Cascade Lake-X 10980XE 5.1Ghz boost all cores

Mega6 said:
ah yes gaming and single thread. Welcome to the age of multi core. What res u playing games at? 640x480? Amd is better and more efficient at multi core plus Single core is so close that I can def see an Amd 16 core beating an intel 18 core.
Click to expand...

Over 120hz at both 1080p and 1440p Intel does still have the advantage. Its not a big enough advantage to recommend Intel CPUs over Ryzen 3000 chips, unless someone wants the absolute best gaming CPU, but it is still there.
 
Red Falcon said:
The move from Socket A to Sockets 754 and 939/940 were massive, and AMD had the first true dual-core x86-64 CPU to market.

If it weren't for AMD's 64-bit extensions, we might still be on x86-32 or heaven forbid, IA-64.
Click to expand...

Whoop, they doubled the register size. Intel did it overnight on the Pentium IV; they specifically chose not to do it previously because they were researching and releasing a VLIW architecture as IA64. As is obvious, Intel was ahead of their time -- VLIW needs massive compiler-side optimizations. When optimized code flies, but unfortunately IA64 and Itanium CPUs are most known for their slow x86 emulation performance.

But moving x86 to 64bit? Absolutely trivial. And completely useless at the time of the release.

Red Falcon said:
Bulldozer was a whole new microarchitecture, and was built from ground up - it has nothing to do with K10 or earlier - so what exactly do you mean?
Click to expand...

It was ass. I still love the idea, but they never made it competitive, and like Netburst, it was slower clock-for-clock than the architecture it replaced. The point is that historically AMD is less likely to follow up with a new, actually competitive architecture.

Red Falcon said:
Not to mention, the IMC in the original Athlon 64 removed the need for a FSB completely and lowered latency radically - how is that not a massive improvement architecturally???
Click to expand...

The location of the IMC is considered a big deal? Note that AMD just moved the IMC off-core again with Zen 2 and memory latency has shot back up. Is that considered a big deal?

Red Falcon said:
AMD fixed the memory architectural issues from Zen/Zen+ with Zen 2, which was a massive performance issue when more than 16-cores are in use.
I'm not saying further improvements aren't needed, but what is the point you are trying to make, or at least, what "work" are you talking abou
Click to expand...

AMD took the initial release and two revisions in order to be seen as competitive with a part from Intel that hasn't changed architecturally in four years. Hooray?

Red Falcon said:
While I agree with this, primarily because we can't see the future, I would trust further improvements in Zen 2/3 beyond anything Intel has to offer at this point.
The 22+ hardware exploits, Intel's history of lying and anti-consumer practices, their market stagnation of the 2010s, their failed attempt at 10nm on the deskop, etc.
Click to expand...

10nm is still generations ahead (really) than anything AMD is capable of fielding for mobile, while 7nm appears on track. Intel has paid for their history of competitive practices, and they're paying for their 10nm stumble now -- but they also have a history of innovation and execution that humbles the rest of the industry.

You can count them out, but historically speaking, they're more likely to continue to improve than AMD is. Most especially when Drs. Moore and Drs. Newton and Planck collide in the quest for the shrinking, higher performance circuit.
Red Falcon said:
all of this is snowballing out of control and Intel is publicly loosing market share to both AMD's offerings, ARM (depending on the market segment), and perhaps RISC-V as well within the coming years.
Click to expand...

Intel is losing on the server side quite literally because they cannot ship enough parts. The desktop side is a distant third market after mobile, which they own.

The main thing Intel is losing is mindshare, or rather, AMD is gaining mindshare at Intel's expense, which happens every decade or so when AMD gets a bit competitive. Intel can trace their earnings directly to their own fab stumbles, but that's it.



Red Falcon said:
Are you actually being serious with your statements? o_O
Click to expand...

Are you?
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Whoop, they doubled the register size. Intel did it overnight on the Pentium IV; they specifically chose not to do it previously because they were researching and releasing a VLIW architecture as IA64. As is obvious, Intel was ahead of their time -- VLIW needs massive compiler-side optimizations. When optimized code flies, but unfortunately IA64 and Itanium CPUs are most known for their slow x86 emulation performance.
Click to expand...

I'll just comment here, because I spent years working on this exact issue and architecture...

