Review links for current CPUs in the article are not working, opening an image to me @Hilbert Hagedoorn . 3960X (review) and 3970X (review)

Holy sh!t, they're actually doing that?!? I never thought I'd say that, but please take it easy AMD, we have CPUs powerful enough for the foreseeable future 😛

This is just not fair. It's bad enough that the 3970X stomps all over the 10980XE, but now they're just shoving salt into the wound. How is Intel supposed to compete with this?

D3M1G0D:

This is just not fair. It's bad enough that the 3970X stomps all over the 10980XE, but now they're just shoving salt into the wound. How is Intel supposed to compete with this?

I foresee that a year starting from now will be a dead period for the blue team, their only strength is customers' bunch consisted by fanboys and amateurs. Closing near to 2021 perhaps something is gonna change.

warlord:

Review links for current CPUs in the article are not working, opening an image to me @Hilbert Hagedoorn . 3960X (review) and 3970X (review)

Thanks, fixed !

D3M1G0D:

This is just not fair. It's bad enough that the 3970X stomps all over the 10980XE, but now they're just shoving salt into the wound. How is Intel supposed to compete with this?

Funnily enough Intel is still selling everything they can produce. So, while things might look dim for the blue team in reviews, Intel is, at the end of the day, a financial corporation, not a technology corporation, so they don't care as long as they keep making money, which they indeed do, boundlessly. They still have the vast majority of the server market under their belt, as well, for historical reasons. They easily dominate in laptops, which have been eating the market from desktops for many years now. In other words, Intel has all the time they need to use their unlimited budget to create competitive products. And they will.

This looks like "bulldozer" done right. Looks like AMD changed marketing team because I don't see unrealistic clock speeds in this slide... How are intel fans now supposed to spit on this behemoth when it comes out?!

Kaarme:

Funnily enough Intel is still selling everything they can produce. So, while things might look dim for the blue team in reviews, Intel is, at the end of the day, a financial corporation, not a technology corporation, so they don't care as long as they keep making money, which they indeed do, boundlessly. They still have the vast majority of the server market under their belt, as well, for historical reasons. They easily dominate in laptops, which have been eating the market from desktops for many years now. In other words, Intel has all the time they need to use their unlimited budget to create competitive products. And they will.

I dont think that its such a rosy picture, intel is having to sell very expensive parts at <1/2 of what they could charge 3 years ago, with pretty much the same manufacturing cost, its not a good place to be. With the weak icelake launch , they are basically wide open, I dont think 2020 will treat intel well. Reminder that intel was selling the 10core 6950x for ~$1700 pre-ryzen. Now selling 18core monolithic dies for $980 ($914 in 2016 dollars) Same 14nm process

Kaarme:

Funnily enough Intel is still selling everything they can produce.

So to be successful you're saying that one must limit their production to below demand and say "Woohoo! We're selling everything we make!"? Yes, logical statement right there. I guess i'll go build something that i'll sell for $100, and only produce 1 a year, and call myself successful.

user1:

I dont think that its such a rosy picture, intel is having to sell very expensive parts at <1/2 of what they could charge 3 years ago, with pretty much the same manufacturing cost, its not a good place to be.

The parts were way overpriced previously. Now the prices are more reasonable. I suppose from stock owners' pov it's not rosy anymore, but it's nothing peculiar. In technology things tend to either get cheaper or the same money buys more power/efficiency/whatever. All in all CPUs are decent money makers, especially above the absolute entry level. A single CPU alone (or shipped with some 5 dollars Chinese cooler) can cost as much as a video card that has got a processor with as many transistors, lots of high speed memory, voltage controllers, multi-layer PCB, a more complicated cooler, etc. The CPU obviously carries a jolly profit margin. Intel has got plenty from which to cut if needed. A bit less with giant monoliths, but on the other hand they are running their own foundry, so flawed units aren't as bad for them as for those who buy from third party foundries.

Aura89:

So to be successful you're saying that one must limit their production to below demand and say "Woohoo! We're selling everything we make!"? Yes, logical statement right there. I guess i'll go build something that i'll sell for $100, and only produce 1 a year, and call myself successful.

If $100 minus production costs a year grants you a nice life, why not? Intel, however, makes billions a year.

Kaarme:

If $100 minus production costs a year grants you a nice life, why not? Intel, however, makes billions a year.

Way to miss the point, probably intentionally so.

So amd brings epyc to desktop with these. I though we would not see 64/128 until zen3.

Looks like amd firing on all cylinders and they are not backing down after they max out, looks like they would hit the nos button !

