| If the next-gen CPUs live up to the hype ...
| if Navi ends up being a worthwhile solution ...
| [a] 24 percent year-over-year [decline] ...
| single-digit percentage revenue growth [...] could end up being conservative ...
| depending on how things play out ...
| It's all speculation at this point ...
| though that bit is less clear ...
| There are plenty of "ifs" ...
... there is nothing BUT ifs in this piece.
This piece is fluff.
No reason to think that. Ryzen showed that despite years of neglecting gamers (FX really was horrible for games) they come back as soon as the offer is better. Maybe less in the first generation, but in the second of just having the better offer they do (with the Ryzen 2000 series).
AMD is already still popular in the RX 570/580 segment, if Navi were competitive AMD would be fine there.
CUDA might be a different story, that depends on the software and if tensorflow etc is even still relevant then.
But the 2600X is unlocked and comes with a better cooler. And the Ryzen 5 2600 is cheaper than both while also being unlocked, and the cooler is still better than that of the i5. The 2600 especially is really attractive, even more so if you factor in that AM4 is the better supported platform (it will run on the board you bought for the Ryzen 3 1200 when that series was released, and it is supposed to run the Ryzen 3000 series).
There now is the i5-9400F which is again a little bit faster than the i5-8400 while being cheaper. If that one had a cheaper board than the Z390 chipsets supporting it out of the box it would be a real reason for AMD to lower the price of the Ryzen 5 2600(X).
Thank you :)
As 7nm continues to mature there is significant potential for AMD to grow sales if they are releasing a 2nd gen 7nm product at the same time as Nvidia is releasing 1st gen. Small market share means greater growth potential.
AMD is also in a better position than ever before because of having CPU, GPU, and next-gen custom SOCs consolidated on a single process, which means they are a much higher volume customer for TSMC than ever before, which means priority treatment, and they are manufacturing the broadest range of designs on that node, which means their internal knowledge of it is the best.
3Q is the earliest that they will see any revenue from these products, which is why the are forecasting 2Q decline. 3Q will likely be partial ramp, but 4Q should see a big pop.
AMD just don't seem to push the software side hard enough.
Right now AMD is kinda usable-ish on DX and so and so in OpenCL if one spends a lot of time optimizing specifically for them.
Their OpenGL support is atrocious. Their Vulkan implementation is full of bugs.
AMD has had issues with drivers for ages. And there is no improvement in sight.
I haven't got stuck into it yet, but when I was doing some research it seemed like the AMD team had invested a lot of effort in minimizing the work needed to either support/port CUDA-specific code.
I'm optimistic about AMD fighting their way back into contention as far as deep learning goes. I don't know what that means in the gaming world, but I assume a win in the former will help them in the latter.
As to why you should care, it depends at what level you work. I'm not a graphics/HPC programmer, so I can't really comment on what you'd be using it for in those areas.
For DL applications, though, CUDA/CUDNN used to be the only GPU libraries that offered some of the common/optimized operations you'd encounter in deep learning (e.g. 2d convolutions). That meant you were limited to NVIDIA GPUs within all the higher level frameworks (Tensorflow/Pytorch/etc).
With ROCm more developed, it can supplant CUDA as the low-level library for those frameworks. This means you can start using AMD GPUs for training/inference, which are considerably cheaper.
In fact, in the few months that have passed since I last checked, it now appears that ROCm supports TF - big step.
it means you're no longer locked to NVIDIA GPUs
Right now nvidia reigns supreme because they have the best peak performance and value proposition. If AMD presents an option that upends this the ratios would change dramatically.
Just as we saw when ATI/AMD share halved over just two years when their designs were no longer competitive.
Despite the faults in Nvidia's cards, they still outsold AMD something like 10:1. Jim from AdordedTV goes into great depth on this strange era of GPU competition and dives deep into the press at the time and retrospective statistics.
"Competitive" is more than just raw performance, it seems.
But that has more to do with Apple's anti-Nvidia vendetta and me wanting to consolidate my gaming computer into an eGPU than any particular preference in GPU manufacturers.