Intel N100 NUCs with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSDs can be had for less than $200 on Amazon. What does AMD have in that price point?

NUCs with AMD APUs are nearly double the price. AMD is top dog in the high performing PCs but not everyone buys high performance PCs.

There aren't really any AMD options as cheap as the N100/95/97 mini-pc options. That said, there are some truly great options in the sub-$600 mini-pc segment. The Beelink SER8 with an 8845hs is pretty great to say the least. Bought one a few weeks ago for HTPC/Emulation usage running ChimeraOS, it's done a very good job. Though I might replace the BT/WiFi controller for something better supported. Only hung up once, but still annoying.

I wouldn't consider it "high performance" but it's definitely good performance and far better than any Intel mini-pc options I've looked into.

Nice to see Beelink has some bios updates available. Many of these mini-PC.folks don't seem to offer any updates!

Here's a random sample of 1: https://dr.bee-link.cn/?dir=uploads%2FSER%2FBIOS%2FSER6%20MA...

This is true, though an AMD 5700U mini PC might go for $300, or less if you can find a bargain. However, it will hands down dominate a N100. 2.5 to 3x faster, not to mention the APU (vega 7) for video/gaming capabilities. I was always Intel, but AMD has really stepped up in the last few years. Their APU line up is top notch, and pretty incredible for the mini PC market (and laptops). The newer gen are great too, but for the best bargains, then Zen 3 lineup is the way to go

There's a lot of options from both mfgs above the bottom end. Alder lake CPUs (eg. 12600h is simarly priced with 12 cores) are pretty solid in the same price class as Zen 3. I think both have pretty competitive miniPC offerings (with intel usually offering more cores) in the midrange.

Definitely agree asst if you plan on actually using the minipc swinging a real mobile chip with 3x the perf of N100 class processors is almost certainly worth it.

Prebuilt PC sales is likely that cause. I'm sure AMD has a much higher share for those who are building their computers. But that is most likely an overall small share of the market of computers sold.

The Amazon statistics show much higher sales of AMD CPUs than of Intel CPUs, so this supports your belief about DIY computers.

Most computers sold are prebuilts, and most computers sold are for commercial use, ie office bees, so video game oriented PC's are a relatively small corner of the market.

Well there are several reasons:

- Intel is still competitive for gaming and productivity (albeit at a somewhat higher power consumption)

- AMD does not have a good budget offering (competing with i3 at ~120$)

- People don't refresh their desktop as often as a laptop, especially for gaming where realistically an i7-7700k from 2017 coupled with a modern GPU will comfortably output 60fps+ at 1440p.

> i7-7700k from 2017 coupled with a modern GPU will comfortably output 60fps+ at 1440p

I can say by first hand this is not true for any modern MP game.

In general, I hate these "it does X FPS at Y resolution" claims. They're all so reductive and usually provably false with at least a few examples.

It so happens that toms recently tested this exact question (how much performance do you lose pairing a modern card with an older gpu, compared to the same card with a modern cpu). Full results at [0] but the short answer is that a $900 RTX 4080 gpu with a 2017 cpu will generally do 60+fps at 1440p in most games, but as low as 55 in a few.

0: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/cpu-vs-gpu-u...

Not super surprising for single player games since they're usually much easier on the CPU than multiplayer. I was not getting minimum 60 FPS in Warzone for example.

> not true for any modern MP game

Pretty big claim

> at least a few examples

Reasonable claim

Comfortably doesn't mean everything will be at 60fps, it means that most things will be at 60fps so someone with a 7700k will not be feeling pressure to change their CPU (the entire point of the thread).

you'd be amazed what runs at 60fps in 4k if you simply turn down the settings

I would be shocked if a 7700K with a modern GPU does not get 60fps at 1440p in Rainbow Six, Rocket League, LoL, Dota, CS, Fortnite, etc.

These are all old games so I wouldn't be surprised either

I game on archaic i5-4460 (4 cores, max 3.2ghz), paired with rtx 2070 super and 16gb I can run literally everything new in 50-100 fps range, coupled with 34" 1440p VRR display not much more to desire for single player. Running this maybe 6 years with only graphic card and corresponding psu change.

