Cascade Lake-X 10980XE 5.1Ghz boost all cores

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...

Yeah massive difference there for frame times. Also SLI and Crossfire suck for frame times but I am sure it was just a oversight on your part not to mention SLI as well.

https://techreport.com/review/34672/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-and-ryzen-9-3900x-cpus-reviewed/10/

Grand_Theft_Auto_V_99perc.png
 
That_Sound_Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...
The ones that can get away with it, for sure but those people have already been doing it. But that's what VMs are for lol.

Vendor: "Oh, you have a 64 core server?"
IT: "uhhhh no...... *quickly re-provisions VM to 2 cores and reboots*. See, it's only 2 cores!"
 
Gideon said:
Yeah massive difference there for frame times. Also SLI and Crossfire suck for frame times but I am sure it was just a oversight on your part not to mention SLI as well.
Click to expand...

Like it was an oversight to mention only one game on your part?

Are you trying to ridicule yourself?

I used the term 'OG Crossfire', as I'd hoped that those of us that had used Crossfire up to the 6000-series would remember the debacle that it was and how it was made worse by reviewers not covering the horrific frametime issues. At the time multi-GPU support was actually pretty good and frametimes on Nvidia were great.
 
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...

Huh. My MB went bad. Had to find a new on on ebay. 32GB of DDR4 pricing still makes me cringe a bit. It's not line the old days where MHz is doubling every six months back in the "Golden Era" so build a new box. I've had this one like seven years and it's still capable. (1080p) Could handle a 5700(XT).
 
Last edited:
Rockenrooster said:
The ones that can get away with it, for sure but those people have already been doing it. But that's what VMs are for lol.

Vendor: "Oh, you have a 64 core server?"
IT: "uhhhh no...... *quickly re-provisions VM to 2 cores and reboots*. See, it's only 2 cores!"
Click to expand...

How dare you! I would never think of such deceitful tactics. <shifty eyes> /hides servers.
 
Nightfire said:
Current Intel ring bus vs AMD mesh, Intel leads slightly in gaming. Intel mesh vs AMD mesh looks to be a very different story:

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/6827...ntels-i9-10980xe-3dmark-firestrike/index.html
Click to expand...
So after checking into this deeper with a XOC'er it was determined that this is pretty bullshit. Very clickbait article for one.

For two its not an apples to apples test.

For three why are they using fire strike?

The results are no longer on 3dmark and have been removed and without knowing the exact settings of the test to see if its been doctored this is literally telling nothing.
 
Rockenrooster said:
would choke on my workload
Click to expand...

I can find instances in either direction, thus I concede that your experience is representative of a subset of tests.

Rockenrooster said:
Second part remains to be seen, but makes sense considering just how big Intel is and how much marketshare they command.
Click to expand...

The results of all bets placed remain to be see; I'm simply speaking to history in the context of the information available today. Intel has at least one new, high-IPC architecture that's waiting for their manufacturing processes to catch up to, and that architecture is several years old.

This while AMD had their first new architecture in a decade, which would have been fairly unremarkable if Intel weren't still shipping Skylake. But since Intel is still shipping, and now even further refining Skylake, AMD has had the opportunity to grab some marketshare.

Which I don't criticize; you'll be able to quote me as both being impressed with AMD's progress and having had recommended them quite a bit -- even in this thread.

Just note that here we're not talking about current products, but future products. And for AMD, the future is always less certain, it's just a reality of their capabilities and current business model.
 
German Muscle said:
So after checking into this deeper with a XOC'er it was determined that this is pretty bullshit. Very clickbait article for one.

For two its not an apples to apples test.

For three why are they using fire strike?

The results are no longer on 3dmark and have been removed and without knowing the exact settings of the test to see if its been doctored this is literally telling nothing.
Click to expand...

Sorry wrong link. It was suppose to be the Techspot 8 core shootout article. I will find it again later.
 
Rockenrooster said:
in the past yes, since ryzen 1, they've been pretty spot on on their roadmaps since and Intel hasn't for sure...
Click to expand...

Sure, but so has TSMC -- and both are needed, while neither has a strong history of product execution.

TSMC faltering would be similar to where Intel is now, with new architectures ready to go and waiting on fabs.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Like it was an oversight to mention only one game on your part?

Are you trying to ridicule yourself?

