Slashdot Mirror
Shots Fired Again Between CPU Vendors AMD and Intel (tomshardware.com)
Highdude702 shares a report from Tom's Hardware: AMD's feud with Intel took an interesting turn today as the company announced that it would swap 40 Core i7-8086K's won from Intel's sweepstakes with a much beefier Threadripper 1950X CPU. At Computex 2018, Intel officially announced it was releasing the Core i7-8086K, a special edition processor that commemorates the 40th anniversary of the 8086, which debuted as the first x86 processor on June 8, 1978. Now AMD is offering to replace 40 of the winners' chips with its own 16-core 32-thread $799 Threadripper processors, thus throwing a marketing wrench into Intel's 40th-anniversary celebration.
AMD has a list of the complete terms and conditions on its site. But it is also noteworthy that "winners" of AMD's competing sweepstakes will have to pony up for a much more expensive X399 motherboard with the TR4 socket, which currently retail for more than $300, instead of Intel's less-expensive 300-series motherboards. Regardless, those who do swap their Intel Core silicon for an AMD Threadripper chip will gain 10 cores and quad-channel memory, not to mention quite a bit of resale value. In response, Slashdot reader Highdude702 said: "AMD is shooting back at Intel like its easy for them, even though 40 out of 8086 is kind of stingy. They are acting like they have the horsepower now. I believe it is going to be an interesting time for consumers and enthusiasts coming soon. Maybe we will even get better prices."
Intel responded via its official verified "Intel Gaming" Twitter account, tweeting: ".@AMDRyzen, if you wanted an Intel Core i7-8086K processor too, you could have just asked us. :) Thanks for helping us celebrate the 8086!"
AMD has a list of the complete terms and conditions on its site. But it is also noteworthy that "winners" of AMD's competing sweepstakes will have to pony up for a much more expensive X399 motherboard with the TR4 socket, which currently retail for more than $300, instead of Intel's less-expensive 300-series motherboards. Regardless, those who do swap their Intel Core silicon for an AMD Threadripper chip will gain 10 cores and quad-channel memory, not to mention quite a bit of resale value. In response, Slashdot reader Highdude702 said: "AMD is shooting back at Intel like its easy for them, even though 40 out of 8086 is kind of stingy. They are acting like they have the horsepower now. I believe it is going to be an interesting time for consumers and enthusiasts coming soon. Maybe we will even get better prices."
Intel responded via its official verified "Intel Gaming" Twitter account, tweeting: ".@AMDRyzen, if you wanted an Intel Core i7-8086K processor too, you could have just asked us. :) Thanks for helping us celebrate the 8086!"
No mass shooting? Thank god! Horrible title though.
Give me a SECURE CPU without your fucking backdoors and incompetent bullshit instead of talking shit constantly, you fucking retards.
From the title, did anyone else think some employee went on a shooting spree at their competitor?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It's you who's missing the point. Intel makes fun of AMD by saying they wanted the Intel CPUs so badly... it's PR and the whole world is watching. They can't talk crap about their competition. Making lighthearted fun of them is the way to go.
Back in the day when AMD first released their Opteron CPU (Codename Sledgehammer), they had some demo motherboards called AMD Melody. On the silkscreen of that motherboards there was indeed a melody - actually the "Intel inside" jingle score with a sledgehammer hanging over it.
And now, still remembering this, I feel really old.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Dude, Intel intel isn't in a position to talk crap. Or rather that's all they can do because they have squat to compete with, and everyone but the terminally stupid knows it.
Did you see that ridiculous "5 GHz" demo they made at Computex? Allegedly coming "soon" to market. Oh wait it's not, they "forgot" to tell it was a 1kW+ overclocked abortion on a custom 28 phase VRM, with an industrial 1kW water-cooler keeping the coolant at sub-ambient, most probably -10 C. A several years old CPU at that which normally sells for 10k+ USD?
That's desperation right there. Intel have emptied the cupboards, they have nothing left. Anything new will take years to come to market.