The real problem with VLIW in general is the assumption that there is an inherent degree of parallelism in your code which can use all the execution units specified in the instruction word. With massive data sets and analysis on this very fact, we kept coming up with "about 2" as the amount of inherent parallelism in an arbitrary instruction stream. Amdahl's Law effects bite you hard, and quickly. And not in a good way. ;)

The idea that the compiler would extract enough per-thread work to saturate a core sufficiently didn't really pan out in general workloads, and it was widely blamed on compilers - but it isn't really a compiler issue. It's a general computer science issue that most problem sets are largely sequential in nature. It's freakeshly consistent that "about 2" comes up as the expected ILP for most workloads. We can infer that and handle it without explicit compiler help, too. This has been handled pretty well in compilers for a very long time. Beyond that - you need different problem domains.

You can get much of the benefit from AVX instructions now. This doesn't require the compiler to infer much - you can explicitly state your parallel workloads and the CPU will eat them up. Another tangent, but this is why I view AVX as more important than many here do. It's a pretty good way of getting mildly-parallel work done very quickly on a CPU without dispatching to another system (GPU).

All these things speak to why single core performance matters so much, even now in a world where we do also have considerably-parallel workloads. Folks blast Intel, but for a given thread, they have a very strong architecture. That is of course not the complete picture, but it is also not nothing by any means.

As for registers, it's good to have more so you avoid shuffling and hitting main memory which is quite slow by the CPU reckoning. Register renaming helps a lot here, even if the registers aren't explicit (which helped Intel before more explicit registers were available). I digress... I geek out on this still, obviously. ;)
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Intel doesn't really respond to AMD as much as they respond to demand. Intel's biggest issue isn't that AMD has become competitive, but that they're having issues shipping their own designs in volume.
Click to expand...
No...more like Intel has been using the same 14nm platform for how many gen releases now? AMD is eating into the consumer market like we have never seen before. Intel still dominates the HEDT market but with AMDs 3900x and 3950x at their price points has force Intel to reduce pricing
 
DHarkKnight10 said:
No...more like Intel has been using the same 14nm platform for how many gen releases now? AMD is eating into the consumer market like we have never seen before. Intel still dominates the HEDT market but with AMDs 3900x and 3950x at their price points has force Intel to reduce pricing
Click to expand...


I think you underestimate Threadripper's impact.
 
14nm until 2022. This is how shifts in the market happen, AMD is going to take a lot of share this turn around.
 
I have to agree with @thesomokingman on this one. I think he is on the money and Intel is feeling the pinch. I mean with everyone claiming Intel will be the cats meow in CPU's here... didn't any of you read the internal memo that went out where Intel basically said we are behind the curve in this generation but we have every intention of taking the leadership back? This isn't them taking it back it's marketing...

Give it time... I want to see an ebb and flow in the market not any single company be THE player.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
The point is that historically AMD is less likely to follow up with a new, actually competitive architecture.
Click to expand...
Well, I imagine that AMD has just a little less resources than Intel, so they were stuck wil bulldozer.

IdiotInCharge said:
The location of the IMC is considered a big deal? Note that AMD just moved the IMC off-core again with Zen 2 and memory latency has shot back up. Is that considered a big deal?
Click to expand...

What do you mean again? The IMC used to not even be a part of the CPU chip (it was on the Mobo). The IMC is still on the CPU. Yes latency went up some, but not that much.

IdiotInCharge said:
AMD took the initial release and two revisions in order to be seen as competitive with a part from Intel that hasn't changed architecturally in four years. Hooray?
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? Even Ryzen 1 was competitive. You know why? Because people bought it instead of Intel. Where else could you get 8 pretty fast cores for less than $300?

IdiotInCharge said:
10nm is still generations ahead (really) than anything AMD is capable of fielding for mobile, while 7nm appears on track. Intel has paid for their history of competitive practices, and they're paying for their 10nm stumble now -- but they also have a history of innovation and execution that humbles the rest of the industry.
Click to expand...

You think Intel is going to release anything worthwhile made on 10nm? lol

IdiotInCharge said:
Intel is losing on the server side quite literally because they cannot ship enough parts.
Click to expand...

LOL its about to get waaaaay worse than that!
 
