5 ms·

I suspect Intel is not too worried about AMD because they've seen this script before. When AMD's Opteron server CPUs came out they offered vastly superior perfo

by magila 9y ago

I suspect Intel is not too worried about AMD because they've seen this script before. When AMD's Opteron server CPUs came out they offered vastly superior performance and scaleability compared to contemporary Xeons. Even with a clear technical advantage, AMD never came close to matching Intel's volume in the server market. Today, AMD's Eypc CPUs are a much closer match to their Xeon competitors than Opteron was. So if history is anything to go by, Intel has little to fear from AMD's latest efforts.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
AMD wasn't able to match Intel's volume because Intel engaged in outright bribery of PC and server vendors on a impressively massive scale (they literally paid out hundreds of millions per year — and that's just to one vendor — as an incentive not to buy AMD). Other factors obviously didn't help, but this was clearly a huge one. Given they've been slapped down for this, I wonder if they'll try it again. If they don't, AMD could have an easier go this time round.
- temac 9y ago
  I don't completely understand the "need" for bribery. Could they just not lower their prices? (which could have resulted in the same balance in the end)
  - dboreham 9y ago
    I think you're confused about "couldn't match their volume". Parent means (I think) that AMD couldn't _sell_ enough units. Not that they couldn't _make_ enough units (which is I think your interpretation). They couldn't sell enough because someone was paying their customers not to buy their (superior) product.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
      I think temac was suggesting Intel could sell cheaper chips. Why would Intel need to bribe the competition?
      - ddingus 9y ago
        To maintain product pricing and value perception.
        TheDongIsYou 9y ago
        And to block competitors from selling out their own products (AMD in that case).
        ddingus 9y ago
        Yes
ksec 9y ago
There are few things at play. And this time is a little different. 1. Opteron in the early 2003 to 2004 did have a good run. It forced Intel to lower prices as well as using dirty tactics to compete. Let's not forget Opteron was AMD first entry into Server market. AMD then failed to execute after that. 2. Software compatibility was a thing, and may still be a thing judging by the comments here. But remember Datacentre is now largely dominated by Cloud and Web Host Providers, and most of them depends on Open Sources Software. All of a sudden, Google Amazon and Microsoft have incentives to improve software compatibility, if there is such problem exist. 3. IO compatibility / performance used be a problem for AMD. I am surprised it is not mentioned anywhere. Intel has the best IO ever with their Chipset. From PCI-E, SATA, AGP etc. But now none of these IO implementation are secrets anymore. Thanks to the SoC IP industry you can get the best and leverage the battle tested IP from other vendors. And not to mention the really only IO left is PCI-E. Which is very well defined. I expect there will be lots of interest to test out EPYC, but the real volume will be Zen 2, when the industry has settled on EPYC being good enough. And I cant wait to see how Intel would react, after all if you look at their recent management teams changes it seems they dont have a clue what they are doing.

by magila 9y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

AMD wasn't able to match Intel's volume because Intel engaged in outright bribery of PC and server vendors on a impressively massive scale (they literally paid out hundreds of millions per year — and that's just to one vendor — as an incentive not to buy AMD). Other factors obviously didn't help, but this was clearly a huge one. Given they've been slapped down for this, I wonder if they'll try it again. If they don't, AMD could have an easier go this time round.

temac 9y ago
I don't completely understand the "need" for bribery. Could they just not lower their prices? (which could have resulted in the same balance in the end)
- dboreham 9y ago
  I think you're confused about "couldn't match their volume". Parent means (I think) that AMD couldn't _sell_ enough units. Not that they couldn't _make_ enough units (which is I think your interpretation). They couldn't sell enough because someone was paying their customers not to buy their (superior) product.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
    I think temac was suggesting Intel could sell cheaper chips. Why would Intel need to bribe the competition?
    - ddingus 9y ago
      To maintain product pricing and value perception.
      - TheDongIsYou 9y ago
        And to block competitors from selling out their own products (AMD in that case).
        ddingus 9y ago
        Yes

ksec 9y ago

There are few things at play. And this time is a little different. 1. Opteron in the early 2003 to 2004 did have a good run. It forced Intel to lower prices as well as using dirty tactics to compete. Let's not forget Opteron was AMD first entry into Server market. AMD then failed to execute after that. 2. Software compatibility was a thing, and may still be a thing judging by the comments here. But remember Datacentre is now largely dominated by Cloud and Web Host Providers, and most of them depends on Open Sources Software. All of a sudden, Google Amazon and Microsoft have incentives to improve software compatibility, if there is such problem exist. 3. IO compatibility / performance used be a problem for AMD. I am surprised it is not mentioned anywhere. Intel has the best IO ever with their Chipset. From PCI-E, SATA, AGP etc. But now none of these IO implementation are secrets anymore. Thanks to the SoC IP industry you can get the best and leverage the battle tested IP from other vendors. And not to mention the really only IO left is PCI-E. Which is very well defined. I expect there will be lots of interest to test out EPYC, but the real volume will be Zen 2, when the industry has settled on EPYC being good enough. And I cant wait to see how Intel would react, after all if you look at their recent management teams changes it seems they dont have a clue what they are doing.