The entire summary is incoherent. Was it written by some dude that was high or something?
All Intel has to do is rest on the laurels of their market share. It doesn't cost them much to let their salescritters tussle with the AMD salescritters.
No I think they got the point perfectly. I am no Intel fan but if I was them this is exactly how I would be spinning it too. "Our CPU's are so good even our competitor is giving away its top end CPU's to get ahold of them"
As much as I love AMD, it was actually a really dumb move on the part of AMD, as long as Intel are smart and humerous about their responses AMD can only lose from this or at best break even.
INTEL responses "our CPU's so great even our competitors will throw away their own to get one"
If AMD destroy the CPU's "wow what a waste, those could have been used for charity, don't worry though we will donate additional CPU's to a childrens hospital to cover what AMD were too tight arsed to do"
AMD give them away "Not even AMD is willing to use AMD cpu's in their prizes"
AMD keep them for testing "AMD so desperate to keep up they had to bribe prize winners to get ahold of one of these"
etc etc, the cheap easy marketing points AMD get in the short term may come back to bite them hard if Intel is smart.
We look at combined price of CPU and motherboard because almost everyone buys those two together. Who cares if AMD's high end $800 processor needs a $300 motherboard if Intel's high end desktop processor costs $2000 sans motherboard?
haha, yeah, exactly. The best way to respond to a direct attack is typically to deflect it in some way. If Intel gets angry, then it only validates AMD's attack. But if they laugh it off, it belittles AMD.
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
Ecosystem is king.
AMD need to invest in getting OpenCL support into machine learning frameworks. Nvidia have that market locked up -tight- and it's not good for innovation. Like, they're able to deliberately cripple geforce fp16 performance with zero ramifications.
epyc has more pci-e lanes with 1 cpu.
Say you want an storage node with a lot of I/O say pci-e storage then with just 1 amd cpu you get 128 pci-e lanes vs UP to 48 lanes. And intel can be like the high end desktop and make some low end chips in the range have as low as 16-24 lanes
Even better, look at TCO. AMD's sockets and motherboards have historically lasted a lot, lot longer than Intel's. This generation is looking no different.
Also, AMD give you more PCIe lanes, so if/when USB 4.0 or Thunderfart X comes out you should be able to slap a card in and get decent performance without having to replace the motherboard just to get enough lanes for full performance.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The 8086K one being a 40th anniversary one, yeah. If I had won I'd have kept it in the box and never used it. I already have an AMD system but if I wanted a new threadripper I'd just go buy it. Holding the 8086K as a collector's item seem more interesting. Though, the lighthearted jabs are entertaining from both sides!
-SaNo
We're positive you'll understand the spectre of such a request would not bode well with management.
The i7-8086K is a 40 year anniversary of the 8086 CPU.
40 years of only incremental upgrades to a crap ISA. It is still what is holding the x86-64 platform back.
I can't wait for AArch64, or even RISC-V, to become mainstream.
(posted from a PC with an intel i7 :-P )
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Businesses are already beginning to switch over to EPYC.
No they really aren't. At least not in any significant way, it takes multiple generations of hardware to win over larger enterprises and AMD still have to prove themselves in the longhaul, enterprises don't switch just because one gen happens to be better. I hope AMD are on a winning streak but it will take at least a 2-3 more years of them maintaining a significant advantage to have a real market impact.
I just checked that the L8s_v2 and L16s_v2 (L series v2) has popped up on my VM size selection on my Azure dashboard. Those specifically use AMD EPYC 7551 processors. So yeah, EPYC has already entered production environment in Azure
They should have ignored it. Streisand effect - I didnâ(TM)t know about either promotion but now I know about both.
No? ... Corporate wars are sooo booooring. Can't we have a fatal Godzilla attack or something?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Yes much cleaner and more efficient processors could be designed now, but getting everyone to switch is not going to happen soon.
