AMD Development vs Intel

[ShadySocks]

With Intel spending about as much on research and development each year being about the same as AMD's total enterprise value, how is AMD able to keep up?

[Streetguru]

1 minute ago, ShadySocks said:

With Intel spending about as much on research and development each year being about the same as AMD's total enterprise value, how is AMD able to keep up?

Intel hasn't been doing much since bulldozer and chiplets are great

Just watch all of the adored videos pretty much.

[ShadySocks]

9 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Intel hasn't been doing much since bulldozer and chiplets are great

Just watch all of the adored videos pretty much.

So basically intel has been throwing their money into a black hole. Seems plausible...

[Streetguru]

16 minutes ago, ShadySocks said:

So basically intel has been throwing their money into a black hole. Seems plausible...

They just weren't innovating for desktop or higher end CPUs much, not too many IPC gains since the 4000 series overall. and even 2600Ks could hit 5ghz

[trevb0t]

In terms of gaming design, AMD has always been fighting just to keep up with the Intel line (and unsuccessful), but has been able to handily undercut the pricing on their market share. So really it always falls to high price, high performance vs lower price, lower performance. Many people opt to pay less and upgrade more frequently, at the cost of some performance loss.

 

Ryzen was a BIG step for AMD, since it really cut out a lot of the issues the previous series were facing. (Mostly longevity issues.) It closed the gap a bit on gaming performance, and put them distinctly on the map as a multi-core performer. So they generally win in the realm of "What's best for a rendering and gaming pc?" or even "What's best for a gaming, recording and streaming pc?" Since their multi core is that much stronger than Intel's and the single core loss is a lesser blow.

 

Zen 2 is making big claims in terms of performance boost. Claiming that they will overtake 9th gen Intel chips in single core performance (gaming.) If they are successful, then the market will have a clearly dominant manufacturer until Intel figures out what they are going to do to combat it. AMD will be a clear winner in Multi Core stuff, as they have been for a while, and may well be the best in single core here soon. Even if they match or come REALLY close to matching... There will be no reason to buy an Intel chip until the next gen answers.

[WereCatf]

46 minutes ago, ShadySocks said:

With Intel spending about as much on research and development each year being about the same as AMD's total enterprise value, how is AMD able to keep up?

Intel's R&D-costs include a whole lot more than just CPU- and GPU-research. They do a shitton of research on all sorts of accessibility-stuff, AI, computer-vision and so on and so forth, whereas AMD just spend their R&D mostly on CPU- and GPU-research. This is to say, you're comparing apples and oranges.

[Jurrunio]

because Intel's money goes to storage (QLC, 3D Xpoint), AI, GPU, special optimization for their CPUs, 10nm etc. Unlike AMD which focuses its money on CPUs and GPUs only.

[imbrock]

I think to a degree there is also a bit of intel getting complacent with their place at the top. They've been number one for so long that they seem to have been stumbling a bit lately, just look at their troubles getting to 10 nm and lower. They must be facing a significant problem with miniaturizing their architecture in a way that produces batches with decent yields if they've been working on it this long.

 

Like mentioned above their broader overall focus could definitely contribute to some of that as well. Meanwhile AMD has focused their more limited research into some specific areas in an attempt to get ahead. Most of which are things that on top of being functionally beneficial also happen to be very marketable. More cores, low nm design, the new pcie functions, all that stuff looks great on a description sheet. Then with those squared away they've been working on the more functional items like lower power usage and actual across the board performance increases.

The combination of these two things may end up meaning that for the first time in a long time we see AMD in a position to actually capture a relatively decent amount of market share. At the very least their stock prices seem to indicate that a lot of investors think AMD stock is going to see good returns over the next few years, and with all the other deals they've been working on with consoles, apples,and other embedded devices it probably will.

[Arika]

oh boy.

[melete]

1 hour ago, ShadySocks said:

With Intel spending about as much on research and development each year being about the same as AMD's total enterprise value, how is AMD able to keep up?

Couple of thoughts here: the 10nm process buildout has had very major time and cost overruns, limiting Intel’s options. And the desktop CPU market isn’t very important so Intel was never all that concerned about pushing performance on the desktop when AMD was off doing Bulldozer things. 

[Mister Woof]

Intel is diversified; AMD is not.