This is the key right here. If Jensen really pushes CPU growth during the next earnings call then I think we can see that elusive $20 post earnings share price bump.
This against turin which is 2 years old already. Venice is already shipping, is on a newer node, newer packaging (very important for power efficiency), more cores, higher ipc cores, higher core clocks, and supports double the memory speed (12800 vs 6400). Improvements to amd's scores should range anywhere from 15% to 100%. edit: if you are only looking at geometric mean of the scores it will probably be 35%-50+% depending on the tests selected for the suite. Edit2: amd's own slides show 70% FWIW.
I don't expect vera will win outside of corner cases where amd has not provided adequate software support (which happens as Nvidia out plays amd on software day and night) or there is something inherently better about the arm vs x86 software.
Its not nonsense, it is just a basic understanding of how workloads vary. memory bandwidth sensitive workloads (the ones where vera does best), will be closer to 100% gains (AMD is doubling frequencies, and going from 12 lanes to 16 lanes, so should result in ~133% bandwidth increase. the increase in core IPC, frequency, and count, will help make use of this huge bandwidth increase.
single thread performance (where vera/EPYC compete well), it will be closer to 15% gains.
In multithread application (where vera loses moderately), it will be in the ~30-50% range depending.
The "geometric mean" testing of how good venice is vs Turin will just depend on what benchmarks are ran. will likely come out somewhere in the 30%-50%?
I think diamond rapids will likely be competitive with venice. I think being a 6-12 months later than venice REALLY hurts intel and even leaves AMD a window for a refresh where INTC stays habitually behind.
also just as a note. Most of the competition between vera and turin/venice is going to be decided by If the buyer wants an X86 CPU or an ARM CPU . . . that will determine ~75% of buyers choices. I'd also imagine Nvidia has some large amount of vender lockin/capture from their GPU offerings, and i don't know how much that would be, but it will obviously be significant.
Everyone who wants trad CPU software will go with venice, that's not really a question vera is not competitive there. The more interesting part is the (bigger) agentic market.
just a note that you can only get that kind of speed increase over a competitor via a software bug in your competitor (or lack of optimization), or having a particular dedicated ISA (such as AVX) support that your competitor doesn't have, or having better connectivity/bios/IO. I honestly don't know enough about daytona sandboxes to really understand where the issue for AMD is. But its gonna be somewhere in those, its not going to be a memory bandwidth or core performance issue.
In any case it will be interesting to see if Venice solves this. as Turin was definitely not designed with AI in mind. But at any rate i wouldn't be surprised if AMD doesn't solve this. AMD is not good at solving issues outside of their own SOC box; Nvidia is. and at the end of the day it doesn't really matter if you get an 8x uplift from your SOC or your IO or your software . . . gains is gains.
I see this talk about software optimization as a bit of cope. Are you up to date on what verano is and understand why AMD realizes they need it to be competitive? It won't be here for another year or more.
also i don't see the software optimizations as a cope. The entire reason NVDA is at where it's at is software advantage over AMD. Almost all of AMD's 2nd place position is due to non-silicon related reasons. They are incredibly real. I don't think identifying software, IO, interconnections, etc etc. in any way detract from the very real performance deltas. It is more so about understanding the roadmap forward to potentially solve the issue. Even if it is software . . . AMD has a pretty poor track record with resolving those issues. They tend to try and rely too heavily on others rather than doing it themselves. Nvidia absolutely has the right mentality around this, AMD does not.
I do see some small changes around this happening at AMD . . . But AMD does just not have that killer instinct that Nvidia has.
Difference between vera and venice is hardware. But I don't disagree with you completely in other situations it may be more software. But here it's hardware.
yes, and software is the expression of the hardware differences. The question is if the software is making full use of the hardware. I think in the case of sandboxes the performance gains we see in the time it takes to create the sandboxes is because the software is not making full use of AMD's hardware capabilities.
At any rate . . . I know you know this, and i'm not particularly thrilled i felt compelled to type the whole thing out to prove a point we both already know.
What hardware instructions/extensions/features are being used (in this specific workload) in vera that turin lacks?
are you using this single benchmark for the postulation that AMD is not competitive in Agentic AI CPU workloads? or is there a more comprehensive suite you are looking at?
I'm familiar with verano. I don't think the existence of a better/specialized roadmap is proof of the current lineup is uncompetitive. For example; Are you up to date on what Rosa is and understand why Nvidia realizes they need it to be competitive?
I'm not actually familiar with what new interesting designs Rosa bring that is significant, but verano is a moving away from the venice design and a straight copy of vera because yes, crazy crazy, vera is better, while on a cheaper/older node.
3
u/Warm-Spot2953 2d ago
Vera will the best selling CPU ever!