"Intel in jeopardy" from insiders. Much much worse than what they tell.

[UnknownSouljer]

Most recently...


Intel still has the advantage in most games.

Yes. Intel has the advantage when games are 100% CPU bound. If that’s how you game with your 2080Ti’s then I guess it’s a better deal.
If you want to game at 4K and ultra settings instead of 1080p at medium or high settings you’re gonna get a massively different result.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

Funny how AMD flopped for a decade with no viable CPU against Intel and still survive... Now Intel flopped for a year or 2, maybe 4 if they really messed up their "next gen" and everybody is telling stories how "It is the end for Intel". LOL

I'm glad that AMD finally put some pressure on Intel since we're now getting 8+ cores in the mainstream. However, if AMD become complacent (remember Netburst vs K8 and then Conroe vs Phenom?), intel will crush them again with their (dirty) tactics and money.

And where most of the money is made (enterprise), the decision maker is usually the business guy, not the technical guy. This is simply a case of "nobody ever got fired for buying Cisco network equipment" with Intel being Cisco here.

lol i remember AMD sub forum basically being the same thing for a long time after the i7 920 came out.. oh AMD's dead, who's going to buy AMD.. to much over sensationalizing.. that being said it'll be an interesting few years to see what intel does to try to put AMD back in it's place and vice versa whether AMD becomes lazy like intel did..

 

[RamonGTP]

If true how could of Intel fuck up so bad? Did they completely believe that AMD couldn't make a decent cpu again? All of Intel management needs to be fired.

I know I didn't think AMD could make a competitive CPU again. I always hoped they could, but it was never more than a hope.

 

[RamonGTP]

Funny how AMD flopped for a decade with no viable CPU against Intel and still survive... Now Intel flopped for a year or 2, maybe 4 if they really messed up their "next gen" and everybody is telling stories how "It is the end for Intel". LOL

I'm glad that AMD finally put some pressure on Intel since we're now getting 8+ cores in the mainstream. However, if AMD become complacent (remember Netburst vs K8 and then Conroe vs Phenom?), intel will crush them again with their (dirty) tactics and money.

And where most of the money is made (enterprise), the decision maker is usually the business guy, not the technical guy. This is simply a case of "nobody ever got fired for buying Cisco network equipment" with Intel being Cisco here.

You need to consider that Intel has far more overhead than AMD. It's not even close. I'm not saying Intel is doomed, but I am saying Intel can't afford to be behind AMD for as long as AMD was behind Intel.

 

[Denpepe]

lol i remember AMD sub forum basically being the same thing for a long time after the i7 920 came out.. oh AMD's dead, who's going to buy AMD.. to much over sensationalizing.. that being said it'll be an interesting few years to see what intel does to try to put AMD back in it's place and vice versa whether AMD becomes lazy like intel did..

2 things I would like to mention, AMD had the advantage of having cheaper parts which for some people was more important then them beeing sub par in performance and secondly AMD is basically already doing what intel did and just re-iterates it's current designs with smaller IPC gains like intel did with it's sandy bridge to ivy bridge etc...

 

[David-Duc]

You need to consider that Intel has far more overhead than AMD. It's not even close. I'm not saying Intel is doomed, but I am saying Intel can't afford to be behind AMD for as long as AMD was behind Intel.

Intel also has way more cash to lose than AMD.
Intel total assets: $127.9 Billion
AMD total assets: $4.56 Billion
And no, Intel is not behind AMD. This current generation, they trade blows with each other.

 

[Mega6]

Intel also has way more cash to lose than AMD.
Intel total assets: $127.9 Billion
AMD total assets: $4.56 Billion
And no, Intel is not behind AMD. This current generation, they trade blows with each other.

AMD balance sheet is actually superior to Intel.

Intel
total cash: 12.02B
total debt: 29.48B

AMD
total cash 1.21B
total debt 1.11B

And yes, intel is behind, and falling further away rapidly. the 5GHz / 14nm wall is hitting them hard. Revenue is falling, they are propping up the share price with buybacks in the billions instead of using it for R&D. Intel spent spent $4.5 billion on share repurchases during the third quarter versus $3.2 billion on R&D. Do you know that the CEO of intel is a Finance guy? Not an Engineer like the past. This shows you Intel's true direction.

 

[RamonGTP]

Intel also has way more cash to lose than AMD.
Intel total assets: $127.9 Billion
AMD total assets: $4.56 Billion
And no, Intel is not behind AMD. This current generation, they trade blows with each other.

Intel IS behind AMD. Your defination of trade blows differs than most, if you get punched in the face 10 times while only getting a couple jabs in, that isn't trading blows. Thats you getting your ass kicked, which is exactly whats happening to Intel. Trading blows would have been an acceptable description with Ryzen 2000 series.

 

[vick1000]

Yes. Intel has the advantage when games are 100% CPU bound. If that’s how you game with your 2080Ti’s then I guess it’s a better deal.
If you want to game at 4K and ultra settings instead of 1080p at medium or high settings you’re gonna get a massively different result.