"AMD is shooting back at Intel like its easy for them"
In a way, Intel folks deserve it. They had the horsepower and acted with tiny, neglible incremental updates for ages. Then AMD puts on the table a 16-core/32-thread CPU and an architecture able to compete with intel in laptops.
I cannot wait for manufacturer to broaden their catalogues with more AMD laptops... and wait for the price battle.
Lighten up Francis.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
How on Earth do you figure that? You've got he same number of operations per second either way, and a single core is much more versatile - anything you can do on a multi-core processor, you can do sequentially on a single core, and there's a LOT of things that can't be efficiently decomposed into parallel tasks, in which case the single core wins hands down.
The only potential performance advantages for the multi-core are in cache and memory bus size - but you can easily give a single core as much cache as the combined multi-core, and unless things have changed recently the memory itself is usually slower than the bus.
Now, power consumption may be a legitimate advantage with slower processors, so if you're running a massively parallel task where the performance per watt is more important than the absolute performance of any node, then yes - more boxes with slower, more power-efficient multi-core processors will quite possibly win.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Not enough back doors, speculative execution security failures, and anticompetitive (Google keyboard did NOT want to type that word, what a surprise) behavior for you? Just want to make sure you support the greater of evils at all times?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
will have to pony up for a much more expensive X399 motherboard with the TR4 socket
Doesn't matter, they will not be able to afford the RAM anyways :)
Microsoft specifically announced the L series as INTEL XEON E5 v3's. So either they got their own announcement wrong or you got your information confused.
L Series yes, L Series v2 uses EPYC
Just want to make sure you support the greater of evils at all times?
Definitely--I supported Google back when they were supposedly the little good guy, and now they're just the same as all of the other evil giants. AMD made me mad because of the crummy update process for my old laptop's onboard graphics, and I've always had better experiences with Intel. Of course, it's all just subjective, and someone else will say that they had better experiences with AMD.
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
> const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs) Isn't 65535 + 1 == 0 after overflow in 16 bits?
Corporation don't care about hardware and certainly don't wait for generations. Corporations focus on cost. They swap servers and swap vendors on a regular basis. So if AMD has the product they need, they'll drop Intel.
When you configure a $25000 server $500 in savings doesn't matter much.
And that about sums up AMD vs Intel. Same as the last time AMD had a performance edge. They picked up some market share from people trying to save money ... and the large majority of corporate marched right on by the whole thing. I know I (in my corporate persona) did. I know we will again unless something profound changes.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Boy talk about missing the point....
The only one missing the point is you. This isn't so much as missing a point as it is taking a point with a marketing tactic and reversing it against a competitor.
Go somewhere else to concern troll.
Calm down (but only if you elect to) and head to your padded, soft-lit, safe space room in a conflict-free environment where vegan cookies and non-gmo soy milk will be served. Your daily serving of brain-neutering medication will be waiting for you of course. /s
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
It's you who's missing the point. Intel makes fun of AMD by saying they wanted the Intel CPUs so badly... it's PR and the whole world is watching. They can't talk crap about their competition. Making lighthearted fun of them is the way to go.
It honestly couldn't have been worst than Intel's PR stunt at Computex with a server processor, and trying to pass it off as a desktop product.
It's an ancient technique to avoid needing floating point maths, where you simply multiply everything by 65536 and use 32 bit ints. So 1.0000 becomes 65536... But calling that constant "one" is one of the best examples of terrible variable naming I've come across.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Boy talk about missing the point....
The only one missing the point is you. This isn't so much as missing a point as it is taking a point with a marketing tactic and reversing it against a competitor.
There were points made from both AMD and Intel. I'm surprised no one saw both. In hindsight it really doesn't matter. Both companies made bad PR stunts. It's just the usual competition.
We've had more than a couple reports of people actually being shot at work lately; this headline was in poor taste. When I see a headline here that starts with "shots fired" I expect it's likely to be followed with a body count.
This entire post could've been replaced with, "Teh gunz!!! Oh noes!!!!"
She fell funny
Intel have emptied the cupboards, they have nothing left.
