title says 53 years, and from what my math says 1980-2023 is 43 years, and since they skipped 2000's it even should be 33.... so i don't know if their date related knowledge is anything to go by edit: went with description and "[...]since the 1980s", since it's the first biggest info they provide
The CHIPS outperformed Intel's, but the company did not at that time, and that's the metric they're using, but yes, they vastly oversimplified and cherrypicked facts for this.
@conradconradcon This one appears to be a paid advert by Intel (intel paying for competitive advantage again). This time they are just paying WSJ instead of Vendors
The video missed one critical point. Intel bribed companies to not use AMD and made some modifications so that some software couldnt run better if it detected AMD chip.
As Anandtech put it in their article "Intel reworked their compiler to put AMD CPUs at a disadvantage. For a time Intel’s compiler would not enable SSE/SSE2 codepaths on non-Intel CPUs, our assumption is that this is the specific complaint. To our knowledge this has been resolved for quite some time now (as of late 2010)." It was only proven years later when a system was fooled into thinking it was running AMD while real chip was Intel and the performance suddenly dropped.
@@rahulagrawal2381 It wasn't proven years later, it got caught pretty early, since the perfromance drop was quite big and what Intel was doing could be caught with just a simple spoofing of the vendor ID, soon after that people started making recompilers for the .exes.
Plus inventing* 64-bit architecture, plus building the first multi-core CPUs... AMD hasn't simply been "copying and playing catch-up for 53 years" *Thanks to others who pointed out that Intel 64-bit Itanium was released first. They didn't "invent" 64-bit computing, but they brought an x86 compatible 64-bit architecture to market and popularized it.
@@tilapiadave3234 in actual i think, if AMD made a strong decision to surpass these barriers faced, they can do it but why isnt is the question, apart knowing practical scenarios. Well it may even feel like greatest lie.
Lisa Su gets a lot of glory, and while it's pretty much deserved, I think that Rory Read deserves more credit than is generally given for keeping AMD afloat until the turnaround tech was ready. I hope he got enough stock and/or options to compensate for having to take the public hits that he did.
Agree with that, Su earned all the credit she's getting, however RR saved AMD from ruin and set the ship in the right direction. RR was also responsible for selecting Lisa Su as his replacement. It's unfortunate he's mostly been forgotten.
AMD was also working on arm based chip. So ditching that for x86 and success on that was a bold decision. Research and development teams are also worth giving credits
The cpu pins are NOT the same as transistors as pins are what are used to connects the motherboard and the transistor is a tiny switch that controls the flow of electrons.
This video is not true at all. They were not just Copy cats. AMD was licensed by Intel to manufacture its x86 chips to sell to vendors. Dell started off with PC's Limited by using AMD chips that were conservatively clocked at 4 MHz and overclocked them much higher gaining market share. AMD later went on to use the same licensed instruction set implementing different CPU's. AMD surpassed Intel breaking the GHz barrier around 2000 with the Athlon chip. Intel played dirty by blocking other OEM's from manufacturing products with AMD chips to the point that Asus hid its first Athlon motherboard and sold it in a plain brown box. Intel never paid a price for this. For the next few years AMD had a chance of unseating Intel as intel produced a lackluster Pentium 4 architecture that had lower performance and higher clock speed. But AMD never really gained market share more than 20%, and Intel used its clout and monopoly to block AMD from the market place. AMD's big opportunity came when Intel tried to change its architecture from x86 to Itanium, which failed, AMD improved the x86 architecture to 64 bit and called it AMD64. Bill Gates made a deal to help AMD by promising to help support AMD64 instruction set in exchange for Jerry Sanders testifying in its anti trust suit against the government that Microsoft was working outside its Wintel Completion. Microsoft developed Windows for both Itanium and AMD64, but when Intel's Itanium flopped they asked Microsoft to develop a Windows version for their own x86/64 Instruction set/architecture to which Microsoft told them no and GO COPY AMD64 ARCHITECTURE IF THEY WANTED an x86 Windows - SO WHO IS THE COPYCAT? During most of the 2005 to 2016 Intel ruled the roost with iCore CPU's and AMD had neither process right not their designs. During this time development and customer value sucked as Intel had almost all of the market, Intel went generation after generation changing Sockets and pinouts forcing users to upgrade their hardware for very little performance. Then AMD sold off its FAB's (Chip Plants) and focused on Design with Sledgehammer architecture - and no this had nothing to do with Lisa Sui - she just happened to be there - sure she is great but all of this was in the works. They regained their focus and slowly re-took the performance lead while Intel struggled with Process and Manufacturing which AMD no longer was in the business of (Handing it over the TSM who was the strongest process company). They also focused strongly on R & D and solid pipeline of products and they executed well while at the same time intel faltered with process, and basically lost its way with all kinds of woke nonsense, etc. Intel is a dead company they were supposed to be dead since the early 2000's but they managed to survive despite them being lost back then but they used their muscle to rally out from the limited time window a competing product gives them before its too late. AMD has not done very well on the Graphics front but that seems to be changing, although they dominate in the console market. Most large companies rein usually come to an end - Intel just got lucky but they have always been a poorly executed company from an engineering stand point. There are many details i left out - like the Pentium 4 Fiasco, the DIV/0 error in the first gen Pentium. Eventually many large companies may end up using their own chips as ARM becomes better and more popular - Apple is already doing it, Amazon and Google will shortly.
@@anchorbubba Isreali dream. Lol but for real these companies are just companies, there's no real reason to be a fanboy when they all do shady stuff from time to time to keeptheir profit margins high. Companies aren't your friends but they do make good products from time to time.
AMD is the reason Intel stopped selling dual core CPUs in 2022. See, they come up with 10 core i3 cpu ;) Also, AMD is the reason they come up with Arc GPUs. AMD is forcing Intel to change its status quo of selling underpowered CPUs and GPUs (Intel uhd series), and charging hefty sum for any performance upgrade.
Intel can easily release more than 4 cores in the skylake era, when the Xeons have like 20+ cores. They underestimate the consumer needs for more cores.
@DeadManWalking Yes, and no. Just as crypto is drying up a lot of traditional usage of servers is starting to push stuff onto GPUs. There's simply too much data and it's going to get worse. I took one look at ARC and didn't, still don't, understand why they aimed at the consumer market. Server GPUs are a growing market, not a mature market.
Nvidia was a FLOP until the bozo CEO of SGI sold off 3D graphics patents and the whole engineering team to Nvidia, giving nvidia a 2nd shot at life. As for AI, Nvidia got lucky, that same graphics matrix math was also used to resolve AI algorithms and they had 1st mover advantage with the CUDA Api.
@@polycadence8482 Love how losers always call winners lucky, and how they are unlucky to not have been successful. Relying on luck is why you are a FLOP.
@@polycadence8482Not quite. Nvidia saw that people were abusing graphics cards to do parallel computing, so it took the hint and spent 100s of millions developing CUDA.
I wish people would stop equating market cap as some kind of indicator of success. It's not. All it means is that some investors think the company has a chance to grow and are willing to make a gamble. e.g. TESLA with
AMD's merger/acquisition of Xylinx gets them into more markets with an established high-margin player and opens up more TAM through what their IPs can do together. It was the Xylinx merger that pushed them over the Intel cap value.
@@jtd8719 so again, it's speculative based on where the company could be in 5-10 years based on growth that might or might not happen. Most of the stock price is driven by the market meta, by which I mean market factors outside the actual performance of the companies involved. It's a classic bubble.
@@Giffandy5329 speculation for the company can lead to prosperity, as long as the company uses the money they gained from the investors right. If there's no investors making speculative investments, there's no opportunity for the companies to grow because they don't have the capital to take on new things. Remember that the stock market was founded on people pooling money to make spice trade expeditions across the world possible, and those trips were deadly.
Can't forget acquisition of ATI which they have translated into console graphics as well as the Xilinx acquisition. They have taken multiple approaches to expanding business, narrowing it to just chiplets is an oversight.
The Wall Street Journal has a choice about video length and whether or not to spread it across multiple segments. They chose poorly. They missed a chance to demonstrate their claimed ability to interview experts as a way to surface the most relevant history.
