Typical scenario of: "We gotta do something?!?".

MegaFalloutFan:

This type of juvenile comments are hilarious, what do you care if its 14nm or 30nm? You should care about performance and price, arguing about underlining technology is irrelevant, if the CPU is faster. And Unlike AMD intel has iGPU with every CPU and it has QuickSync to encode Video. Look at this like that: It took AMD New technology + shrink to twice lower then Intel 7nm vs 14nm, to finally come close in performance Right now Inlets "ancient" 14nm, clocks higher then AMD 7nm, still owns AMD in Games, overclocks higher and has REAL boost clocks.

Do you work for Intel? Just curious, cause you seem to wanna white knight it everytime someone says something you don't like towards intel.

14nm again Intel?

MegaFalloutFan:

... Unlike AMD intel has iGPU with every CPU and it has QuickSync to encode Video. Look at this like that: It took AMD New technology + shrink to twice lower then Intel 7nm vs 14nm, to finally come close in performance Right now Inlets "ancient" 14nm, clocks higher then AMD 7nm, still owns AMD in Games, overclocks higher and has REAL boost clocks.

Well done, Sir, on continuing to show your true colors on your sleeve. You are consistent - and entertaining, if nothing else! At times like this it's really very easy to spot paid Intel shills.

MegaFalloutFan:

This type of juvenile comments are hilarious, what do you care if its 14nm or 30nm?

While it's not untrue that the overall performance is not 100% dictated by the node, i think it's perfectly understandable that people are upset that Intel will be on 14nm node yet again with little to no improvement to performance. You can't possibly be sitting here with the idea of "I wish Intel would never go past 14nm", now are you?

MegaFalloutFan:

And Unlike AMD intel has iGPU with every CPU and it has QuickSync to encode Video.

Yeah so...first things first. Not every CPU needs an iGPU, it's wasted cost for the manufacturer and wasted additional cost for consumers to have something they don't need. I'd wager 95% if not more people in this very forum do not need an iGPU unless they are planning on building a lower-power budget build not for gaming. For two, not every intel CPU has an iGPU. To list one that actually would have benefited from it: Intels first 10nm CPU. Core i3-8121U. Was meant for low power devices (but was not competitive to intels own 14nm CPUs) dual-core CPU, and its iGPU was disabled due to issues. But beyond that: Core i7-9750HF Core i9-9900KF I wanna say none of the HEDT X series have iGPUs, could be wrong though And i'm certain some 10-series will not have an iGPU on it either And before you say "well you're nitpicking now", here's your quote again:

MegaFalloutFan:

And Unlike AMD intel has iGPU with every CPU and it has QuickSync to encode Video.

asturur:

Again the `Do it yourself` cpu market is our small garden and count exactly nothing for both companies. Server farm and data center are where the money are.

Well Intel have lost far more miserably in the data server segment than anywhere else considering what AMD now offers vs the joke Intel has as competition... at significantly higher prices. Even with the "special deals" Intel have going on so companies don't buy from AMD, they can't supply what's needed at a non-bullshit price. Companies are switching to AMD for their servers. Haven't been keeping up with that market eh?

Neo Cyrus:

Well Intel have lost far more miserably in the data server segment than anywhere else considering what AMD now offers vs the joke Intel has as competition... at significantly higher prices. Even with the "special deals" Intel have going on so companies don't buy from AMD, they can't supply what's needed at a non-bullshit price. Companies are switching to AMD for their servers. Haven't been keeping up with that market eh?

No. You missed the point of my post. I'm sick of all the people that take stance on the technology rather than the product itself. I switched to AMD one year ago because i like the product. But i do not care if is 7nm or 10nm or 14nm. As the other guys said, and he is right, as long as cpu have comparable prices and speed, all the rest is really a detail. If amd 4000 series will require a new motherboard and intel and amd offering will be similar i ll re-evaluate from scratch again, without counting TDP, and build process or color of the box. People that: - waiting for 7nm UEV because current 7nm is a joke - not wanting a 14nm cpu because is 2020 - saying that intel has nothing to sell for the next 3 years - intel is `owning` amd on games ( checking counter strike 4 digits FPS ) - identify paid poster by that or that other company Are just taking pointless political stances on cpu brand, and that makes me terribly sick AMD stocks did 4x with the price in 3 year INTEL stocks did 1.5x with the price, still good.

Undying:

How can you not see it. Amd was not this competitive since athlon 64. I just read how amazon 10 best selling cpus 8 are amd, domination.

Link us this article you read then. Because the only thing I have seen about a shop selling more AMD cpu's was about a small European shop that pretty much has always pushed AMD over Intel.

Neo Cyrus:

Well Intel have lost far more miserably in the data server segment than anywhere else considering what AMD now offers vs the joke Intel has as competition... at significantly higher prices. Even with the "special deals" Intel have going on so companies don't buy from AMD, they can't supply what's needed at a non-bullshit price. Companies are switching to AMD for their servers. Haven't been keeping up with that market eh?

Somebody hasn't been keeping up with the market. AMD has only 4.3% market share of Server market as of the beginning of November. 18% of desktop market and almost 15% of mobile.