I used the term 'OG Crossfire', as I'd hoped that those of us that had used Crossfire up to the 6000-series would remember the debacle that it was and how it was made worse by reviewers not covering the horrific frametime issues. At the time multi-GPU support was actually pretty good and frametimes on Nvidia were great.
Click to expand...

I gave you the whole article I got it from so your free to browse, I am not going to post the whole review just to show your story is complete BS. I ran a 8800GT sli setup and it sucked for frame times, it would stutter quite often so yeah if frame times is your thing you dont go sli or crossfire period. Difference is my post contained facts from a review, while your is just a baseless statement.
 
Gideon said:
I ran a 8800GT sli setup and it sucked for frame times, it would stutter quite often so yeah if frame times is your thing you dont go sli or crossfire period.
Click to expand...

I ran 670 SLI and then 970 SLI -- and frametimes were great, which was backed up by reviews.

I ran 6950 Crossfire, frametimes were ass, which was also backed up by reviews once they started measuring frametimes.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I ran 670 SLI and then 970 SLI -- and frametimes were great, which was backed up by reviews.

I ran 6950 Crossfire, frametimes were ass, which was also backed up by reviews once they started measuring frametimes.
Click to expand...

Yet the top hits in google for 670 sli frame times is people complaining about stuttering and horrible game play... Huh go figure. Oh look even 970 sli has the same hits for people complaining about stuttering. Reality is unless the game is highly optimized for sli or crossfire then your experience is going to be subpar. Let alone graphical bugs that sli and crossfire can introduce into a game.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I don't mind the data, but the age of the benchmark means that the AM4 CPU was compared with HEDT, which was slower than desktop CPUs both due to the mesh interconnect and due to lower clockspeeds.
Click to expand...

It is just a means of extrapolating how the new CPU will compare. Old AMD mesh vs current Intel Ring - not great. OLD AMD mesh vs current Intel Mesh - Good. New AMD mesh vs Intel Ring - Good. New AMD mesh vs Intel Mesh - VERY Good, even with Intel clock boosts.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Sure, but so has TSMC -- and both are needed, while neither has a strong history of product execution.

TSMC faltering would be similar to where Intel is now, with new architectures ready to go and waiting on fabs.
Click to expand...

Intel has set aside $3B for discounts and rebates to the channel for using Intel exclusively, while TSMC has set aside $16B just for 7 and 5nm R&D and ramp up.

That kinda explains why one company is deploying their version of 10nm and the other is paying to keep the other guy out of SI's lineups...
 
notarat said:
Intel has set aside $3B for discounts and rebates to the channel for using Intel exclusively, while TSMC has set aside $16B just for 7 and 5nm R&D and ramp up.

That kinda explains why one company is deploying their version of 10nm and the other is paying to keep the other guy out of SI's lineups...
Click to expand...
You do realize that is a rumor spread by one youtuber right? While I do not doubt Intel might use their profit to combat AMD due to their own history, I also would take a grain of salt regarding that rumor.
 
Chimpee said:
You do realize that is a rumor spread by one youtuber right? While I do not doubt Intel might use their profit to combat AMD due to their own history, I also would take a grain of salt regarding that rumor.
Click to expand...

They've done this shit in the past and been indicted for it, thus its very likely that they will be up to similar things. What can they do when they have no tech or fab to compete with other than their mountains of billions they got by squeezing the market?
 
IdiotInCharge said:
This while AMD had their first new architecture in a decade, which would have been fairly unremarkable if Intel weren't still shipping Skylake. But since Intel is still shipping, and now even further refining Skylake, AMD has had the opportunity to grab some marketshare.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, Bulldozer (and the CMT design) shipped from 2011 to 2016, and replaced in 2017 with Zen.
So, it was more like a half-decade - you're right, though, it did feel like more of a decade with how long in the tooth those CPUs were from the get go; this from an early adopter on them. :D

Agreed with the rest!
 
Last edited:
Chimpee said:
You do realize that is a rumor spread by one youtuber right? While I do not doubt Intel might use their profit to combat AMD due to their own history, I also would take a grain of salt regarding that rumor.
Click to expand...

