That says more about Intel's shambolic efforts than it does about AMD's road to damascus moment.
Honestly both of them have demonstrated that they have little interest in AI. Intel gave up on Optane right as (a much-improved successor) would've helped with MoE offsetting or even as a highly durable drive for KV caching.
AMD have... turned out some decent gaming graphics cards and fine server CPUs but little else.
People are out there solding SMDs on old Nvidia mining rig GPUs to use them for inference; their hardware is not depreciating at the normal rate you'd expect from GPUs. DGX spark is finally useful now that AI can write multi-machine inference tooling optimised to it. Where's AMD in all of this? Nowhere.
AMD is doing 5 day RTO for almost everyone with 3 months of notice in an obvious attempt to get people to quit before vesting their 5x stock grants.
The rule includes >90% of "remote" workers who have discovered they were classified as hybrid (a classification now eliminated) and their manager didn't make it official. Now, remote approvals are SVP level.
The issue is, AMD still pays significantly less than any company with an RTO mandate, even with the stock appreciation. And the stock has gone down 25% in the past few weeks so it's even less competitive. The typical engineer was not given an equity-weighted package, even L9 only 30% of your TC is in stock.
It's a recruiting bonanza right now and everyone's getting calls offering 50% pay bumps from 5-day office semi corps like Broadcom or Qualcomm. The better people are getting offers at Google or Apple for 3-day RTO for even greater TC bumps.
The board should've sacked the entire leadership team of Intel and AMD years and years ago.
The fact that you can sit through both a mining boom and now a generational AI boom and have little to show for it and still keep your job is a Yahoo!-level fumble.
They can't find new leaders! Sharon Zhou, VP who handles all our engagements with the frontier labs quit today to be an MTS at Anthropic. https://lnkd.in/p/g53S3-fG
Sharon was the AI Chief of Staff brought in through an acquihire, managed all the high-visibility external/internal AI engagements, reported directly into Lisa Su, and was being groomed to be Lisa's successor. Even with all that, she couldn't make it 2 years at AMD.
I don't see any way out of this hole. We can't fire our execs and promote internally because our internal directors/VPs are mostly non-technical. We've been trying to pull leadership in with acquihires but we've been losing them too. Best win was replacing Alan Lee w/ Anush Elangovan which finally got ROCm working but there's a massive re-org coming he might not survive.
I remember buying an AMD K6-2 back in the day as it was cheaper and better. I've dropped in and out of the AMD sphere depending on who was winning at the given moment.
He backed it up with actual product-building merit and enough (but not a lot of) reality-testing. His products were successful largely because of him. Too many copycats forget about the merit part of the equation.
Not all products, NeXT was a major failure, with a few books telling the story how it all went down, only due to Apple's acquisition there was a moment that with Apple's remaining cash, and what was left of OpenSTEP, they managed to survive both companies.
Had Apple gone with Be instead, most likely all three companies would have gone bankrupt before 2000, and Pixar would be Jobs last successful company instead.
Jobs failed hard and was outed in the first place. And he didn't 'come back' he was quite literally bought in with NeXTSTEP. Don't forget $150M from Microsoft and the Office for Mac deal.
Sharon was acqui-hired after Lamini failed to find product market fit, and she had to fire her co-founder Greg. Greg went to Tensorwave (another AMD play) and eventually quit there as well.
The way I look at it, AMD and others dumped $25m into a very early AI play that never was going to be successful. I don't fault them for trying.
There was no way she could even come close to successor of Lisa though. The grooming thing was a media play at best. Dr. Fei-Fei Li would be a heck of a lot more appropriate than Sharon.
Anush is excellent and turned around the software story. If he goes, the party is over.
Ryzen series chips might not have been released if AMD's entire leadership team was sacked many years ago.
The heavy investments into HMB between SK Hynix & AMD might also not have happened. They went down this road before HMB demand popped off and it was a risky bet.
"The fact that you can sit through both a mining boom and now a generational AI boom..."
It's not necessary for every company to 'revenue maxx' by jumping on every trend.
AMD made $3.5 billion in profit last year, money left over after all salaries were paid and all expenses were settled. It might be galling to this generation of avarists, but maybe that's enough?
'Doing a decent job' seems to have become seen as archaic these days, which explains much of how the stock market works. The line doesn't _have_ to keep going up faster and faster.
They brought back some questionable former managers like the guy responsible for 14nm, Sanjay Natarajan, which was the first process to get stuck with a protracted period of low yields.
AMD has their Strix/Gorgon Halo as a competitor to DGX Spark, which is at least in the ballpark in terms of bandwidth, and being x86 has some compatibility benefits.
If you wanted a GPU with 32GB of memory for AI tasks, the AMD AI Pro R9700 was (up until about a month ago) reasonably priced at ~$1300. It's not a RTX 5090 in terms of bandwidth and compute, but for the price and being actually purchasable it's a reasonable pick.
This is somewhat true. A lot of AMD hardware is underpriced at launch because ROCm doesn't work yet. Then once ROCm is working the price moves up to what it should be.
I never understood why some fraction of technologists seem convinced that Optane was this amazing thing that would've been awesome if only Intel hadn't killed it.
It never made sense. It's slower than RAM, and what do I get for it? Persistence? I don't want persistent RAM, I like the ability to reboot to solve problems, and storing stuff on a non-volatile mediums has all sorts of legal implications which it's easier to avoid.
It's more expensive and has less storage than SSDs, even though the main downside of SSDs is their high price per gigabyte and relatively low capacities.
It's going in the wrong direction for both use cases. I guess it could have a very niche use case as a super fast persistent caching layer in front of spinning rust but that's kinda it.
Having a very low latency, durable write destination is a superpower for lots of database architectures (or things that share architectural details with databases, like some filesystems).
Optane had much lower latency than other types of durable storage, and also had very good endurance compared to NAND.
At a prior employer, we made extensive use of them as ZFS SLOG drives for large database servers. They made fsync very inexpensive.
Yep. I use a P4800X for ZFS special vdev. It's a monster. The thing has write endurance for many petabytes of write. The queue depth alone make for fast small reads; and the architecture means sustained reads and writes are... sustained. Try that with a normal SSD/NVME.
If Intel had volume production of Optane and had been able to quickly reconfigure it to produce a device that could stream out model weights fast enough for inference or could have gotten a read-write device that could hold KV caches effectively, they could have made an absolute killing in the current market.
HBF is slowly going after the former market. I'm not sure flash has a great answer for the latter due to endurance issues.
I can't think of any company that is as good as Intel at having a technology that's ready or almost ready at or before the time that the market is ready for it and then completely failing to sell the product into the newly developed market.
It's another level in the hierarchy. DRAM is too slow to use as SRAM, but it's denser, so it has a place. Flash is too slow to use as DRAM (or PCM), but it's denser, so it has a place. Spinning rust. Tapes. Adding another layer between DRAM and Flash to take advantage of its unique trade-offs is not only reasonable, it's exactly what we always do.
Very low latency, extreme durability, super high IOPS. It's SLC without the problems of SLC. The problem is it was a bit early, the interfaces never were fast enough (x4 3.0), and software that could have benefitted from massive amounts of it greatly, came out too late for it.
The actual problem is Intel was in such a bad position, they needed to shed weight, and Optane was not quick money.
Huh. I wrote a whole thing here about serving a niche in serving local LLMs, but turns out, any niche it could have served is probably better served (per dollar) by either more RAM or modern SSDs.
There's an argument to be made for the persistent memory being a cheaper substitute for more RAM, but imo the gap isn't big enough to justify it when considered as a % of the rest of the system you're building around it and the performance tradeoff.
Important reminder to check your biases. I was sure Optane had missed its mark by dropping out just before LLMs became a primary use case for high $ systems.
There was a version of optane (optane DC?) that plugged into DIMM slots and cost less than RAM, with possible higher capacities. That would be a useful tradeoff had it kept up the advantage.
Intel had multiple false starts on getting their platform ready for these devices to be used in a sensible manner. I have one of these false starts in a closet somewhere, and I did some kernel dev work for it. It was an incredible mess.
(I didn't actually have an Intel DIMM module -- I had a different vendor's. But fundamentally there needed to be a clean way to get data from software into the durable memory domain, and there wasn't. There also needed to be a clean way to talk to the module to get health information and to configure it to the extent it was configurable, and that didn't exist either. I wrote the kernel driver for the latter and submitted it upstream, and it probably could have gotten merged if Intel had assisted with the gnarly bits involving coordination with platform thermal firmware that shared the same SMBUS lines, but they didn't.)
That's the persistent memory modules; they were roughly half the price per GB compared to DDR4 from my quick research, but substantially higher memory latency, which would significantly affect usage as a KV cache, which would probably be their primary use case since SSDs beat it in raw data throughput. Who knows how it would have developed over the years since it was discontinued, but my gut reaction to the numbers said you'd rather just invest in more RAM based on the numbers I saw.
More like they stopped investing in improving that tech so flash eventually caught up on throughput. It didn't catch up on latency and has never even entered the ballpark when it comes to endurance.
The other answers are hinting at it, but Optane was fundamentally much much lower latency than NAND flash used in SSDs.