Last edited:
DHarkKnight10 said:
No...more like Intel has been using the same 14nm platform for how many gen releases now? AMD is eating into the consumer market like we have never seen before. Intel still dominates the HEDT market but with AMDs 3900x and 3950x at their price points has force Intel to reduce pricing
Click to expand...
Consumer market is Meh, AMD has made massive gains in the Server and HEDT market over the last 2 years and Intel is responding to that. Until AMD has a viable widespread laptop CPU the consumer market is going to be largely dominated by Intel regardless of what ever else they may have going on. I am very interested in seeing what the OEM's can bring to the table in 2020 with the Threadripper and Epyc processors though, the real question is can AMD actually provide them with proper supply, the Ryzen 9 supply is still abismal.

Edit:
When I say Massive gains I mean like sub 1% to a solid 3-5%.
 
Last edited:
thesmokingman said:
TR has moved HEDT further up the chain. TR now starts at 24 cores ya know. 3900x/3950x has killed the entry level HEDT point.
Click to expand...
Lakados said:
Consumer market is Meh, AMD has made massive gains in the Server and HEDT market over the last 2 years and Intel is responding to that. Until AMD has a viable widespread laptop CPU the consumer market is going to be largely dominated by Intel regardless of what ever else they may have going on. I am very interested in seeing what the OEM's can bring to the table in 2020 with the Threadripper and Epyc processors though, the real question is can AMD actually provide them with proper supply, the Ryzen 9 supply is still abismal.

Edit:
When I say Massive gains I mean like sub 1% to a solid 3-5%.
Click to expand...

Renoir APU is on its way shortly. (2020)
 
Rockenrooster said:
Well, I imagine that AMD has just a little less resources than Intel, so they were stuck wil bulldozer.
Click to expand...

While Intel refurbished an architecture they'd been using before AMD had started designing their own processors instead of copying Intel's under license?

It's more like AMD doubled-down on a shitty choice, right after Intel had done the same exact thing with Netburst.

Money or not, AMD made some pretty poor decisions.

Rockenrooster said:
What do you mean again? The IMC used to not even be a part of the CPU chip (it was on the Mobo). The IMC is still on the CPU. Yes latency went up some, but not that much.
Click to expand...

It's on package, but it's not on the same die as the cores. That was AMDs "innovation".

But since they're incapable of producing monolithic CPUs at volume (or TSMC is, flip a coin), they've had to regress.

Rockenrooster said:
You're kidding right? Even Ryzen 1 was competitive.
Click to expand...

Whoop, 3.9GHz all-core! Look ma, the encodes didn't get any faster, but the games definitely run slower now!

And it only took three motherboards and five sets of RAM to get it stable!

Have plenty of friends that were ecstatic to support the underdog, and support them they did.

Rockenrooster said:
You know why? Because people bought it instead of Intel.
Click to expand...

Some did, yes. Most paid more for that purchase all said and done than they would have for the same performance from Intel, but gotta support AMD where you can, right?

Rockenrooster said:
Where else could you get 8 pretty fast cores for less than $300?
Click to expand...

I'll take six faster cores and a mature platform over eight slower cores and a poor platform every day of the week.

Rockenrooster said:
You think Intel is going to release anything worthwhile made on 10nm? lol
Click to expand...

They already have, and AMD is three generations behind that product- at least. Three is being kind given the numbers AMD products are putting out in the mobile space.

Rockenrooster said:
LOL its about to get waaaaay worse than that!
Click to expand...

Quite unlikely -- so many things have to continue to go right for AMD, that they cannot control, for them to remain even borderline competitive going forward. Further, if they do manage to pull it off, it'd be the first time in their history to do so.
 
Lakados said:
Consumer market is Meh, AMD has made massive gains in the Server and HEDT market
Click to expand...

I'll give you the server market -- I don't think I could sell anything else at this point. But HEDT?

You're basically talking about rich enthusiasts here. Anyone serious is skipping straight to Xeon or Epyc for workstations- HEDT is likely the smallest market for either company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeo
like this
IdiotInCharge said:
I'll give you the server market -- I don't think I could sell anything else at this point. But HEDT?

You're basically talking about rich enthusiasts here. Anyone serious is skipping straight to Xeon or Epyc for workstations- HEDT is likely the smallest market for either company.
Click to expand...
Well I am seeing reports from various financial and other posts that says that over the last 2 years for the Workstation market they went from less than 20% to upwards of 50% with their Threadripper sales, that is in selective markets mind you, so I am sure those gains are a fair bit smaller and they cherry picket the data set to report on but overall the Threadrippers have been a huge seller especially when compared against their competing i7, i9, and Xeon counterparts in that price segment especially in Asia.
 
