3 ms·

Intel has been cheating their single core performance against AMD for many years, thanks to predictive and insecure algorithms. Reality is just catching up, AM

Intel has been cheating their single core performance against AMD for many years, thanks to predictive and insecure algorithms. 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=19 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.

tempguy9999 7y ago
Well, maybe. Probably so, in part, but intel makes large dies rather than AMD's style of multiple smaller dies, which means signals have less far to go (and possibly don't have to be boosted to get between mini-dies). Perhaps someone who knows about this stuff can comment. Edit: the mini-dies are chiplets/CCDs. Couldn't remember the name.
- NicoJuicy 7y ago
  As I understood, they had to much hick-ups going to smaller dies because of internal issues. 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.
benibela 7y ago
>Ps. Long AMD 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
- paulmd 7y ago
  AMD has been overbought by brand fanboys/"amateur investors" egging each other on (see: r/AMD_Stock) and is now effectively pricing in a massive amount of expected future growth. Probably decades worth. 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 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.
  - NicoJuicy 7y ago
    Server, desktop, laptop and video cards. 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.
    - NicoJuicy 7y ago
      Fyi, Amazon's P/e was even 1.100 at a time. P/e is not the best indicator for a company investing/researching and selling in lower prices. The AMD product line-up proves that they are investing a lot. 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.
  - mythz 7y ago
    Your bias is showing with your "brand fanboys/amateur investors" slurs. 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.
paulmd 7y ago
Do remember that Meltdown and Spectre affected literally everyone else in the industry (including POWER, ARM, and SPARC) and it's only by chance that AMD's branch predictor happens to be relatively difficult to train to follow a predictable path (which is a necessary condition for some of these exploits). Intel isn't cheating any more than anyone else, AMD got lucky. 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).
- NicoJuicy 7y ago
  So, AMD got lucky 218 times? https://windowsreport.com/amd-intel-security-vulnerabilities/ https://windowsreport.com/amd-intel-security-vulnerabilities...
  - paulmd 7y ago
    Most of those exploits are software/driver vulnerabilities, and AMD has plenty of their own. Like when Threadripper drivers installed an out-of-date web server running with SYSTEM privileges, or when a series of PSP and BIOS bugs let an attacker escalate from VM guest to control of the PSP and BIOS persistence. If you're not finding vulnerabilities in your software, you're not looking. 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.

tempguy9999 7y ago

Well, maybe. Probably so, in part, but intel makes large dies rather than AMD's style of multiple smaller dies, which means signals have less far to go (and possibly don't have to be boosted to get between mini-dies). Perhaps someone who knows about this stuff can comment. Edit: the mini-dies are chiplets/CCDs. Couldn't remember the name.

NicoJuicy 7y ago
As I understood, they had to much hick-ups going to smaller dies because of internal issues. 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.

benibela 7y ago

>Ps. Long AMD 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

paulmd 7y ago
AMD has been overbought by brand fanboys/"amateur investors" egging each other on (see: r/AMD_Stock) and is now effectively pricing in a massive amount of expected future growth. Probably decades worth. 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 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.
- NicoJuicy 7y ago
  Server, desktop, laptop and video cards. 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.
  - NicoJuicy 7y ago
    Fyi, Amazon's P/e was even 1.100 at a time. P/e is not the best indicator for a company investing/researching and selling in lower prices. The AMD product line-up proves that they are investing a lot. 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.
- mythz 7y ago
  Your bias is showing with your "brand fanboys/amateur investors" slurs. 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.

paulmd 7y ago

Do remember that Meltdown and Spectre affected literally everyone else in the industry (including POWER, ARM, and SPARC) and it's only by chance that AMD's branch predictor happens to be relatively difficult to train to follow a predictable path (which is a necessary condition for some of these exploits). Intel isn't cheating any more than anyone else, AMD got lucky. 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).

NicoJuicy 7y ago
So, AMD got lucky 218 times? https://windowsreport.com/amd-intel-security-vulnerabilities/ https://windowsreport.com/amd-intel-security-vulnerabilities...
- paulmd 7y ago
  Most of those exploits are software/driver vulnerabilities, and AMD has plenty of their own. Like when Threadripper drivers installed an out-of-date web server running with SYSTEM privileges, or when a series of PSP and BIOS bugs let an attacker escalate from VM guest to control of the PSP and BIOS persistence. If you're not finding vulnerabilities in your software, you're not looking. 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.