End your own sarcasm.

Last time I looked, I worked for you.

Tell me you work for NVIDIA, without telling me you work for NVIDIA

Tim, I get the primary ‘hyperscale’ server market. Profitable and if AMD, Intel, Arm server don’t address hyperscale needs Hyperscale will, and any design build or merchant supplier ignoring this volume niche in which they have how much component and system platform price making power, except apparently Nvidia, will be left out.

What gets to me monitoring back 12 years of what’s trading and selling in commercial server, enterprise compute, is an exponential installed base left unaddressed in yesteryear product because primary production is not fit for commodity use?

Meaning until 1st tier server OEMs are willing to bank some amount of primary production as channel surplus, without fear of that next platform inventory rotting on buyer beware, industry remains in a business of compute servitude. My concern is broad market industry economic renewal over design slave to hyperscale.

Intel attempts to address the commodity market with Silver and bottom of gold grade that does well in the channel. But my take watching what trades, what trades-in, what resells, what Next Platform covers and maybe the is a CW topic, on what little primary production moves in relation to secondary suggests to me there is a large unaddressed product void in commodity data processing and commercial compute that gets down to design for use.

Appreciate the rally. mb

It’s simple, Mike. If you back out the AI servers that cost $300,000 to $400,000 each, the market revenues and shipments are way down. So aside from this very expensive niche, it’s down. Period. I’m not talking about CPU sales, I am talking about system shipments and revenues in general.

Majority of the server market is standardized on Skylake and Cascade Lakes and through 2022 there has been a very robust upgrade trend from v3/v4 to first generation Scalable as a validated known. Sales are very good. E7 and E5 4-way also have been on life extension as a high core count known including as a price performance competitor suspect tied to applications, in relation high core count Epyc that Skylake and Cascade Lakes also compete in terms of cores per multiprocessing platform. This is also now seen in Sapphire Rapids 4-way verse high core count Milan and Genoa.

The issue is there are few, if any, known stable enterprise commodity offerings available in volume. Intel dumped some Ice into the channel at q2 run end perhaps some OEMs and enterprise customers might bite at this specific generation in relation Cascades for 2P commodity upgrade. Otherwise, the majority of the server market has nothing to do with hyperscale albeit PAAS (business of compute) passes as an enterprise augmenting compliment.

Further, until AMD can supply in commodity mass market volume and the Intel Sapphire Rapid, Granite Rapid, Emerald Rapid applied computer science experiment through rapidly accelerated node jumps are complete in terms of platform stability and applications validation sustaining over every next iteration of obsolescence, the majority of the server market will continue to wait for known good leaving AMD, Intel and others to their hyperscale niche market. This is the issue. AMD, Intel, ARM server, are not producing commodity components and subsequently the vast majority of all server installations sit in wait because what they have works tied to their use case and price performance in relation new generation’s risk is superior. Known good commodity platforms work why fix it.

For a validating proof of training ‘niche market’ on Nvidia side, NVDA data center accelerator volumes are down 60% from q4 albeit net take up 3x. AMD and Intel are no different in terms of their own volume limiters.

Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing.

One is a foundry, and one is not. It makes a big difference in the numbers.

Dont quote me, but I think the respective operating incomes were an amd loss of ~$200m vs $2b.

I believe it means a named type instance, not every variation of memory and vCPUs of the instance type. So P5, not p5.4x-large. At least that is how I think about it.