SSDs use lots of tricks to hide this latency (using RAM). However, when the data is super critical, you can't just throw some data in RAM and hope that it gets written out.
Enterprise flash drives have battery backups and keep the system alive for a moment to flush out the writes, but Optane doesn't need special tricks to get this sort of durability, it just has it. The Optane can keep accepting writes, eventually the RAM of the SSD is filled, and then the write performance falls off a cliff. However, if your workload gives the storage device a breather to write out to flash, you wouldn't notice the difference.
If you have a large stream of critical data flowing in that has to be stored and can't be lost- Optane suddenly looks way better than SSDs
It's mostly not competitive by virtue of being old, but for specific use cases it still stomps the latest Gen5 nvme drives. Specifically on things that need low latency and fast QD1 performance.
Think metadata in a ZFS array or database writes.
Also crazy endurance - often an order of magnitude beyond even enterprise nvmes.
...and because the things are basically un-killable thanks to endurance you can safely pick up 2nd hand used ones.
So they're a neat trick if used in precisely the right application. Hence:
>some fraction of technologists
>would've been awesome if only Intel hadn't killed it.
Maybe - it would presumably have improved further for niche cases, but doubt it would have conquered mainstream markets.
Why must every company pivot to squeeze what they can out of every tech trend at the expense of everything else they do?
AMD makes excellent CPUs and GPUs, I'm ecstatic with the products I have purchased from them, and they are now beating their biggest competitor and profiting billions every year. What more do you want? Isn't this enough for a company in 2026?
Obviously the whole semi industry must pivot to massively parallel matmul. Billions are now the equivalent of millions. You make trillions or no shot of a seat at the table once the winners are decided.
AMD has an entire division dominating in HPC and #2 close behind nVidia in datacenters with extremely good margins. Over half their revenue is from those segments. Not a lot comes from consumer devices right now. That's why they did so well against Intel right now. Intel is the one that is failing in those markets.
Not to forget AMDs dominance in performance per dollar in CPUs of any variety up until very recently on basically all fronts. Consumer, handheld/low power, server, you name it.
Intel finally has really great low power/budget answers, but still loses greatly to 3d cache chips on most workloads.
Intel's newest gen is a pretty clear favorite for laptops (especially with their better wifi/bluetooth/USB chipsets). Outside of laptop though, Intel has nothing compelling.
Totally. That's what I was vaguely (from mobile, sorry) trying to give them credit for. Their latest low power stuff is genuinely good, and their iGPUs are catching up fast.
For what it's worth, AMD is very actively pushing GPU hardware, particularly towards the hyperscalers. From what I've seen, they're really focusing in on the large quantity end users (your OpenAI, Meta, etc. types), presumably because they'll have the technical expertise and willingness to collaborate with them on issues as long as the GPUs are cheap enough.
Persistent memory will be back, it's just too compelling to give up on, and thanks to the research industry it spawned we have a pretty good idea of how to build systems that effectively exploit it. I can't wait until every DB can use pmem to achieve the holy grail of low-latency transactional durability (which is impossible today even with NVMe).
The community is basically doing this now with the kickflips in driver/rocm/etc "stuff". It's gotten so good and well-embraced that even AMD is backing some of these community efforts.
halogen. made by a user, one of the early, best model serving things for a strixhalo. amd community engaging person saw it was well liked, and sent that developer 2 strix halos to help them develop it further.
ive seen that same amd community manager engage on reddit and actively pull in changes into lemonade server, for better ways to serve up models best on the strixhalo hardware. so they're accepting community help where it helps.
It's due to ROCm, think equivalent of CUDA lower level drivers, which is well problematic.
There's huge upswing in using Vulkan Compute which works across NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel (and even others), and which is apparently much easier and stable to run on AMD
Huh? Instinct is basically the only real alternative to Nvidia in the market. And they have the only real rack scale competition with Helios. This revenue is not because of gaming gpus and server cpus. This literally is AMDs road to damascus moment with data center GPUs.
AMD Instinct sells like hot cakes. EPYC for AI servers sells like hot cakes. Optane was killed much earlier than KV caching or MoE became somewhat relevant. ???
They're around, selling AMD Strix Halo (up to 128GB unified memory) on the low, equivalent to DGX Spark, level; and MI* chips for enterprise AI inference.
The problem they have and they've always had is that everyone uses CUDA. ROCm works, but everyone's toolchain is CUDA exclusive or CUDA first, so it's much harder to use AMD hardware.
Using higher level tooling (vLLM, llama.cpp) I have DGX Spark comparable performance for 1/3 the price (but without the same software out of the box experience nor the clustering network options).
Optane really died before LLMs went big. I was at an enterprise using a TON of them, often for SAP HANA workloads.
> AMD have... turned out some decent gaming graphics cards and fine server CPUs but little else.
I'm on a AMD desktop, using an AMD gpu, next to a gaming console using an AMD CPU and GPU, making large DC purchasing decisions where intel hasn't even shown up as a factor.
>Honestly both of them have demonstrated that they have little interest in AI.
Awesome? Maybe this means supply wont be ruined and I'll be able to buy CPUs.
What's more interesting to me is how blisteringly evident it is that GPUs depreciate a lot slower than the analysts assumed. But Nvidia GPUs depreciate slowly because a lot of thought and resources were dedicated into building that ecosystem.
AMD has always been an also ran in this space and it shows to this day, but the true believers cannot be dissuaded of their faith so whatevs.
I honestly think Nvidia needs a worthy nemesis right now more than ever and I wish it existed but I don't think it does... Yet...
Ahh TIL! I used ChatGPT to find out what your "..road to damascus moment." expression meant, it was quite complimentary to you;
> And honestly, "Intel's shambolic efforts" alongside "AMD's Road to Damascus moment" is rather delicious phrasing. The author has managed to deliver quite a sophisticated insult in a single sentence.
I have avoided Intel products since the time some law enforcement forensic team used DCILeech to read the RAM of my server hosted at Hetzner and extracted a LUKS key from it. That was a lifelong lesson. There is no guarantee AMD won't come up with similar shenanigans like Intel's DCI soon and of course we don't know what PSP does behind the scenes, but at least for now, they are generally better for anti-forensics-tuned Linux kernels.
Confidential computing and hardware security are starting to be an actual thing now. They are mostly used for DRM and I would not trust them when your adversary is three letters long.
Hardware security used to be a joke. Now verified boot, encrypted RAM, key storage in hardware security models and hardware and OS attestation are getting somewhere.
But if you're important enough of a target to a state actor they will magically have some workaround. For your average raid on your home they might actually work depending on the specific setup.
For really high threat models you want zero trust models with E2EE as well as staying anonymous so no one knows where the hardware (and the people which might be much more vulnerable) are located. Tor exists for a reason.
Telegram chats not being end-to-end crypted are encrypted at rest on their servers. In this case telegram definitely controls the encryption keys but distributes them across jurisdictions to mitigate some risks.
Look into the WireCard scandal. WireCard was the Stripe of EU worth billions. They were even audited by one of the big 4 firms and they confirmed it was a real company.
Turns out it was a front for Russian intelligence. Even after the German government found out, the guy still somehow escaped to Russia. There’s a solid chance that Russia operatives have infiltrated the German government. They was even a big hack Russia’s state hackers did and a lot of information was leaked.
I bring this up because Hetzner was asking for my passport to buy a $10/m server. Simple opsec says to just pay a bit more and use DigitalOcean or some other VPS.
Yeah I tried to move to Hetzner, but bounced off when they wanted my passport info. I've since moved to OVH, where I get significantly more resources for the same money compared to DO, they're a European company hosting in Europe (getting away from US tech was the primary reason I was looking for DO alternatives), and they never asked for my passport!
There are many good non-Hetzner European hosting companies, luckily.
I have no idea what this has to do with the topic at hand. What does KYC from Hetzner have to do with Wirecard? Do you mean to say that you suspect that Russia is behind Hetzner?
That case was so baffling, it left me forever doubting German companies, especially ones that ask for my passport. A lot of businesses used WireCard, even the government itself.
You're twisting the Wirecard to such an extent it's de facto wrong.
Wirecard were a German fintech, but didn't have big market penetration across Europe. They were a real company with real operations, but a decent part of its balance sheet was fake (supposedly it was in an Asian subsidiary, there was no money there). It wasn't a front for Russian intelligence, it's COO was a Russian operative (and nowadays runs a shadow intelligence agency from Moscow, using incompetent morons to try to kidnap journalists, or scheming to hire ISIS suicide bombers to blow them up); those connections only surfaced after the whole thing imploded. But the whole company was an actual real place with real operations and real non-russian intelligence employees. It's still not certain if the CEO knew about the COO for instance.
Read the FT series on the whole thing, their investigation started the collapse.
AMD specifically calls out high sales of Instinct products as leading the sales growth. I wonder how their Epyc and Ryzen lines compare to Intels Xeon and Core lines. AMD's Instinct sales are practically nothing compared to competing Nvidia products, but no one† buys Intel Arc accelerators, so that may be the main reason AMD is beating intel.
do people / businesses even buy Xeons anymore? Any used server from the last 5 years I see is always EPYC and all VM services I see are EPYCs unless something ancient that is still on a Xeon E5 from like 2015
There are many years since AMD's EPYC CPUs have been greatly superior to Intel's Xeons and Intel has not succeeded to match them (Intel has a hope with the future Diamond Rapids Xeons, which are their first CPUs since 2019 that have a good chance to match AMD's).