AMD beat Intel like 20 years ago, then fall of from grace, now they are even, but AMD is fabless and Intel does have fabs, which is both and asset and a liability
@@ryzenforce I wish. I was an ardent fan of Linux. When I started to use my personal laptop as my office laptop it's almost impossible to work in Linux because of windows products . Even though linux communities tries their best, even a developer like me can't move to Linux because most of the work environment are built around Microsoft app.
I don't know if this video was poorly researched or just heavily oversimplified, but half of the information in this video is incomplete or bordering on incorrect.
A really short sighted view of the Intel/AMD competition. AMD traditionally lagged Intel in process, but at the end of the last century, AMD design lapped Intel and Intel was forced to drop their attempts to lead in processor design, Itanium, and follow AMD's design instead. At the same time, AMD lapped Intel in terms of multicore design. AMD managed to blow their lead of intel yet again, but made the essential move to farm out their fab operations -- just as most of the industry did. The result was they caught up to and passed Intel in process thanks to the Asian fabs. Intel hasn't regained their lead in process, and may never. What occurred was the evening of the desktop CPU market between Intel and AMD, but that market is (and has been) slowly declining vs. non-desktop environment dominated by ARM architectures, which neither Intel nor AMD make.
ARM's still have a long way to go to even try competing on the Server market. Smartphones, tablets, embedded devices, sure, but having reduced instruction sets hurts ARM by limiting what it can process.
A bit shallow reporting. There were other key moments that tarnished Intel reputation. The failure of the 4g/5g wireless chip for Apple, for example, which ended the whole Intel wireless division, not to mention the fact that Apple built their own ARM-base chip, which lost Intel a big customer. AMD fame of late is well deserved in my opinion. I have a surface laptop that runs on AMD. It is quiet, never gets hot, even on heavy tasks, has a brilliant integrated graphics card, I love it.
TSMC is one of the key reasons why everybody, but Intel, is winning. One of the best decisions AMD made was to branch out Global Foundries and move away from the Fabs.
Hmmmm, AWS, Azure and Google Cloud all are going to design their in house server chips. They already are. Leaving AMD alone. Intel will pick them up as costumers for their foundry services 😊 If China would attack Taiwan, AMD is game over too. They will be game over anyway once Pat Gelsinger takes over the market
@@maxjames00077 Agreed. AMD is winning, but only at the moment. It needs to move quickly into the AI chip market like NVIDIA to hedge against the server competition.
@@propersod2390Your mindshare must be back in 2016 if you think Intel is faster or cheaper than AMD. Ever since 2020, AMD is faster, cooler and cheaper.
The current CPU market looks great, competitive and full of amazing bang for bucks! Even though I'm an intel user, i thank AMD for bringing competition into the market and making these processors so budget friendly! Thank you!
The question is: why in 2023 are you still an Intel user? What since 2017 make you stick with Intel? Besides beeing a shareholder, there was no logical reason.
@@ryzenforce lol, as an AMD user myself I can see that Intel did catch up in terms of value, it's not a clear cut like back then. i5 Alder Lake and Raptor Lake is really good for its price (hence why healthy competition is always good for consumers)
@Ryzen I am not that power intensive user that needs all the performance, i do light gaming and a little bit of video editing. Intel offered great bang for bucks when AMD started beating Intel performance wise, specially the i5s lately has been great.
@@ryzenforce same can be answered from you too. As I see amd CEO is a poster child for feminism and that's one of the major reasons why amd doing good despite having awful processors.
What? How could you forget about Athlon, which was superior to Pentium 4 for several years? First as Intel decided to come back to PIII architecture and develop that to what was called Core later it became again competitive to AMD. With P4 Intel was loosing every competition. Even 64-bit architecture was introduced first by AMD with Athlon 64 and for Intel it took another generation to get there.
I was sure last year would end badly for me but I think BNB44X is spot on with what they do and how they do it. Can't say for how long it's going to work and for sure it is overyhped right now but even for half a year or something it would be smart to ride the wave and then jump away eventually but the thing is why this is smart right now is because it's so cheap, won't ever find a better entry than now
>AMD during the early-2000's: Completely roflstomp Intel left right and center >Intel: *violates anti-trust laws multiple times over to gain an unfair advantage* >WSJ: "It took 53 years for AMD to beat Intel"
It isn't cores but the smart phone driving ex-intel foundries to overtake and hold process node leadership. Lisa su wouldn't have succeeded without amd having access to cutting edge tsmc manufacturing. Intel was stuck at 10-14nm for too long. Amd has always had competitive cpu designs.
Piece failed to mention that AMD is also a maker of GPU's comparable to Nvidia, that Intel is just now getting into with it's ARC series. Also mentioned AMD's innovation, but the key in competitiveness was smaller nanometer design, developed and manufactured by Taiwan Semi
They missed a lot of info, probably to try and keep it short. AMD purchase of ATI and then the spinoff of GlobalFoundries, all the cut costs and try to keep pace with Intel's dirty tactics. I have always been a fan of AMD and I new that their roadmap would pay off, I purchased AMD stock a long time ago when it was worth just a few dollars, and look at it now, only wish I would have bought more, I could be retired.
Athlon xps were a struggle.. intels pentium 4 with hyperthreading really was a better cpu.. but i myself had a Athlon xp 2000-2400+. Theb a 3000+ 64 and then a opteron. But then after that i went intel with the core 2 duo. And for 8 years i kept that clu until the Ryzen 2700x and 3800x and now 5800x 3d
It depends on what you use your computer for.... Like 13600k vs 7600x , priced the same, 7600x is significantly better for gaming, but 13600k is leaps and bounds ahead of AM5 for productivity workloads.......
@@nix123ism msrp =/= price, on average the 7600x and non x are 80usd lower than the 13600k, and if you are using DDR4 for productivity it tanks multithreading performance by a lot, at which point you can just get the 7700, raptor lake was a better deal than zen4 when it released, but now zen4 is cheaper, motherboards and ddr5 pricing is going down, IPC is about the same, and intel refuses to lower the selling prices of rpl chips (cuz they are barely making a profit with them).
@@propersod2390 depends. for pure gaming and single thread amd is better nowadays, for multithread intel wins due to their e-cores design(idk why we didn't do that sooner on pc)
Intel’s new CEO is making an aggressive and risky path to turn Intel around, and in 10 years Intel will probably be making AMD’s and NVIDIA’s chips as part of its foundry business
not true, you are missing out the TSMC fabs that are opening up, and also the EU strategy for creating around 10 medium-sized-fabs in Europe, AMD could just switch to Europe in 1-2 years
TSM isnt even building leading edge fabs in the EU lol. Thats all automotive so if AMD switched they’d be leaping backwards. Also EU fabs just aint gonna get off the ground for at least another 5 years - USA fabs have already gone through groundbreaking and construction. In addition, you seem to have no idea what Intel is doing in the node section to compete with TSM and surpass then in PPW. If TSM makes a mistake, or pulls an Intel, Intel will be there, ready to capture most of TSM’s customers, even AMD (if the situation is bad enough) Pat did pull a bet the company move though, and it seems to be working out fine in the engineering and design sides of things, though Intel’s finances are horrible.
@@HKNotch I’m a recent investor in Intel because of their 5 nodes in 4 years, and I can tell you TSMC hasn’t started on transitioning leading edge technology to the rest of the world out of Taiwan, so every day they don’t start, is another day Intel leaps ahead of competition..
@J-P Not really. Why would anyone use foundries controlled by Intel knowing what they did previously to others? Why use Intel's foundry that are light years away of what TSMC or Samsung able to do, cheaper, faster, better? Intel's own actual foundry weren't able to output 10nm chips announced 8 years ago... and they now outsourced to TSMC to be able to produce them. What make you think Intel will deliver? Nothing.
1 year later, let's not forget about the lost contract with Apple that decided to manufacture their own chips now, which is a huge revenue loss for Intel. Also, atm I am writing this comment, intel is facing huge problems with its 13th and 14th generation of chips, with oxydation and voltage issues, leading in a full loss of truth from the consumers (public or private), and therefore long term financial loss.