Lakados said:
overall the Threadrippers have been a huge seller especially when compared against their competing i7, i9, and Xeon counterparts in that price segment especially in Asia.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see Asia -- just less likely in the US / much of Europe.

And it's not that it'd be i9's, but that it'd be Epycs or Xeons with commercial platforms outside of farms.

I just don't see Threadripper's broad commercial appeal in 'western' markets. Enthusiasts of all stripes? Sure. But enterprises are likely to opt to paying a few % more for commercial hardware and associated support.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Yeah, I can see Asia -- just less likely in the US / much of Europe.

And it's not that it'd be i9's, but that it'd be Epycs or Xeons with commercial platforms outside of farms.

I just don't see Threadripper's broad commercial appeal in 'western' markets. Enthusiasts of all stripes? Sure. But enterprises are likely to opt to paying a few % more for commercial hardware and associated support.
Click to expand...
As a whole I agree, I have a pair of Threadripper systems in the works for a pair of lab systems that get used for all sorts of student needs, that an EPYC would be a better fit for but given the budget the Threadripper is better suited for. If I go EPYC then my licensing with Microsoft would push for Server OS which then requires one of the more expensive Tesla GPU's. Where if I go Threadripper I can keep with Win10 Enterprise and use either Titans or Quadro's, or both. But with the threadcounts on the new Threadrippers I have to talk to MS about how if at all it changes my licensing agreements.
 
Lakados said:
As a whole I agree, I have a pair of Threadripper systems in the works for a pair of lab systems that get used for all sorts of student needs, that an EPYC would be a better fit for but given the budget the Threadripper is better suited for. If I go EPYC then my licensing with Microsoft would push for Server OS which then requires one of the more expensive Tesla GPU's. Where if I go Threadripper I can keep with Win10 Enterprise and use either Titans or Quadro's, or both. But with the threadcounts on the new Threadrippers I have to talk to MS about how if at all it changes my licensing agreements.
Click to expand...

And that's the thing -- you're talking about students and budgets for stuff that isn't tied to revenue. And while I'm sure you care as to whether it works well or not, there isn't a revenue stream tied in that would justify commercial hardware.

You're also talking a relatively limited deployment, and dealing with Microsoft directly... which I don't envy.

But that's the comparison I'm trying to make. I expect AMD to be selling everything they make that qualifies as an Epyc-grade die, and I expect Intel to be selling Xeons much the same way. Right now I don't think that their combined production can oversaturate the market.

Taking that forward, let's assume that Intel gets their mammoth production capabilities back in order, and let's assume that they'll be at least matching Ice Lake performance. Where does that put AMD, especially when Intel can match them on core counts and beat their performance per core?

As much as we'd like to be optimistic about AMD, it's logically unsound to put too much stock into their current appearance of success, and then put more stock in Intel's blunder continuing. History very much points to the opposite.

And as always, I like performance, I'm happy to be wrong, and if AMD does out-muscle Intel?

I'll likely be running them again ;).
 
Rockenrooster said:
Well, I imagine that AMD has just a little less resources than Intel, so they were stuck wil bulldozer.



What do you mean again? The IMC used to not even be a part of the CPU chip (it was on the Mobo). The IMC is still on the CPU. Yes latency went up some, but not that much.



You're kidding right? Even Ryzen 1 was competitive. You know why? Because people bought it instead of Intel. Where else could you get 8 pretty fast cores for less than $300?



You think Intel is going to release anything worthwhile made on 10nm? lol



LOL its about to get waaaaay worse than that!
Click to expand...

Best bet is to ignore shills. ;)
 
I think that overclock is impressive, despite the heat. What is of concern to me is longevity. How long will the processor and directly connected components last at that clock?

I ask because I like to eck out as much longevity out of a computer prior to upgrading unless an opportunity arises that is reasonable cost vs performance upgrade.

For clarity, 5Ghz plus is my dream clock since I run many script heavy games.
 
AceGoober said:
I think that overclock is impressive, despite the heat. What is of concern to me is longevity. How long will the processor and directly connected components last at that clock?
Click to expand...

Generally, it's not the heat -- it's the voltage. Or so they say.