Ie Cyberpunk 2077 everything max apart from rtx stuff and its rarely below 80fps, dlss on good looks. Baldurs gate 3 slightly less but still smooth. God of war same. Usually first think I install is some HD texture pack, so far never any performance hit to speak of. Literally why upgrade?

Consoles and their weak performance are effectively throttling PC games last few years (and decade before), not much reason to invest into beefy expensive power hungry noisy setup for most gaming, just to have few extra shiny surface reflections?

A big chunk of gamers just play games like Valorant, CS, Fifa and CoD which usually run much better.

On the contrary I can say first hand that it is true (3700X which is two years newer, but on benchamrks it is a toss up between the two). What modern GPU at you using?

3700X's 8-cores is a generational leap above the 7700k's quad core for modern games. They aren't comparable at all.

I ran a GTX 1080 and then an RTX 3080. The performance was not very good in modern games designed for current gen consoles like pretty much any BR game for example. Some games got high FPS at times but with low minimum FPS.

I generally rule out all Intel CPUs between the 4770 and 11th Gen.

The exception is when I need dirt-cheap + lower-ish power consumption (which isn't gaming)

Your preference does not change whether or not it can achieve > 60fps at 1440p in modern multiplayer games when paired with a modern GPU

An now 13th and 14th Gen... Before it is absolutely certain issues are fixed... So that leaves 12th?

12700k here, absolute unit of a CPU.

Aren't there Ryzen models as the budget offering that overlaps with i3?

Intel has had very good marketing for decades, and they've also surrendered to marginless sales just for the sake of appearing dominant. AMD's strategy of late seems to be for higher margins, but lower share.

I just bought an AMD chip for my new server build for this reason. But then I found out about the Sinkclose vulnerability...

Before a Sinkclose package can be deployed, it needs some multi-stage exploits to be successful. I think it's value is against exclusive targets.

I've had more than 0 clients in my career that might draw that kind of attention but not a lot more.

Because Intel is still top dog when it comes to single threaded performance even against Zen 5.

Yeah, but that's at the cost of a 50% probability of a CPU failure within a year. Moreover, it doesn't hold true in games vs X3D CPUs.

That’s hyperbole. There’s no data to back such a claim.

Indeed. Intel is trash right now. No AVX512 thus AMD is infinitely faster.

Define infinitely

Intel sells a complete package with highly integrated laptop things such as wifi (CNVio2) and webcam (IPU6) for a very low price, and they have things that fleet buyers want like vPRO.

The article had a separate "mobile" category for that where AMD had <20% market share.

While true, people still want things like Wi-Fi and vPro in a desktop. And USB4 and what not.

My lab is trying to purchase a new office computer with heavy enough workloads to justify a mid-to-high tier CPU. I recommended that we buy an AMD machine primarily because of the current intel issues.

The first problem I ran into is that the majority of companies selling pre-built computers do not offer an AMD option (and pre-built is a must. We are not allowed to use grant money to buy all the parts and assemble ourselves, which would have been my preferred option). And when they do, they are often limited in selection and might only be older generation or budget-tier CPUs.

I did eventually manage to find an AMD option that fit our needs and my boss forwarded to billing for approval. We got significant push back with IT recommending various intel machines that they claimed were "better" (although also several hundred dollars more expensive), but were also available through the universities preferred sales partners.

We could probably fight and get them to allow us to purchase what we want (the fact that they have to "allow" it when 100% of our funding is non-university dollars is a separate, ridiculous issue), but honestly, at this point we have probably already spent more staff time on this than the real world differences, even including the micro-code problems, are worth.

I'd bet that a lot of corporate contexts, and even home enthusiast customers, operate on the same momentum: they have always bought intel and so they will continue to buy intel. Even in the absence of some strong belief that intel is "better".