I’m just waiting for them to find that one big security “feature” that neuters them hard.

Margalus:

Link us this article you read then. Because the only thing I have seen about a shop selling more AMD cpu's was about a small European shop that pretty much has always pushed AMD over Intel.

The shop you're talking about in europe does not push AMD products. It is not baised to one product or another, due to the fact it's...a shop that sells both products at prices that are more or less set by intel and AMD (+VAT and etc.). It's not a website where AMD customers more frequent then Intel. This line of thinking is just illogical. As to the "article" you want him to submit, there is no "article", he simply mentioned Amazon, which auto-generates "best selling" for certain products including CPUs https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-Computer-CPU-Processors/zgbs/pc/229189

Margalus:

Somebody hasn't been keeping up with the market. AMD has only 4.3% market share of Server market as of the beginning of November. 18% of desktop market and almost 15% of mobile.

This is old data and specifically doesn't take into consideration the continuous statements made by multiple big companies that have stated they will be switching to AMD processors. Which is what the original poster you're quoting is talking about.

As well as still being outdated 14nm tech, I also see a hdmi 2.0 in that list for the onboard. They could have at least made the effort to use hdmi 2.1 instead of flogging TWO dead horses...

Aura89:

The shop you're talking about in europe does not push AMD products. It is not baised to one product or another, due to the fact it's...a shop that sells both products at prices that are more or less set by intel and AMD (+VAT and etc.). It's not a website where AMD customers more frequent then Intel. This line of thinking is just illogical. As to the "article" you want him to submit, there is no "article", he simply mentioned Amazon, which auto-generates "best selling" for certain products including CPUs https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-Computer-CPU-Processors/zgbs/pc/229189 This is old data and specifically doesn't take into consideration the continuous statements made by multiple big companies that have stated they will be switching to AMD processors. Which is what the original poster you're quoting is talking about.

So in other words what he posted has no basis in fact. Just because they made the list that you posted doesn't show that they have the top 10. It doesn't say anything about quantities sold, just what seems to be hot at the current moment. And data from 3 weeks ago is not "old" data. It's the most up to date available. Just because you hear a few statements from somebody saying that they are going to do something does not make any difference in actual factual sales data.

Margalus:

So in other words what he posted has no basis in fact. Just because they made the list that you posted doesn't show that they have the top 10.

....wut? It's an automatic list created by how many units are selling.....does it give direct details? No. I swear some of you intel fanboys will say anything to try to claim something isn't authentic.

Margalus:

Just because you hear a few statements from somebody saying that they are going to do something does not make any difference in actual factual sales data.

As above stated: I swear some of you intel fanboys will say anything to try to claim something isn't authentic. "I don't care where the market is going or what sales have already been stated to happen or anything about current or future information. I only care about up to Q3 2019 data" If that's all you care about, then why even come into a topic and show non-up to day information? Completely pointless to the topic you quoted. Btw the data is, just encase it wasn't clear already, is from Q3 2019, which ended in September, not November. So it's accurate as of September....not November...not October....The articles came from November, based off of Q3 data, which ended in September.

Aura89:

While it's not untrue that the overall performance is not 100% dictated by the node, i think it's perfectly understandable that people are upset that Intel will be on 14nm node yet again with little to no improvement to performance. You can't possibly be sitting here with the idea of "I wish Intel would never go past 14nm", now are you? Yeah so...first things first. Not every CPU needs an iGPU, it's wasted cost for the manufacturer and wasted additional cost for consumers to have something they don't need. I'd wager 95% if not more people in this very forum do not need an iGPU unless they are planning on building a lower-power budget build not for gaming. For two, not every intel CPU has an iGPU. To list one that actually would have benefited from it: Intels first 10nm CPU. Core i3-8121U. Was meant for low power devices (but was not competitive to intels own 14nm CPUs) dual-core CPU, and its iGPU was disabled due to issues. But beyond that: Core i7-9750HF Core i9-9900KF I wanna say none of the HEDT X series have iGPUs, could be wrong though And i'm certain some 10-series will not have an iGPU on it either And before you say "well you're nitpicking now", here's your quote again:

No of course I want to see progress, my point is saying something is failed just because its 14nm is incorrect, you need to see actual performance. iGPU was mentioned in the context of QuickSync, as in: AMD extra cores have no advantage when you encode video, quicksync [which uses the iGPU] is still faster All mainstream Intel CPUs have iGPU, since 2019 you can buy an F CPU, as a personal choice.

Mesab67:

Well done, Sir, on continuing to show your true colors on your sleeve. You are consistent - and entertaining, if nothing else! At times like this it's really very easy to spot paid Intel shills.

Thank god im not Free AyMD shill!

Margalus:

So in other words what he posted has no basis in fact. Just because they made the list that you posted doesn't show that they have the top 10. It doesn't say anything about quantities sold, just what seems to be hot at the current moment. And data from 3 weeks ago is not "old" data. It's the most up to date available. Just because you hear a few statements from somebody saying that they are going to do something does not make any difference in actual factual sales data.

