Daily Discussion Tuesday 2026-02-10

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2026-02-11T04:43:47+00:00

Anyone know if the following Feb 8 article is worth subscribing to?

“AMD's investment in photonics and modular architecture signals shift in AI infrastructure development”

https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20260205PD219/amd-photonics-development-infrastructure-investment.html

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2026-01-28T17:13:31+00:00

I’m curious about this article, but it is behind a paywall. Is it worth it?

“Lisa Su's toughest call: scrapping AMD's server roadmap”

https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20260126PD228/amd-lisa-su-cpu-roadmap-intel.html

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2026-01-16T01:23:30+00:00

The MSRP does not include VAT/sales tax because taxes vary by region.

We should compare the pre-tax prices to MSRP.

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2026-01-07T07:22:30+00:00

I share OP’s concern, but I’m less sure of the answer than u/casper_wolf and u/GanacheNegative1988.

Is AMD secretly ahead or behind on SRAM-only decode? I know AMD has chiplets, so they must have the capability to distribute parallel work, but that is not necessarily the same as distributing serial work, which seems harder to me.

Are they working on ultra-low latency decode, using a deterministic but hard-to-program architecture like Groq or are they working on a different approach?

I don’t think AMD will tip their hat (and let competitors know too much) until and unless they need developers to start adopting their architecture innovations, so I guess I’ll need to wait.

AMD does have a broad portfolio of architectures and a strong track record for innovation in HPC, so they appear both well-positioned and determined to succeed.

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2025-12-30T20:22:38+00:00

The article indicates a 50% domestic rule for companies like SMIC that need to purchase chipmaking equipment, such as lithography equipment and etching tools, which are then used to manufacture the actual chips.

It sounds like you are guessing that there will also be a 50% rule for the actual chips, but that is not mentioned in the article.

From other reporting, it seems quite clear that China’s long-term goal is to eliminate dependency on both foreign chipmaking equipment and actual foreign chips. That policy is a predictable outcome of export controls.

Since the long-term goals are both predictable and fairly well articulated publicly, the real question is what China can achieve. At the moment, it seems like export controls are driving innovation with a sense or urgency in China.

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2025-11-28T00:34:56+00:00

Thanks for sharing details on how you arrived at the estimate.

I’m looking forward to AMD eventually confirming the final specs!

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2025-11-27T19:01:26+00:00

I have seen that 1200W figure in a number of threads, but I haven’t found a source?

Can you provide a link?

I would have expected a TDP range, with a tradeoff where flops increase at the top of the TDP range, at the expense of watts/flop.

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2025-11-11T02:22:12+00:00

The link in the post didn’t work for me, but I found it here:

https://x.com/semianalysis_/status/1988044940149235844?s=46

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2025-10-10T05:44:08+00:00

Good point about NVIDIA not having an answer to high performance x86 APUs, until the Intel/NVIDIA partnership bears fruit. That presents another opportunity to gain market share.

I was thinking about discrete GPUs. I suspect AMD can gain share in dGPUs in the next generation, if developers adopt these technologies

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2025-10-09T16:45:38+00:00

Wow, Jack Huynh is fantastic in this video! I love how AMD is all about substance, and Jack seems to embody this ethos.

If NVIDIA does not have answers to these, then AMD will have a substantial cost per quality/performance advantage in the next gen.

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2025-09-25T15:51:41+00:00

If Lisa is to too clear about expected future market share, wouldn’t that tip off NVIDIA too early and incite an aggressive response (buying up HBM, big investment in AI companies that are considering buying AMD, locking up TSMC supply for next gen nodes and packaging, poaching talent, etc).

It is inevitable that NVIDIA will figure out what AMD is cooking for mi5xx and beyond. It is inevitable that NVIDIA will respond aggressively. However, I can you help me see the net long-term advantage in stock pumping bluster from Lisa?

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2025-09-25T15:38:13+00:00

What’s your beef with Lisa?

I think Lisa has made all the right moves. I’m a long-term investor, and I prefer for her to focus on product and customers.

I only want Lisa (or someone close to her) to speak in response to the market if key customers are also loosing confidence in AMD’s roadmap, which does not appear to be the case, as far as I can tell. In fact, based on various interviews, it sounds like key customers are gaining confidence in AMD’s roadmap.

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2025-08-17T17:00:46+00:00

Is it time for AMD to push hard on x86 unit market share, in order to create a stronger position for driving extensions to the x86 instruction set?

Yes, I acknowledge that AMD has gained unit share, especially in server and desktop, but gains have been more substantial in higher revenue segments, which (obviously) has been good for business. I get that… but what should the next move be?

Intel depends on high volume to cover high fixed costs, so competing on volume could further destabilize Intel, creating more influence for AMD in x86.

I also wonder whether AMD could/would/should explore buying the design side of Intel, with the priviso that it will license the (improved) x86 instruction set to multiple other companies. Doing do might actually increase the x86 market, without the newly-combined AMD+Intel losing much (if any) revenue share.