Do you realize how rediculous that sounds? Plus the video I linked to has multiple resolutions, and Intel tops the charts on every game. Of course that's not the only source either. Dollar for dollar, AMD wins, pound for pound Intel wins.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Current info says that Zen 3 will offer a 17% increased IPC gain over Zen 2, which was already a 13% IPC gain from Zen.
https://www.thefpsreview.com/2019/1...l-reportedly-offer-an-average-ipc-gain-of-17/

Zen was, 'make an architecture that's as fast as one from Intel six years ago'. They failed, at first, and then the second time, but by Zen 2 (with copious amounts of cache) they were able to catch up. To Skylake. That's still on 14nm.

TSMC 7nm / 7nm+ / 5nm are all the same node family. A tad more density here, a tad less power usage there -- hopefully. TSMC doesn't have the best track record.

I would also argue that Intel hasn't been pushing or innovating for roughly 7 years. Their track record is right there.

Their track record is right there, but you're not looking at it. Despite their fab fumbles, they've iterated and improved on what they do have significantly -- and again, despite being confined to their aged 14nm process, they're still competing very well with AMD. Even beating them in the mobile arena.

Intel has a healthy stack of products that are ready for production -- on fabs that don't exist. This is where AMD got lucky, that Zen, which in and of itself isn't that impressive but is at least competitive, was built at TSMC, whose 7nm bet paid off, where Intel's didn't.

Zen's most exceptional trait is that it can actually be manufactured, where Intel is having to backport their designs to 14nm.

I have no reason to believe that Zen 3 will not arrive on time. And although 17% increased IPC is currently not confirmed by third parties, what can be said with certainty is that they will be faster than current Zen 2 parts.

Let's hope that's a real 17% from an actual architectural revision. Not a Zen 2 'just throw more cache at it' 17%.

Those advances don't come easy, and they rarely come from AMD.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Do you realize how rediculous that sounds? Plus the video I linked to has multiple resolutions, and Intel tops the charts on every game. Of course that's not the only source either. Dollar for dollar, AMD wins, pound for pound Intel wins.

Yup, my brain is fried. My mistake, it's on me. But for two (not necessarily relevant) points: Steve doesn't test multiple resolutions in that video and only the 9900k (and sometimes 9700k) at the top of the product stack is capable of besting everything else.
However, to your final point, that isn't true either. It's true for gaming workloads only. Meaning that if you're interested in using your computer for work, then the exact reverse is true. (Or more precisely AMD is faster and less expensive winning at both dollar and pound).

Zen was, 'make an architecture that's as fast as one from Intel six years ago'. They failed, at first, and then the second time, but by Zen 2 (with copious amounts of cache) they were able to catch up. To Skylake. That's still on 14nm.

You've repeated this cache statement multiple times. All you've established is that Ryzen was cache starved and could have a massive IPC gain with a relatively minor revision (as you state: adding cache). If that's the case then what you're really saying is that even Zen 1 had incredibly good architecture and needed a minor tweak to reach parity with Intel. Is that really the point you want to make?

TSMC 7nm / 7nm+ / 5nm are all the same node family. A tad more density here, a tad less power usage there -- hopefully. TSMC doesn't have the best track record.

Now you're just commenting on FUD. I don't feel like there is any need to waste energy on what you think will happen or won't. But the short response is that Zen 3 is slated for first half 2020. I'm sure AMD has had plenty of tests go through at this point or either the roadmap wouldn't have stated first quarter or they would have revised their statements.

Their track record is right there, but you're not looking at it. Despite their fab fumbles, they've iterated and improved on what they do have significantly -- and again, despite being confined to their aged 14nm process, they're still competing very well with AMD. Even beating them in the mobile arena.

It's true that Intel has done well with in their low power segment, that is to say mobile. But only up to a point. AMD's APU's have grown significantly better and the gap is definitely narrowing in terms of total energy usage.

As to the second point, they haven't really done anything at all with their 14nm process.

If you've been using an i7 for the last half a decade, there isn't much reason to upgrade if all you do is game. GN tested the 6700k, 7700k, 8700k, and 9900k all on one chart. And there are gains sure, but not worthwhile ones. It's true that there have been changes, but "significant" ones? Not really.

The big gains on 8700k and 9700k/9900k were not from any form of increased IPC. It’s purely from adding cores. Doing so has allowed them to stay ahead in gaming workloads and productivity workloads until Zen 2. Which, much like your AMD "cache" statements: good for them.

Intel has a healthy stack of products that are ready for production -- on fabs that don't exist. This is where AMD got lucky, that Zen, which in and of itself isn't that impressive but is at least competitive, was built at TSMC, whose 7nm bet paid off, where Intel's didn't.

Zen's most exceptional trait is that it can actually be manufactured, where Intel is having to backport their designs to 14nm.

This sort of talk is also irrelevant. This is like arguing that the Voodoo 6 is the best video card never manufactured. You either have a product or you don't. Getting excited over vaporware is a waste of time. While the shoe has been on the other foot, that is to say all the AMD lovers saying: "Just you wait, this new thing will crush Intel!", and of course unsuccessful in doing so, it was rightfully met with scorn.

So, I'd say such commentary is also worth scorn.

Let's hope that's a real 17% from an actual architectural revision. Not a Zen 2 'just throw more cache at it' 17%.