In the last few years Intel's division that makes Xeons had huge losses, because in order to retain their big customers they had to accept to sell at big discounts, otherwise the customers would have switched to AMD.
All has changed this year, due to the AI craze.
AMD has sold all the server CPUs that it could make, within its allocations at TSMC. Everybody who did not succeed to buy EPYCs has bought Intel Granite Rapids Xeons, because they are not made at TSMC, but in Intel's fabs, so they did not compete with other TSMC customers for allocations.
So Intel has also sold every server CPU that they could make, and they are now trying to retool some fab that made new Panther Lake CPUs back to the obsolete Intel 3 CMOS manufacturing process, in order to make more Xeons, to sell them as long as this huge demand persists.
Thus in the last quarter both AMD and Intel have sold less consumer CPUs than in the past, because all who could did delay their upgrade plans due to the unacceptable memory prices, but on the other hand both AMD and Intel had record revenues and profits from selling server CPUs.
my non tech neighbors and cousins have 10 year old computers. they buy them like their car. they run them both until it wont turn on. and when they break, they will only spend $500 on the next one.
and that's fine. just surprised the hell out of they still used a black friday special laptop from 10 years ago. that thing is special alright....
Last I tested about a year ago in Google cloud the best Intel vs best AMD same machine config otherwise, video transcoding speed was practically identical.
AMD was at over 46% of the "server" market 1Q2026.
Intel isn't even condered a player in HPC anymore. 147 of TOP 500 is AMD (it's really custom chips, which AMD also does with it's Xilinx and Instinct divisions, and nVidia that are chewing up the Intels)
AMD has practically abandoned their HPC-focused Threadripper series too, leaving the market segmentunmet by anyone. The supercomputers in the Top 500 listing only account for a fraction of CPU sales, where they mostly serve to feed accelerators.
Love them or hate them, from a customer's point of view AMD is the only company in a position to stand up to NVIDIA in the GPU market and force those sky-high prices down a bit. I'm eagerly waiting for their new models, now backed by a much more mature and well-thought-out ROCm.
I'm not joking. I'm running a Maxwell-era NVIDIA card, and on Linux it's one problem after another. I HATE NVIDIA's driver; it's one of the worst-made pieces of software I've ever seen.
The Maxwell architecture is 12 years old. Like, I'm not out here defending NVIDIA's Linux drivers, but I also think it's unreasonable to expect great support for extremely complicated hardware that's over a decade old.
I've personally had zero issues with NVIDIA on Linux on both Turing (20xx) and Blackwell (50xx).
I agree that it’s an old, outdated, and obsolete architecture... but it is perfectly well-preserved and meets my current and future needs. I look at it like a car or a motorcycle; it might be 10 years old and lack an ADAS safety system or a giant touchscreen, but it’s still functional—in other words, I get to choose when to replace it.
The problem with NVIDIA is that its driver is an incredibly delicate component of its GPUs. With each new generation, the company implements—via software, through micro-routines—features that it failed to deliver in the hardware itself. If the driver were open—meaning one that the community could develop and maintain—I could continue using my GPU without any issues. Intel and AMD support the Mesa graphics stack, with full functionality. Why doesn’t NVIDIA?
Good. I was bitten by Intel's voltage issues in their 13th gen CPUs. Then again in the 14th gen replacement. They appear bloated, complacent and I hope AMD eats their lunch.
The problem is AMD doesn't do their own manufacturing anymore. Intel is the only large scale CPU manufacturer left in the US. That's of strategic national importance. You should want them to be good (assuming you're American, or really, not Chinese).
I'm not sure what China has to do with anything - China's fabs are stuck at 193nm wavelengths - while TSMC (Taiwan)/Samsung (Korea)/...(whatever other customers ASML has) are at 13.5nm... they're a literal order of magnitude behind and produce no high performance chips of commercial relevance.
Having strong competition between the CPU vendors is always a good thing. AMD has made mistakes, but it's hard to argue they don't deserve to outsell Intel for a change.
Hopefully they don't completely swap roles completely, with Intel being incapable of competing and AMD stagnating without competition. I'd rather they both be competitive.
Absolutely. It's also why I like seeing the Arm and Risc processor pressure; forces them to keep upping their game and not get fat and lazy (like Intel did).
I hope they use much of this windfall to invest in improved products in the future. It's unlikely to impossible that Radeon or Instinct will ever be more popular or faster than its competition, but it shouldn't languish, and the Zen series should keep running circles around Intel.
I have reservations about AMD due to repeatedly poor Linux support. My 8700GE APU has display freezes and can't recover 1-2 times a week. For a chip that was released 2.5y ago, that's nuts.
Is that a known issue? I had something vaguely similar happen with a GPU that had intermittent hardware failure.
Granted their rocm support was abysmal several years back and they lost my trust as a result. But nvidia is hardly any better and intel doesn't seem to be a viable alternative ...
There is arguably no particularly strong competition. There would be strong competition if Intel and AMD had to compete with x86 CPUs from Apple and Qualcomm.
Or if Intel and AMD GPUs had to compete with Nvidia GPUs ... wait, they do, and they are absolutely losing.
The memory crisis has delayed both Intel's and AMD's consumer CPU launches, i.e. Nova Lake for Intel and Zen 6 for AMD, to next year, but when that will happen there are good chances to see a much stronger competition between them than during the last 6-7 years, because Nova Lake should finally bring back AVX-512, a.k.a. AVX10, to Intel's consumer CPUs, and it also has many enhancements that AMD has not implemented yet (e.g. APX and FRED), so unless Intel fails at execution, the competing Intel and AMD CPUs should be much more balanced than in the last few years.
In Data Centres. Not in retail where Intel is still undercutting AMD's desktop processors in price, to retain its market share ... It's a tactic that Intel has repeatedly used against AMD, but I don't think I've ever seen equivalent Intel processors cheaper than AMDs offering ever. I guess now it has government backing, it feels it can take more short-term risks like this as it is now "too Big to fail" ...
Thunderbolt 1-3 was an Intel standard. They gifted it to the USB IF where USB4 was made from it. Ongoing it's a certification program for USB4 / USB4 v2.0 nothing more.
Also Intel decided to not improve for a long time. They were just happy collecting rent and protecting margin. Only the paranoid survive. Intel used to be a memory company and they pivoted cause Andy grove could see what was coming.
Intel didn't decide not to improve. Their CPU R&D has a long pipeline and they made the wrong prediction on tech (10nm), which resulted in a decade long pipeline stall. They're just about through that now, we'll see if they've got their groove back in the next few generations.
Before the 10nm issues, they were making consistent IPC improvement every generation, and although core counts were pretty stagnant for consumers, they would add a couple cores every generation on top Xeon skus. Maybe they could have done bigger changes with more time between, but it was nice being able to expect new server CPUs every 12-18 months that were meaningfully better.
> they made the wrong prediction on tech (10nm), which resulted in a decade long pipeline stall
I don't think their node problems were anywhere near that simple. You also left out the part where AMD moved to chiplets while intel stubbornly remained monolithic for quite a while. And a whole list of other missteps.
It wasn't just that. Intel could have survived a failed node, or a few of them. Certainly wouldn't be their first.
Krzanich "optimized" the company for profit, by cutting out things he considered to be excess. Including a lot of their irreplaceable validation & verification talent, that AMD instantly snapped up. The lack of validation resources is directly responsible for the failures of many key Intel products during his tenure and later, because major bugs that could have been spotted earlier slipped through, and then resulted in horrible delays and even cancellations. He then spent the surplus of the company on 30 major acquisitions, of which only two were in any reasonable degree successful.
There are CEOs who have destroyed more value than Krzanich, but not many.
AMD benefited greatly from Intel's self inflicted wound: laying on their laurels thinking the leverage they had with OEMs and inertia will carry them through the hard patch like it did in their P4 times.
Intel stopped advancing in 2014-2015 for a long time. They flopped on the fabrication side, they stuck to the 2-4 core CPUs and charged an arm and a leg for anything with more than that. This gave AMD an opening with their cheap and yet still decently fast higher core count CPUs.
That’s the leverage I was mentioning. That’s what worked for them in Pentium days and thought will just work again. It helped a lot that AMD had a compelling product to sell.
They used the same tricks when AMD landed useful 64bit mobile CPUs (turion X2 series and the like). But by zen era even big box retail is selling and models
F in chat to my Intel investments, their stock price is doing bad right now. And now they're also cutting off B580, what unfortunate times. Nova Lake, where are you?
AMD is reaping the reward of pragmatism, their best gaming CPU skus often have 8 full cores with a large cache for desktops plugged into a wall outlet.
Intel has been chasing higher and higher core counts which look good on spec sheets and dazzle in rarely utilized workloads, but said core counts do nothing to run the apps and games that most people actually use. I think getting dumped by Apple broke them, they're competing with Apple on paper and AMD is eating their lunch in reality.
