Truth? Lie? 5.2 16 core crushes 9980xe

notarat said:
I have money set aside just in case one of the new release CPUs seems intriguing enough.

We'll know in 6 days
Click to expand...

I'm planning to get a 3900x and 3600 non x same day but I will get them on the 7th from Microcenter since they have a 15 day no questions asked return policy.

In the even these chips suck which has a 0% chance lol, I can take them back.

My big concern is mobo availability. I'd hate to have a x370 repeat all over again.
 
techguymaxc said:
If you believe this "leak" I've got a bridge for sale... No way has AMD overcome Intel's IPC AND clock speed leads to produce these faster benchmark results, while still somehow being slower in games. Put all the information together and it doesn't add up.
Click to expand...
Faster in pubg and even in others. I guess that didn't count though?
 
N4CR said:
Faster in pubg and even in others. I guess that didn't count though?
Click to expand...

Actually the uneven performance gain would make sense, given the changes to the architecture. Both throughput and latency were increased significantly, so in latency sensitive stuff like games, it's going to depend quite a bit on the game tested.

Of note, there's going to be plenty of room for optimization should devs decide to put in the effort.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Actually the uneven performance gain would make sense, given the changes to the architecture. Both throughput and latency were increased significantly, so in latency sensitive stuff like games, it's going to depend quite a bit on the game tested.

Of note, there's going to be plenty of room for optimization should devs decide to put in the effort.
Click to expand...

Well apparently wcc is running an article which shows the 3600 non x is destroying the entire product stack of Intels consumer chips in passmark
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Actually the uneven performance gain would make sense, given the changes to the architecture. Both throughput and latency were increased significantly, so in latency sensitive stuff like games, it's going to depend quite a bit on the game tested.

Of note, there's going to be plenty of room for optimization should devs decide to put in the effort.
Click to expand...

I wonder about that. It would make sense that latency would increase due to cross-die communication (especially with the 3900X and 3950X). But these early results have been very strong. I hear you with regard to uneven performance - this is what I would expect too. But I wonder if AMD managed to mitigate the latency increase enough that it doesn't really matter. Guess we'll know in a few days.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
I wonder about that. It would make sense that latency would increase due to cross-die communication (especially with the 3900X and 3950X). But these early results have been very strong. I hear you with regard to uneven performance - this is what I would expect too. But I wonder if AMD managed to mitigate the latency increase enough that it doesn't really matter. Guess we'll know in a few days.
Click to expand...
Ram controller is far better (which was Intels main advantage aside from clockspeed) so helps with latency a bit.
 
I've got my bags of popcorn ready, this is almost as fun as political theater, the suspense, drama, anticipation. Either way, the fanboys are gonna revel, make excuses on both sides whether Ryzen 2 truly take the performance crown from intel, but "WE ALL WIN!". Whether some fan boys accept it or not the market usually will, competition spurs innovation and drives down prices. Hopefully Intel can get their 10 nm process node working and provide a giant leap forward. We all see what's happening on the GPU side with performance per dollar essentially stagnating for every product release until finally today with the "Super" announcement which only occurred with competition. Noting against fanboys, rooting for a team is in human nature, and it's ok to buy a worse performing product because you support your team. Hell I do it, I've been buying 90% AMD gear the last 5 years to support competition, knowing it was an inferior product. I accept it because the performance it still perfectly acceptable. Sure I don't get the extra 10% but I don't make money off of my hobby so in the big scheme, it matters little.
 
crazycuz20 said:
I've got my bags of popcorn ready, this is almost as fun as political theater, the suspense, drama, anticipation. Either way, the fanboys are gonna revel, make excuses on both sides whether Ryzen 2 truly take the performance crown from intel, but "WE ALL WIN!". Whether some fan boys accept it or not the market usually will, competition spurs innovation and drives down prices. Hopefully Intel can get their 10 nm process node working and provide a giant leap forward. We all see what's happening on the GPU side with performance per dollar essentially stagnating for every product release until finally today with the "Super" announcement which only occurred with competition. Noting against fanboys, rooting for a team is in human nature, and it's ok to buy a worse performing product because you support your team. Hell I do it, I've been buying 90% AMD gear the last 5 years to support competition, knowing it was an inferior product. I accept it because the performance it still perfectly acceptable. Sure I don't get the extra 10% but I don't make money off of my hobby so in the big scheme, it matters little.
Click to expand...