> the majority of companies selling pre-built computers do not offer an AMD option

Don’t you just need to find 3-4 sellers to do a shopping comparison? Don’t need anything close to the “majority”

I think there is a lot of trust of Intel. It is the only processor company most people know.

For IT departments I think a lot of it is that they want you to have processors they know work with their software stack. In addition, Intel has their own software stack that works with their processors that include features such as Remote Desktop and security. Intel, like Microsoft, has become very good at catering to the Corporate IT crowd.

> For IT departments I think a lot of it is that they want you to have processors they know work with their software stack

I thought the world solved this problem with compilers like 30 years ago.

Also you're vastly overestimating the knowledge of the average computer users. Many of them can't even tell the difference between the CPU and GPU.

Sorry, even you overestimated. A lot of users think CPU is the case.

It actually used to be a somewhat valid term, yes. The case with the computer was the Central Processing Units, and the rest was peripherals.

It’s also that most IT people doing corp stuff don’t even give a crap or even know what half the hardware is these days. I mean our IT department bought developers laptops with 8Gb of soldered in RAM and no expansion then bitched at the dev team when they were told to piss off

Do I remember correctly that intel was paying companies for not offering AMD? Like Dell?

You do. 15 years ago though.

https://www.intel.com/pressroom/legal/docs/NY_AG_v._Intel_CO...

The effects live on, unfortunately. Justice was not served as an outcome of that case.

Today, people's mindshare is still largely with Intel, mostly due to nearly 2 decades of associated brand new computers, and performance with Intel, since they were the only offered option 90% of the time.

Think about your typical non-technical person shopping for a computer. "I want Intel, they've always done well for me".

Don't be naive. This only means that they wisened up and made sure they will not be caught for 15 years now.

> pre-built is a must. We are not allowed to use grant money to buy all the parts and assemble ourselves, which would have been my preferred option

Huh. Why? This seems arbitrary.

Because if you assemble yourself, and it doesn't turn on, it's your job to debug which part is failing. If you buy pre-build you get a warranty for the whole thing.

We had some people at work buy parts and it was fine for a while, then became a nightmare, unstable machines where we could never figure out what part was to blame. It isn't worth paying Dev's salaries to let them debug their faulty hardware.

I spent probably $20k on labor costs alone to order 4 developer laptops for my team when I worked for the U.S. Navy.

Procurement rules often exist for good reasons, but they're one of the reasons I moved back to the private sector.

Apologies for my ignorance, but can you describe it to me in practical terms what does it exactly mean to spend $20k on labor costs just to order 4 developer laptops, please?

Soliciting multiple bids, getting exceptions to normal computer procurement rules, navigating the other more mainstream rules, and some other stuff, IIRC.

Happily it was a while ago and I purged most of the details from my brain.

That's the number of hours it took to do all of the paperwork necessary for the acquisition, times the hourly rates charged to the government (as a general rule for USG cost-plus contracts, 1.5x the developer salary to cover benefits, contractor overhead, etc.) by the people doing the paperwork.

The one I remember best from when I was working gov't contractors was that there were forms that certified we were currently complying with all current US trade embargoes and sanctions regimes. So we had to investigate and make sure that we were complying with them all- the State department has a searchable list of all the people and companies that are under various levels of sanctions. But that paperwork, times all of the other forms we had to fill out, times a competitive bidding process (with possibility for appeals) to make sure the government wasn't getting ripped off, etc.

This can happen in the private industry as well: I remember once seeing a whole bunch of level 2 managers in a conference room battling it out over exactly which laptop to buy for ~15 developers who needed special extra beefy hardware for a project, and commenting to my L1 manager that the price difference between the two laptops was less than the cost to the company of that meeting, so it would have been wiser to just buy the more expensive laptops and forget the argument.

How much time is spent choosing and assembling parts? The less time you spend on tasks like that the more valuable time spent on something useful. (or so it is assumed)

because the bean counters track assets, which means computers, not various parts.