It's amusing because i915-derived integrated graphics had the largest GPU share for a long time, but they still tried to make an x86-based GPU instead.
They also have baffling policy of just introducing a feature and then snuffing people not paying enough from using it. "Oh for that you need more expensive model" "Oh yeah ? fuck you I'm buying AMD"
First it was virtualization instructions, then AVX stuff
The vibes I'm getting are that x86 is on its way out - apple switched, and mainstream laptops are releasing with fast snapdragon chips - I'm thinking both Intel and AMD risk becoming obsolete if they keep focusing on x86 chips.
Anyone with insight into the industry know how much institutional knowledge would be relevant still with an ISA switch?
hearing that google switched to arm for their servers because it was much more efficient for compute vs power used per space is what made me finally think everything might be switching to arm. it took apple a bit of time to switch over, software growing pains for users early on, but my gosh have their products just continued to take off.
so now mobile, desktop and server all looking good with ARM? i can't see why it would go backwards at all.
Not really getting that impression from AMD. On the call Su talked up EPYC "Venice" (a series of x86 chips) as a major component of their Q4 and 2027 guidance.
That's what I'm saying - I think both AMD and Intel risk becoming obsolete dinosaurs if they keep focusing on x86, which is what they seem to be doing.
Windows on ARM is hardly going anywhere, and outside HN bubble, Windows x86 has a worldwide market share of 70%.
Also beware of what you wish for, that is basically the end of PCs when it comes to be, the dream of OEMs, going back to fully vertical integration as all computers used to be in the last century, with exception of PC clones, thanks to IBM failing to control the ecosystem.
This! All this shit that's happening with AI and core hardware component price hikes, is just blantant evidence that our current best *ism (we're now on level capital) is not now nor it will ever be, the thing that'll take us all anywhere worthy.
Companies bending over and submitting to the AI/LLM/Datacenter hyperscalers at the expense of completely depleting all avenues for regular everyday people to have affordable access to basic computing (imho basically just another utility these days) is something that I hope people remember once the well dries and they try once again to sell us their RGB powered wares.
So... F Nvidia, F Micron and F all these money hungry asshole companies, including the weirdos thirsting for your sticks of ram.
AMD relies on geopolitically dicey Taiwanese fabs. Why is nobody else worried about this? Berkshire divested all TSMC investments a few years ago so at least they're worried.
Those same "geopolitically dicey Taiwanese fabs" are used by almost every major chip company in the world, including Intel which uses TSMC to manufacture its Panther Lake graphics tile and all the tiles in Arrow Lake except the base tile. Nvidia, Apple and Qualcomm are just as dependent on Taiwanese fabs as AMD.
if openAI starts making their own jalapeno chips, maybe intel gets a comeback printing the jalapeno chips for openAI? because a new worry for intel and AMD is going to be when openAI and anthropic just design all their own hardware, and dont need any of the "historical expertise" those companies have. so then the only value is "who has the physical value that can make these designs".
so intel took the hit now, AMD might take the hit later as they're kinda...... mostly a software company, that contracts to hardware companies.
TSMC dominates world wide with 80% of the general chip market and nearly 100% in some specific markets.
Due to Trump policies (and geopolitical realities), they are building or helping to build fabs in the US and elsewhere. It's takes years to build a fab.
The truth is this is more of the same tech inflationary pressure driven by AI. AMD is winning for showing up. Don't get me wrong, AMD does have technically superior products for specific applications, but that never really mattered.
Ryzen and EPYC have been doing crazy kickflips since around 2018 in both value and performance. Since Ryzen 3000/Zen 2 things hit parity on IPC generally, and Ryzen 5000/Zen 3 and beyond has just been total crush mode. Especially after 3d cache was intro'd.
For me, it was core count, price and energy efficiency (especially after a hefty power limit reduction that costs barely any performance). Intel made faster single cores most of the time, but at ridiculous power consumption and lower total core count.
Zen 1's $/perf was so good. After I booted a freshly-unboxed Zen box and ran some benchmarks for work (RIP on-prem server rooms), I bought a bunch of $AMD at the next market open, for about $12 IIRC. It's shocking to me it took almost a decade for AMD to outsell Intel, the value proposition was evident on day 1.
Intel has always been better at marketing and sales than AMD. I'd say, it still is and that continues to be AMD's weak point. In my opinion, it should be doing better than it is given the state Intel is in currently.
That says more about Intel's shambolic efforts than it does about AMD's road to damascus moment.
Honestly both of them have demonstrated that they have little interest in AI. Intel gave up on Optane right as (a much-improved successor) would've helped with MoE offsetting or even as a highly durable drive for KV caching.
AMD have... turned out some decent gaming graphics cards and fine server CPUs but little else.
People are out there solding SMDs on old Nvidia mining rig GPUs to use them for inference; their hardware is not depreciating at the normal rate you'd expect from GPUs. DGX spark is finally useful now that AI can write multi-machine inference tooling optimised to it. Where's AMD in all of this? Nowhere.
AMD is doing 5 day RTO for almost everyone with 3 months of notice in an obvious attempt to get people to quit before vesting their 5x stock grants.
The rule includes >90% of "remote" workers who have discovered they were classified as hybrid (a classification now eliminated) and their manager didn't make it official. Now, remote approvals are SVP level.
The issue is, AMD still pays significantly less than any company with an RTO mandate, even with the stock appreciation. And the stock has gone down 25% in the past few weeks so it's even less competitive. The typical engineer was not given an equity-weighted package, even L9 only 30% of your TC is in stock.
It's a recruiting bonanza right now and everyone's getting calls offering 50% pay bumps from 5-day office semi corps like Broadcom or Qualcomm. The better people are getting offers at Google or Apple for 3-day RTO for even greater TC bumps.
I'm not surprised.
The board should've sacked the entire leadership team of Intel and AMD years and years ago.
The fact that you can sit through both a mining boom and now a generational AI boom and have little to show for it and still keep your job is a Yahoo!-level fumble.
They can't find new leaders! Sharon Zhou, VP who handles all our engagements with the frontier labs quit today to be an MTS at Anthropic. https://lnkd.in/p/g53S3-fG
Sharon was the AI Chief of Staff brought in through an acquihire, managed all the high-visibility external/internal AI engagements, reported directly into Lisa Su, and was being groomed to be Lisa's successor. Even with all that, she couldn't make it 2 years at AMD.
I don't see any way out of this hole. We can't fire our execs and promote internally because our internal directors/VPs are mostly non-technical. We've been trying to pull leadership in with acquihires but we've been losing them too. Best win was replacing Alan Lee w/ Anush Elangovan which finally got ROCm working but there's a massive re-org coming he might not survive.
I can apply as a ceo if you accept master students. Having studied drama, I can definitely say I act better than pat gelsinger
Sure, but do you have any missionary / evangelism experience?
Unfortunately no, but I can pray really hard maybe
You might be better qualified as a shareholder then
How sad.
I remember buying an AMD K6-2 back in the day as it was cheaper and better. I've dropped in and out of the AMD sphere depending on who was winning at the given moment.
Now they're both losing.
> our internal directors/VPs are mostly non-technical
why not start with trying to fix that?
100% Lisa Su is a control freak and thought Zhou was a threat. Cult of personality CEOs do not generally end well for the company
Jobs being the exception that proves the rule
He backed it up with actual product-building merit and enough (but not a lot of) reality-testing. His products were successful largely because of him. Too many copycats forget about the merit part of the equation.
Not all products, NeXT was a major failure, with a few books telling the story how it all went down, only due to Apple's acquisition there was a moment that with Apple's remaining cash, and what was left of OpenSTEP, they managed to survive both companies.
Had Apple gone with Be instead, most likely all three companies would have gone bankrupt before 2000, and Pixar would be Jobs last successful company instead.
Jobs failed hard and was outed in the first place. And he didn't 'come back' he was quite literally bought in with NeXTSTEP. Don't forget $150M from Microsoft and the Office for Mac deal.
Sharon was acqui-hired after Lamini failed to find product market fit, and she had to fire her co-founder Greg. Greg went to Tensorwave (another AMD play) and eventually quit there as well.
The way I look at it, AMD and others dumped $25m into a very early AI play that never was going to be successful. I don't fault them for trying.
There was no way she could even come close to successor of Lisa though. The grooming thing was a media play at best. Dr. Fei-Fei Li would be a heck of a lot more appropriate than Sharon.
Anush is excellent and turned around the software story. If he goes, the party is over.
Ryzen series chips might not have been released if AMD's entire leadership team was sacked many years ago.
The heavy investments into HMB between SK Hynix & AMD might also not have happened. They went down this road before HMB demand popped off and it was a risky bet.
Rory Read doesn't get enough credit for saving AMD from bankrupty.
What are we talking about in this thread. This post is literally about AMD revenue going wild during the AI boom.
Ok, I'm glad I'm not the crazy one. I wondered for a second lol
"The fact that you can sit through both a mining boom and now a generational AI boom..."
It's not necessary for every company to 'revenue maxx' by jumping on every trend.