It depends if AMD becomes Intel with the same bad/ugly intentions then I will gladly pass on supporting AMD. What I would hope that AMD is doing is changing the landscape where we get better software support for multi-core cpu and Intel still clinging on to their 4 core is enough (upgraded now 6 cores are enough) would hope that attitude will be gone for good.
 
Companies are run by shareholders and they could care less about their customers, just their bottom line. In the same position any publicly traded company will act the same in the face of no competition. Maximize profits and expand their product portfolio into other markets that they think has a void or future potential, ala graphics and mobile/wireless networking in the case of intel. Nvidia getting into AI (autonomous driving) and cloud based gaming.
 
crazycuz20 said:
Companies are run by shareholders and they could care less about their customers, just their bottom line. In the same position any publicly traded company will act the same in the face of no competition. Maximize profits and expand their product portfolio into other markets that they think has a void or future potential, ala graphics and mobile/wireless networking in the case of intel. Nvidia getting into AI (autonomous driving) and cloud based gaming.
Click to expand...


At the core you are of course correct, but for the past 20 years or so I have been watching, AMD has tried to market thier products to enthusiasts, giving us things we want, where Intel is after broad general market share, we are just a small segment not worth much Intel's effort. And Intel is not wrong for this, if you can grab most of the consumer market do it.

I do realize that a lot of the reason for this is AMD kinda has to, And if the roles were reversed they might be the same.

But either way AMD CPU's have always been the better value every time I buy
 
raventai said:
But either way AMD CPU's have always been the better value every time I buy
Click to expand...

I get that you likely mean this, and I don't mean to really stomp on your first post- but it's important to separate 'what works for what I do' versus 'what CPU x is good for'. Many times the only reason to buy a certain company's products is that they have a product that 'works' and is cheaper, as there have been points in both companies' histories where they really haven't made CPUs worth buying over the competition. Like, any. AMD has had more of these without a doubt.

raventai said:
At the core you are of course correct, but for the past 20 years or so I have been watching, AMD has tried to market thier products to enthusiasts, giving us things we want, where Intel is after broad general market share, we are just a small segment not worth much Intel's effort. And Intel is not wrong for this, if you can grab most of the consumer market do it.
Click to expand...

Intel has absolutely marketed to enthusiasts. Higher-end desktop gaming isn't a huge market in and of itself, neither is laptop gaming, but the products that apply best to those markets overlap with others significantly, and gamers are just one brand of 'enthusiasts'. Do note how long Intel has had 'Extreme Editions' and now their -K and -X series processors.

Where I'd agree with you is that AMD has in the past focused more of their total efforts on enthusiasts, and it really is because they have had to. You see them pushing hard into enterprise with Epyc because that is both where the volume and the margins are. They could win the entire desktop market and still make peanuts off their CPU business if they don't make inroads into servers.

The other volume market is mobile, and well, they're not even close- yet.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I get that you likely mean this, and I don't mean to really stomp on your first post- but it's important to separate 'what works for what I do' versus 'what CPU x is good for'. Many times the only reason to buy a certain company's products is that they have a product that 'works' and is cheaper, as there have been points in both companies' histories where they really haven't made CPUs worth buying over the competition. Like, any. AMD has had more of these without a doubt.
Click to expand...

Yup. AMD has always been a mixed bag when it comes to CPUs. Sometimes they hit the mark strong, and nobody really sees it coming, like with Athlon, Athlon 64, and Athlon X2. Other times they are so far off the mark it's utterly laughable (K5, Bulldozer). More often they are 'good enough' to be a value proposition in certain spaces (Am386, Am486/5x86, K6 I/II/III, Phenom I/II). Ryzen is interesting because it doesn't really fit the usual AMD pattern, which has been to more or less throw shit at the wall and see if it sticks - sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. They have been taking the long view with Ryzen, slowly but reliably building it up with each generation in an almost Intel-like tick/tock approach.