Those advances don't come easy, and they rarely come from AMD.

Apparently as I noted above a simple cache increase according to you is enough to give over 13%. Regardless of how it was accomplished performance is performance. Getting "annoyed" about how it was done is irrelevant. AMD has a product for less money that took two generations for them to do that has at minimum reached parity with Intel, but more importantly in every productivity workflow (save Photoshop which is still frequency bound) is destroyed by AMD.

If you don't like how that tastes going down, then fine. But to say that it didn't happen or that it doesn't count for any reason is just speaking like a sore loser.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

You've repeated this cache statement multiple times. All you've established is that Ryzen was cache starved and could have a massive IPC gain with a relatively minor revision (as you state: adding cache). If that's the case then what you're really saying is that even Zen 1 had incredibly good architecture and needed a minor tweak to reach parity with Intel. Is that really the point you want to make?

That's what happened. Zen 1 was a nice core wrapped in mostly crap.

It took two revisions to get the platforms up to par, from UEFIs to motherboard wiring to memory support to drivers and OS support. AMD didn't increase 'core' performance, they just got the rest of the CPU up to par. This is a similar path they took with the Athlon from the K7 to whatever was before Bulldozer. Very little tweaks to the cores themselves with very little IPC lift, but tons of upgrades around the core, the biggest being the move to an integrated memory controller.

Now you're just commenting on FUD. I don't feel like there is any need to waste energy on what you think will happen or won't. But the short response is that Zen 3 is slated for first quarter. I'm sure AMD has had plenty of tests go through at this point or either the roadmap wouldn't have stated first quarter or they would have revised their statements.

Whether there will be another 'Zen' release isn't in question; what is in question is whether they can pull more IPC out, and if so, under what circumstances. They need to do that and increase clockspeed a bit.

It's true that Intel has done well with in their low power segment, that is to say mobile. But only up to a point. AMD's APU's have grown significantly better and the gap is definitely narrowing in terms of total energy usage.

One would hope!

But AMD is still stubbornly behind here, and well, performance for mobile is measured differently -- mostly in terms of hours of battery life under normal usage. AMD performs at best 25% worse, without providing much of a performance advantage that can also be leveraged without a power cord.

Maybe they'll improve things? I'd certainly love one!

As to the second point, they haven't really done anything at all with their 14nm process.

The process they've done tons with. Skylake, not so much -- they never planned for a 14nm architecture after Skylake, and only now are they actually doing that work. Still, they got power usage down and clockspeeds up, enough to make double the cores per socket viable at the consumer level, and that's more than AMD accomplished at 12nm. AMD didn't bother producing an APU at 12nm with more than four cores, while Intel has had them for years on 14nm.

If you've been using an i7 for the last half a decade, there isn't much reason to upgrade if all you do is game. GN tested the 6700k, 7700k, 8700k, and 9900k all on one chart. And there are gains sure, but not worthwhile ones. It's true that there have been changes, but "significant" ones? Not really.

Uh, okay. I game, and the 8700K was definitely worthwhile. The 9900K not as much, but it was purchased because I built a second system, not because it was an upgrade. Both are outstanding and outrun Zen 2 CPUs for what I need them to do.

That's not to say that I would buy either again today, quite the contrary -- nor do I recommend them -- but that doesn't make them bad in their own right.

And you do definitely want more than a 6700K if you game.

This sort of talk is also irrelevant. This is like arguing that the Voodoo 6 is the best video card never manufactured. You either have a product or you don't. Getting excited over vaporware is a waste of time. While the shoe has been on the other foot, that is to say all the AMD lovers saying: "Just you wait, this new thing will crush Intel!", and of course unsuccessfully to do so it was rightfully met with scorn.

The difference being here that we've seen Ice Lake in its limited deployment, so while there are rumors of a ~15% IPC increase from AMD, Intel has already proven they can do it. Also, the architecture they're doing it with was originally slated for release four years ago.

So no, this doesn't compare to AMDs constant stream of 'We'll clobber Nvidia this time!' only to severely disappoint with something slower, hotter, louder, and more power hungry.

Apparently as I noted above a simple cache increase according to you is enough to give over 13%

Uh, no. AMD unfucked the memory controller, got their UEFIs in order, got their motherboard lineups in order, and so on -- all of that contributed to actually getting 'full' performance out of Zen.

Regardless of how it was accomplished performance is performance. Getting "annoyed" about how it was done is irrelevant.

It's relevant if you're looking at how much more performance may be extracted from Zen. As it stands, unless they have something actually new on the architecture front, that IPC uplift will likely be situational, at best. You know, the kind that Intel has been accused of producing.

AMD has a product for less money that took two generations for them to do that has at minimum reached parity with Intel

More like a decade, and by 'parity' we mean 'caught up with a six year old Intel architecture'. We've already seen that they're well behind Ice Lake, architecturally.

but more importantly in every productivity workflow (save Photoshop which is still frequency bound) is destroyed by AMD.

Yes, having a node at TSMC to produce new processors on is certainly adventageous, and it's nice that those advances aren't limited to say Qualcomm SoCs!

But again, what's allowed AMD to scale to higher core counts has been that process -- it's the only way they'd be able to produce chiplets with copious amounts of cache that can cover for the latency from their memory controller from their cores.