Intel was previously found guilty of paying SI's to not use AMD parts and fined $1.25B. Therefore, they have paid SI's not to use AMD parts. Change my mind
 
Last edited:
notarat said:
Intel was previously found guilty of paying SI's to not use AMD parts and fined $1.25B. Therefore, they have paid SI's not to use AMD parts. Change my mind
Click to expand...
And? All I am saying the source of the Intel reserving 3 billion is suspicious and should be taken a grain of salt.
 
notarat said:
Intel has set aside $3B for discounts and rebates to the channel for using Intel exclusively, while TSMC has set aside $16B just for 7 and 5nm R&D and ramp up....
Click to expand...

Chimpee said:
You do realize that is a rumor spread by one youtuber right? While I do not doubt Intel might use their profit to combat AMD due to their own history, I also would take a grain of salt regarding that rumor.
Click to expand...

I ignore anything from Adored.

thesmokingman said:
They've done this shit in the past and been indicted for it, thus its very likely that they will be up to similar things...
Click to expand...

You cannot use past behavior as proof of future guilt. It's not even the same CEO. Prove to me that the same people who made those decisions 15 or 20 years ago are still in control of Intel, then you can have a right to be suspicious.

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Side notes, thoughts: You do know that AMD's first processor in the desktop market was a complete copy of Intels' cpu's? 8086, 80286, AMD was used to shore up availability of the chips. 80386 and 80486 were pin compatible clones, i.e. interchangable. The K5 was their first "own" design, that went into it's own unique socket. Intel's contract with AMD to produce the 8086 and 80286 cpu's was poorly written, allowing AMD to make the 386 and 486 clones without Intel's blessing. Intel changed the name to Pentium which eliminated the contract loophole, and why the K5 had to be AMD's first completely in-house designed cpu.

This is around when intel starting doing other illegal stuff to keep them out of the market, to which Intel had originally brought them into. They had some bad blood between them.

Intel was fined for the illegal activity.

If you think AMD was "innocent victim" in all of this, you are ignoring a big part of their history in this market. They made and marketed CPU's outside the intents of a contract, and even if legally it was ok due to the crappy way the contract was worded, was still pretty slimy.

Point: Buying a cpu to "support" a brand, to me is stupid.

I want competition. I think AMD is why the prices have dropped on Intel CPU's. I think they have contributed some innovation to CPU design. But I buy based on performance, stability, price, not brand loyalty, or in attempt to "punish" some company for past behavior.
 
Last edited:
GoodBoy said:
I ignore anything from Adored.



You cannot use past behavior as proof of future guilt. It's not even the same CEO. Prove to me that the same people who made those decisions 15 or 20 years ago are still in control of Intel, then you can have a right to be suspicious.
Click to expand...

I don't have to prove to you that the same people are in control. It's not about "personnel" it's about "procedures". You don't have to have the same people to do the same anti-competitive behavior. You should know this. Really...



GoodBoy said:
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Side notes, thoughts: You do know that AMD's first processor in the desktop market was a complete copy of Intels' cpu's? 8086, 80286, AMD was used to shore up availability of the chips. 80386 and 80486 were pin compatible clones, i.e. interchangable. The K5 was their first "own" design, that went into it's own unique socket. Intel's contract with AMD to produce the 8086 and 80286 cpu's was poorly written, allowing AMD to make the 386 and 486 clones without Intel's blessing. Intel changed the name to Pentium which eliminated the contract loophole, and why the K5 had to be AMD's first completely in-house designed cpu.

This is around when intel starting doing other illegal stuff to keep them out of the market, to which Intel had originally brought them into. They had some bad blood between them.

Intel was fined for the illegal activity.

If you think AMD was "innocent victim" in all of this, you are ignoring a big part of their history in this market. They made and marketed CPU's outside the intents of a contract, and even if legally it was ok due to the crappy way the contract was worded, was still pretty slimy.

Point: Buying a cpu to "support" a brand, to me is stupid.

I want competition. I think AMD is why the prices have dropped on Intel CPU's. I think they have contributed some innovation to CPU design. But I buy based on performance, stability, price, not brand loyalty, or in attempt to "punish" some company for past behavior.
Click to expand...

Don't know if this wordy part was also addressed to me but I do know a bit more than you may think I do. I've been building PCs since the early 1980's kits and my first "x86 PC" ran the 8088 at 4.77Mhz

AMD was second source supplier for most of Intel's products early on (think early 1970's) and was specifically chosen as second supplier for the "x86" CPU because IBM would not contract with Intel for their CPU until Intel named a second source supplier. That was standard operating procedure in the 70s and for quite a time after... Intel chose to name AMD as 2nd source supplier and extend the previously-existing cross-license agreement with AMD, and then followed it up with a 10yr cross-licensing agreement in the very early 80's iirc.