It often is arbitrary. Also, the rules as enforced by the awardee institution often differ from the funding agency's written rules. The people who are responsible for reviewing purchasing are only responsible for making sure no rules are broken, not with producing anything, so they tend to interpret the rules conservatively and just say "no" if they're not sure. The IT department also may try to block anything they didn't pick even if the funding agency would allow it. (Speaking from experience with university bureaucracy.)

It's not out of concern for cost-benefit ratio (overhead from parts selection and assembly) or anything like that. Getting something useful done is solely the researcher's problem.

Why not start your own company (even non profit) that offers prebuilt machines by buying the parts you want and assembling them?

Doing it for his current employer would likely open him up to liability regarding embezzlement.

But it’s not a bad idea, the margins for PC building is really low for the general public though.

I don't see how a non-profit where the cost of the machine is the cost of the parts only could even realistically be embezzlement.

That is a very common way embezzle money. Well not the PC business, generally you pick something that looks higher margin and/or harder to get into, but really anything will work so long as it looks like a legitimate business that does something real. The scam is easy: buy something cheap, and charge a lot of $$$ for labor or support costs. It is very easy to hide overhead that can be go back to you.

You also typically are not directly involved in the business - that is both too much work and too obvious: instead you get your brother-in-law/uncle/cousin/... to start the business so it looks independent. Then the relative does expensive family vacations, football games and other such things that you happen to be invited on along with all your friends in common. (that is you need to make it look like money is never given to you, but because it is paid for you save a lot of money).

The other common thing to do is a charity. If a politician's family is in any way involved with a charity you should assume it is a scam - the charity might otherwise do good work but the family member is there as a way to hide bribes. (again, the money never reaches the politician, but it reaches family members who the politician wants to do well). This of course makes life hard for honest family members of politicians - everything they do looks like the politician (not them!) asking for a bribe.

It's not that it would be embezzlement, it's that it pattern matches to embezzlement. People with purchasing authority generally can't choose vendors they are involved with because that's such a popular way to steal money.

You need to go to an integrator and get an Epyc-based machine. You can do $7k ish per.

I've had a similar experience a few years ago. At the time, enthusiast Ryzen CPUs had just started outperforming Xeons that Dell and others were exclusively pushing. A sub thousand box edging out a ten thousand dollar workstation wasn't enough to move the needle until Threadripper workstations started to show up. Even then I wasn't able to push our IT to consider AMD as a serious replacement. Maybe that's partially why we still see ten Intel options for every AMD one.

yass just how no one gets fired for choosing aws.

the masses tend to gravitate towards lindy don't they.

System 76 has some AMD desktop / laptop options https://system76.com/desktops

Sounds like its a no go anyway, but just in case this is not the one you already found.

But even there you see the problem. The Ryzen CPUs are only in their lower end budget systems, and the Threadrippers are only in their expensive high end systems. If you need a 'mid-level' system (like we buy where I work), with say around a dozen cores, an RTX 4090, and 128 GB of RAM, then you have to go with Intel even here. Their cheapest Threadripper computer with matching specs is literally $3000 more.

the ryzen 7/9 model is literally more expensive than every intel system they offer on that page?

and yes, threadripper is unfortunately quite expensive now, that's a decision AMD made back in 2019 with the 3000 series to go heavily upmarket on that. In most cases if you are a customer who is in the market for threadripper, you are better off just using epyc now, unless your highly-parallel workload also needs very high max clocks.

It's really hard to buy pre-built high end desktop computers from big brands with the latest AMD CPUs.

To this day, Intel is still deeply ahead in software support for AI.

MKL, OpenAPI, Intel Optimization for sklearn, for pytorch, etc (there are many more). No equivilants exist from AMD but NVIDIA has an equivalent for all of these (i.e. CuPy).

Using AMD for AI stuff only makes sense if you never believe that you may want to do any kind of ML-like workload on or with the CPUs assistance. This is true for many folks though, but for those it's not true for, they will buy blue until Intel no longer exists.

MKL runs on Ryzens just fine and newest Ryzens all have AVX512 which all new desktop/laptop Intels lack. "AI" on CPU is a gimmick, everybody does it on GPU anyway (outside 128GB RAM M3 Max that has some LLM use, but it's still due to shared memory with GPU).