Further, you're bringing in productivity workloads, which is cool -- but it's also not something that Intel is bad at, nor something that is really needed by consumers. Notably, AMD is charging for the privilege, as they should, and as Intel has in the past. Even further, AMD left a gap for Intel by not producing lower core-count HEDT parts. That one I'm still surprised by, given how well the new Threadrippers are performing at more 'pedestrian' workloads over their predecessors.

If you don't like how that tastes going down, then fine. But to say that it didn't happen or that it doesn't count for any reason is just speaking like a sore loser.

Loser at what? Why should I feel anything?

I prefer dealing in facts, and I'm a fan of performance.

I'd by a 3900X or 3950X right now if I needed more performance. I don't, but I do recommend them and the 3600X and 3700X where appropriate. I'm honestly intrigued by the idea of building one just for fun, but alas, I have too many computers as it is.


And that's not what this thread is about -- it's rumormongering about the 'Fall of Intel' or some-such, which is pretty hilarious overall. We know that Intel's fab progress has seen a series of major hiccups, and that's quite exceptional, but we also know that they're biggest problem isn't products that are outdated (they're not), but literally not being able to make enough of the designs their operational fabs can produce to satisfy their customers. AMD actually has the same problem, because they have competition for output at TSMC!

So what's your rating for the likelihood that Intel won't get their fabs back on track? Are you banking on that not happening?

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Your solution to this argument is throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.

That's what happened. Zen 1 was a nice core wrapped in mostly crap.

It took two revisions to get the platforms up to par, from UEFIs to motherboard wiring to memory support to drivers and OS support. AMD didn't increase 'core' performance, they just got the rest of the CPU up to par. This is a similar path they took with the Athlon from the K7 to whatever was before Bulldozer. Very little tweaks to the cores themselves with very little IPC lift, but tons of upgrades around the core, the biggest being the move to an integrated memory controller.

Okay. Well you're the one stating "they just added cache" more than once in more than one thread. So great, you have some level of admitting that AMD built something good.

But AMD is still stubbornly behind here, and well, performance for mobile is measured differently -- mostly in terms of hours of battery life under normal usage. AMD performs at best 25% worse, without providing much of a performance advantage that can also be leveraged without a power cord.

Maybe they'll improve things? I'd certainly love one!

Sure. AMD APU's are for sure better than Intel integrated graphics. And when the choice is a fully integrated AMD APU versus Intel + some form of discrete graphics, even low power ones things are more even. But what you say is true.

Uh, okay. I game, and the 8700K was definitely worthwhile. The 9900K not as much, but it was purchased because I built a second system, not because it was an upgrade. Both are outstanding and outrun Zen 2 CPUs for what I need them to do.

That's not to say that I would buy either again today, quite the contrary -- nor do I recommend them -- but that doesn't make them bad in their own right.

I edited to add additional context before you reposed. But the long and short to repeat myself is the 8700k and 9700k/9900k added more cores, they didn't increase IPC per core. Their gains came from clockspeed and increased core count. And kudos to Intel, that was enough to keep them ahead of the game while more or less not having to do much of anything.

And you do definitely want more than a 6700K if you game.

Want and need are two entirely separate things. That was the point. It's not like there is a 50% increase in performance... because there is not.

The difference being here that we've seen Ice Lake in its limited deployment, so while there are rumors of a ~15% IPC increase from AMD, Intel has already proven they can do it. Also, the architecture they're doing it with was originally slated for release four years ago.

So no, this doesn't compare to AMDs constant stream of 'We'll clobber Nvidia this time!' only to severely disappoint with something slower, hotter, louder, and more power hungry.

Cool. FUD.

Uh, no. AMD unfucked the memory controller, got their UEFIs in order, got their motherboard lineups in order, and so on -- all of that contributed to actually getting 'full' performance out of Zen.

Cool. According to you that's "increasing cache". Suddenly you're able to have any form of nuance. (Although you don't below).

It's relevant if you're looking at how much more performance may be extracted from Zen. As it stands, unless they have something actually new on the architecture front, that IPC uplift will likely be situational, at best. You know, the kind that Intel has been accused of producing.

Cool. FUD.

More like a decade, and by 'parity' we mean 'caught up with a six year old Intel architecture'. We've already seen that they're well behind Ice Lake, architecturally.

You can't have it both ways. Either Intel has been "significantly innovating and increasing performance year over year" or they haven't because they have a six year old architecture. Which is it?
Either way, as stated before, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what I can buy. Call it whatever you want. What they have is what they have. Once again, if the shoe was on the other foot, which it has been often, excuses were not heeded. And they shouldn't have been. I don't accept Intel's excuses.

Yes, having a node at TSMC to produce new processors on is certainly adventageous, and it's nice that those advances aren't limited to say Qualcomm SoCs!

But again, what's allowed AMD to scale to higher core counts has been that process -- it's the only way they'd be able to produce chiplets with copious amounts of cache that can cover for the latency from their memory controller from their cores.

