this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
290 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

59118 readers
6622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 46 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 25 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

For sure, and as someone who has been stuck running Linux on an Intel box after being spoiled by all-AMD for about 6 years, I gotta say, the fact that a lot of AMD stuff "just works" in Linux when you have to jump through hoops for the same from Intel is probably a big reason they're picking up in datacenters, too. Datacenters don't usually run on fucking Windows Server, they usually run Linux, and AMD just plays better with Linux at the moment. (In my personal experience, anyway)

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Yes this too is really a turnaround compared to "old times". Intel used to be the safe choice, that's definitely not the case anymore.

[–] aard@kyu.de 17 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

For people who weren't looking for a developer workstation back then: Threadripper suddenly brought the performance of a xeon workstation costing more than 20k for just a bit over 2k.

That suddenly wasn't a "should I really invest that much money" situation, but a "I'd be stupid not to, productivity increase will pay for that over the next month or so"

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 6 points 10 hours ago

productivity increase will pay for that over the next month or so

Found the fellow Rust developer

Cargo build universe

[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 63 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Having a usable product while your opponents continually shoot themselves in the foot is a viable market strategy.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Valve Corporation has entered the chat.

[–] bruhduh@lemmy.world 10 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

What is this strategy called?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 30 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] bruhduh@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago

The best strategy there is

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 1 hour ago

Not security?

[–] trespasser69@lemmy.world 36 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Intel's market cap: 98b $

AMD's market cap: 230b $

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Their P/E is 125

One fucking hundred and twenty five.

That's more than twice Nvidia. It's completely disconnected from reality.

[–] Shadywack@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago

What the fuck??? Insert Jumanji meme "What year is it?"

Numbers check out too. Wintel, slayed, and we didn't even notice.

[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 6 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Pogogunner@sopuli.xyz 24 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

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

[–] aard@kyu.de 10 points 11 hours ago

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.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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?

[–] levzzz@lemmy.world 1 points 25 seconds ago

have you actually been living under a rock or something