeks ago, and those results are also in the link which is the title to this thread.
What are your thoughts on the question of whether Intel may be strategically timing releases of some mitigations to favor their performance in review benchmarks?
Intel's security flaws pushed our LCRs up at least two years and cost us extra in over-provisioning to account for real and potential performance loss. If Intel isn't actually hardware mitigating (as in, making no effort to redesign their chips with security in mind and instead playing whack a mole with vulnerabilities as they're discovered) and reviewers are not highlighting and disclosing this, they're lying by omission.
I'm not being rude, but don't give Intel a pass here because of any prior fondness you might have held for them. Every benchmark of an Intel CPU you've ever published was made false by their negligence. That's a big, confusing problem for consumers, and they rely on your clarity and diligence to bring it to their attention and correct.
Better phrased: won't be valid for long, if the security patches are released ;)
For those of you without really good search engines :) (Contains link to YouTube video review.)
Reality is just catching up, AMD is already number one for a long time. Intell's cheating just didn't make it clear.
I've waited for a year to express my opinion, before I could see any evidence.
The time has come that AMD is even beating Intell's fake single core performance, so slowly we will see all of Intell's shit appear. There is no point in hiding it anymore for the consumer/gaming market, if they are not nr 1 in single core. Not if they lose trust of their business clients and profitable server market.
All those gamers that bought Intel for single core performance and OEM's that stick to Intell because of monopolies betted on the wrong horse.
https://twitter.com/damageboy/status/1194751035136450560?s=1...
This feels "nice", although I'm affected to :(
Waiting for decent AMD laptops...
Ps. Long AMD, ever since Spectre and meltdown.
Cascade Lake and the latest Coffee Lake (and Comet Lake) steppings have hardware mitigations for all the previously known exploits (although there is a new batch) including some for which AMD still requires software mitigations themselves (Spectre V2).
https://windowsreport.com/amd-intel-security-vulnerabilities...
Intel is in a lot more verticals than AMD is - networking, storage, etc - and all of those get their own CVE number. But that's a more nuanced approach than "big number bad" isn't it?
Specifically, Intel is finding a lot because they're doing an enterprise-wide initiative to lock down their IPs. Is AMD making the same effort, or are there more vulnerabilities in those GPU drivers or in the chipset drivers that they're not looking for? After all, a year ago they were at the stage where they were installing an out-of-date Apache instance along with your motherboard drivers... doesn't sound like security is priority #1 for them.
Again, low number sounds good. But if you're not looking, it's actually not good.
And researchers are not looking on AMD much either. AMD is less than 5% of the server market right now, you get the big headlines from finding vulnerabilities in Intel now, not AMD. Give it another 5 years and there will be more scrutiny on AMD's hardware/software.
Do they now? Why may that be? Not voluntarily i guess, with all the mess, others have found first, they fear losing ground, and shareholders blood thirst.
However, if that’s wrong I would love to read about it.
A bit later, AMD was uniquely not affected. But they were investigated, yes?
Seems like you like Intel more than AMD.
No problems with that, I'm the other way around :)
As to being lucky, I have no idea what their internal process is or what they considered. But luck seems like an odd way to talk about such things.
Perhaps someone who knows about this stuff can comment.
Edit: the mini-dies are chiplets/CCDs. Couldn't remember the name.
They plan to recover in the end of 2020, while temporarily leaving the market open for AMD. Accepting that made them willing to fix their security issues, which decrease performance.
Since they have no product line in response to AMD for now, that was not an easy call for sure.
So you recommend to buy AMD stock now? Or TSMC? Or is it already too late for that? The share price already went up from 28 to 38 since October
For context: Intel currently has a P/E ratio of 13.57, which is 70th percentile of tech stocks. AMD currently has a P/E ratio of 201.89, which is 5th percentile of tech stocks.
https://www.gurufocus.com/term/pettm/intc/PE-Ratiottm
https://www.gurufocus.com/term/pettm/intc/PE-Ratiottm
AMD as a company has great potential in the long term, but still barely makes any money today. Like, AMD is hoping to double their server marketshare (only part of the company) by the end of 2020... which will take them to... almost 10% of the market. It's real easy to make big percentage gains when you have 0% share of the market. The AMD of 2016 had nowhere else to go but up.
Lots of room if they break Intel's monopoly though.
Intel had 16 billion revenue in 2018 and AMD "profits" from TSMC and their clients ( eg. Apple, Nvidia,... )
In the server market, it seems that they are partially breaking Intel's monopoly. Today's news in Intel won't change that perspective. P/e is also a bad ratio if a company invests a lot.