Further, you're bringing in productivity workloads, which is cool -- but it's also not something that Intel is bad at, nor something that is really needed by consumers. Notably, AMD is charging for the privilege, as they should, and as Intel has in the past. Even further, AMD left a gap for Intel by not producing lower core-count HEDT parts. That one I'm still surprised by, given how well the new Threadrippers are performing at more 'pedestrian' workloads over their predecessors.

It doesn't matter how things are accomplished only that they are. The bottom line is it took clever engineering to create chiplets. And in so doing allowed to create a much more cost effective part. It certainly is much less than any monolithic CPU would cost to manufacture regardless of die size. Especially for ever increasing core counts.

Loser at what? Why should I feel anything?

You're incredibly defensive. At best.

I prefer dealing in facts, and I'm a fan of performance.

Not really. There is an incredible amount of FUD in your post. Most of it can be reduced down to: yeah, but can they do better next time?

I'd by a 3900X or 3950X right now if I needed more performance. I don't, but I do recommend them and the 3600X and 3700X where appropriate. I'm honestly intrigued by the idea of building one just for fun, but alas, I have too many computers as it is.

Sure.

And that's not what this thread is about -- it's rumormongering about the 'Fall of Intel' or some-such, which is pretty hilarious overall. We know that Intel's fab progress has seen a series of major hiccups, and that's quite exceptional, but we also know that they're biggest problem isn't products that are outdated (they're not), but literally not being able to make enough of the designs their operational fabs can produce to satisfy their customers. AMD actually has the same problem, because they have competition for output at TSMC!

Yes and no. You're responding specifically to me, a person, regardless of the thread. So if you're going to make broad statements like you just have, then you're implying that I 'rumormongered'. We all have our bias'. However, I of course would like to think that I've been pretty balanced. My first post in this thread directly opposed the notion that Intel is all of a sudden going to be doomed (which you can feel free to read on page one). Posts since then have been directly aimed at those who are denying AMD's lead from a performance perspective.

So what's your rating for the likelihood that Intel won't get their fabs back on track? Are you banking on that not happening?

Well, it will happen at some point. But if we're talking about gambling, then we're really talking about "how soon do you think they will get their fabs back on track"? Because the "14+++++++++++" joke may be tongue in cheek but is obviously based partially in reality. And as to when, your guess is as good as mine. When Intel has a part that we can buy we can talk about it then. I'm not interested in talking about FUD the other direction either.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Okay. Well you're the one stating "they just added cache" more than once in more than one thread. So great, you have some level of admitting that AMD built something good.

...I never said they didn't?

Sure. AMD APU's are for sure better than Intel integrated graphics. And when the choice is a fully integrated AMD APU versus Intel + some form of discrete graphics, even low power ones things are more even. But what you say is true.

They're better than Intel's aging GPU tech -- but with Ice Lake, Intel has essentially caught up there too. Blame it on AMD not using their latest tech in their APUs. I'm certainly frustrated that they haven't paid much attention here myself.

I edited to add additional context before you reposed. But the long and short to repeat myself is the 8700k and 9700k/9900k added more cores, they didn't increase IPC per core.

I didn't contest that?

Their gains came from clockspeed and increased core count. And kudos to Intel, that was enough to keep them ahead of the game while more or less not having to do much of anything.

They had to update their platforms to support more cores, higher power usage, and so on. That's not alot, but it's also not nothing. Further, the point you had made was about gaming -- you asserted that a four core CPU was enough today!

Like, really?

Want and need are two entirely separate things. That was the point. It's not like there is a 50% increase in performance... because they're not.

For top-end gaming, you need more than four cores. Less than six, and you're seeing frametimes stretch to uncomfortable lengths, ones that will absolutely be noticeable. Eight is more or less comfortable, for now.

The 3700X is really where it's at today.

Cool. FUD.

Actual shipping products with actual improvements is 'FUD' to you?

Cool.

Cool. According to you that's "increasing cache". Suddenly you're able to have any form of nuance. (Although you didn't above and you also didn't below).

Nuance is all we're doing here. I've presented plenty, and continue to do so.

You can't have it both ways. Either Intel has been "significantly innovating and increasing performance year over year" or they haven't because they have a six year old architecture. Which is it?

Uh, both are true, so yeah, I can have it both ways. You mentioned nuance above?

It doesn't matter how things are accomplished only that they are. The bottom line is it took clever engineering to create chiplets. And in so doing allowed to create a much more cost effective part. It certainly is much less than any monolithic CPU would cost to manufacture regardless of die size. Especially for ever increasing core counts.

Well, AMD knew better than to bet on being able to produce large, complex, monolithic dies at someone else's fabs, so yeah, kudos for that. I bet if Intel had been honest with themselves about 14nm, they'd have gone a similar direction, but hey, they weren't and didn't.

You're incredibly defensive. At best.

...or you're projecting your bias?

I wonder

Not really. There is an incredible amount of FUD in your post. Most of it can be reduced down to: yeah, but can they do better next time?

The thread is literally about 'next time'.

So if you're going to make broad statements like you just have, then you're implying that I 'rumormongered'.

That's the source of the discussion. Take that as you like.

Posts since then have been directly aimed at those who are denying AMD's lead from a performance perspective.

AMD is leading in core counts -- and that's about it. That's big, of course, and they can make them cheaply and are willing to sell them cheaply, which is even better, but again, that's about it.