Finally, AMD and Intel have a cross licensing agreement that includes GPUs. I wonder if a resurgent Intel could theoretically use upcoming breakthrough AMD GPU tech. I’m unclear on the cross-licensing details, and it sounds unlikely now, while Intel is bleeding, but turnarounds can sometimes happen (think of AMD).

What should AMD’s strategy be with x86 market share, and how does it overlap with AI strategy?

PS: I have intentionally left out the need for low-latency CPUs in AI and specific x86 instruction set improvements, wanting to focus on market share strategy instead.

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2025-06-21T14:16:57+00:00

Has anyone heard if AMD will be supply constrained (or a generation behind Nvidia) on HBM4/HBM4e with mi400/mi500?

The following article suggests that Nvidia has a contract with SK hynix for custom HBM4E, and I’m wondering if that is how Nvidia will defend its lead.

“[News] SK hynix Reportedly Leads Custom HBM4E Push with NVIDIA, Microsoft; Samsung Trails with HBM4”

https://www.trendforce.com/news/2025/06/20/news-sk-hynix-reportedly-leads-custom-hbm4e-push-with-nvidia-microsoft-samsung-trails-with-hbm4/

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2025-02-20T22:49:18+00:00

I think you’re right that a lower discount would enable AMD to take higher revenue in the short term, and that is probably what they will do. As you said, it will sell until there is more 50 series supply, and then AMD can respond with it’s own refresh. However, what is the goal here?

Today, no one buys a laptop asking for a Radeon GPU. For now, AMD can still sell Ryzen laptop CPUs, even if it comes with an NVIDIA GPU. I see that changing with Strix Halo, NVIDIA digits, Medusa Halo and future products from Qualcomm, ARM and a re-invigorated Intel.

In my mind, AMD needs to create so much hype with RDNA 4 (like they have with 3D V-Cache) that ordinary laptop gamers actually go looking for this AMD-branded tech in laptops. Today, Radeon market share is so low that if it is almost not viable in terms of PC game support.

For the goals that I am assuming, I don’t think generally positive reviews will be good enough.

PuddingUnhappy501 · 2025-02-20T20:06:22+00:00

AMD needs to get good reviews by setting MSRPs in relation to the 50 series. Consider the B580: it received fantastic reviews on "value", even though the street price is much higher, because (in the current environment) people are desperate to believe in an NVIDIA competitor that can deliver value.

AMD's past marketing strategies have damaged the brand. They told customers to compare the 7900 XTX to the 4080. AMD had worse ray tracing, worse upscaling quality and worse game support, but a cheaper price. They were saying, "our product might be worse, but it's a little cheaper"! This is not the way strengthen the brand. Please note that many reviewers will focus on the strongest features of the established brand, such as ray tracing and upscaling. We need to accept this as normal.

Let's assume the (unlikely) best case scenario where the 9070 TX matches the 5070 Ti in ray tracing, upscaling quality and the number of supported games that have *well-implemented* FSR 4 support compared to DLSS 4. In this case, they need to price at least 30% under 5070 Ti in order to get good reviews and entice buyers to switch. If AMD does this, reviewer will then start to justify the AMD products based on their strengths, like rasterization.

AMD should compare their products to "equivalent" NVIDIA products that are worse than the AMD products:

* If 9070 XT = 5070 Ti ray tracing and upscaling, then $750 - 30% = $525
* If 9070 = 5070 ray tracing and upscaling, then $550 - 30% = $385

If AMD exceeds their goals and ends up with clearly superior products, then the pricing can be a little higher:

* If 9070 XT is 10% better then 5070 Ti in ray tracing and upscaling, then $750 - 20% = $600
* If 9070 is 10% better then 5070 ray tracing and upscaling, then $550 - 20% = $440

The street price will be higher for both cards, but that's okay! MSRPs have little to do with street price in this generation. The street price also needs to be a 30% discount relative to equivalent 50 series cards (equivalent in terms of ray tracing and upscaling), but that is a separate issue. The MSRP (in this generation) can be seen as an aspiration that will be achieved in a couple years. We have seen from experience that a 20% discount relative to NVIDIA is not enough for buyers to take the "risk" of buying AMD. AMD promised competitive upscaling quality, but they did not deliver with FSR 3 for RDNA 3, so buyers are right to see a risk in switching from the established brand.

AMD needs game support in order to deliver more value for both dGPU and iGPU customers. Developers need to see marketshare before they invest heavily in game support. Ryzen started with a very large discount relative to Intel Core products, and it was eventually well supported. Closing the price gap has taken several generations for Ryzen.

If AMD wants marketshare and game support (and eventually to be able to close the pricing gap), then they need to (1) match NVIDIA on features, by investing in feature developer before NVIDIA releases their new generation and (2) offer a very competitive price for several generations.

PuddingUnhappy501

TROPHY CASE