AMD made $3.5 billion in profit last year, money left over after all salaries were paid and all expenses were settled. It might be galling to this generation of avarists, but maybe that's enough?
'Doing a decent job' seems to have become seen as archaic these days, which explains much of how the stock market works. The line doesn't _have_ to keep going up faster and faster.
AMD is also a hardware company with significantly more overhead than a software house that is swimming in margin.
Even Yahoo has an AI and better search results than they did in the past…
I think Intel figured out way to be even worse…
Intel have gone through 3 leadership teams in 10ish years
They brought back some questionable former managers like the guy responsible for 14nm, Sanjay Natarajan, which was the first process to get stuck with a protracted period of low yields.
Gosh, you're right. I thought it was just one.
Intel stock is down 49% in just the last month alone.
A lot of said gains have been erased.
> The issue is, AMD still pays significantly less than any company with an RTO mandate
I'm sure they pay more than Intel ;-)
Interesting data point as a stock holder, thanks.
AMD has their Strix/Gorgon Halo as a competitor to DGX Spark, which is at least in the ballpark in terms of bandwidth, and being x86 has some compatibility benefits.
If you wanted a GPU with 32GB of memory for AI tasks, the AMD AI Pro R9700 was (up until about a month ago) reasonably priced at ~$1300. It's not a RTX 5090 in terms of bandwidth and compute, but for the price and being actually purchasable it's a reasonable pick.
I like to think that if there are wins to be had, the market will price that in.
Those cards are cheap because they're not really that amazing.
This is somewhat true. A lot of AMD hardware is underpriced at launch because ROCm doesn't work yet. Then once ROCm is working the price moves up to what it should be.
Yeah, about that. Those cards all have MSRPs that have moved north by over $500 since launch.
It's interesting having a quantifiable number of how much AMD was underinvesting in decent software for their hardware.
Meanwhile, the 5090...
I never understood why some fraction of technologists seem convinced that Optane was this amazing thing that would've been awesome if only Intel hadn't killed it.
It never made sense. It's slower than RAM, and what do I get for it? Persistence? I don't want persistent RAM, I like the ability to reboot to solve problems, and storing stuff on a non-volatile mediums has all sorts of legal implications which it's easier to avoid.
It's more expensive and has less storage than SSDs, even though the main downside of SSDs is their high price per gigabyte and relatively low capacities.
It's going in the wrong direction for both use cases. I guess it could have a very niche use case as a super fast persistent caching layer in front of spinning rust but that's kinda it.
Having a very low latency, durable write destination is a superpower for lots of database architectures (or things that share architectural details with databases, like some filesystems).
Optane had much lower latency than other types of durable storage, and also had very good endurance compared to NAND.
At a prior employer, we made extensive use of them as ZFS SLOG drives for large database servers. They made fsync very inexpensive.
Yep. I use a P4800X for ZFS special vdev. It's a monster. The thing has write endurance for many petabytes of write. The queue depth alone make for fast small reads; and the architecture means sustained reads and writes are... sustained. Try that with a normal SSD/NVME.
And instead of upgrading latency from NVMe SSDs to Optane, we downgraded to EBS.
Yeah that's the fast persistent cache layer more or less
Optane was cheaper than DRAM per bit.
If Intel had volume production of Optane and had been able to quickly reconfigure it to produce a device that could stream out model weights fast enough for inference or could have gotten a read-write device that could hold KV caches effectively, they could have made an absolute killing in the current market.
HBF is slowly going after the former market. I'm not sure flash has a great answer for the latter due to endurance issues.
I can't think of any company that is as good as Intel at having a technology that's ready or almost ready at or before the time that the market is ready for it and then completely failing to sell the product into the newly developed market.
Google?
> what do I get for it? Persistence?
Density. PCM is closer in bits-per-unit-area to Flash than to DRAM.
Yeah but that doesn't help if it's too slow to use as DRAM
It's another level in the hierarchy. DRAM is too slow to use as SRAM, but it's denser, so it has a place. Flash is too slow to use as DRAM (or PCM), but it's denser, so it has a place. Spinning rust. Tapes. Adding another layer between DRAM and Flash to take advantage of its unique trade-offs is not only reasonable, it's exactly what we always do.
Very low latency, extreme durability, super high IOPS. It's SLC without the problems of SLC. The problem is it was a bit early, the interfaces never were fast enough (x4 3.0), and software that could have benefitted from massive amounts of it greatly, came out too late for it.
The actual problem is Intel was in such a bad position, they needed to shed weight, and Optane was not quick money.
In a DIMM slot though?
Optane was available as PCIe cards and NVME. I have one of the PCIE 1.2TB drives as my OS drive.
Optane had multiple form factors and could have adopted modern connections.
Huh. I wrote a whole thing here about serving a niche in serving local LLMs, but turns out, any niche it could have served is probably better served (per dollar) by either more RAM or modern SSDs.
There's an argument to be made for the persistent memory being a cheaper substitute for more RAM, but imo the gap isn't big enough to justify it when considered as a % of the rest of the system you're building around it and the performance tradeoff.
Important reminder to check your biases. I was sure Optane had missed its mark by dropping out just before LLMs became a primary use case for high $ systems.
There was a version of optane (optane DC?) that plugged into DIMM slots and cost less than RAM, with possible higher capacities. That would be a useful tradeoff had it kept up the advantage.
Intel had multiple false starts on getting their platform ready for these devices to be used in a sensible manner. I have one of these false starts in a closet somewhere, and I did some kernel dev work for it. It was an incredible mess.
(I didn't actually have an Intel DIMM module -- I had a different vendor's. But fundamentally there needed to be a clean way to get data from software into the durable memory domain, and there wasn't. There also needed to be a clean way to talk to the module to get health information and to configure it to the extent it was configurable, and that didn't exist either. I wrote the kernel driver for the latter and submitted it upstream, and it probably could have gotten merged if Intel had assisted with the gnarly bits involving coordination with platform thermal firmware that shared the same SMBUS lines, but they didn't.)
That's the persistent memory modules; they were roughly half the price per GB compared to DDR4 from my quick research, but substantially higher memory latency, which would significantly affect usage as a KV cache, which would probably be their primary use case since SSDs beat it in raw data throughput. Who knows how it would have developed over the years since it was discontinued, but my gut reaction to the numbers said you'd rather just invest in more RAM based on the numbers I saw.
Seems halfway between SSD and RAM just like SSD is halfway between RAM and HDD. There's no fixed number of tiers in the storage hierarchy.
IIRC when it came out it was faster than the SSDs you could buy. It never really got that much better and then SSD mostly caught up.
More like they stopped investing in improving that tech so flash eventually caught up on throughput. It didn't catch up on latency and has never even entered the ballpark when it comes to endurance.
The other answers are hinting at it, but Optane was fundamentally much much lower latency than NAND flash used in SSDs.
SSDs use lots of tricks to hide this latency (using RAM). However, when the data is super critical, you can't just throw some data in RAM and hope that it gets written out.
Enterprise flash drives have battery backups and keep the system alive for a moment to flush out the writes, but Optane doesn't need special tricks to get this sort of durability, it just has it. The Optane can keep accepting writes, eventually the RAM of the SSD is filled, and then the write performance falls off a cliff. However, if your workload gives the storage device a breather to write out to flash, you wouldn't notice the difference.
If you have a large stream of critical data flowing in that has to be stored and can't be lost- Optane suddenly looks way better than SSDs
It's mostly not competitive by virtue of being old, but for specific use cases it still stomps the latest Gen5 nvme drives. Specifically on things that need low latency and fast QD1 performance.
Think metadata in a ZFS array or database writes.
Also crazy endurance - often an order of magnitude beyond even enterprise nvmes.
...and because the things are basically un-killable thanks to endurance you can safely pick up 2nd hand used ones.
So they're a neat trick if used in precisely the right application. Hence:
>some fraction of technologists
>would've been awesome if only Intel hadn't killed it.
Maybe - it would presumably have improved further for niche cases, but doubt it would have conquered mainstream markets.
You can have very large MoE models run on small amounts of ram (or vram), if you can transfer the experts you need on the fly from ram to disk.
SSDs are good, but an improved Optane would've been better.
Sometimes, things are just cool.
It somewhat (maybe) had sense for HDD caching but I don't think HDDs in 2026 are used in cases where separate cache is needed.
Why must every company pivot to squeeze what they can out of every tech trend at the expense of everything else they do?
AMD makes excellent CPUs and GPUs, I'm ecstatic with the products I have purchased from them, and they are now beating their biggest competitor and profiting billions every year. What more do you want? Isn't this enough for a company in 2026?
Obviously the whole semi industry must pivot to massively parallel matmul. Billions are now the equivalent of millions. You make trillions or no shot of a seat at the table once the winners are decided.
Not a publicly traded one no.
It is like the line that investors want to go up has moved another derivative down.
Velocity is not enough, acceleration is not enough, we now require jerk to go up.
AMD has an entire division dominating in HPC and #2 close behind nVidia in datacenters with extremely good margins. Over half their revenue is from those segments. Not a lot comes from consumer devices right now. That's why they did so well against Intel right now. Intel is the one that is failing in those markets.