Of course, Intel, even in the 80's, tried to disregard it's contractual obligations with AMD and so AMD went to arbitration, which made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and AMD won. So...exactly how does a company which was wronged, use the arbitration clause in their contract, and suddenly become "slimy"?
 
GoodBoy said:
I ignore anything from Adored.
You cannot use past behavior as proof of future guilt. It's not even the same CEO. Prove to me that the same people who made those decisions 15 or 20 years ago are still in control of Intel, then you can have a right to be suspicious.
Click to expand...

Company Culture is hard to change. Intel greed is where the Licensing came from.

GoodBoy said:
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Side notes, thoughts: You do know that AMD's first processor in the desktop market was a complete copy of Intels' cpu's?
Click to expand...

It's called a "Technology exchange agreement".

See that section.

GoodBoy said:
8086, 80286, AMD was used to shore up availability of the chips. 80386 and 80486 were pin compatible clones, i.e. interchangable.

Intel's contract with AMD to produce the 8086 and 80286 cpu's was poorly written, allowing AMD to make the 386 and 486 clones without Intel's blessing.
Click to expand...
Intel and AMD entered a Cross-licensing agreement on Intel microcode. from the wiki -
"granting AMD a copyright license to the microcode in its microprocessors and peripherals, effective October 1976"

See Cross-Licensing


GoodBoy said:
Intel changed the name to Pentium which eliminated the contract loophole, and why the K5 had to be AMD's first completely in-house designed cpu.
Click to expand...

Pentium trademark is still around. NetBurst killed off the name for a while.

GoodBoy said:
This is around when intel starting doing other illegal stuff to keep them out of the market, to which Intel had originally brought them into. They had some bad blood between them.

Intel was fined for the illegal activity.

If you think AMD was "innocent victim" in all of this, you are ignoring a big part of their history in this market. They made and marketed CPU's outside the intents of a contract, and even if legally it was ok due to the crappy way the contract was worded, was still pretty slimy.
Click to expand...

Now this is just flat out lies. IF what you are saying is true - then AMD would have been the company FINED. Keep reality straight - Intel was the Dirty Player here. There is NO evidence of AMD wrongdoing. You fail to provide any proof in your accusations. Just double talk.
 
GoodBoy said:
If you think AMD was "innocent victim" in all of this, you are ignoring a big part of their history in this market. They made and marketed CPU's outside the intents of a contract, and even if legally it was ok due to the crappy way the contract was worded, was still pretty slimy.
Click to expand...

wow... just wow....
The previous 2 posters above me already pointed out that this isn't true, but if it was, AMD didn't do anything illegal at all and Intel got really butthurt and retaliated in an illegal way.
Like when someone pushes you with no physical harm and you overreact and deck the other person in front of a cop and wonder why you get arrested... Intel's fault either way
Poorly worded contract, Intel's fault
Illegal activity, also Intel's fault
 
I would say they are both at fault. There are degrees, and Intel was found to be "more guilty", and they paid for it. AMD was better at being slimy while not doing anything illegal (that we know of). I don't mind disagreements to this characterization of AMD's behavior... I was not there (working at AMD or Intel). But then neither were you.

All the details of the (history of the) agreements and reasons for them, I agree. I just did not feel like digging up all of those details.

The requirement for a dual supplier was obviously obsolete when many companies besides IBM started making PC's. When the requirement was no longer there, Intel stopped sharing the cpu "blueprint" with AMD. AMD, not wanting to be left out, starting cloning intel chips, and only with the K5 made their own.

What I am not sure of, is whether having a cross-licensing agreement means that one would HAVE to let the other have access to ALL of their tech.

At some point Intel did not want to keep giving away intellectual property. They got AMD into the desktop processor market (granted at IBM's requirement). We can make an educated guess that Intel was tired of a competitor reaping benefits that they developed. Then Intel went overboard and into illegal territory, and got dinged for it.

As I said before, I think AMD has done good things for the processor market. I'm not going to "buy" or "not buy" products from either, based on past mistakes they or the other have made. Legal mistakes, bad behavior, design mistakes, whatever. (There's plenty of that to spread around).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top