We've had Skylake for six years. Matching it isn't really a high bar.

 

[vick1000]

Yup, my brain is fried. My mistake, it's on me. But for two (not necessarily relevant) points: Steve doesn't test multiple resolutions in that video and only the 9900k (and sometimes 9700k) at the top of the product stack is capable of besting everything else.
However, to your final point, that isn't true either. It's true for gaming workloads only. Meaning that if you're interested in using your computer for work, then the exact reverse is true. (Or more precisely AMD is faster and less expensive winning at both dollar and pound).




...r.

I specifically stated gaming. Take a look at the video you posted, there are multiple res results there, and most people game at 1440p or 1080p, and at 4k you are severly GPU lmited anyway. Intel still rules gaming, and here is why, most games just don't use the extra threads right now.

 

[vjhawk]

So your defense of Intel is to show a chart that the 9900KS, a $789 part, and the 9900K a $534 part are 3% faster and 2% faster respectively than the 3700X, a $325 part? And only in gaming? Whereas they also get their doors blown off in any kind of productivity apps by the cheaper or equivalently priced AMD part? Seems a bit desperate and disingenuous.

(cpu prices as of 12/31/19 on amazon)

 

[SPARTAN VI]

So your defense of Intel is to show a chart that the 9900KS, a $789 part, and the 9900K a $534 part are 3% faster and 2% faster respectively than the 3700X, a $325 part? And only in gaming? Whereas they also get their doors blown off in any kind of productivity apps by the cheaper or equivalently priced AMD part? Seems a bit desperate and disingenuous.

(cpu prices as of 12/31/19 on amazon)

Even the R5 3600 non-X, a $180-190 part, is barely 3-5% slower at 1440P than the top dogs while being 66-77% cheaper. Another value win for AMD. Where are the Ryzen 3900X and 3950X in this line-up?

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Even the R5 3600 non-X, a $180-190 part, is barely 3-5% slower at 1440P than the top dogs while being 66-77% cheaper. Another value win for AMD.

Yup.

Where are the Ryzen 3900X and 3950X in this line-up?

For gaming, you don't gain performance over eight cores, so unless you have some other use for the additional cores you're spending money best spent somewhere else, like a faster GPU or larger SSD or better monitor or whatever.

Also important: with Zen 2 / Ryzen | TR 3000, you don't really lose gaming performance or any other performance with more cores, so if you do need more cores for other purposes, rock on!

 

[SPARTAN VI]

For gaming, you don't gain performance over eight cores, so unless you have some other use for the additional cores you're spending money best spent somewhere else, like a faster GPU or larger SSD or better monitor or whatever.

Also important: with Zen 2 / Ryzen | TR 3000, you don't really lose gaming performance or any other performance with more cores, so if you do need more cores for other purposes, rock on!

My point is that Ryzen is the value king here, and possibly also king of the hill if that chart didn't simply stop at their $325 Ryzen 7 offering.

 

[Master_shake_]

the chant from intel these days seems to be

"we're marginally the best at gaming.... "we're marginally the best at gaming.... "we're marginally the best at gaming...."

 

[UnknownSouljer]

My point is that Ryzen is the value king here, and possibly also king of the hill if that chart didn't simply stop at their $325 Ryzen 7 offering.

It’s on the 10th spot from the top when including the 9900ks overclocked results. It is still <4% from the top.

EDIT (this EDIT is happening after SPARTAN VI's "like" so he can feel free to "dislike" after the fact): It should also be noted that a lot of these are within margin of error. Even on GN's extended benchmarks that they've done on these processors, it's true that Intel is at the top consistently [or always if you want to really press on the point] but a lot of the time it's within 2%, which is within the margin of error. If you want to be pedantic, then yes Intel is winning at gaming workloads, but in a "double-blind taste test" it would be impossible to tell the difference between a 9900k/s or a 3900x in gaming. Whereas you'd definitely be able to tell the difference in productivity when literally minutes are being saved from render times on AMD hardware versus Intel.

That productivity gap only becomes wider when the project becomes bigger. Benchmarks are based on project lengths that are only a few minutes in length. But if your project is hours then time saved is multiplicative. And your time saved would also become multiplicative when talking about doing multiple projects (as opposed to "just doing one"). Whereas the FPS advantage in a game will to reiterate never be noticeable outside of a canned benchmark.

If it makes anyone feel better that Intel is ahead by 2-4% in gaming (an imperceptible amount) on their top consumer CPU's then I guess good for you, but that is an incredibly hollow victory.

 

[RamonGTP]

You know intel is in trouble when their fan base sounds like AMDs fan base did for the last 15 years

 

[noko]

You know intel is in trouble when their fan base sounds like AMDs fan base did for the last 15 years

Except the AMD fan base was right

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Except the AMD fan base was right

On balance "was right" for this round. The tech market is very fluid, although this is the first time top end CPU's have had a shakeup in a while.
Still, Intel fanboys should learn to take their spanking as they've more than had their day in the sun.