Not to forget AMDs dominance in performance per dollar in CPUs of any variety up until very recently on basically all fronts. Consumer, handheld/low power, server, you name it.
Intel finally has really great low power/budget answers, but still loses greatly to 3d cache chips on most workloads.
Intel's newest gen is a pretty clear favorite for laptops (especially with their better wifi/bluetooth/USB chipsets). Outside of laptop though, Intel has nothing compelling.
Totally. That's what I was vaguely (from mobile, sorry) trying to give them credit for. Their latest low power stuff is genuinely good, and their iGPUs are catching up fast.
For what it's worth, AMD is very actively pushing GPU hardware, particularly towards the hyperscalers. From what I've seen, they're really focusing in on the large quantity end users (your OpenAI, Meta, etc. types), presumably because they'll have the technical expertise and willingness to collaborate with them on issues as long as the GPUs are cheap enough.
Persistent memory will be back, it's just too compelling to give up on, and thanks to the research industry it spawned we have a pretty good idea of how to build systems that effectively exploit it. I can't wait until every DB can use pmem to achieve the holy grail of low-latency transactional durability (which is impossible today even with NVMe).
AND GPUs are competitive on a price/performance standpoint. Their software stack is where they fall behind.
And they are making great progress on the software side. ROCm 10 is significantly better than 7.x
Honest question, couldn't one just ask Claude to make a better driver for it? And reimplement pytorch on top of that or something?
The community is basically doing this now with the kickflips in driver/rocm/etc "stuff". It's gotten so good and well-embraced that even AMD is backing some of these community efforts.
Do you have some pointers to these efforts, please?
halogen. made by a user, one of the early, best model serving things for a strixhalo. amd community engaging person saw it was well liked, and sent that developer 2 strix halos to help them develop it further.
ive seen that same amd community manager engage on reddit and actively pull in changes into lemonade server, for better ways to serve up models best on the strixhalo hardware. so they're accepting community help where it helps.
Is there something wrong with PyTorch? I’ve heard people complain a lot about their GPUs. I’ve only used MI250x in an HPC, but PyTorch worked fine.
It's due to ROCm, think equivalent of CUDA lower level drivers, which is well problematic.
There's huge upswing in using Vulkan Compute which works across NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel (and even others), and which is apparently much easier and stable to run on AMD
Huh? Instinct is basically the only real alternative to Nvidia in the market. And they have the only real rack scale competition with Helios. This revenue is not because of gaming gpus and server cpus. This literally is AMDs road to damascus moment with data center GPUs.
> That says more about Intel's shambolic efforts
I was going to say… everybody even government is coming together to make intel work but it’s in shambles
Haven’t they benefited a lot from the chips act?
AMD Instinct sells like hot cakes. EPYC for AI servers sells like hot cakes. Optane was killed much earlier than KV caching or MoE became somewhat relevant. ???
Everything I've read so far just has me believe 75% of the comments didn't even open the article.
You could be right, and not just for this one article.
Doesn't Intel have near cutting edge fabs tho? Even if their own AI chips aren't great, aren't they getting contracts to make Nvidia and Apple chips?
Chicken and Egg problem when everyone else is on TSMC
Even Intel uses TSMC for the stuff their fabs can't handle.
> Where's AMD in all of this? Nowhere.
They're around, selling AMD Strix Halo (up to 128GB unified memory) on the low, equivalent to DGX Spark, level; and MI* chips for enterprise AI inference.
The problem they have and they've always had is that everyone uses CUDA. ROCm works, but everyone's toolchain is CUDA exclusive or CUDA first, so it's much harder to use AMD hardware.
Using higher level tooling (vLLM, llama.cpp) I have DGX Spark comparable performance for 1/3 the price (but without the same software out of the box experience nor the clustering network options).
>AMD have... turned out some decent gaming graphics cards
that's quite a large market and their only competitor has moved on to greener pastures.
It's a very small market, and really low margin compared to AI/datacenter. DC GPUs are 90% margin, and bought by the millions.
"road to damascus"
Great Hope and Crosby movie.
> Optane
Optane really died before LLMs went big. I was at an enterprise using a TON of them, often for SAP HANA workloads.
> AMD have... turned out some decent gaming graphics cards and fine server CPUs but little else.
I'm on a AMD desktop, using an AMD gpu, next to a gaming console using an AMD CPU and GPU, making large DC purchasing decisions where intel hasn't even shown up as a factor.
>Honestly both of them have demonstrated that they have little interest in AI. Awesome? Maybe this means supply wont be ruined and I'll be able to buy CPUs.
Intel pirated Optane and bailed when they got caught, seemed unrelated to AI, just Intel being Intel.
What? They co-developed Optane with Micron and Micron gave up on it before Intel did.
Intel sold it to Micron, tho
Micron bought IM Flash after development was ceased. But they stopped selling Xpoint products before Intel stopped selling Optane.
What's more interesting to me is how blisteringly evident it is that GPUs depreciate a lot slower than the analysts assumed. But Nvidia GPUs depreciate slowly because a lot of thought and resources were dedicated into building that ecosystem.
AMD has always been an also ran in this space and it shows to this day, but the true believers cannot be dissuaded of their faith so whatevs.
I honestly think Nvidia needs a worthy nemesis right now more than ever and I wish it existed but I don't think it does... Yet...
Ahh TIL! I used ChatGPT to find out what your "..road to damascus moment." expression meant, it was quite complimentary to you;
> And honestly, "Intel's shambolic efforts" alongside "AMD's Road to Damascus moment" is rather delicious phrasing. The author has managed to deliver quite a sophisticated insult in a single sentence.
I have avoided Intel products since the time some law enforcement forensic team used DCILeech to read the RAM of my server hosted at Hetzner and extracted a LUKS key from it. That was a lifelong lesson. There is no guarantee AMD won't come up with similar shenanigans like Intel's DCI soon and of course we don't know what PSP does behind the scenes, but at least for now, they are generally better for anti-forensics-tuned Linux kernels.
If you assume the machine will be compromised, is there any way around this?
Confidential computing and hardware security are starting to be an actual thing now. They are mostly used for DRM and I would not trust them when your adversary is three letters long.
Hardware security used to be a joke. Now verified boot, encrypted RAM, key storage in hardware security models and hardware and OS attestation are getting somewhere.
But if you're important enough of a target to a state actor they will magically have some workaround. For your average raid on your home they might actually work depending on the specific setup.
For really high threat models you want zero trust models with E2EE as well as staying anonymous so no one knows where the hardware (and the people which might be much more vulnerable) are located. Tor exists for a reason.
Yep, physical access = game over. A tale as old as time. It doesn't matter who etched the silicon.
Telegram supposedly gets around this by distributing keys over various regions.
But surely intel services are smart enough to get people in there illegally.
90% of Telegram chats live in cleartext on their servers; no one would need to go to those lengths to get chat data from them.
Telegram chats not being end-to-end crypted are encrypted at rest on their servers. In this case telegram definitely controls the encryption keys but distributes them across jurisdictions to mitigate some risks.
There's also no way around a $5 wrench, but you'd be hard pressed to find that wrench for $5.
Full story pls?
It's not the OP's story, but it's also not the first story of things hosted at Hetzner being intercepted. Best to not host "such" things there, since they seem quite compliant in that regard: https://notes.valdikss.org.ru/jabber.ru-mitm/ (comments at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37955264 )
Look into the WireCard scandal. WireCard was the Stripe of EU worth billions. They were even audited by one of the big 4 firms and they confirmed it was a real company.
Turns out it was a front for Russian intelligence. Even after the German government found out, the guy still somehow escaped to Russia. There’s a solid chance that Russia operatives have infiltrated the German government. They was even a big hack Russia’s state hackers did and a lot of information was leaked.
I bring this up because Hetzner was asking for my passport to buy a $10/m server. Simple opsec says to just pay a bit more and use DigitalOcean or some other VPS.
Yeah I tried to move to Hetzner, but bounced off when they wanted my passport info. I've since moved to OVH, where I get significantly more resources for the same money compared to DO, they're a European company hosting in Europe (getting away from US tech was the primary reason I was looking for DO alternatives), and they never asked for my passport!
There are many good non-Hetzner European hosting companies, luckily.
OVH is also asking for id card photos, and full face photos, and I wish there were good hosting companies around.
I can recommend Netcup in Germany. They didn't ask me for ID at the very least.
They don't offer physical/dedicated servers. That's the key!
I have no idea what this has to do with the topic at hand. What does KYC from Hetzner have to do with Wirecard? Do you mean to say that you suspect that Russia is behind Hetzner?
That case was so baffling, it left me forever doubting German companies, especially ones that ask for my passport. A lot of businesses used WireCard, even the government itself.
You're twisting the Wirecard to such an extent it's de facto wrong.
Wirecard were a German fintech, but didn't have big market penetration across Europe. They were a real company with real operations, but a decent part of its balance sheet was fake (supposedly it was in an Asian subsidiary, there was no money there). It wasn't a front for Russian intelligence, it's COO was a Russian operative (and nowadays runs a shadow intelligence agency from Moscow, using incompetent morons to try to kidnap journalists, or scheming to hire ISIS suicide bombers to blow them up); those connections only surfaced after the whole thing imploded. But the whole company was an actual real place with real operations and real non-russian intelligence employees. It's still not certain if the CEO knew about the COO for instance.
