Lisa Su says AMD is on track to a 100x power efficiency improvement by 2027 — CEO outlines AMD’s advances during keynote at imec’s ITF World 2024

ITF World 2024
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

AMD CEO Lisa Su attended imec’s ITF World 2024 conference to accept the prestigious imec Innovation Award for innovation and industry leadership, joining the ranks of other previous honorees like Gordon Moore, Morris Chang, and Bill Gates. After accepting the award, Su launched into her presentation covering the steps that AMD has taken to meet the company’s 30x25 goal, which aims for a 30x increase in compute node power efficiency by 2025. Su announced that AMD is not only on track to meet that goal, but it also now sees a pathway to more than a 100x improvement by 2026 to 2027.

Concerns about AI power usage have been thrust into the limelight due to the explosion of generative AI LLMs like ChatGPT, but AMD had the vision to foresee problems with AI’s voracious power appetite as far back as 2021. Back then, AMD began work on its 30x25 goal to improve data center compute node power efficiency, specifically citing AI and HPC power consumption as a looming problem. (AMD set its first ambitious energy goal back in 2014 with its inaugural 25x20 goal to improve consumer processor power efficiency by 25x by 2020, which it exceeded with a 31.7x improvement.)

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • JTWrenn
    This feels like a what have you done for me lately problem. Cool AMD, that 100x thing sounds super awesome on paper, but nobody in the know really believes it. We know you will use the exact same amount of power total, and that it is just a type of green washing...also everyone will likely have a large increase in efficiency in this arena as it is the big push....always is a same power more production pipeline.

    This just feels a little desperately times, or something. AMD needs to actually compete with Nvidia head to head at some point here instead of always being off by a bit with some caveat. Would love a real Nvidia competitor.
    Reply
  • ezst036
    JTWrenn said:
    This just feels a little desperately times, or something. AMD needs to actually compete with Nvidia head to head at some point here instead of always being off by a bit with some caveat. Would love a real Nvidia competitor.

    AMD has, for the moment, chosen instead to compete with Intel head to head, and in the meanwhile spread themselves way too thin.
    Reply
  • peachpuff
    Intel: *spills drink* WHAT?!?
    Reply
  • Jimbojan
    All AMD proposed are doing by all others, there is no magic to it.
    Reply
  • vanadiel007
    If you get away from the idea you need Ray Tracing in games, AMD provides alternative products to Nvidia.
    If then you get away from the idea that you need an Intel CPU for gaming, they also provide alternatives to Intel products.

    I have no doubt that people will once again buy RTX 5000 GPU's just because it's in their head they need to upgrade. Nvidia is very good at marketing their products and making consumers believe they need their technology. That is the only area where AMD is really lagging when compared to Intel and Nvidia.

    In a way it's instilled in many consumers heads' that only Intel/Nvidia make good gaming products.
    Reply
  • Inveticus
    JTWrenn said:
    This feels like a what have you done for me lately problem. Cool AMD, that 100x thing sounds super awesome on paper, but nobody in the know really believes it. We know you will use the exact same amount of power total, and that it is just a type of green washing...also everyone will likely have a large increase in efficiency in this arena as it is the big push....always is a same power more production pipeline.

    This just feels a little desperately times, or something. AMD needs to actually compete with Nvidia head to head at some point here instead of always being off by a bit with some caveat. Would love a real Nvidia competitor.
    What are you rambling about? AMD is surpassing Nvidia's marketshare this year. They are competing with Nvidia, and winning.
    Reply
  • vanadiel007 said:
    If you get away from the idea you need Ray Tracing in games, AMD provides alternative products to Nvidia.
    If then you get away from the idea that you need an Intel CPU for gaming, they also provide alternatives to Intel products.

    I have no doubt that people will once again buy RTX 5000 GPU's just because it's in their head they need to upgrade. Nvidia is very good at marketing their products and making consumers believe they need their technology. That is the only area where AMD is really lagging when compared to Intel and Nvidia.

    Is RT really something we don't need? Or is AMD simply not interested in doing it properly? Because the way I see it, Nvidia has GPUs that are providing higher RT performance while using less power than AMD.