Certain workloads aren't total "gimmicks" (i.e. small embeddings models), and often those CPU optimizations are on things that absolutely do take advantage of the CPU well (i.e. graph analysis) or on traditional ML algorithms like random forests (intel optimizations for sklearn) which are still important and do still run well on CPUs.

Not to mention that most people have more RAM than they do VRAM.

Running MKL on your datacenter grade AMD processor technically violates some license and it relies tricks like this - https://danieldk.eu/Posts/2020-08-31-MKL-Zen

Technically, if your found to be allowing this as a cloud provider by Intel, they have grounds to sue you, so yes, you can use MKL on a Ryzen at home, but you put yourself at risk for lawsuits by doing this in a data center at scale

I'm doing fast AVX512 embeddings on Ryzen, and fast ONNX AVX512 reranking on Ryzen. Though I do the actual heavy lifting on GPU, doing all the RAG stuff in CPU is helpful. AI on CPU is still mostly a gimmick, but as models get smaller and more capable it's becoming less of a gimmick.

Yeah, but the "AI" on CPU means some basic NPU doing (sparse) matrix multiplication, not AVX512.

I'm handling dense, sparse, and colbert vectors generated by BGE-M3 model on CPU, pretty sure that counts as "AI"

> Still wondering how AMD has only ~25% of desktop market share given recent Intel issues.

I sometimes pick Intel over AMD because I don't have AMD's CPU naming conventions memorized - and I'm in a hurry.

Like you don't have time to research the CPUs for a personal machine? Man I usually go overboard reading up on the hardware going into my own desktop.

> Like you don't have time to research the CPUs for a personal machine?

No. It's when I have to quickly line up hardware for my customers.

I'll have 5 projects in play and I get an email from a client saying they need a workstation or notebook for a new hire ASAP. I can skim Intel CPUs among Lenovo offerings fairly quickly.

Back when I was a system builder, I knew every capability of every chip. When Intel had hobbling virtualization (VT/x, etc), I knew which chips were capable. In that day, I often chose AMD to save time because every AMD CPU was fully capable.

Hah, I felt that urge last time I bought a PC - I could easily roughly compared Intel performance vs price, but with AMD I had to look up half the models.

> I could easily roughly compared Intel performance vs price, but with AMD I had to look up half the models.

That's sort of what I'm up against.

AMD makes excellent products. If I have a day or two I can ask my son for recommendations. He knows AMD lines off the top of his head. If I have 10 minutes, I go with what I know.

Especially in laptops, AMD has a downright insane naming scheme designed to confuse buyers - so this is honestly kind of understandable..

And Intel is somehow better? They're all terrible, including Nvidia, and it always takes a ridiculous amount of research to figure out what's what.

You're mostly right. During the post-4770 wasteland years, I found I often couldn't ID mobile chips using my mental desktop crib notes.

We changed our current order for workstations to AMD parts. They arrive today or tomorrow I think.

Odds are it would have been fine, they were just i3 worker bee boxes, but, it's not really worth the risk when there's a viable alternative.

Honestly, this is one of the reasons I think Intel's stock is likely undervalued at this point (not that I want to invest my money with management I don't feel confident in).

Intel is facing a lot of threats and they rested on their laurels. At the same time, Intel is still 75-80% of the market - even as AMD started killing Intel in performance for several years. I'm less sure that Intel will hit its fab milestones than Intel's press releases, but I'm also not sure that AMD can really take advantage of that. AMD is reliant on TSMC's capacity and as we've seen recently, AMD often has to wait a year or two before it can use TSMC's latest processes. Even AMD's upcoming Zen 5 processors will be using TSMC's 4nm N4P process (with future Zen 5 processors expected to be 3nm). If Intel is able to get 18A out the door in 2025, Intel's fabrication will certainly be competitive with what AMD can get (and likely quite a bit better).