Regardless, if you can hit higher frequencies without slamming down the voltage, and you can keep the CPU and surrounding components cooled within a reasonable margin below spec, longevity shouldn't diverge from the average.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
And that's the thing -- you're talking about students and budgets for stuff that isn't tied to revenue. And while I'm sure you care as to whether it works well or not, there isn't a revenue stream tied in that would justify commercial hardware.

You're also talking a relatively limited deployment, and dealing with Microsoft directly... which I don't envy.

But that's the comparison I'm trying to make. I expect AMD to be selling everything they make that qualifies as an Epyc-grade die, and I expect Intel to be selling Xeons much the same way. Right now I don't think that their combined production can oversaturate the market.

Taking that forward, let's assume that Intel gets their mammoth production capabilities back in order, and let's assume that they'll be at least matching Ice Lake performance. Where does that put AMD, especially when Intel can match them on core counts and beat their performance per core?

As much as we'd like to be optimistic about AMD, it's logically unsound to put too much stock into their current appearance of success, and then put more stock in Intel's blunder continuing. History very much points to the opposite.

And as always, I like performance, I'm happy to be wrong, and if AMD does out-muscle Intel?

I'll likely be running them again ;).
Click to expand...
Yeah it is a somewhat limited scope I find myself in with those machines. I really do wonder though what is causing Intel's production delays and slow downs. Cause when Intel does counter it is going to be really hard, I can't imagine that the exec's at Intel are looking to pull any punches in the near future, they got given a black eye and I suspect they are out for some blood. Their Engineers have their pride after all.
 
Lakados said:
I really do wonder though what is causing Intel's production delays and slow downs.
Click to expand...

They blew 10nm pretty bad; that's really the long and short of it. They messed up, and then they doubled-down. They're four years behind their own road maps; 10nm was supposed to hit the desktop as the 7000-series, eight-core part. We're up to 10,000, and still on 14nm on the desktop.

So why the shortfall in production? They appear to have had to stand 14nm production back up. 10nm had to be stood up to begin work, but yields have been troublesome; the killer is that Intel's next-gen architecture, with higher IPC and vulnerabilities addressed, was built for 10nm. That's why they're massaging Skylake on 14nm as per the OP. It's what they can actually produce in volume while they're getting low 10nm yields and working on 7nm.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Whoop, 3.9GHz all-core! Look ma, the encodes didn't get any faster, but the games definitely run slower now!

And it only took three motherboards and five sets of RAM to get it stable!

Have plenty of friends that were ecstatic to support the underdog, and support them they did.
Click to expand...

You forgot something.
People that bought into 1st gen Ryzen (like me) had a choice between 7600k/7700k or 1600/1600X/1700/1700X/1800X.
The 8700k etc, didn't come out until Q4 of '17.
For me it was pretty easy choice, I didn't need max possible FPS for competitive twitch shooters @240Hz+ (I do play quake live @144hz though, plays great!), I do a whole lot more than just play games.
Encodes more than doubled in speed compared to what I had before, (Haswell i7 quad, FX8350")
I know you're exaggerating the RAM/Mobo issues (Asus I know has serious problems with the CH6), the only issue I had was I had to run my hynix 2933 16GBx2 sticks @ 2666mhz, then after first BIOS update I could run it @ 2933. With a cheap ASrock.
People that didn't do research or wanted to run 3200mhz regardless were the ones having most of the probems.

IdiotInCharge said:
Some did, yes. Most paid more for that purchase all said and done than they would have for the same performance from Intel, but gotta support AMD where you can, right?
Click to expand...

Only if your measurement is FPS numbers.
Not only would it be more expensive for me, but I would have had to wait for the 8th gen 6 cores to come out for something comparable. I was itching to upgrade by the end of 2016 but wanted more than 4 cores.

If I was strictly a gamer, then it wouldn't have been a problem going with a 7700k or 7600k as the most intensive game I play is ARK (such a horribly optimized game but likes single thread). But I do a lot more than just game.
Actually, a 7700k would probably choke running my ARK server + ARK itself + everything else I got running. Before, I ran the ARK server on my laptop (Haswell i7) as the 8350 I had previously choked on it)

IdiotInCharge said:
Quite unlikely -- so many things have to continue to go right for AMD, that they cannot control, for them to remain even borderline competitive going forward. Further, if they do manage to pull it off, it'd be the first time in their history to do so.
Click to expand...