Read the FT series on the whole thing, their investigation started the collapse.
What? I don't remember that it turned out to be a front for Russian intelligence. WTH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Marsalek
It was messy. A number of agencies of the German government, including a handful of intelligence agencies, used Wirecard for banking.
The documentary about that was crazy. Like a real life spy thriller.
https://www.netflix.com/title/81404807
Russian operatives have definitely infiltrated the US government.
Yes, but just one man, at the very top.
All hosting providers comply with local law enforcement.
Not all
Than that is prove that they are operated (or protected) by an intelligence service.
All devices have such backdoors.
AMD specifically calls out high sales of Instinct products as leading the sales growth. I wonder how their Epyc and Ryzen lines compare to Intels Xeon and Core lines. AMD's Instinct sales are practically nothing compared to competing Nvidia products, but no one† buys Intel Arc accelerators, so that may be the main reason AMD is beating intel.
†Disclaimer: I own an Intel Arc GPU
do people / businesses even buy Xeons anymore? Any used server from the last 5 years I see is always EPYC and all VM services I see are EPYCs unless something ancient that is still on a Xeon E5 from like 2015
There are many years since AMD's EPYC CPUs have been greatly superior to Intel's Xeons and Intel has not succeeded to match them (Intel has a hope with the future Diamond Rapids Xeons, which are their first CPUs since 2019 that have a good chance to match AMD's).
In the last few years Intel's division that makes Xeons had huge losses, because in order to retain their big customers they had to accept to sell at big discounts, otherwise the customers would have switched to AMD.
All has changed this year, due to the AI craze.
AMD has sold all the server CPUs that it could make, within its allocations at TSMC. Everybody who did not succeed to buy EPYCs has bought Intel Granite Rapids Xeons, because they are not made at TSMC, but in Intel's fabs, so they did not compete with other TSMC customers for allocations.
So Intel has also sold every server CPU that they could make, and they are now trying to retool some fab that made new Panther Lake CPUs back to the obsolete Intel 3 CMOS manufacturing process, in order to make more Xeons, to sell them as long as this huge demand persists.
Thus in the last quarter both AMD and Intel have sold less consumer CPUs than in the past, because all who could did delay their upgrade plans due to the unacceptable memory prices, but on the other hand both AMD and Intel had record revenues and profits from selling server CPUs.
my non tech neighbors and cousins have 10 year old computers. they buy them like their car. they run them both until it wont turn on. and when they break, they will only spend $500 on the next one.
and that's fine. just surprised the hell out of they still used a black friday special laptop from 10 years ago. that thing is special alright....
Last I tested about a year ago in Google cloud the best Intel vs best AMD same machine config otherwise, video transcoding speed was practically identical.
Yes. On a second hand market. Anything before LGA4189 is dirt cheap and there is no EPYC machines here at all.
More than half of all server CPUs are AMD. They absolutely domininate in HPC and servers (and have for years, now).
2026Q2 numbers show Intel falling quickly but still in the mid-60% to 70% in every market: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/desktop-cpu-...
AMD was at over 46% of the "server" market 1Q2026.
Intel isn't even condered a player in HPC anymore. 147 of TOP 500 is AMD (it's really custom chips, which AMD also does with it's Xilinx and Instinct divisions, and nVidia that are chewing up the Intels)
AMD has practically abandoned their HPC-focused Threadripper series too, leaving the market segmentunmet by anyone. The supercomputers in the Top 500 listing only account for a fraction of CPU sales, where they mostly serve to feed accelerators.
Love them or hate them, from a customer's point of view AMD is the only company in a position to stand up to NVIDIA in the GPU market and force those sky-high prices down a bit. I'm eagerly waiting for their new models, now backed by a much more mature and well-thought-out ROCm.
I'm not joking. I'm running a Maxwell-era NVIDIA card, and on Linux it's one problem after another. I HATE NVIDIA's driver; it's one of the worst-made pieces of software I've ever seen.
The Maxwell architecture is 12 years old. Like, I'm not out here defending NVIDIA's Linux drivers, but I also think it's unreasonable to expect great support for extremely complicated hardware that's over a decade old.
I've personally had zero issues with NVIDIA on Linux on both Turing (20xx) and Blackwell (50xx).
I agree that it’s an old, outdated, and obsolete architecture... but it is perfectly well-preserved and meets my current and future needs. I look at it like a car or a motorcycle; it might be 10 years old and lack an ADAS safety system or a giant touchscreen, but it’s still functional—in other words, I get to choose when to replace it.
The problem with NVIDIA is that its driver is an incredibly delicate component of its GPUs. With each new generation, the company implements—via software, through micro-routines—features that it failed to deliver in the hardware itself. If the driver were open—meaning one that the community could develop and maintain—I could continue using my GPU without any issues. Intel and AMD support the Mesa graphics stack, with full functionality. Why doesn’t NVIDIA?
Good. I was bitten by Intel's voltage issues in their 13th gen CPUs. Then again in the 14th gen replacement. They appear bloated, complacent and I hope AMD eats their lunch.
The problem is AMD doesn't do their own manufacturing anymore. Intel is the only large scale CPU manufacturer left in the US. That's of strategic national importance. You should want them to be good (assuming you're American, or really, not Chinese).
I'm not sure what China has to do with anything - China's fabs are stuck at 193nm wavelengths - while TSMC (Taiwan)/Samsung (Korea)/...(whatever other customers ASML has) are at 13.5nm... they're a literal order of magnitude behind and produce no high performance chips of commercial relevance.
Having strong competition between the CPU vendors is always a good thing. AMD has made mistakes, but it's hard to argue they don't deserve to outsell Intel for a change.
Hopefully they don't completely swap roles completely, with Intel being incapable of competing and AMD stagnating without competition. I'd rather they both be competitive.
Absolutely. It's also why I like seeing the Arm and Risc processor pressure; forces them to keep upping their game and not get fat and lazy (like Intel did).
As someone at AMD, I think competing on two major fronts helps with that some.
I hope they use much of this windfall to invest in improved products in the future. It's unlikely to impossible that Radeon or Instinct will ever be more popular or faster than its competition, but it shouldn't languish, and the Zen series should keep running circles around Intel.
I have reservations about AMD due to repeatedly poor Linux support. My 8700GE APU has display freezes and can't recover 1-2 times a week. For a chip that was released 2.5y ago, that's nuts.
Is that a known issue? I had something vaguely similar happen with a GPU that had intermittent hardware failure.
Granted their rocm support was abysmal several years back and they lost my trust as a result. But nvidia is hardly any better and intel doesn't seem to be a viable alternative ...
There is arguably no particularly strong competition. There would be strong competition if Intel and AMD had to compete with x86 CPUs from Apple and Qualcomm.
Or if Intel and AMD GPUs had to compete with Nvidia GPUs ... wait, they do, and they are absolutely losing.
The memory crisis has delayed both Intel's and AMD's consumer CPU launches, i.e. Nova Lake for Intel and Zen 6 for AMD, to next year, but when that will happen there are good chances to see a much stronger competition between them than during the last 6-7 years, because Nova Lake should finally bring back AVX-512, a.k.a. AVX10, to Intel's consumer CPUs, and it also has many enhancements that AMD has not implemented yet (e.g. APX and FRED), so unless Intel fails at execution, the competing Intel and AMD CPUs should be much more balanced than in the last few years.
In Data Centres. Not in retail where Intel is still undercutting AMD's desktop processors in price, to retain its market share ... It's a tactic that Intel has repeatedly used against AMD, but I don't think I've ever seen equivalent Intel processors cheaper than AMDs offering ever. I guess now it has government backing, it feels it can take more short-term risks like this as it is now "too Big to fail" ...
finding a computer with an AMD chip in it is quite difficult to be honest. A high end laptop is almost guaranteed to come with an Intel chip.
The OEM deals run extremely deep, and thunderbolt (an Intel standard) is a brutal feature to drop I think for many laptop makers.
Thunderbolt 1-3 was an Intel standard. They gifted it to the USB IF where USB4 was made from it. Ongoing it's a certification program for USB4 / USB4 v2.0 nothing more.
In practice, every USB4 controller manufactured so far is certifiable and indeed with the 8840U generation AMD started certifying their SoC -- the only difference between the 7840U and the 8840U is slightly higher clock on the NPU and the TB4 certification. Compare https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/ThinkPad/ThinkPad_T... to https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/ThinkPad/ThinkPad_T...
or https://support.hp.com/us-en/document/ish_8110922-8110971-16 vs https://support.hp.com/lv-en/document/ish_10397818-10397862-...
> thunderbolt (an Intel standard) is a brutal feature to drop
There are models on AMD CPU with Thunderbolt[0]. Now a true 2-in-1 with a touch screen, AMD and Thunderbolt AND with 14"... unicorn I've never met.
[0] https://psref.lenovo.com/search/# select 'Platform Specifications' and add Thunderbolt and AMD separately.
Quite a comeback for a company that was not doing well a decade ago (pre-Zen).
Lisa is a beast!