But yeah, a lot of hype on the stock.
Intel is keep getting hit hard though. Benchmarks, security issues, delays, failing at 7-10nm. They are currently still holding the monopoly though.
What I see lately is that AMD is raising prices. This seems like a good indicator of how they are positioning themselves versus the market.
Their P/E is an irrelevant measure for AMD's market value, as it was for AMZN when they were aiming for 0 profit and re-invest everything towards growth. They're obviously interested in maximizing R&D and selling their chips at very competitive pricing over profit which currently offers much better value over Intel's chips.
AMD only made 120M in profit last quarter on 1.8B revenue up 9% YoY, Intel made 6B profit down 6% YoY. How much more likely is AMD to double their profits to 240M then Intel is to 12B? If the market perception of AMD's chip superiority and OEM vendors start preferring AMD over Intel it could happen within the very near future, not decades out.
Amazon only recently started to turn on profits after achieving dominance in a number of markets, I don't expect AMD to focus on profits until they're able to get much higher market penetration so I expect their focus is going to continue to be on R&D and low margins. So their P/E will remain high along with their potential for future growth.
But I do think that AMD has enough space too grow the next year:
- servers
- laptops
- desktops ( OEM )
And I'm curious if their video card line-up will be as good as their CPU line-up.
Intel had 16 billion revenue in 2018. My guess is they will take a lot of that the coming years.
I suppose, if you get this bad in the news and excepting it.
This is kinda weird: https://twitter.com/gchip/status/1187519015544967168
That said, even though perf-per-watt isn't great and that's usually my #1 concern, I still buy primarily AMD GPUs and suffer with the issues, as the NV CUDA/DL monopoly needs a counterweight. I'm just sitting on Vega until Arcturus.
[1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Radeon-R...
So a reference card, which came with an horrendous, insufficient cooling solution.
The experience has been much better for those that bought the custom cards (such as sapphire pulse/nitro) later. They also got far more mature drivers to start with.
I think you're misinterpreting that bit. Arcturus refers to an upcoming product based on their older, pre-Navi Vega microarchitecture. It seems Vega may be a more compute-oriented microarchitecture while Navi is more graphics/gaming-oriented and thus in the near term they are still developing more compute-oriented products based on the Vega microarchitecture. But that doesn't mean they have no plans to ever bring Navi support to ROCm, it just means that it takes less work and has more short-term payoff to add support for another Vega-based product.
Mostly because of power consumption, fyi.
Fleet of BSODing machines because we decided to buy workstation graphics from AMD, I thought they would have figured out drivers by now.
The knee jerk reaction to go and because they finally got closer to closing the gap with Intel is funny to watch but not very forward thinking.
Or if you're talking about dedicated graphics and not integrated, then I don't see how it relates to the subject at hand, their CPUs.
It's the "total package" ;)
1991. Am386DX-40 introduced at $200, quickly discounted to <$90 against Intels slower ~$200 386DX-33 and $258 486SX-20. With this one CPU AMD won the budget segment for a couple of years https://redhill.net.au/c/c-4.html#dx40 Intel replied by suing AMD, they lost the case.
2000. Duron/Athlon and first desktop 1GHz CPU. Intel replied by faking release of Pentium 3 1GHz, (only limited review samples, no stock shipped) followed by real release of 1.13GHz Pentium 3 dubbed the "Fastest x86 CPU in the world", except they crashed in users computers and resulted in expensive recall and delays https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/revisiting-intel,221-2.... https://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/08/28/intel_recalls_1_13g...
2003. AMD64, first desktop 64bit cpu starting at $218, half the price of comparable Pentium 4. Intel replied by directly bribing, intimidating and blackmailing distributors/retailers, resulting in biggest EU antitrust fine at the time of over $1.3 Billion. Intel hasnt paid a dime of this fine to this date! and keeps throwing lawyers at the problem and appealing. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/09/06/victory-in...
AMD's current ascension can also be explained by the death of Moore's law. Moore's law is an exponential curve. Meaning, if you started behind someone else on the curve and increase on the same curve, over time, they will always get further and further ahead of you. You can never catch up.
Assuming progress stops following an exponential, and starts looking more linear, with a reasonable (i.e., non-exponential) amount of investment, you can overtake someone who is ahead of you.
This news may be great for AMD, but it does not bode well for everyone else.