Being competitive and the market actually buying their products are 2 different things.
They are for sure not just borderline competitive, they are destroying Intel.
Now the enterprise market is slow to respond for sure, being locked in to Intel doesn't help, but AMD literally has a best case scenario for the past year at least, and its showing, slowly but surely with AMD gaining market share.
With Rome, AMD is going to gain marketshare even faster.
Intel needs to come out with something comparable to Rome, which might be a while, to stop the bleeding, either that or resort to illegal practices again using their exorbiant amounts of money to buy off OEMs.

We'll see what cascade lake will do soon enough
 
it seems pretty apparent that the myth that intel was just holding onto next gen tech and selling only what was needed to be one step above their competition was a nice lie they got everyone to believe.

Both companies are working at their peak ability. The only thing intel has that amd doesn't is a marketbase that they got thru admittedly underhanded means over decades and the capital that goes with it.

It'll be fun to see what intel has in 2 years when they finally catch back up.

It'll be more fun watching it from my amd machines.
 
Darth Ender said:
it seems pretty apparent that the myth that intel was just holding onto next gen tech and selling only what was needed to be one step above their competition was a nice lie they got everyone to believe.

Both companies are working at their peak ability. The only thing intel has that amd doesn't is a marketbase that they got thru admittedly underhanded means over decades and the capital that goes with it.

It'll be fun to see what intel has in 2 years when they finally catch back up.

It'll be more fun watching it from my amd machines.
Click to expand...

Only thing I’d clarify is they are still ahead on desktop parts (up to 8 cores) for pure performance.

Above 8 cores they clean house due to their excellent execution of chiplets. They have a great cost advantage.
 
Dayaks said:
Only thing I’d clarify is they are still ahead on desktop parts (up to 8 cores) for pure performance.

Above 8 cores they clean house due to their excellent execution of chiplets. They have a great cost advantage.
Click to expand...
Yes, but power efficiency suffered (not that it matters much to us). Oh, and cost. Them 8 Intel cores be 'spensive!
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Generally, it's not the heat -- it's the voltage. Or so they say.

Regardless, if you can hit higher frequencies without slamming down the voltage, and you can keep the CPU and surrounding components cooled within a reasonable margin below spec, longevity shouldn't diverge from the average.
Click to expand...

No one keeps a system, especially enthusiast, long enough to come within a percentile of the actual lifespan, even if reduced, of pc components.
 
If Intel were to price these to be directly competitive then it would be enticing for many but we know that an 8 core x299 is going to cost $1000
 
Prices are already announced. 10 Core / 20 thread - $590

edit: Still an AMD 12/24 for $499 is more in my price range. $590 is a lot in my book for a CPU. I'll take the threads at that price any day.

Intel-Cascade-Lake-Pricing.jpg
 
Last edited:
Rockenrooster said:
Yes, but power efficiency suffered (not that it matters much to us). Oh, and cost. Them 8 Intel cores be 'spensive!
Click to expand...

In terms of system cost?

Not really, and if you need faster, they're the only way to get it. If only AMD offered a competing product ;).
 
Rockenrooster said:
You forgot something.
People that bought into 1st gen Ryzen (like me) had a choice between 7600k/7700k or 1600/1600X/1700/1700X/1800X.
The 8700k etc, didn't come out until Q4 of '17.
Click to expand...

People that bought into 1st generation Ryzen knew that Intel had a part with more, faster cores on the way and chose to deal with the legion of issues instead of waiting. Me? I waited, and that CPU is still faster than anything AMD produces for gaming.

Rockenrooster said:
I know you're exaggerating the RAM/Mobo issues (Asus I know has serious problems with the CH6), the only issue I had was I had to run my hynix 2933 16GBx2 sticks @ 2666mhz, then after first BIOS update I could run it @ 2933. With a cheap ASrock.
People that didn't do research or wanted to run 3200mhz regardless were the ones having most of the probems.
Click to expand...

People that didn't realize that Ryzen was absurdly picky about RAM to the point that XMP settings were unstable?

Yeah, no one really saw that one coming. It's not something that most have had to worry about for a decade or more, and XMP was created specifically so that they wouldn't. I knew many people that gave up after trying a second or third set, and those that bought in early?

The motherboard issues were no exaggeration for them.

Rockenrooster said:
Only if your measurement is FPS numbers.
Click to expand...