This seems to be AMD's equivalent of the 7980XE: it's a "because I can" product to rub in their opponent's face, that hardly anybody is going to buy. With more than 32 cores, I'd rather just go for Epyc. Granted, most (if not all) Epyc motherboards are purpose-built for rack servers, so, one of these beefy TRs could appeal to anyone who wants a superpowered workstation in a conventional ATX case.

Aura89:

Way to miss the point, probably intentionally so.

I'm with @Kaarme on this one. Intel isn't artificially limiting production. We enthusiasts keep forgetting about the OEM markets, which Intel is still decimating AMD in. Only until very recently has Intel's monopoly on servers and laptops been hampered. AMD is catching up in those markets, but not enough to be a threat to Intel, and that's for one glaring issue: As much as Intel may be struggling with production, AMD is more. I'm not aware of the 3900X or better being available in any OEM PC, and yet, there's already a supply issue. So even ignoring OEMs (which expect thousands to tens of thousands of units), AMD (and in turn, TSMC) is struggling to keep up with a small minority of enthusiasts. As a result of S&D issues, AMD's products are getting artificially more expensive, which brings people to Intel (which the average person is going to pick anyway). As of today, Intel's main objective should be to get as many potential AMD customers on their side. If someone is looking for a new server or PC today and they can't buy AMD, that's a sale for Intel. Intel would be absolutely moronic to have an artificial limit on their production. However... Intel seeking out TSMC to help with production might be a way to help soak up TSMC's resources, in order to artificially limit AMD's production. So whether Intel is actually struggling with supply or not, using TSMC is a win-win for Intel.

schmidtbag:

I'm with @Kaarme on this one. Intel isn't artificially limiting production.

That only makes it worse. Again, missing the point.

Aura89:

That only makes it worse. Again, missing the point.

What is the point then? Kaarme was saying that despite how much AMD is absolutely demolishing Intel's product lineup, Intel is still going to have an order of magnitude more sales; so many more sales that they'll struggle to keep up with production. He said this because how others are questioning how Intel is supposed to compete, but the point is, they don't need to (for now). Intel will be fine, despite being soundly defeated in almost every category that actually matters.

Aura89:

Way to miss the point, probably intentionally so.

Nobody missed your point. Of course Intel isn't 100% successful with the myriad troubles they are encountering of late, but that's life. All in all, however, Intel is still a very much a successful business. There will always be ups and downs in trade. Nevertheless, being able to sell everything a manufacturer makes is one clear sign of success by itself. However, that naturally goes with the condition of still getting enough stuff out to make a reasonable profit. So, your offhand example is irrelevant, which is why I treated it as such. Intel is selling far more stuff than AMD all the time, they also have a wider spectrum of products, so it's not like they would only make a few CPUs a year these days.

angelgraves13:

Intel might just be replacing Xeons without hardware mitigations for servers...for free or with huge discounts. That's a lot of useless Xeons to produce, but it'll keep their customers happy. That way they get to keep contracts with clients. I think Intel will disappear from desktops in the next 5-10 years if they don't come out with an amazing new architecture that they can update 10-15% every year.

Intel will transition from these to new arch just like they did with c2q to i5/i7's. Do not count out the company who started it all.

schmidtbag:

What is the point then?

The point is you can't determine how "well" a company is doing if their supply is so low that it makes it look like they are "selling everything they produce", as that's an anomaly. If their supply was at normal level, then they wouldn't be selling all they could, and they'd be selling less then they had before, given the fact you can in fact find these processors for sale in retail currently. This means that they aren't doing as well as they could be doing and to imply that because their supply is low and they are "selling everything they produce" is somehow a good thing is simply wrong. Otherwise any time a company has bad years, or bad products, all they'd have to do is limit supply, "sell everything they produce", and that would mean the company doesn't have an issue at hand, even though their sales are lower. That's not how it works. And just so we're clear, i'm not comparing them to AMD here, i'm not saying AMDs lack of availability in products isn't an issue either. I am simply stating that if any company can't produce enough that they are "selling everything they make", that's not inherently a positive, especially when said company used to be making far more, and was still selling far more.

Undying:

Intel will transition from these to new arch just like they did with c2q to i5/i7's. Do not count out the company who started it all.

I don't think anyone is counting out Intel. AMD may have the superior product lineup for now but Intel has the resources to ride it out until they come up with their own solution (that is, their own modular design). Things will never be the same though, and that's mostly due to TSMC (and that's mostly due to Apple money). Intel's strength has always been its superior fab technology but that is no longer the case due to Apple feeding TSMC boatloads of money. As long as people buy iPhones / smartphones / ARM chips, TSMC will likely continue to hold their lead. AMD will be one of the beneficiaries of this, and as long as they play their cards right they will have a strong lineup to challenge anything Intel produces.