You know, your behavior is quite unbecoming and is a disservice to you and this board. Please stop acting so juvenile so we can have an open discussion about technology. Yes, the node matters. The node matters so much that AMD actually has a process advantage, and they're able to leverage this into a performance-per-watt advantage, which turns into a performance density advantage for the server space. The technology matters as much as the final product itself. And lets' not beat around the bush: the only reason Intel has any sort of performance relevance this time around is due to them doing the exact same thing AMD was ridiculed for doing (and rightfully so!) with Bulldozer/Piledriver; pushing clockspeeds of their existing designs way past any sensible point, into regions they weren't really made for. It's as absurd now with Intel as it was back then with AMD. ANYWAY... As far as I can recall, there was supposed to be a part where the current 10nm designs that have improved IPC is to be backported to the 14+++nm node, at last as far as the execution units and branch predictor and so forth. Is that Rocket Lake? That would explain the lower core-count if the chip was the "backported" higher IPC one because, ironically, Intel's larger 14nm+++ node is actually more power efficient than Intel's 10nm node, and uses less power and can clock higher. This would actually mean that they can hit relevant performance marks in desktop for 2020. But even with the IPC gain, the performance-per-watt would still be the real question because we don't really know right now how high they're going to have to clock these. Performance-per-watt is still up in the air and we only have an idea of where it's going to land (based on the 14nm+++ node). So Intel is still in there, performance wise, and they still have massive market share and really deep pockets. 2020 is shaping up to be a really interesting year, with AMD aggressively going forward with their designs, they're going to be relentless in the next few years as they're going to need to be to take back some marketshare. Meanwhile Intel is having to make up for their massive fumble on 10nm, they're going to try to salvage what they can from that node while moving to their next node as fast as possible. But if their efficiency in 14m was anything to go by, their next node should be quite suitably impressive. Intel will survive this and after a few years come back to relevant power efficiency. (They will stay competitive in terms of performance) In the meantime, I don't mind seeing Intel getting thrashed for awhile, they kind of deserve it for being so complacent over the years, happy to just raise prices on users while giving them 5% year-on-year performance improvement. And on that note: [spoiler]https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-Computer-CPU-Processors/zgbs/pc/229189https://files.catbox.moe/1sybbt.jpg[/spoiler] I can't wait to see what 2020 brings.

Margalus:

Somebody hasn't been keeping up with the market. AMD has only 4.3% market share of Server market as of the beginning of November. 18% of desktop market and almost 15% of mobile.

I work in the distribution business. We sell Lenovo and Fujitsu business machines. Lenovo have been increasing the share of AMD in their lineup gradually over the last year, Fujitsu are still in the planning stage and are hoping to have something to offer by the end of next year. The reality is that we are not seeing a big market share shift yet, because those big companies need at least 1-2 years to set up, test and certify a new product, before starting to sell it. So Intel have about one more year grace period to get their act together, if they don't they'll start hurting big time.

Undying:

How can you not see it. Amd was not this competitive since athlon 64. I just read how amazon 10 best selling cpus 8 are amd, domination. Basically 14nm+ vs 7nm+ in 2020. We are both from Serbia. You know inflated prices can be here. Ryzen 3600 costs 199eur ffs and am4 boards are dirt cheap.

I do not dispute that AMD made a good product, priced it well and is competitive. I just don't see domination. I see success (unlike when AMD claimed bulldozer was a success) I see they got their market share up by 10%(ish) in past 2 years, but they are still at ~18% (and yes, growing). As for the 7nm and stuff, it's nice. But it took that to get them where they are now to compete with 14nm (and 50% more cores mind you). Again, I am not saying anything BAD about AMD, I am just allergic to over hyping things. You can get (for desktop of a regular person) intel or AMD for ~$200 and be fine, probably never know the difference if you aren't running benchmarks. Many people want many things, but only a fraction buys them. Especially in our country. IMHO, I don't see people (in general) with i5/i7 Haswell CPU (or better) running to either AMD or Intel to get a new platform any time soon. Hell, I only switched to newer platform because I got tired of my bad sample IvyBridge K. If I had been like 90% of PC users, I probably wouldn't have done it, but I had some extra cash 🙂 And I didn't even notice the difference in most of the things I do, except for games of course. Then again, I got a new GPU for that anyway. So, your points are valid, but no domination of market, yet. I do expect AMD to grow to ~30% market share overall, since Intel has nothing new to show for next two years and I expect the productivity type of work to switch to AMD slowly. Then again, we shall see if AMD is now on track that Intel had, 7 years of more or less the same thing in Desktop segment.

Undying:

How can you not see it. Amd was not this competitive since athlon 64. I just read how amazon 10 best selling cpus 8 are amd, domination.

Not sure how that's possible when AMD is only selling 18% of desktop CPU's and 82% for Intel.

Aura89:

How have you come up with this idea? More laptops and desktops have AMD processors then in the past many years, more companies are announcing they are using AMD processors or will be using AMD processors. There's been a ton of stated growth and opportunity growth with manufacturers selling PCs (Such as Lenovo or HP or etc.). We haven't even gotten past the biggest electronic sale of the year....(today)

Because everywhere I look, the most I see is 5%~ increase in market-share for AMD. However, if you can provide links that says otherwise I'd be more than happy to look.