I abhor FPS numbers and I extol the use of frametimes and frametime analysis. This is where Intel spanks AMD, and frametimes are what you feel. Claiming that the performance is okay enough is like claiming that OG Crossfire produced great framerates. It did, I was there, but the frametimes were worse than with a single card, lol.

Rockenrooster said:
Being competitive and the market actually buying their products are 2 different things.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's why people buy i3s. Oh wait: perhaps because they don't need twenty cores to do their daily work. Who knew the world wasn't full of PC enthusiasts?!?

Rockenrooster said:
With Rome, AMD is going to gain marketshare even faster.
Click to expand...

The main reason AMD is able to gain marketshare is that they've secured production where Intel has faltered. This is good for both companies, but again, betting on AMD's continued increase in marketshare alongside Intel's continued production issues would be foolish. See: every other time this has happened.
 
tangoseal said:
No one keeps a system, especially enthusiast, long enough to come within a percentile of the actual lifespan, even if reduced, of pc components.
Click to expand...
Retro ethusiast?
Budget enthusiast?
Enthusiast's wife? lol
Ethusiasts that love to collect PCs?

Surely you don't have to be well-off and buy the highest end stuff all the time to be an enthusiast?
I freaking love overclocking, be it a 8400m GS i got a 60% overclock on (overvolted too, temps always stayed low 60s), Phenom x4 965, 8320e, 1700, Core 2 extreme in XPS, regular Core 2 Duo in laptop (forcing IDA on permanently, 2.0 to 2.2), i7 940.
Don't even get me started on the Android phones I rooted and overclocked.
I would say I have some experience with hardware failing after extended use.


My msi laptop from 2014 is being retired because it now crashes when I try to open a game or do any kind of stressfull thing on it (power delivery/Mobo)
Now i'm using a 2nd hand Alienware from 2015 (Haswell i7 + 980m) that I scored for freeeeee!

8400m GS died after 10 years
NVS equivalent of 8400m GS also died after 10 years.
7950m GTX died multiple times but revived serveral times after baking it. (got rid of it after maybe 7 years)
290x starting to show signs of failing after 4 years (PCS+ 290x anyone? can't stay fully clocked under load without shutting down. also draws a crapton of power. BIOS modded to be slightly underclocked to help)
MSI laptop failing after 4 years. (mobo)
LG G4 and LG V10 (both same chip, both failed after 2 years, known issue though so doesn't really count)
8300 system failed after maybe 5-6 years (Mobo, inlaws PC) Not mine though.

So in my experience Mobos and GPU fail the most often.
The only CPUs that i've seen fail are LG phones. (the BIG cores in the BIG.little are the culprit, I know this because there are kernels that disable the BIG cores and it completely resoves the issue)
Granted, I also have some older systems still kicking, like a Dell Precision T7400 with dual quad Xeons for example, easily 11 years old.

Plenty of people, even "Enthusiasts" keep a system to see it fail, although probably not their primary system, as we all know the backup rule, that we need backups in case of failure. HDDs don't count lol
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Do you support this point with the price cuts seen with the Pentium IV and Athlon 64? Intel will price according to market demand.

That's how pricing works.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct! When Market Demand is for AMD is such that they cannot sell them fast enough, Intel will drop their prices accordingly :)
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I abhor FPS numbers and I extol the use of frametimes and frametime analysis. This is where Intel spanks AMD, and frametimes are what you feel. Claiming that the performance is okay enough is like claiming that OG Crossfire produced great framerates. It did, I was there, but the frametimes were worse than with a single card, lol.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree! I guess you didn't read the part where the 7700k would choke on my workload. Frametimes and minimums are important to me and the 1700 OC'd works quite nicely in that department.

IdiotInCharge said:
Sure, that's why people buy i3s. Oh wait: perhaps because they don't need twenty cores to do their daily work. Who knew the world wasn't full of PC enthusiasts?!?
Click to expand...

I assumend this segment was for Enterprise/Server markets...

IdiotInCharge said:
The main reason AMD is able to gain marketshare is that they've secured production where Intel has faltered. This is good for both companies, but again, betting on AMD's continued increase in marketshare alongside Intel's continued production issues would be foolish. See: every other time this has happened.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the first part.
Second part remains to be seen, but makes sense considering just how big Intel is and how much marketshare they command.
 
Waiting for all software providers to move to the Microsoft pricing model of charging per core to cash in on the new "MOAR COREZ" mindset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top