AMD has an infinitely better and more qualified CEO now too. Gelsinger has led Intel into the gutter through his insistence on making their own fabs. At least so far.
I don't disagree but Intel NEEDS it's own fabs because the US needs fabs. It doesn't help when Intel foundries aren't even using ASML's EUV lithography yet either. The foundry side of Intel is significantly behind, I'm not sure how or why they got stuck on 14nm so long but it's come back to bite them.
I love AMD and had a HP laptop back in 2008 that i bought that had an AMD chip in and it always ran hot. My fellow classmate that had the same model but with an intel chip, ran a lot cooler. I had gotten the same laptop at about about 70 dollar lesser to his but the payback of using it always made me wish that I had bought the intel one. There are those historical legacies of imperfections the AMD will have to fight over Intel. Even if they achieve it, its an entirely different thing to convince those folks who have a knowing of the old to change their minds too... and I am only 34 now. While I say that I love AMD, I am typing this on a laptop, bought in 2024, that has an Intel chip in it. AMD, while its having its moment of glory, should not ever be complacent. Intel, while faltering now, must not loose what they are actually capable of if not for the mediocrity they have been promoting and take risks and make greater strides in innovation. They are both great companies and its the competition between them that enables great products for everyone else.
Great story, I worked for Intel in 1999 at Intel Online Services when Andy Grove was the CEO, I left to work at Cisco Systems, but returned to work in IT at Intel Mask Operations in 2006 supporting the Microsoft SQL Database Clusters and HP Storage Area Networks we had.
AMD has had many products superior to Intel. First processor to achieve 1ghz clock speed. First chips to bring 64 bit architecture to the market. First company to introduce multi-core processors to the market. The only reason Intel did so well previously was due to dirty business tactics and deals bringing products to oem pc's.
Dell, one of Intel's largest customers, just dropped their server processors for AMD's equivalent. AMD will go past Intel soon, if they're not already ahead.
No intel still has a way bigger market share in the server market. Intel also gained 10% in the laptop market share last quarter. And 7% in desktop gain. Intel server chip is still on 10nm. Wait 2 years and their chip on their 20A node will destroy AMD :)
Wait, you didn't mention Jim Keller? "AMD release a new architecture" and you attribute this to "Lisa Su's tenure". While it did happen under Lisa, the head Engineer involved was none other than Jim Keller. The King of CPUs.
This ASA guy either doesnt know what hes talking about, or his statements were taken out of context. AMD was NOT an intel copycat. The only reason they manufactured Intel chips is because this is a requirement by the us mil/gov. they HAVE to have multiple sources to ensure a stable supply and have price and quality competition. AMD started selling fairchild and national semi clones for the same reason as soon as they started their biz, but quickly had their own unique products which were very successful.
It has nothing to do with Tech. It has all to do with management. AMD before Lisa Su became CEO, they were on the brink of brankruptcy while Intel's management did absolutely nothing besides buying back shares.
Yeah, I hate it when people say a Intel or AMD did this or that. Its not a person. Management has changed so many times. A company doesn't really invent things. The people working there do. If someone worked at Intel and invented something brilliant and then starts working at AMD. Then saying the company invented it, idk, makes lil sense to me.
ahh what about the itanium misstep where amd released the first consumer 64 bit processor and even created the 64 bit instruction set that intel had too and still too this day licensed from amd
OMG these people know nothing of computing history. AMD was not a "copy cat". They were a second source supplier mandated by DOD to ensure supply of critical components was not reliant one one company
Lisa Su's appointment as a new CEO was definitely a watershed moment for AMD. Before her, AMD processors were notorious for overheating and instability issues. These problems are still experienced in today's processors. But not so frequently witness this situation nowadays compared to pre-Lisa Su's period. Her ideas and leadership absolutely carried out AMD's prestige to a new level.
To just ignore the many attempts at innovation and successes AMD had in the 70s and 80s is just wrong. AMD developed some very advanced chips that even Intel produced in license for a while (early on). The problem was that AMD often miscalculated the market and their own developments only got into niche markets while intel defined the industry for decades. AMD was on the brink of bankruptcy many times because it took huge risks with innovative developments that rarely payed out. Its nice to see that AMD has finally broken the mold it was stuck in for so long.
Intel lost because they decided to do manufacturing instead of outsourcing it to TSMC, They never caught up and ended with constant delays. Another big factor of why AMD is because have stay committed to keep making GPUs which Intel has largely ignored until they came out with Intel Arc series just 2 years ago.
AMD's stock is way overvalued, and Intel's is way undervalued, Wall Street is overlooking the effect retail investors have on hype stocks like AMD, Nvidia, and Tesla. Don't get me wrong they are all good companies. However you can still overpay for them, and anyone buying AMD, Nvidia, or Tesla right now is overpaying. As soon as everyone starts talking like they are going out of business, that's when you buy. Intel did more revenue last year than AMD and Nvidia combined just so everyone keeps things in perspective.
WSJ missed more than it go right. It does not mention that AMD is 3-5 years ahead of Intel technologically. Or that ALL supercomputers today are built on AMD processors. Or that AMD rules the data/cloud centers with CPUs up to 96 cores/192 threads while Intel lags far behind in processing power, performance, efficiency, and at triple the cost because AMD has the most advanced chiplet design with Infinity fabric, far superior to Intel's massive security flaw laden chips (google IME and side channel attacks). It also does not mention Intels illegal and ruthless tactics. The only way Intel can compete against AMD state of the art chips is to add more and more power lines to the chip to overclock and push the cpus beyond all reason and make the Intel infernos the least efficient chips. This is one main reason why all supercomputers are built on AMD and why the trend in datacenters is moving constantly towards AMD. In has lawsuits files against them on 4 continents for paying companies under the table not to buy AMD products (google contrarevenue). Intel also paid a compiler company to sabotage AMD generated code to skew benchmarks against AMD. Intel never honored the conditions of information sharing set down by IBM at the outset of this war between Intel and AMD. And let's not forget all the companies that Intel ruthlessly put out of business with some of their illegal tactics. The war between Intel and AMD is very much parallel to the war between Russia and Ukraine.
What this video doesn't mention is that the x86 instruction set is dying... and BOTH AMD and Intel will be declining because of that. The ARM instruction will be the future and other companies are making their chips faster and more power efficient (e.g. Apple, Google, Amazon) leaving Intel and AMD behind.
Well put together video story. I'm a computer geek and I appreciate how you explained the CPU and what it does in layman terms that anyone can get. Kudos to you.
2:07 you make this sound soooooo much easier than it is. New foundries in Europe and the US will offer so many new opportunities for designers like apple tesla etc. ( let's see if india makes it)
I liked ATI graphics a lot back in the day. When AMD purchased ATI, I became a user of a lot of AMD processors and graphics cards over the years. Competition is good. Don't just buy Intel because they blast their marketing onto everything. Intel Arc GPU seemed interesting but I see all the driver issues they are having with games and with Linux too, and I couldn't recommend that to anyone.
I'm an Arc user on Linux, and I'd say most of my issues with it are just because it's such a new platform. I had to build the latest release candidate for the 6.2 kernel from source just to get the kernel driver for it out of the "experimental" status so I wouldn't have to force modprobe to load the i915 driver for that PCI ID. Even the git repo for the Xorg driver for Intel chipsets doesn't support the Arc yet, so I'm stuck on Wayland for the time being, which I'd say is an Xorg problem more than it is an Arc problem. The thing is, I bought it expecting problems and for things to not really work 100% properly for the first few months -- even still it happened to be the best value proposition available and I was intrigued by the nice media encode block. The Windows drivers have gotten leaps and bounds better and are only continuing to get better, which is more than I can say about my experience with Radeon drivers in the past on Windows -- I had a nasty microfreezing bug with my RX480 that persisted for MONTHS. I'm not saying Intel's perfect by any means. They're a company, much like AMD, and at the end of the day the only thing either wants is your money. They're not your friends. Caveat emptor regardless of who you buy from.