 

[vick1000]

So your defense of Intel is to show a chart that the 9900KS, a $789 part, and the 9900K a $534 part are 3% faster and 2% faster respectively than the 3700X, a $325 part? And only in gaming? Whereas they also get their doors blown off in any kind of productivity apps by the cheaper or equivalently priced AMD part? Seems a bit desperate and disingenuous.

(cpu prices as of 12/31/19 on amazon)

I did not consider price, as I said before, we were talking performance only, in games only, and Intel is tops. The margins are so narrow in that chart, because it's an average of all games tested. In most games, Intel is king. AMD's scalability advantage of adding cores/threads, diminishes quickly in most current games. Even with a slight IPC advantage, Ryzen 2 can't clock fast enough to keep up. AMD is a great value right now, in almost every segment, but it was not what was bieng discussed. The point I was making was in response to a claim that Intel was only faster in a few games.

They have just pulled an a64, beaten Intel everywhere except a few games and using significantly (or many times) less power. And at lower clocks, thus AMD IPC is higher than Intel. Only thing keeping them relevant is clocking 14nm to the limit.

 

[RamonGTP]

I did not consider price, as I said before, we were talking performance only, in games only, and Intel is tops. The margins are so narrow in that chart, because it's an average of all games tested. In most games, Intel is king. AMD's scalability advantage of adding cores/threads, diminishes quickly in most current games. Even with a slight IPC advantage, Ryzen 2 can't clock fast enough to keep up. AMD is a great value right now, in almost every segment, but it was not what was bieng discussed. The point I was making was in response to a claim that Intel was only faster in a few games.

If the numbers are so low because it’s an average that suggests in most games, the difference is quite small.

 

[vick1000]

They have just pulled an a64, beaten Intel everywhere except a few games and using significantly (or many times) less power. And at lower clocks, thus AMD IPC is higher than Intel. Only thing keeping them relevant is clocking 14nm to the limit.

I guess we have not seen the same benchmarks?
I had multiple a64/opteron rigs and they were much the same. Few games and certain video editing niches Intel were competitive in.
This is no different.

Ice lake IPC is going to be a little higher but the clocks also lower on 10nm. Certianly not going to see the fabled 20-30% claims. Only time you will see that is comparing unmitigated cpus to next gen.

AMD however has a newly established reputation of making very accurate IPC claims. Intel marketing currently has almost zero trustworthiness.

If the numbers are so low because it’s an average that suggests in most games, the difference is quite small.

The averaging creates theoretical numbers, the actual differences are game to game, AMD winning some. The parody is just representative of the overall performance. For real world numbers you have to look game to game. But it's useful to show how core count has diminishing returns, which was the point of my post.

 

[Bowman15]

Competition is a wonderful thing....it can give a company huge rewards but also exacerbate its flaws and missteps. Both AMD and Intel know that all to well.

 

[RamonGTP]

The averaging creates theoretical numbers, the actual differences are game to game, AMD winning some. The parody is just representative of the overall performance. For real world numbers you have to look game to game. But it's useful to show how core count has diminishing returns, which was the point of my post.

Real world numbers and virtually no one buys an Intel since only special cases would someone buy one CPU over another because it’s better at one thing by single digit percentages and worse in quite literally everything else, often times by a gigantic margin. Bottom line, AMD > Intel and that doesn’t look like it’s going to change anytime soon based on the evidence we have before us today.

 

[vick1000]

Real world numbers and virtually no one buys an Intel since only special cases would someone buy one CPU over another because it’s better at one thing by single digit percentages and worse in quite literally everything else, often times by a gigantic margin. Bottom line, AMD > Intel and that doesn’t look like it’s going to change anytime soon based on the evidence we have before us today.

I'm sorry...what was that?
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

 

[Zedicus]

it would not matter if AMD was suddenly 150% better in EVERY known benchmark and use case. there are ancient I.T. managers that have not retired yet that will continually buy Intel because Intel. same for Cisco, Dell, 3com (that has been out of the switch business for like 10 years and i seriously just got a call a few days ago about someone looking to purchase 100 3com switches). people are frickin weird.

NOTE: i am a I.T. manager and i type this on a windows 7 computer.

 

[RamonGTP]

I'm sorry...what was that?
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

exactly what I said. Sorry it hurts your feelings your brand of choice is the crap option these days.

 

[Jandor]