From what I've read (and I might be wrong), it sounds like Intel is moving to High NA EUV soon (now-ish/2025) while TSMC is waiting until around 2030 (https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/tsm...). Is TSMC falling into the trap of letting a competitor out-invest them - the same trap that Intel fell into ~2012-2022? Probably not, but it does seem likely that the advantage TSMC had will taper away over the next couple years - assuming Intel isn't full of crap about their progress.

Even if TSMC maintains a lead against Intel, can AMD take marketshare? Specifically, can AMD produce as many chips as demanded or are they somewhat limited by how much capacity they can get from TSMC? For example, if people want X number of AMD server chips, does AMD manufacture 25% of that number and 75% of customers buy Intel chips because that's what is available due to AMD's lack of fab capacity? I'm not saying that is the case - it's a genuine question for someone that knows more about the industry than I do.

We do know that TSMC has limited capacity. Apple tied up TSMC's 3nm capacity such Apple is the only company shipping 3nm parts. It looks like Intel will be the next company shipping 3nm parts with their Lunar Lake using TSMC's N3B process this fall.

I'd also note that Intel's fabs aren't unlimited either. Meteor Lake moved to Intel 4 in December 2023, but Emerald Rapids (server) remained on Intel 7 at the same time. Intel can't just churn out as many Intel 4 chips as they'd like.

I too wonder how/why AMD is still below 25% marketshare given Intel's issues. I wonder if AMD has limitations on how much fab capacity it can get which is stifling attempts at gaining marketshare. At the same time, it looks like Intel is on a course to fix its issues - if one can believe what Intel is saying. If Intel is able to ship 18A chips in 2025 at volume, it seems like it should fix the big issue that Intel has been facing - inferior fabs. AMD has been able to out-do Intel in part because it's been able to rely on TSMC's better fabrication. Is this just a blip where Intel looks bad 2020-2024? That's a genuine question because I don't really know enough about the industry. Maybe someone will say that Intel's PR is mostly bluster and that they're still being run by beancounters trying to optimize for short-term profits. Maybe someone will say that Intel is investing in the right direction, but there's still a lot of risk around pulling off High NA EUV for 2025. Maybe someone will say that Intel is likely to hit their milestones and will regain the title of best-fab.

However, given that AMD hasn't been able to really hammer Intel's marketshare, it feels like Intel has more staying power than I'd think. Again, like the parent comment, it's always puzzled me that AMD hasn't gained a ton of marketshare over the past 5 years.

Aint high na euv for 14A?

All these points about Intel are just waiting for an answer to "Is Intel capable of changing its prevailing culture or not?". There is a reason why Intel fell behind and it wasn't due to a lack of engineering geniuses inside. You might bet on the stock market and see. AMD obviously has a SPOF in TSMC and its limited capacity.

Yep, that's a lot of the essence. I would point out a few things, though.

Unlike many other cases of a company getting a bad culture, Intel hasn't seen its marketshare destroyed. They still have time to turn things around. Even if things go in a very bad direction, they could become a fabless company like AMD and compete for TSMC's capacity on equal terms with AMD.

If you look at a company like Yahoo, Google had already become dominant when it was trying to turn itself around. AMD hasn't even hit a third of the market.

Not only that, but it's probable that AMD isn't capable of becoming even 50% of the market due to capacity constraints. If AMD can make 25-30% of the market's processors and no more due to capacity constraints, even if Intel processors are inferior, they're still going to be the bulk of sales. By contrast, Google had basically infinite capacity to dominate search, Facebook had basically infinite capacity to crowd out MySpace and other rivals, etc. The point is that Intel has a lot more runway to turn itself around if it's essentially guaranteed 70% of the market.

In some ways, this resembles the Boeing/Airbus situation. While Boeing has been in a bad place recently, Airbus can't take advantage of it. That gives Boeing a long time to change its trajectory and is probably why Airbus is only worth around 15% more than Boeing. Even if airlines want to buy Airbus planes, they can't. Likewise, even if OEMs and datacenters want to buy AMD chips, maybe they can't because AMD doesn't have the capacity to make them.