Well 10 years of Wall Street CEO's treating Intel like a piggy bank didn't help much either, they milked their old lithography to the absolute limit before finally committing to EUV, and we in the semi tool manufacturing businesses can't build as fastcas Intel wants us to, we're stuck in supply chain shortages. We've already tripled our production, and we're only yalf way to where we need to be after 2 years, because we have to build more production facilities. Been watching this play out from behind the curtain so to speak for the last 14 years.
Who said AMD has beaten Intel? Yes, AMD market share is definitely catching up but then Intel still has 76 percent market share as against 23 percent that of AMD. How can you say AMD has beaten Intel.
For once, in terms of price to performance amd beat intel a while ago, then it’s just a lot of people that simply and think intelligent is better because they don’t look into it and thridly it takes time for people to shift from one company to another doesn’t go that quickly
@ Price- not now, Intel is more expensive and Performance - never!!!! Just because they made a few gaming benchmarks, AMD chips are nothing more than some over-clocked pieces of junk!!! Serious computing still means Intel. The over-clocking in AMD causes some serious issues with the way the CPU executes some concurrent pieces of code (Intel chips handle concurrency far more accurately). I’m involved in some serious coding work and get to see both CPU’s at work(even though the company that I work for and our immediate vendors AND clients insist on Intel Platforms when it comes for serious software development we do have a few floating pieces of AMD machines that are pressed into action at the testing phase) only to be reminded each time that Intel is far superior on serious computing platforms.
@@brioown You don’t need to get a x3d one to have a good chip for productivity, obviously some tech firm is always gonna want the employees to use that what they have been using forever and not change, for the overall use AMD is just cheaper and better simple as it is
AMD K62- 3D Now is when it all started for me. 350MHZ, that was my first AMD CPU. Then K6-2 500MHZ, then Athlon 1Ghz. I've only ever had 2 intel CPUs, the rest were AMD. When Ryzen came out, that was something else entirely. Intel hasn't had an answer since then.
If I remember correctly, AMD was the first to put the memory controller on the CPU chip. This was very innovative and Intel followed that architectural change.
No mention of how AMD chips consistently beat Intel's in performance and price during the 2000s, or how they designed and introduced x86-64, ahead of Intel.
One major thing not mentioned is that Intel for around 5-10 years held market dominance and became very stagnant in that time. Because of that when AMD came out with a better processor they were stuck catching up because of so much neglect to invent something new
This is the second time AMD beats Intel. The first time is in 1999 when AMD releases Athlon CPU. Intel's Pentium III just can't compete with AMD at the time.
Intel has been greedy, that's their main drawback. However they did do one thing right, they have their own factories. And they're right, that will be the key factor, because no matter how good AMD does, at the end of the day their costs come down to production, and if they don't have their own factories, production will always cost more for them. Side note, this video missed that both intel's engineers and AMD's engineers came from the same company before they even started their own companies.
Intel dominated the CPU market from the late 2000's to mid 2010's. They got arrogant and gave users little performance increases and changed expensive prices. Consumers were fed up, and even big partners like Apple abandoned Intel. Intel's fall is their fault.
Its not about lisa su, inovation is from jim keller, he work on foundation on zen architecture, and how its make scalable cheaply, amd way more efficient, jim keller is brain behind apple A cpu and tesla in house cpu
Jim Keller worked on the design a little , but it's my understanding that past zen 1 it's been entirely a team that was organized and trained by Keller to continue on.
Fun fact: James Williamson from the Stooges used to work for AMD after the band broke up. Only guy I know of that has been inducted into both the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and an Engineering Hall of Fame
Pretty outrageous they skipped out the 2000's when AMD had the best chips and intel paid OEMs like Dells $100Ms every year not to use AMD
title says 53 years, and from what my math says 1980-2023 is 43 years, and since they skipped 2000's it even should be 33.... so i don't know if their date related knowledge is anything to go by
edit: went with description and "[...]since the 1980s", since it's the first biggest info they provide
@@1Grainer1 from 1968
cause its about market cap, not individual products
The CHIPS outperformed Intel's, but the company did not at that time, and that's the metric they're using, but yes, they vastly oversimplified and cherrypicked facts for this.
@conradconradcon This one appears to be a paid advert by Intel (intel paying for competitive advantage again). This time they are just paying WSJ instead of Vendors
The video missed one critical point. Intel bribed companies to not use AMD and made some modifications so that some software couldnt run better if it detected AMD chip.
As Anandtech put it in their article "Intel reworked their compiler to put AMD CPUs at a disadvantage. For a time Intel’s compiler would not enable SSE/SSE2 codepaths on non-Intel CPUs, our assumption is that this is the specific complaint. To our knowledge this has been resolved for quite some time now (as of late 2010)." It was only proven years later when a system was fooled into thinking it was running AMD while real chip was Intel and the performance suddenly dropped.
adorned tv did a great video on that
ua-cam.com/video/osSMJRyxG0k/v-deo.html
@@rahulagrawal2381 It wasn't proven years later, it got caught pretty early, since the perfromance drop was quite big and what Intel was doing could be caught with just a simple spoofing of the vendor ID, soon after that people started making recompilers for the .exes.
The conspiracy theorists
@@rahulagrawal2381 . That's crazy. Just another scummy corporate giant.
Plus inventing* 64-bit architecture, plus building the first multi-core CPUs... AMD hasn't simply been "copying and playing catch-up for 53 years"
*Thanks to others who pointed out that Intel 64-bit Itanium was released first. They didn't "invent" 64-bit computing, but they brought an x86 compatible 64-bit architecture to market and popularized it.
True
It's the WSJ what did you expect?
I love my AMD CPU's since my first 486DX4 100MHz but AMD pioneered x64, Intel was first with the 64-bit Itanium.
@@opdinkleberg7078 Definitely not technical or detailed analysis🤣🤣
That worked because Itanium flopped - it was too much of a departure from x86
Energy efficiency is the AMDs greatest achievement
Except for GPU sadly
@mooripo uh....yeah but let's hope for good they will achieve that next
And greatest lie ,,, true in very limited circumstances and certain CPU's .. Opposite in GPU's , they use a lot more than Nvidia
@@tilapiadave3234 in actual i think, if AMD made a strong decision to surpass these barriers faced, they can do it but why isnt is the question, apart knowing practical scenarios. Well it may even feel like greatest lie.
@@ScientificZoom do you really not think that AMD isn’t doing everything they can to catch up to NVidea?
Lisa Su gets a lot of glory, and while it's pretty much deserved, I think that Rory Read deserves more credit than is generally given for keeping AMD afloat until the turnaround tech was ready. I hope he got enough stock and/or options to compensate for having to take the public hits that he did.
agreed he really managed to start a lot of stuff for Intel
Lisa is undisputed god of AMD. She changed the public perception of AMD…. by ALOT.
Agree with that, Su earned all the credit she's getting, however RR saved AMD from ruin and set the ship in the right direction. RR was also responsible for selecting Lisa Su as his replacement. It's unfortunate he's mostly been forgotten.
No one was keeping AMD afloat, cross licensing prevents AMD from ever disappearing.
AMD was also working on arm based chip. So ditching that for x86 and success on that was a bold decision. Research and development teams are also worth giving credits
Things I learned from this video:
CPU pins = transistors
Power capacitors = "the core"
haha....goes on to show even the Tech journalists don't do their job or they simply don't understand.
The cpu pins are NOT the same as transistors as pins are what are used to connects the motherboard and the transistor is a tiny switch that controls the flow of electrons.
@@hill5998 that’s the point of JetFusions comment…
@@JoeLion55 Nah not fusion, he is still only at fission.
@hill5998 whoosh...
