6 ms·
Will be interesting to see the Intel response. AMD is doing really well.
by nik736 8y ago
Will be interesting to see the Intel response.
AMD is doing really well.
- bitL 8y agoNobody is selling them in quantities/systems that could in any way threaten Intel. AMD might have a great tech right now (and possibly even better with Zen 2), but it won't help them financially if nobody can buy them or only in overall inferior offerings to Intel ones. EPYC has still a lot to overcome in DC/server space. I am happy with my TR in a Deep Learning machine, all the PCIe lanes for multiple GPUs are giving me insane value, however server contracts are way more complicated than enthusiast space and Intel has a firm ground there.
- vegardx 8y agoAmazon seems to be pushing AMD-based instances lately, at a lower cost than the Intel-based counterpart. So things are definitively changing in this spectrum.
- baybal2 8y agoLong term supply contracts - Intel has many gigabucks a year in revenues from them. This is what AMD has to attack. On tech side, AMD is going for continuous increase in density. A lot depends on cooperation of memory makers. Cheap HBM2 or HBM3 on package with CPU will probably the only thing that will endanger Intel's position.
- jaxtellerSoA 8y agoAmazon, Microsoft, and Baidu would have to disagree with you, since they all have already done large Epyc implementations. Also, I can go on CDW right now and get an Epyc server, no problem. Availability isn't an issue for AMD.
- bitL 8y ago...and that's why AMD didn't miss revenue forecasts, right? EPYC was pretty anemic, I would have expected an explosion in sales with such a product, not the underwhelming sales performance it experienced. There are obviously other factors holding it back. How do you know AWS/Azure etc. aren't using them just for price haggling with Intel, as it was done with AMD in the past all the time? The fact you can get EPYC servers doesn't mean they are wide-spread anyway.
- jaxtellerSoA 8y ago>I would have expected an explosion in sales with such a product That is just unrealistic expectations in the server space. These aren't consumer products where adoption is fast. Business don't upgrade their infrastructure as quickly as consumers, and when they do decided to upgrade it is months of planning. No company is going to jump ship to AMD when their current servers aren't fully depreciated by their accounting standards, and they still have several years left on their support contracts. The EPYC sales will come, but not overnight. EDIT: And I am not sure why are are so disappointed here. Epyc sales and adoption has been in-line with what AMD has given as guidance. Why would you expect adoption to wildly exceed AMD's own guidance? I think AMD had aggressive but realistic guidance and so far Epyc has been great success and will only continue to chip away at Intel. Also not sure what revenue miss you are referring to. Overall AMD beat their expected earnings per share by 1 cent last quarter. If there was a slight miss on the Epyc sales then they made up for it somewhere else, but it must not have been a very big miss otherwise they would have missed the EPS target.
- ct520 8y agoobviously this dude bought the fomo at $34 and now mad he stuck bag holding. I dare you to explain it otherwise
- mtgx 8y agoIntel will likely respond with the minimum amount of changes that combined with their brand inertia will result in maximum revenue for them. That, at first, will likely seem like the "rational" way to balance this "new competition" from AMD with keeping investors happy, but they're forgetting one thing -- in that equation the "brand inertia" they love to take advantage of is going to erode with each such "minimal response", until there is none or very little left. What I'm trying to say is that consumers will put up with a company releasing sub-par/low-value products because they "trust the brand" only for so long, before they give in and start embracing the competition's brands -- as they should. I mean, unless you, as a consumer, suffer from the Stockholm syndrome, you shouldn't be rewarding Intel for being forced to lower prices on some of its products or add more cores, just like you shouldn't have rewarded Comcast for offering fiber in places where Google Fiber arrived. You should be rewarding the competitor that caused that to happen -- that is if you'd still like that competition to continue in the future. In Google Fiber's case, that competition disappeared because people were unwilling to reward it and stuck with Comcast/AT&T. And now they'll suffer from it for another decade or so, until another major disruption/competition appears (SpaceX satellites maybe?).
- matt4077 8y agoI love how you you are just making up some possible reaction by Intel, and then lambast them for that atrocious choice they did not make.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wmf 8y agoThis isn't completely made up. For example, in the desktop market AMD went from 4 cores to 8 to (rumored) 16 while Intel does 4, 6, 8, 10.
- dang 8y agoIf you continue to post uncivil and/or flamewar comments, we are going to ban you. I just warned you about this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- bryanlarsen 8y agoLinked from the article: https://www.servethehome.com/intel-is-serving-major-xeon-discounts-to-combat-amd-epyc/ https://www.servethehome.com/intel-is-serving-major-xeon-dis...