    Nvidia's GPUs are certainly overpriced right now at every tier, but AMD's are only slightly better price/performance for rasterization, use more power, and lack features like proper tensor/matrix cores and more robust RT hardware.

    Intel went after Nvidia with rasterization, RT, and matrix hardware — the trifecta. AMD keeps saying, "you don't really need RT or matrix for games..." And at some point, it will be truly wrong and there will be even more AI and RT stuff that just doesn't run as well on AMD. RDNA 4 better reprioritize RT and AI if AMD wants to stay in the (GPU) game.

    vanadiel007 said:
    In a way it's instilled in many consumers heads' that only Intel/Nvidia make good gaming products.

    If you 're consistently being better that your competitors for more than two decades, then people start to believe you 're always better, no matter what.

    It's called perception.

    In order for that perception to change, AMD have to try and do the only thing they persistently avoid doing: create a better flagship card than Nvidia.

    It's gonna be costly, no doubt about that, and it's gonna be bought by a small number of consumers. But it's not about the sales: it's about sending a message, that you can still maintain a dynamic presence on the GPU market.

    With a ~20% market share, AMD are getting closer and closer to being reduced into a non-factor in the GPU realm.

    And that's nothing but bad news, for every consumer out there.
    Reply
  • jojos_buddy
    AMD, QC, STMicro, Brocadcom know the missing piece from Nvidia's "moat" is...power. Nvidia hardware is very power hungry & inefficient, mainly in size, consumption and thermal. Even Tegras are home heaters.

    Intel knows it, but can't execute aside from legacy architectures (Core cpus). Now, with all the Snapdragon hype on MS laptops, AMD is really going to complete on 2 fronts: datacenter efficiency and edge AI, hence the competition is Nvidia, QC....and Apple. Didn't Nvidia announce ARM cpus incoming (likely for edge AI) ? Thus, efficiency is a top sales point and breaks the Nvidia moat... for now.

    Intel? They are all over the place and with Altera spun out, heading to just compete with TSMC if their management doesn't get their act together with a real vision. But maybe that's their vision--cause TSMC's business is with all of the above?
    Reply
  • JTWrenn said:
    This just feels a little desperately times, or something. AMD needs to actually compete with Nvidia head to head at some point here instead of always being off by a bit with some caveat. Would love a real Nvidia competitor.

    Couldn't agree more.

    AMD hardware isn't bad, but I can't immediately point to one thing where it's leading from the front in the GPU realm right now. Which of course is hard to do when you're ~20% of the market.

    For Nvidia, I can point to ray tracing, AI, and upscaling as three concrete examples of technology and techniques that it established, and not surprisingly it continues to lead in those areas.

    In other words, if AMD wants to get ahead of Nvidia, it actually has to get ahead of Nvidia. It can't follow and thereby become the leader. Drafting (like we see in cycling or running or other sports) doesn't work in the business world. AMD needs to figure out a way to leapfrog Nvidia. And that's damn difficult to do, obviously.
    Reply
  • DS426
    valthuer said:
    ..
    In other words, if AMD wants to get ahead of Nvidia, it actually has to get ahead of Nvidia. It can't follow and thereby become the leader. Drafting (like we see in cycling or running or other sports) doesn't work in the business world. AMD needs to figure out a way to leapfrog Nvidia. And that's damn difficult to do, obviously.
    No kidding it's difficult. A bunch of you folks are saying "AMD needs to compete with nVidia," but when you have the all-star team, that's tough to disrupt. I'm going to use the Bulls Jordan era dynasty as an example. Teams DID compete with them; sorry, but all the louzy talk of AMD not competing doesn't fly with me. If the measuring stick on competing is only when two parties are almost exactly toe-to-toe and jab-for-jab, that's lovely and all but when do you see that happening in duopology and small oligopoly scenarios? Almost every single imaginable market in the world has clear market leaders. If it was easy to do, there'd be more competitors, but there isn't. Look at Matrox, VIA, and others. Intel has barely survived Alchemist to the point that many don't believe Battlemage will arrive.

    No one needs to feel bad for AMD as that's not what I'm trying to do here; they've come A LONG ways since Ryzen launched, and their trajectory is still impressive. They greatly benefit from this AI boom just as nVidia does. AMD's marketing has long been weak -- I think this is where we all agree.
    Reply