This video is not true at all. They were not just Copy cats. AMD was licensed by Intel to manufacture its x86 chips to sell to vendors. Dell started off with PC's Limited by using AMD chips that were conservatively clocked at 4 MHz and overclocked them much higher gaining market share. AMD later went on to use the same licensed instruction set implementing different CPU's. AMD surpassed Intel breaking the GHz barrier around 2000 with the Athlon chip. Intel played dirty by blocking other OEM's from manufacturing products with AMD chips to the point that Asus hid its first Athlon motherboard and sold it in a plain brown box. Intel never paid a price for this. For the next few years AMD had a chance of unseating Intel as intel produced a lackluster Pentium 4 architecture that had lower performance and higher clock speed. But AMD never really gained market share more than 20%, and Intel used its clout and monopoly to block AMD from the market place. AMD's big opportunity came when Intel tried to change its architecture from x86 to Itanium, which failed, AMD improved the x86 architecture to 64 bit and called it AMD64. Bill Gates made a deal to help AMD by promising to help support AMD64 instruction set in exchange for Jerry Sanders testifying in its anti trust suit against the government that Microsoft was working outside its Wintel Completion. Microsoft developed Windows for both Itanium and AMD64, but when Intel's Itanium flopped they asked Microsoft to develop a Windows version for their own x86/64 Instruction set/architecture to which Microsoft told them no and GO COPY AMD64 ARCHITECTURE IF THEY WANTED an x86 Windows - SO WHO IS THE COPYCAT? During most of the 2005 to 2016 Intel ruled the roost with iCore CPU's and AMD had neither process right not their designs. During this time development and customer value sucked as Intel had almost all of the market, Intel went generation after generation changing Sockets and pinouts forcing users to upgrade their hardware for very little performance. Then AMD sold off its FAB's (Chip Plants) and focused on Design with Sledgehammer architecture - and no this had nothing to do with Lisa Sui - she just happened to be there - sure she is great but all of this was in the works. They regained their focus and slowly re-took the performance lead while Intel struggled with Process and Manufacturing which AMD no longer was in the business of (Handing it over the TSM who was the strongest process company). They also focused strongly on R & D and solid pipeline of products and they executed well while at the same time intel faltered with process, and basically lost its way with all kinds of woke nonsense, etc. Intel is a dead company they were supposed to be dead since the early 2000's but they managed to survive despite them being lost back then but they used their muscle to rally out from the limited time window a competing product gives them before its too late. AMD has not done very well on the Graphics front but that seems to be changing, although they dominate in the console market. Most large companies rein usually come to an end - Intel just got lucky but they have always been a poorly executed company from an engineering stand point. There are many details i left out - like the Pentium 4 Fiasco, the DIV/0 error in the first gen Pentium. Eventually many large companies may end up using their own chips as ARM becomes better and more popular - Apple is already doing it, Amazon and Google will shortly.
Thanks for sharing all these. What a story!
When you say "IF THEY WANTED an x86 Windows", did you mean an x64 Windows?
Because Intel played dirty like
-Paying dell and all OEM to not use AMD
-Bribing companies
-Suing AMD at every step
Pinnacle of Intel innovation
down with literally the Goliath of our times, prophet Dawud wins again : )
truly a revolutionary in the American dream
@@anchorbubba Isreali dream.
Lol but for real these companies are just companies, there's no real reason to be a fanboy when they all do shady stuff from time to time to keeptheir profit margins high. Companies aren't your friends but they do make good products from time to time.
Didn't AMD copied Intel for few years
And when did they do that
AMD is the reason Intel stopped selling dual core CPUs in 2022. See, they come up with 10 core i3 cpu ;)
Also, AMD is the reason they come up with Arc GPUs.
AMD is forcing Intel to change its status quo of selling underpowered CPUs and GPUs (Intel uhd series), and charging hefty sum for any performance upgrade.
Intel can easily release more than 4 cores in the skylake era, when the Xeons have like 20+ cores. They underestimate the consumer needs for more cores.
No
Intel is the reason amd exists at all ;)
@DeadManWalking Yes, and no. Just as crypto is drying up a lot of traditional usage of servers is starting to push stuff onto GPUs. There's simply too much data and it's going to get worse. I took one look at ARC and didn't, still don't, understand why they aimed at the consumer market. Server GPUs are a growing market, not a mature market.
@@maxjames00077 yep, thank intel for birthing a far superior CPU maker
A documentary about Nvidia's ultra dominant market position and anticonsumer market practices would be equally interesting.
Agree
Nvidia was a FLOP until the bozo CEO of SGI sold off 3D graphics patents and the whole engineering team to Nvidia, giving nvidia a 2nd shot at life. As for AI, Nvidia got lucky, that same graphics matrix math was also used to resolve AI algorithms and they had 1st mover advantage with the CUDA Api.
@@polycadence8482 Love how losers always call winners lucky, and how they are unlucky to not have been successful. Relying on luck is why you are a FLOP.
@@polycadence8482Not quite. Nvidia saw that people were abusing graphics cards to do parallel computing, so it took the hint and spent 100s of millions developing CUDA.
I wish people would stop equating market cap as some kind of indicator of success. It's not. All it means is that some investors think the company has a chance to grow and are willing to make a gamble. e.g. TESLA with
AMD's merger/acquisition of Xylinx gets them into more markets with an established high-margin player and opens up more TAM through what their IPs can do together. It was the Xylinx merger that pushed them over the Intel cap value.
@@jtd8719 so again, it's speculative based on where the company could be in 5-10 years based on growth that might or might not happen. Most of the stock price is driven by the market meta, by which I mean market factors outside the actual performance of the companies involved. It's a classic bubble.
@@Giffandy5329 speculation for the company can lead to prosperity, as long as the company uses the money they gained from the investors right. If there's no investors making speculative investments, there's no opportunity for the companies to grow because they don't have the capital to take on new things.
Remember that the stock market was founded on people pooling money to make spice trade expeditions across the world possible, and those trips were deadly.
Absolutely true!
>53 years
My brothers in christ
What about the 2000s?
What about x86-64?
What about the anti-competitive lawsuits?
she mostly talked about lisa su .she is a female after all, if u know what i mean
they only cared about the market and money in this one
@@mohammadfardinchowdhury177 yeah, the explanation of the chip is kinda inaccurate as well, or overly simplified.
Can't forget acquisition of ATI which they have translated into console graphics as well as the Xilinx acquisition. They have taken multiple approaches to expanding business, narrowing it to just chiplets is an oversight.
This!
And if people knew that most Inbedded systems uses AMD chips somewhere is also an oversight.
Don’t forget their push into data centers after ryzen dropped… EPYC is a beast
Has AMD been able to take advantage of Xilinx tech yet? Or still running as 2 separate company
@@aerohk well xdna is one of Xilinx things that will be ready for near future
@@aerohk they have AI tiles in their data center products I believe
I knew a under 7 min video covering the history between these 2 companies would miss a ton of stuff.
which also dedicated a portion of this already time constrained piece to explain how CPUs work in a simplified manner
The Wall Street Journal has a choice about video length and whether or not to spread it across multiple segments. They chose poorly. They missed a chance to demonstrate their claimed ability to interview experts as a way to surface the most relevant history.
The switch to TSMC did play a role in their success. If they had stuck to Global Foundries, no way they could've beaten intel.
"a role"? It played the biggest role of anything
No doubt.
@@willberry6434 just like apple and nvidia uses TSMc
Why is TSMC not developing their own chips, why copy intel ????
AMD is gone now.....
Beat intel, only apple !!!!!
Intel would have to let TSMC make their chips to see whose design is the most efficient/performance. (regardless of margin)
AMD beat Intel like 20 years ago, then fall of from grace, now they are even, but AMD is fabless and Intel does have fabs, which is both and asset and a liability
@@kuil Simplified towards misinformation. Bad journalism.
I wouldnt call it a fall from grace but intel actively cheating
@Hackintosh look up amd64 and intel itanium
literally the first minute of the video they say AMD beat Intels market cap for the first time...
@Hackintosh Yea right.
Lisa Su was the best thing ever happened to AMD.
What about Intel bribery to BIllgates to not launch 64 bit OS until Intel have a Amd64 instruction set?
Samething with Win11 with the "scheduler problem" with AMD - a thing that was working properly on Win10.... The future of the Industry is AMD-Linux.
@@ryzenforce most software doesn't support Linux.
@@168original7 It depends in what world you live. If you can write here on UA-cam and watch videos, it's because Linux is somewhere underneath...
@@ryzenforce I wish. I was an ardent fan of Linux. When I started to use my personal laptop as my office laptop it's almost impossible to work in Linux because of windows products . Even though linux communities tries their best, even a developer like me can't move to Linux because most of the work environment are built around Microsoft app.