Intel has absolutely marketed to enthusiasts. Higher-end desktop gaming isn't a huge market in and of itself, neither is laptop gaming, but the products that apply best to those markets overlap with others significantly, and gamers are just one brand of 'enthusiasts'. Do note how long Intel has had 'Extreme Editions' and now their -K and -X series processors.
Click to expand...

Yup, they have. I think the period of ~2011-2017 was an outlier with Intel. With no competition in any place other than the absolute bargain basement, they kind of took it easy in the enthusiast space, once Sandy Bridge basically owned everything. Coasted a bit. I don't blame them! There was no compelling reason to push the envelope for enthusiasts. They concentrated on servers, mobile, and other high-volume areas instead. But aside from that, Intel has always made plays for the enthusiast market - and even during that period, they were the only game in town.

Where I'd agree with you is that AMD has in the past focused more of their total efforts on enthusiasts, and it really is because they have had to. You see them pushing hard into enterprise with Epyc because that is both where the volume and the margins are. They could win the entire desktop market and still make peanuts off their CPU business if they don't make inroads into servers.
Click to expand...

This is another thing that's very different about Zen. AMD has really made an obvious, strong play for servers too. Again, almost Intel-like in their approach here. Very unusual for them.

The other volume market is mobile, and well, they're not even close- yet.
Click to expand...

They are decent in the low-end and low-to-middling mobile space, where their APUs do well (though Icelake is set to take a chunk out of that, possibly, depending on pricing). But aside from that, no, they have a long ways to go here. When their Zen 2 mobile and APU products show up, that's when I think they have potential here. An 8 core with a Navi GPU on it for mobile? That'd be excellent! Hopefully they try that - I can't imagine they haven't thought about it.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
I get that you likely mean this, and I don't mean to really stomp on your first post- but it's important to separate 'what works for what I do' versus 'what CPU x is good for'. Many times the only reason to buy a certain company's products is that they have a product that 'works' and is cheaper, as there have been points in both companies' histories where they really haven't made CPUs worth buying over the competition. Like, any. AMD has had more of these without a doubt.



Intel has absolutely marketed to enthusiasts. Higher-end desktop gaming isn't a huge market in and of itself, neither is laptop gaming, but the products that apply best to those markets overlap with others significantly, and gamers are just one brand of 'enthusiasts'. Do note how long Intel has had 'Extreme Editions' and now their -K and -X series processors.

Where I'd agree with you is that AMD has in the past focused more of their total efforts on enthusiasts, and it really is because they have had to. You see them pushing hard into enterprise with Epyc because that is both where the volume and the margins are. They could win the entire desktop market and still make peanuts off their CPU business if they don't make inroads into servers.

The other volume market is mobile, and well, they're not even close- yet.
Click to expand...

the thing about the enterprise market is it's about platforms, not just raw CPU benchmarks and performance, and AMD has always sucked here. even when intel has worse performance they come to bear with chipsets, nics, storage controllers, that are among the best if not the best in the game. that goes a LONG way to making intel the only choice.

what's new now, and probably AMDs best shot is the move from on premise servers to Azure/AWS. When someone else has to deal with all the headaches and you have an iron clad SLA than sure, all you care about is how it performance per the cost. No problem using a EPYC platform if it's Microsofts issue, but if it's your issue you're buying intel.
 
SOAREVERSOR said:
even when intel has worse performance they come to bear with chipsets
Click to expand...

I ran a few Pentium IV's after running VIA-based motherboards. Hotter, but close enough on performance, and rock solid in comparison.

SOAREVERSOR said:
nics
Click to expand...

Nicer AMD boards come with Intel NICs ;).

And the probably always will, because Intel has the driver side figured out too, and included both in the Linux kernel and in obscure *nixes, on top of Windows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top