In some cases, you need to rapidly change the culture and direction of a company because you're quickly dying. In Intel's case, it seems likely that they could waddle along for a long time if AMD isn't able to quickly grab marketshare. I think it's easier to gradually change the culture over a longer period of time if you have the ability to stave off collapse in the meantime.

For example, maybe we'll look back on Intel in a decade and say "yea, the change started around 2020 when Intel realized it had fallen behind. It continued to fall behind while it tried to correct things, but then turned a corner and in 2025 they'd regained the fab crown." Are we already close to that culture change showing up in the public view?

I just think I don't know enough about the industry to really know. Maybe someone would say "Intel has already done the culture change and we've seen that in things like Intel 4 and you're really going to notice it in 2025 and 2026 with Intel beating TSMC to High NA EUV." Maybe someone would say "No, intel hasn't changed its culture and you can see that Intel 4 is a niche where they can't even make enough volume to put out a server product with it." Or maybe Intel is focused on the more medium-term with 18A and not wanting to waste resources on a less-than-stellar interim process.

I guess my question isn't just whether Intel is capable of changing its culture, but whether that's already happened. The public perception is a lagging indicator. Most of the public didn't have a bad perception of Boeing 1996-2017. We only recognized the problems in hindsight. Likewise, we recognized Intel's shortcomings in hindsight. We won't recognize whether Intel has changed for years after it has already changed.

So, has Intel's culture already changed (and we're going to see some pretty awesome stuff from them in 2025 and 2026) or has Intel been on the same path to mediocrity for the past 4 years (and they've just gotten better at press releases announcing that they'll be better soon)?

> maybe they can't because AMD doesn't have the capacity to make them.

Or Intel just cut prices on their server CPU so that they are sort of competitive despite much higher power usage to core ratio?

If the Generative AI growth continues, then physical real estate and power usage will be top priorities.

The data center shortage means hyperscalers want as much performance as possible per server (and ideally the best performance/watt because cooling is also a concern). This why AMD has double the ASP of Intel in the server market.

Isn't Meteor Lake made by TSMC (at least some parts like the GPU)? Which would explain the capacity constraints.

My next CPU will be AMD. Why I'm not upgrading yet:

1. I generally use the same CPU for 2-3 years. I have a 11700k right now.

2. AMD hasn't released the beefier versions of its new CPU. High-end consumer Intel chips have many more cores/threads (P + E), while AMD's top right now has 16 threads.

#2 Is why I'm holding off for now. I'm waiting for the X3D version of their chip with ~2x the core count and more threads.

#2 is just incorrect, the top end ThreadRipper (7995WX) has 96 Cores / 192 Threads.

Intel has nothing that comes close to it.

Depending on you definition of recent, because it's to recent to really make any significant impact.

If you're thinking recent as in the last few years, then because the performance and power issues with Intel aren't large enough to make any difference for regular desktop use. Most will be on a 3 - 5 year upgrade cycle, so your new office PC just needs to be better than a five year old one, which it will be.

What it might do it damage the used market. Prices on Intel based refurbished PCs needs to drop, by a lot, now that we know that many/most of those CPUs are damaged beyond repair and will continue to degrade.

Because, like you said, the issues are recent.

Because AMD's general purpose offerings are pretty poor in comparison to intel (e.g. per per watt, productivity, etc). AMD only really shines in high end applications like gaming or high core count cloud computing.

I think it's going to change a lot in coming years, but it's early days.

I feel like the writing has been on the wall for Intel's downward trajectory and AMD's substantial improvements for a few years now, but I think a lot of trust and brand loyalty has papered over the signs for Intel enthusiasts.

On a hardware news site covering the recent news, I saw for the first time in Intel buyers... shock. Incredulity. Disappointment. It's the first time I've seen self-admitting Intel fans come out in numbers questioning their beliefs and perceptions.

I think in the next 4-year cycle as home PC builds turn over and Intel buyers are coming back to market, there's going to be a large influx of AMD converts. The Intel disaster lately will have turned erosion into an exodus. Maybe not a monumental one. But the AMD numbers are going to grow seriously over the next half decade.