@@ryzenforce linux is too intimidating for most users
I don't know if this video was poorly researched or just heavily oversimplified, but half of the information in this video is incomplete or bordering on incorrect.
A really short sighted view of the Intel/AMD competition. AMD traditionally lagged Intel in process, but at the end of the last century, AMD design lapped Intel and Intel was forced to drop their attempts to lead in processor design, Itanium, and follow AMD's design instead. At the same time, AMD lapped Intel in terms of multicore design. AMD managed to blow their lead of intel yet again, but made the essential move to farm out their fab operations -- just as most of the industry did. The result was they caught up to and passed Intel in process thanks to the Asian fabs. Intel hasn't regained their lead in process, and may never. What occurred was the evening of the desktop CPU market between Intel and AMD, but that market is (and has been) slowly declining vs. non-desktop environment dominated by ARM architectures, which neither Intel nor AMD make.
ARM's still have a long way to go to even try competing on the Server market. Smartphones, tablets, embedded devices, sure, but having reduced instruction sets hurts ARM by limiting what it can process.
@@triadwarfare Sure, read what I said.
AMD forced intel to try again with the 12th gen chips. Even now, a year later they are still incredible value for the money.
11th gen Tiger Lake was good and beated Zen 3 on laptops.
@@saricubra2867 gen 13 great value too!
A bit shallow reporting. There were other key moments that tarnished Intel reputation. The failure of the 4g/5g wireless chip for Apple, for example, which ended the whole Intel wireless division, not to mention the fact that Apple built their own ARM-base chip, which lost Intel a big customer. AMD fame of late is well deserved in my opinion. I have a surface laptop that runs on AMD. It is quiet, never gets hot, even on heavy tasks, has a brilliant integrated graphics card, I love it.
TSMC is one of the key reasons why everybody, but Intel, is winning. One of the best decisions AMD made was to branch out Global Foundries and move away from the Fabs.
Hmmmm, AWS, Azure and Google Cloud all are going to design their in house server chips. They already are. Leaving AMD alone. Intel will pick them up as costumers for their foundry services 😊 If China would attack Taiwan, AMD is game over too. They will be game over anyway once Pat Gelsinger takes over the market
@@maxjames00077 Agreed. AMD is winning, but only at the moment. It needs to move quickly into the AI chip market like NVIDIA to hedge against the server competition.
@@FragBoyStewie how is amd winning if intel is gaining back market share and its cpus are faster + cheaper...?
@@FragBoyStewie yeah true!
@@propersod2390Your mindshare must be back in 2016 if you think Intel is faster or cheaper than AMD. Ever since 2020, AMD is faster, cooler and cheaper.
Yeah, man. Whoever thought of making those chiplets.. just pure genius. Cost-saving and fast AF.
Hint: it wasn't "AMD" as the article implies...🙄
The current CPU market looks great, competitive and full of amazing bang for bucks! Even though I'm an intel user, i thank AMD for bringing competition into the market and making these processors so budget friendly! Thank you!
The question is: why in 2023 are you still an Intel user? What since 2017 make you stick with Intel? Besides beeing a shareholder, there was no logical reason.
lol, says @Ryzen 😆
@@ryzenforce lol, as an AMD user myself I can see that Intel did catch up in terms of value, it's not a clear cut like back then. i5 Alder Lake and Raptor Lake is really good for its price (hence why healthy competition is always good for consumers)
@Ryzen I am not that power intensive user that needs all the performance, i do light gaming and a little bit of video editing. Intel offered great bang for bucks when AMD started beating Intel performance wise, specially the i5s lately has been great.
@@ryzenforce same can be answered from you too. As I see amd CEO is a poster child for feminism and that's one of the major reasons why amd doing good despite having awful processors.
What? How could you forget about Athlon, which was superior to Pentium 4 for several years? First as Intel decided to come back to PIII architecture and develop that to what was called Core later it became again competitive to AMD. With P4 Intel was loosing every competition. Even 64-bit architecture was introduced first by AMD with Athlon 64 and for Intel it took another generation to get there.
Very true
I was sure last year would end badly for me but I think BNB44X is spot on with what they do and how they do it. Can't say for how long it's going to work and for sure it is overyhped right now but even for half a year or something it would be smart to ride the wave and then jump away eventually but the thing is why this is smart right now is because it's so cheap, won't ever find a better entry than now
This is actually pretty nuts if you think about what you can do with it
Binance wants to bring all other exchanges out of business
BNB is underrated if you think about what happens in 10 years
This works guys I already tested
It's legit, BullishSteve is having promo invites and usually doing raffles on it
>AMD during the early-2000's: Completely roflstomp Intel left right and center
>Intel: *violates anti-trust laws multiple times over to gain an unfair advantage*
>WSJ: "It took 53 years for AMD to beat Intel"
This video is just factually incorrect on so many levels it's insane.
No mention of AMD's x64 architecture?
It isn't cores but the smart phone driving ex-intel foundries to overtake and hold process node leadership.
Lisa su wouldn't have succeeded without amd having access to cutting edge tsmc manufacturing.
Intel was stuck at 10-14nm for too long.
Amd has always had competitive cpu designs.
Piece failed to mention that AMD is also a maker of GPU's comparable to Nvidia,
that Intel is just now getting into with it's ARC series.
Also mentioned AMD's innovation, but the key in competitiveness was
smaller nanometer design, developed and manufactured by Taiwan Semi
Lisa Su saying "I hope you guys have your money ready" was hilarious 😂
They missed a lot of info, probably to try and keep it short. AMD purchase of ATI and then the spinoff of GlobalFoundries, all the cut costs and try to keep pace with Intel's dirty tactics. I have always been a fan of AMD and I new that their roadmap would pay off, I purchased AMD stock a long time ago when it was worth just a few dollars, and look at it now, only wish I would have bought more, I could be retired.
AMD dominated Intel in the early 2000's. The Athlon XP 2500+ and Athlon 64 bit 3200+ come to mind
Athlon xps were a struggle.. intels pentium 4 with hyperthreading really was a better cpu.. but i myself had a Athlon xp 2000-2400+. Theb a 3000+ 64 and then a opteron. But then after that i went intel with the core 2 duo. And for 8 years i kept that clu until the Ryzen 2700x and 3800x and now 5800x 3d
AMD history:
First x86-64 CPU
First real quad core ( core 2 duo wasn't a quad core processor)
I'm a simple man. I look at benchmark tests, price, and then choose AMD.
No, if you actually did that then you would choose intel 😂
It depends on what you use your computer for.... Like 13600k vs 7600x , priced the same, 7600x is significantly better for gaming, but 13600k is leaps and bounds ahead of AM5 for productivity workloads.......
@@nix123ism msrp =/= price, on average the 7600x and non x are 80usd lower than the 13600k, and if you are using DDR4 for productivity it tanks multithreading performance by a lot, at which point you can just get the 7700, raptor lake was a better deal than zen4 when it released, but now zen4 is cheaper, motherboards and ddr5 pricing is going down, IPC is about the same, and intel refuses to lower the selling prices of rpl chips (cuz they are barely making a profit with them).
@@propersod2390 depends. for pure gaming and single thread amd is better nowadays, for multithread intel wins due to their e-cores design(idk why we didn't do that sooner on pc)
Intel’s new CEO is making an aggressive and risky path to turn Intel around, and in 10 years Intel will probably be making AMD’s and NVIDIA’s chips as part of its foundry business
not true, you are missing out the TSMC fabs that are opening up, and also the EU strategy for creating around 10 medium-sized-fabs in Europe, AMD could just switch to Europe in 1-2 years
TSM isnt even building leading edge fabs in the EU lol. Thats all automotive so if AMD switched they’d be leaping backwards.
Also EU fabs just aint gonna get off the ground for at least another 5 years - USA fabs have already gone through groundbreaking and construction.
In addition, you seem to have no idea what Intel is doing in the node section to compete with TSM and surpass then in PPW.
If TSM makes a mistake, or pulls an Intel, Intel will be there, ready to capture most of TSM’s customers, even AMD (if the situation is bad enough)
Pat did pull a bet the company move though, and it seems to be working out fine in the engineering and design sides of things, though Intel’s finances are horrible.