Oh boy, Have you hit the nail on the head right there. The engineering in Intel has hit a super low point in enthusiasm. The 10nm scale took a serious toll on the group and it's not even out of lab yet. Figuring a way to mass produce 10nm is a lot harder than a lot of folks had planned on. Then IBM is over there with their 10nm process and that was just a super gut punch to a lot. Add in the whole Spectre and Meltdown and how resources got pulled over the place for that... Yeah, Intel is seriously struggling, not just outside but within too. There's a lot of folks who just want to stop the current path and go down something different, but there's too much pressure to make a window for next gen. Someone has got to put a foot down at some point and get things back on track and that might mean some hard losses, but hell it'd be better than what Intel is currently doing.
Regardless, those who do swap their Intel Core silicon for an AMD Threadripper chip will gain 10 cores and quad-channel memory, not to mention quite a bit of resale value.
Not to mention the lack of Meltdown.
Oh the irony.
Shots were fired between Intel and AMD, but as usual it is Security that got gunned down in the process.
When are we going to get robust and secure CPUs?
"The only potential performance advantages for the multi-core are in cache and memory bus size"
"Now, power consumption may be a legitimate advantage"
The only two advantages are bus size, power consumption, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
Am3 is over a decade old. You can still buy a cpu today for it that is only a few years old. And you can pop it into a 10 year old motherboard without worries. Try that on Intel. I suggest trying to spread your disinformation campaign someplace else. Intel has gone as far as releasing the SAME cpu and making you buy a new socket for it.
Well said
Ryzen 2xxx series has almost fixed that. Figure by 2020 they will be ahead. Currently they're ahead in some cases on single thread already.
Looks like you'll be stuck with ARM of you want any kind of performance.
Oh, I had a Slot A CPU as well. Matter of fact, it was a very rare one - a Slot A Thunderbird. Wasn't even close to my first AMD CPU though.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Slot A was an early Athlon interface, nothing whatsoever to do with nintendo. Slashdot really has gone down the flusher.
I still have an AMD a80286-16 sitting here, in a motherboard, doubt it runs.
Everything is optimized for Intel. There are some applications that use Intel-specific processor opcodes that AMD doesn't handle nearly as quickly especially in CAD and HPC, sure eventually AMD will emulate the behavior but they always seem behind. One such things is VM's - since everything is Intel, you have to stay with Intel or stay with AMD if you want to migrate between hypervisors. Migrating to AMD platform for a cluster suddenly requires both downtime and/or chucking all your "old" machines but AMD has also been behind on SR-IOV and other virtualization features.
AMD is good for gamers and office desktops, their server stuff has always been behind. Until Epyc, they were stuck on DDR3 and even to this day they still sell Opteron (DDR3) chips. Their Epyc stuff finally gets into massive numbers of cores but it's not any cheaper than Intel's offering. Intel Xeon has had SR-IOV GPUs on-die for a while (KVM allows you to share up to 8 dedicated GPUs per CPU). There are all those little things that add up to AMD being written off in the server market.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Aren't AMD based in Austin, Texas?
You'd best write to Samsung, ask them to enter the x64 chip market.
That is exactly what Intel did for a number of years. Does anybody else think it's suspicious that 2017 is the first time in many years that Intel brought us a significant increase in the performance of desktop and laptop processor by increasing their core counts? (Desktop and H-series laptops went from four cores to six; U-series laptops went from two cores to four.) Has Intel actually been able to do this for a while, but held back until Ryzen forced their hand?
No I think you're missing the context. The "demo" that was mentioned is a strawman. The OP is about AMD replacing CPUs in an 8086 giveaway.
I haven't seen AMD keep any of their latest sockets around that long either. People remember some of the older ones like AM3 (which is nearly 10 years old) and Socket A which also lasted forever, but forget ones like Socket 754 which was here today, gone tomorrow. And besides, Intel has kept some of their Sockets around for a while too, like LGA775 which started out with single-core Pentium 4's and ended with the Core 2 Quad processors.