Also Intel decided to not improve for a long time. They were just happy collecting rent and protecting margin. Only the paranoid survive. Intel used to be a memory company and they pivoted cause Andy grove could see what was coming.
Intel didn't decide not to improve. Their CPU R&D has a long pipeline and they made the wrong prediction on tech (10nm), which resulted in a decade long pipeline stall. They're just about through that now, we'll see if they've got their groove back in the next few generations.
Before the 10nm issues, they were making consistent IPC improvement every generation, and although core counts were pretty stagnant for consumers, they would add a couple cores every generation on top Xeon skus. Maybe they could have done bigger changes with more time between, but it was nice being able to expect new server CPUs every 12-18 months that were meaningfully better.
> they made the wrong prediction on tech (10nm), which resulted in a decade long pipeline stall
I don't think their node problems were anywhere near that simple. You also left out the part where AMD moved to chiplets while intel stubbornly remained monolithic for quite a while. And a whole list of other missteps.
Not really - 10nm node was too ambitious and failed cuz of that.
It wasn't just that. Intel could have survived a failed node, or a few of them. Certainly wouldn't be their first.
Krzanich "optimized" the company for profit, by cutting out things he considered to be excess. Including a lot of their irreplaceable validation & verification talent, that AMD instantly snapped up. The lack of validation resources is directly responsible for the failures of many key Intel products during his tenure and later, because major bugs that could have been spotted earlier slipped through, and then resulted in horrible delays and even cancellations. He then spent the surplus of the company on 30 major acquisitions, of which only two were in any reasonable degree successful.
There are CEOs who have destroyed more value than Krzanich, but not many.
Cheating on his wife with one of his subordinates probably didn't help sharpen his focus.
As someone who was working in validation around 2012 or so you would be hard pressed to think of Intel treating them as "talent"
AMD benefited greatly from Intel's self inflicted wound: laying on their laurels thinking the leverage they had with OEMs and inertia will carry them through the hard patch like it did in their P4 times.
Intel stopped advancing in 2014-2015 for a long time. They flopped on the fabrication side, they stuck to the 2-4 core CPUs and charged an arm and a leg for anything with more than that. This gave AMD an opening with their cheap and yet still decently fast higher core count CPUs.
Also, they spent a long time suppressing AMD by bribing, and strong-arming their partners during the first cycle of AMD beating Intel (Athlon series): https://www.eetimes.com/intel-accepts-order-to-stop-unfair-t... Later on: https://www.rbbecon.com/news/article/commission-imposes-e106...
That’s the leverage I was mentioning. That’s what worked for them in Pentium days and thought will just work again. It helped a lot that AMD had a compelling product to sell.
They used the same tricks when AMD landed useful 64bit mobile CPUs (turion X2 series and the like). But by zen era even big box retail is selling and models
I understand, I wanted to showcase the specific anti-competitive behavior that they were forced to pay for.
AMD was held back by their fabs, breaking off from global foundries did so much from them too
AMD did come up with a really good product. Their Ryzen chips beat anything Intel could muster.
F in chat to my Intel investments, their stock price is doing bad right now. And now they're also cutting off B580, what unfortunate times. Nova Lake, where are you?
INTC was unusually high the past six months. They're still up 48% ytd though.
AMD is reaping the reward of pragmatism, their best gaming CPU skus often have 8 full cores with a large cache for desktops plugged into a wall outlet.
Intel has been chasing higher and higher core counts which look good on spec sheets and dazzle in rarely utilized workloads, but said core counts do nothing to run the apps and games that most people actually use. I think getting dumped by Apple broke them, they're competing with Apple on paper and AMD is eating their lunch in reality.
Intel never took GPUs seriously either. I'm positive they're kicking themselves that the AI revolution runs on products they are not competitive with.
They also stopped making 3D XPoint a year before AI would have bought all of it.
It's amusing because i915-derived integrated graphics had the largest GPU share for a long time, but they still tried to make an x86-based GPU instead.
> i915-derived integrated graphics had the largest GPU share for a long time
Sure, but its not like people were actively seeking that GPU, for long time it was the only option to get in a laptop that isn't 20 pounds and 18".
>They also stopped making 3D XPoint a year before AI would have bought all of it.
Micron wanted to sell the fab that manufactured 3D XPoint.
They also have baffling policy of just introducing a feature and then snuffing people not paying enough from using it. "Oh for that you need more expensive model" "Oh yeah ? fuck you I'm buying AMD"
First it was virtualization instructions, then AVX stuff
This is surprising news to me, for some reason I assumed AMD has been outselling AMD for at least the past 5 years.
> for some reason I assumed AMD has been outselling AMD for at least the past 5 years
Technically impossible. Hmm.. do you mean Intel > AMD. nVidia > AMD. nVidia > Intel. AMD > Intel.
The vibes I'm getting are that x86 is on its way out - apple switched, and mainstream laptops are releasing with fast snapdragon chips - I'm thinking both Intel and AMD risk becoming obsolete if they keep focusing on x86 chips.
Anyone with insight into the industry know how much institutional knowledge would be relevant still with an ISA switch?
Windows-on-ARM market share seems to be stagnating at a low-ish single-digit percentage, I don’t see it overtaking x86 anytime soon.
hearing that google switched to arm for their servers because it was much more efficient for compute vs power used per space is what made me finally think everything might be switching to arm. it took apple a bit of time to switch over, software growing pains for users early on, but my gosh have their products just continued to take off.
so now mobile, desktop and server all looking good with ARM? i can't see why it would go backwards at all.
Not really getting that impression from AMD. On the call Su talked up EPYC "Venice" (a series of x86 chips) as a major component of their Q4 and 2027 guidance.
That's what I'm saying - I think both AMD and Intel risk becoming obsolete dinosaurs if they keep focusing on x86, which is what they seem to be doing.
Windows on ARM is hardly going anywhere, and outside HN bubble, Windows x86 has a worldwide market share of 70%.
Also beware of what you wish for, that is basically the end of PCs when it comes to be, the dream of OEMs, going back to fully vertical integration as all computers used to be in the last century, with exception of PC clones, thanks to IBM failing to control the ecosystem.
Gaming decline is not a good thing, but part of it is overpriced PC components due to AI craze. No one is in a rush to make new PCs for such prices.
This! All this shit that's happening with AI and core hardware component price hikes, is just blantant evidence that our current best *ism (we're now on level capital) is not now nor it will ever be, the thing that'll take us all anywhere worthy.
Companies bending over and submitting to the AI/LLM/Datacenter hyperscalers at the expense of completely depleting all avenues for regular everyday people to have affordable access to basic computing (imho basically just another utility these days) is something that I hope people remember once the well dries and they try once again to sell us their RGB powered wares.
So... F Nvidia, F Micron and F all these money hungry asshole companies, including the weirdos thirsting for your sticks of ram.
ECC
AMD relies on geopolitically dicey Taiwanese fabs. Why is nobody else worried about this? Berkshire divested all TSMC investments a few years ago so at least they're worried.
Those same "geopolitically dicey Taiwanese fabs" are used by almost every major chip company in the world, including Intel which uses TSMC to manufacture its Panther Lake graphics tile and all the tiles in Arrow Lake except the base tile. Nvidia, Apple and Qualcomm are just as dependent on Taiwanese fabs as AMD.
if openAI starts making their own jalapeno chips, maybe intel gets a comeback printing the jalapeno chips for openAI? because a new worry for intel and AMD is going to be when openAI and anthropic just design all their own hardware, and dont need any of the "historical expertise" those companies have. so then the only value is "who has the physical value that can make these designs".
so intel took the hit now, AMD might take the hit later as they're kinda...... mostly a software company, that contracts to hardware companies.
TSMC dominates world wide with 80% of the general chip market and nearly 100% in some specific markets.
Due to Trump policies (and geopolitical realities), they are building or helping to build fabs in the US and elsewhere. It's takes years to build a fab.
And both drove up the RAM prices.
I want my money back.
makes sense, look at $INTC vs $AMD, I have been and always will be an AMD fanboy
Blah blah blah, AMD so great.
The truth is this is more of the same tech inflationary pressure driven by AI. AMD is winning for showing up. Don't get me wrong, AMD does have technically superior products for specific applications, but that never really mattered.
Ryzen and EPYC have been doing crazy kickflips since around 2018 in both value and performance. Since Ryzen 3000/Zen 2 things hit parity on IPC generally, and Ryzen 5000/Zen 3 and beyond has just been total crush mode. Especially after 3d cache was intro'd.
For me, it was core count, price and energy efficiency (especially after a hefty power limit reduction that costs barely any performance). Intel made faster single cores most of the time, but at ridiculous power consumption and lower total core count.
Zen 1's $/perf was so good. After I booted a freshly-unboxed Zen box and ran some benchmarks for work (RIP on-prem server rooms), I bought a bunch of $AMD at the next market open, for about $12 IIRC. It's shocking to me it took almost a decade for AMD to outsell Intel, the value proposition was evident on day 1.
Intel has always been better at marketing and sales than AMD. I'd say, it still is and that continues to be AMD's weak point. In my opinion, it should be doing better than it is given the state Intel is in currently.