@@HKNotch I’m a recent investor in Intel because of their 5 nodes in 4 years, and I can tell you TSMC hasn’t started on transitioning leading edge technology to the rest of the world out of Taiwan, so every day they don’t start, is another day Intel leaps ahead of competition..
@J-P Not really. Why would anyone use foundries controlled by Intel knowing what they did previously to others? Why use Intel's foundry that are light years away of what TSMC or Samsung able to do, cheaper, faster, better? Intel's own actual foundry weren't able to output 10nm chips announced 8 years ago... and they now outsourced to TSMC to be able to produce them. What make you think Intel will deliver? Nothing.
@@DrakeFromStateFarm TSMC is doing sub 1-nm at this moment, did you know that? Keep buying Intel, that leaves more share from AMD to buy for us.
1 year later, let's not forget about the lost contract with Apple that decided to manufacture their own chips now, which is a huge revenue loss for Intel.
Also, atm I am writing this comment, intel is facing huge problems with its 13th and 14th generation of chips, with oxydation and voltage issues, leading in a full loss of truth from the consumers (public or private), and therefore long term financial loss.
The Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon 64, and Athlon 64 X2 all beat Intel in raw performance per clock. I'm not buying this 53 year thing.
The company hasn't even been around for 53 years
@@vyor8837 AMD was founded in 1969
@@AshtonCoolman but didn't compete with intel for at least another 10 years
A lot of the things explained here are so simplified they kinda stop being representative of the concepts they aim to describe..
AMD has an infinitely better and more qualified CEO now too. Gelsinger has led Intel into the gutter through his insistence on making their own fabs. At least so far.
I don't disagree but Intel NEEDS it's own fabs because the US needs fabs. It doesn't help when Intel foundries aren't even using ASML's EUV lithography yet either.
The foundry side of Intel is significantly behind, I'm not sure how or why they got stuck on 14nm so long but it's come back to bite them.
@@beeman4266 I hope they figure it out because Im American. Having a domestic chip fab would be uh, good.
I love AMD and had a HP laptop back in 2008 that i bought that had an AMD chip in and it always ran hot. My fellow classmate that had the same model but with an intel chip, ran a lot cooler. I had gotten the same laptop at about about 70 dollar lesser to his but the payback of using it always made me wish that I had bought the intel one. There are those historical legacies of imperfections the AMD will have to fight over Intel. Even if they achieve it, its an entirely different thing to convince those folks who have a knowing of the old to change their minds too... and I am only 34 now. While I say that I love AMD, I am typing this on a laptop, bought in 2024, that has an Intel chip in it. AMD, while its having its moment of glory, should not ever be complacent. Intel, while faltering now, must not loose what they are actually capable of if not for the mediocrity they have been promoting and take risks and make greater strides in innovation. They are both great companies and its the competition between them that enables great products for everyone else.
Where did the 1999-2006 go when AMD had the best consumer CPUs?
Great story, I worked for Intel in 1999 at Intel Online Services when Andy Grove was the CEO, I left to work at Cisco Systems, but returned to work in IT at Intel Mask Operations in 2006 supporting the Microsoft SQL Database Clusters and HP Storage Area Networks we had.
This is one of the most inaccurate depictions of how CPUs are structured I've heard listened to.
AMD has had many products superior to Intel. First processor to achieve 1ghz clock speed. First chips to bring 64 bit architecture to the market. First company to introduce multi-core processors to the market. The only reason Intel did so well previously was due to dirty business tactics and deals bringing products to oem pc's.
Dell, one of Intel's largest customers, just dropped their server processors for AMD's equivalent. AMD will go past Intel soon, if they're not already ahead.
No intel still has a way bigger market share in the server market. Intel also gained 10% in the laptop market share last quarter. And 7% in desktop gain. Intel server chip is still on 10nm. Wait 2 years and their chip on their 20A node will destroy AMD :)
@@maxjames00077 lol zen 5 will be waiting
@@miyagiryota9238 18A will be released instead of waiting
Wait, you didn't mention Jim Keller? "AMD release a new architecture" and you attribute this to "Lisa Su's tenure". While it did happen under Lisa, the head Engineer involved was none other than Jim Keller. The King of CPUs.
AMD did what a company should do. Intel became lenient and managers became greedy
Audience: How many factual errors do you want in the video ?
WSJ: Yes.
People of Wall street are drunk or something...? Many times in history including now AMD is faster then Intel, so 53 years sounds little like BS!
Umm. AMD was beating Intel in late 1990's until the core 2 duo was released.
LISA SU is a top tier CEO, steered AMD all the way to the TOP, CPUs are now much much better because of RYZEN
Yes, She saves AMD to disaster!😊❤
The way they described “how a CPU works” is how I imagine every CEO thinks their company works. It’s quite a good laugh actually.
Intel had the first 64-but processor, however the instruction architecture wasn't compatible with x86, so AMD created one which was.
Apple dropping intel completely also hurt them for sure.
I feel old hearing the intel inside tune. I would assume a lot of people wouldn’t know what that signifies anymore 😢
This ASA guy either doesnt know what hes talking about, or his statements were taken out of context.
AMD was NOT an intel copycat. The only reason they manufactured Intel chips is because this is a requirement by the us mil/gov.
they HAVE to have multiple sources to ensure a stable supply and have price and quality competition.
AMD started selling fairchild and national semi clones for the same reason as soon as they started their biz, but quickly had their own unique products which were very successful.
It has nothing to do with Tech. It has all to do with management. AMD before Lisa Su became CEO, they were on the brink of brankruptcy while Intel's management did absolutely nothing besides buying back shares.
Yeah, I hate it when people say a Intel or AMD did this or that. Its not a person. Management has changed so many times. A company doesn't really invent things. The people working there do. If someone worked at Intel and invented something brilliant and then starts working at AMD. Then saying the company invented it, idk, makes lil sense to me.
The smartest "journalist" of the 21st century.
ahh what about the itanium misstep where amd released the first consumer 64 bit processor and even created the 64 bit instruction set that intel had too and still too this day licensed from amd
OMG these people know nothing of computing history. AMD was not a "copy cat". They were a second source supplier mandated by DOD to ensure supply of critical components was not reliant one one company
Lisa Su's appointment as a new CEO was definitely a watershed moment for AMD. Before her, AMD processors were notorious for overheating and instability issues. These problems are still experienced in today's processors. But not so frequently witness this situation nowadays compared to pre-Lisa Su's period. Her ideas and leadership absolutely carried out AMD's prestige to a new level.
Loved my FX8350
Intel die 25 years ago, Intel stock is the same price 25 years ago.
To just ignore the many attempts at innovation and successes AMD had in the 70s and 80s is just wrong. AMD developed some very advanced chips that even Intel produced in license for a while (early on). The problem was that AMD often miscalculated the market and their own developments only got into niche markets while intel defined the industry for decades. AMD was on the brink of bankruptcy many times because it took huge risks with innovative developments that rarely payed out. Its nice to see that AMD has finally broken the mold it was stuck in for so long.
Intel lost because they decided to do manufacturing instead of outsourcing it to TSMC, They never caught up and ended with constant delays. Another big factor of why AMD is because have stay committed to keep making GPUs which Intel has largely ignored until they came out with Intel Arc series just 2 years ago.
AMD's stock is way overvalued, and Intel's is way undervalued, Wall Street is overlooking the effect retail investors have on hype stocks like AMD, Nvidia, and Tesla. Don't get me wrong they are all good companies. However you can still overpay for them, and anyone buying AMD, Nvidia, or Tesla right now is overpaying. As soon as everyone starts talking like they are going out of business, that's when you buy. Intel did more revenue last year than AMD and Nvidia combined just so everyone keeps things in perspective.
AMD processors in general emit more heat, it is not acceptable for some applications
I think the competition is great since it furthers innovation and affordability.