I'm sorry...what was that?
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

Quite interesting. Let's analyze this.
AMD share is climbing by a small amount every month. What is for each month the share of the people who replace their gaming PC and CPU ? Shouldn't be huge. As long as it works you may keep the same PC eventually upgrading RAM graphic card or CPU.
Not sure, but the people spending or converting their CPU for gaming still look for 4 core CPU on steam or eventually it stays stable :
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/
(Replace CPU with core)
This means that the global use on steam doesn't represent the market. But the move can be interpreted.
The PC using steam is not ought to be a brand new one. It can be a relocatd PC from a higher purpose that is now deprecated for that use. It's probably a big part of the share of the PC used and the ones for the first time on steam.
Let's look for higher end parts like 2080Ti and Radeon VII and then for Navi and Turing to see how new the configuration is been updated or bought. GPU is so important for gaming.
1st position : GTX 1060 15% share, second 1050Ti 10% share : Wow ! Not that new, not that high end.
All Turing cards : around 18% market share (including non ray tracing).
All Navi cards : 0.6%.
2080TI : 0.4% market share, Radeon VII (16GB HBM2) : less than 0.18% (not even shown) ! For those gaming at 4K.
Second thing to look into is how the progress goes for Intel and AMD. And this is very interesting. Steam doesn't provide by the core count, by CPU brand, only by the speed.
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/
Back at the first figures, Windows, share by speed of the CPU at Intel and AMD.
Higher end, faster CPU 3.3/3.7GHz : Intel drops by 2%. This is definitely weird !
It's like people are abandoning their top level PC for gaming when it's Intel.
AMD : +0.3% market share and this is high because AMD is staring form low.
And what is even more interesting is that AMD CPU used are nearly only of higher speed CPU, when Intel faster CPU are dropping instead of their slower ones.
This all means, the higher end PC with Intel CPU are being replaced and eventually converted to gaming if possible, while all the brand new gaming and higher end PC are going for AMD.
You can see all the global move in those figures and it says, the future of Intel, for now, looks fucked up. They are loosing all the lucrative market but they may be able to run for the value market if they drop their prices well bellow AMD to become attractive and may still find a real market with their 4 core lines as far as they keep them inexpensive. Not the way they thought they will be doing business.

 

[vick1000]

exactly what I said. Sorry it hurts your feelings your brand of choice is the crap option these days.

Sorry, but do you think that 80% market share is all old purchases? My 9600K is a pretty sweet deal, even at stock. Of course AMD is going to gain some ground, they are a great deal.

 

[RamonGTP]

Sorry, but do you think that 80% market share is all old purchases? My 9600K is a pretty sweet deal, even at stock. Of course AMD is going to gain some ground, they are a great deal.

AMD is more than a “great deal” they have the superior product.

 

[vick1000]

AMD is more than a “great deal” they have the superior product.

Way to generalize. They are not superior at every thing are they? Again....GAMES!!!! That's been my point the entire time here, and it stands as correct. AMD is great, you love them, so do I, but they are still a step behind. Especially when you consider Intel is on double the size process, and half the package headroom. If they could get to 5 ghz boost, or more IPC, they would rule games too, but they are not there yet. AMD has a beach head in the enthusiast market now, let's see what they can do with it, hopefully more than last time when they were repelled.

 

[RamonGTP]

Way to generalize. They are not superior at every thing are they? Again....GAMES!!!! That's been my point the entire time here, and it stands as correct. AMD is great, you love them, so do I, but they are still a step behind. Especially when you consider Intel is on double the size process, and half the package headroom. If they could get to 5 ghz boost, or more IPC, they would rule games too, but they are not there yet. AMD has a beach head in the enthusiast market now, let's see what they can do with it, hopefully more than last time when they were repelled.

Your point has been addressed many times. Keep bragging about your games being 4% advantage average you’ll never notice while being much slower at everything else which you will notice.

As of this post, AMD > Intel. A fact you can make friends with or deny, but a fact it will remain.

For the record, I don’t “love” AMD. My 3900x has been my first AMD build since Athlon X2s first hit. Everything in between has been Intel for me. I’m just not delusional.

 

[vick1000]

Your point has been addressed many times. Keep bragging about your games being 4% advantage average you’ll never notice while being much slower at everything else which you will notice.

As of this post, AMD > Intel. A fact you can make friends with or deny, but a fact it will remain.

For the record, I don’t “love” AMD. My 3900x has been my first AMD build since Athlon X2s first hit. Everything in between has been Intel for me. I’m just not delusional.

Slower at what? I don't do anything else but wacth video and browse the web, with my PC. If you are building a workstation, AMD is great, if you are building a media PC, no big advantage there. The IGPU can help you for some apps as well, you don't get that with AMD.

 

[Gideon]

Slower at what? I don't do anything else but wacth video and browse the web, with my PC. If you are building a workstation, AMD is great, if you are building a media PC, no big advantage there. The IGPU can help you for some apps as well, you don't get that with AMD.

Seems like no one cares about a integrated gpu these days, well at least on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-Computer-CPU-Processors/zgbs/pc/229189

 

[kalston]

Your point has been addressed many times. Keep bragging about your games being 4% advantage average you’ll never notice while being much slower at everything else which you will notice.

As of this post, AMD > Intel. A fact you can make friends with or deny, but a fact it will remain.

For the record, I don’t “love” AMD. My 3900x has been my first AMD build since Athlon X2s first hit. Everything in between has been Intel for me. I’m just not delusional.

But he's right. Intel remains better for gaming overall and in severely CPU bound games it's still a substantial difference (more than 4%).

AMD may be better than Intel for you but it isn't for me and many other gamers, still. Especially those who care about the highest framerates (so not 1440p/4k with max details). And don't use averages here, that's not a good idea (oh and we are really missing some frametimes/min. framerates numbers here). I play a lot of different games but there's also a lot of games I don't play. And if some of the games I play* happen to benefit from Intel's strengths well... you get the picture.

I still frequently recommend AMD for new gaming builds especially on strained budgets. There's undeniably a lot to like about AMD CPUs now. And that's great!

*the majority of the games I sink the most hours into actually fall in that category so you could say I'm biased but the point remains