WSJ missed more than it go right. It does not mention that AMD is 3-5 years ahead of Intel technologically. Or that ALL supercomputers today are built on AMD processors. Or that AMD rules the data/cloud centers with CPUs up to 96 cores/192 threads while Intel lags far behind in processing power, performance, efficiency, and at triple the cost because AMD has the most advanced chiplet design with Infinity fabric, far superior to Intel's massive security flaw laden chips (google IME and side channel attacks). It also does not mention Intels illegal and ruthless tactics. The only way Intel can compete against AMD state of the art chips is to add more and more power lines to the chip to overclock and push the cpus beyond all reason and make the Intel infernos the least efficient chips. This is one main reason why all supercomputers are built on AMD and why the trend in datacenters is moving constantly towards AMD. In has lawsuits files against them on 4 continents for paying companies under the table not to buy AMD products (google contrarevenue). Intel also paid a compiler company to sabotage AMD generated code to skew benchmarks against AMD. Intel never honored the conditions of information sharing set down by IBM at the outset of this war between Intel and AMD. And let's not forget all the companies that Intel ruthlessly put out of business with some of their illegal tactics. The war between Intel and AMD is very much parallel to the war between Russia and Ukraine.
They took 53 years? When they invented the 64-bit architecture and multi-core computing?
so you're telling me that in 2017 AMD invented multicore processors and that's what gave them the advantage?
that's absurd!
Multi-chip CPUs, but even that's wrong.
What this video doesn't mention is that the x86 instruction set is dying... and BOTH AMD and Intel will be declining because of that.
The ARM instruction will be the future and other companies are making their chips faster and more power efficient (e.g. Apple, Google, Amazon) leaving Intel and AMD behind.
Well put together video story. I'm a computer geek and I appreciate how you explained the CPU and what it does in layman terms that anyone can get. Kudos to you.
2:07 you make this sound soooooo much easier than it is.
New foundries in Europe and the US will offer so many new opportunities for designers like apple tesla etc.
( let's see if india makes it)
I liked ATI graphics a lot back in the day. When AMD purchased ATI, I became a user of a lot of AMD processors and graphics cards over the years. Competition is good. Don't just buy Intel because they blast their marketing onto everything. Intel Arc GPU seemed interesting but I see all the driver issues they are having with games and with Linux too, and I couldn't recommend that to anyone.
I'm an Arc user on Linux, and I'd say most of my issues with it are just because it's such a new platform. I had to build the latest release candidate for the 6.2 kernel from source just to get the kernel driver for it out of the "experimental" status so I wouldn't have to force modprobe to load the i915 driver for that PCI ID. Even the git repo for the Xorg driver for Intel chipsets doesn't support the Arc yet, so I'm stuck on Wayland for the time being, which I'd say is an Xorg problem more than it is an Arc problem. The thing is, I bought it expecting problems and for things to not really work 100% properly for the first few months -- even still it happened to be the best value proposition available and I was intrigued by the nice media encode block. The Windows drivers have gotten leaps and bounds better and are only continuing to get better, which is more than I can say about my experience with Radeon drivers in the past on Windows -- I had a nasty microfreezing bug with my RX480 that persisted for MONTHS.
I'm not saying Intel's perfect by any means. They're a company, much like AMD, and at the end of the day the only thing either wants is your money. They're not your friends. Caveat emptor regardless of who you buy from.
Missed the early 2000's WSJ?? Some great Journalism right there :P
Might as well say sponsored by Intel.
Everyone should invest in RISC-V processors tbh
Isn't it obvious why? Intel is run by accountants, not people who love technology.
Intel's CEO is an engineer, so it's changing... But the company has a lot to catch up on and years of mismanagement to undo.
I owned FX 8320E , then i5-7600K, then Ryzen 1600 , then Ryzen 2700 , and now im on m1 MacBook Air :)))
Intel sucks. AMD rocks.
Just scored an AMD CPU (9800x3d) that I was finally able to get for a reasonable price.
What price
@@Flattithefish MSRP 479$
@@AsU-yz9lo Bor in Germany you are not getting those below like 700 currently that’s like 800$ because scalpers bought them all
AMD is definitely a buy 🚀🚀🚀
Well 10 years of Wall Street CEO's treating Intel like a piggy bank didn't help much either, they milked their old lithography to the absolute limit before finally committing to EUV, and we in the semi tool manufacturing businesses can't build as fastcas Intel wants us to, we're stuck in supply chain shortages. We've already tripled our production, and we're only yalf way to where we need to be after 2 years, because we have to build more production facilities. Been watching this play out from behind the curtain so to speak for the last 14 years.
Who said AMD has beaten Intel? Yes, AMD market share is definitely catching up but then Intel still has 76 percent market share as against 23 percent that of AMD.
How can you say AMD has beaten Intel.
For once, in terms of price to performance amd beat intel a while ago, then it’s just a lot of people that simply and think intelligent is better because they don’t look into it and thridly it takes time for people to shift from one company to another doesn’t go that quickly
@ Price- not now, Intel is more expensive and Performance - never!!!! Just because they made a few gaming benchmarks, AMD chips are nothing more than some over-clocked pieces of junk!!! Serious computing still means Intel. The over-clocking in AMD causes some serious issues with the way the CPU executes some concurrent pieces of code (Intel chips handle concurrency far more accurately). I’m involved in some serious coding work and get to see both CPU’s at work(even though the company that I work for and our immediate vendors AND clients insist on Intel Platforms when it comes for serious software development we do have a few floating pieces of AMD machines that are pressed into action at the testing phase) only to be reminded each time that Intel is far superior on serious computing platforms.
@@brioown You don’t need to get a x3d one to have a good chip for productivity, obviously some tech firm is always gonna want the employees to use that what they have been using forever and not change, for the overall use AMD is just cheaper and better simple as it is
AMD K62- 3D Now is when it all started for me. 350MHZ, that was my first AMD CPU. Then K6-2 500MHZ, then Athlon 1Ghz. I've only ever had 2 intel CPUs, the rest were AMD. When Ryzen came out, that was something else entirely. Intel hasn't had an answer since then.
If I remember correctly, AMD was the first to put the memory controller on the CPU chip. This was very innovative and Intel followed that architectural change.
No mention of how AMD chips consistently beat Intel's in performance and price during the 2000s, or how they designed and introduced x86-64, ahead of Intel.
One major thing not mentioned is that Intel for around 5-10 years held market dominance and became very stagnant in that time. Because of that when AMD came out with a better processor they were stuck catching up because of so much neglect to invent something new
Superb summary and presentation.
this bring back memories. my first gaming pc was with ryzen 1st gen
2:00 semi conductor is either insulator or conductor, not more conductive...
This is the second time AMD beats Intel. The first time is in 1999 when AMD releases Athlon CPU. Intel's Pentium III just can't compete with AMD at the time.
The boomer WSJ made a video about processors that’s exactly how a boomer would make it. I’m so surprised.
cough cough 13th gen & 14th gen problems cough cough
Intel has been greedy, that's their main drawback. However they did do one thing right, they have their own factories. And they're right, that will be the key factor, because no matter how good AMD does, at the end of the day their costs come down to production, and if they don't have their own factories, production will always cost more for them.
Side note, this video missed that both intel's engineers and AMD's engineers came from the same company before they even started their own companies.
Intel dominated the CPU market from the late 2000's to mid 2010's. They got arrogant and gave users little performance increases and changed expensive prices. Consumers were fed up, and even big partners like Apple abandoned Intel. Intel's fall is their fault.
Its not about lisa su, inovation is from jim keller, he work on foundation on zen architecture, and how its make scalable cheaply, amd way more efficient, jim keller is brain behind apple A cpu and tesla in house cpu
Wrong, jim keller didn't work on Zen.
@@vyor8837 yes he did
Jim Keller worked on the design a little , but it's my understanding that past zen 1 it's been entirely a team that was organized and trained by Keller to continue on.
@@zunriya nope, he worked on Infinity Fabric. Mike Clark was lead on Zen.
@@opdinkleberg7078 Mike Clark was the one that organized the team. Keller helped a lot, but he mostly acted as a rubber duck that could talk back.
Fun fact: James Williamson from the Stooges used to work for AMD after the band broke up. Only guy I know of that has been inducted into both the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and an Engineering Hall of Fame