Will AMD Ever Beat Intel in Single Threaded Performance?

Will AMD Ever Beat Intel In Single Threaded Performance?

  • yes

    Votes: 55 91.7%
  • no

    Votes: 5 8.3%

  • Total voters
    60
  • Poll closed .

trick0502

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,170
I think it is posible. When intel moves to 7/10nm they won’t be able to hit 5ghz single core (I think). If that happens amd has a chance.
 

tom_ozahoski

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
263
They already meet or beat Intel in all but the extreme top. If rumors are half true intel will have their hands full later this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

FlawleZ

Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
954
They already do beat Intel in single thread in some scenarios.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,218
Some people are getting confused. They already do beat Intel in IPC in some tasks.

Single threaded performance is overall, still in Intel's favor. And that is due to clockspeed. AMD's IPC wins are not good enough to overcome the gap in clockspeed.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,450
Already do in some workloads.
240p gaming in a few games, no.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
21,767
they'll likely beat them with zen 3 if they're able to get the clock speeds up. that being said i think intel will lose the single threaded performance crown on their own when they're finally forced to 1. make an architecture that isn't riddled with security vulnerabilities to cheat their performance 2. if they refuse to get rid of their monolithic architecture when they move to 7nm.

the real answer though.. it doesn't really matter, games engines and software are finally catching up to the hardware when it comes to multi-core support so the outliers like CS are dwindling to the point where having the single threaded performance crown won't matter anymore.
 

Ultra-m-a-n

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
67
I would like to see something crazy like a desktop APU with EDRAM.. that would be really cool.

Along with AMD having the potential to die shrink the IO chiplet on all of their CPUs there are still gains to be had.
 

trick0502

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,170
Clock for clock, yeah. But when you have an 800mhz advantage, you win. Clock is king. The question should be, will intel be able to clock 10/7nm as high as 14+++++++++++++++++++?
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
21,767
Clock for clock, yeah. But when you have an 800mhz advantage, you win. Clock is king. The question should be, will intel be able to clock 10/7nm as high as 14+++++++++++++++++++?
Considering how much power they're having to pull just hit these clocks on 14nm probably not.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,548
AMD already has a slight IPC advantage in it's Zen 2 processors. This is evident given that Intel has to have a fairly substantial clock speed advantage to remain competitive in single-threaded applications.
 

TheRookie

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
173
I mean, AMD already has the IPC advantage.

Intel is still ahead in single-thread performance from clock speed alone.
 

oldmanbal

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,162
The amount of performance todays cpu's deliver, and with the parity between Intel and AMD, it really doesn't matter much anymore. If you can get 10 more fps at 260 fps is it going to change your life? Does it warrant spending an additional 300$?
 

XJJack

n00b
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
12
Who is going to buy the Intel product when they switch to 7nm and they are slower then there 14+++++++++++++.

They are going to need to come up with something to make us want there products (need to update).
 
Last edited:

Revenant_Knight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
307
Will AMD ever beat Intel on single threaded? They already have, and will likely again...also there are a lot of definitions of how this can be done.

In the past, they were faster during the launch of the original Athlon and many times during the Athlon 64 days. Clock for clock back then they were faster...I think clock for clock they're faster now. Not entirely sure.

However, Intel can clock faster. Also it depends entirely on the workload. Will AMD be faster single core than a workload that can use Intel's higher clock rates and quicksync? What about games that use advanced AVX sets? Or programs that love AMDs cache? But does it even matter? Not much of my software really is single threaded anymore, and most of what is single threaded runs blazing fast even on a low end CPU. I see NO difference when I run Office on a R5-2600 and a 9900K.... which even my I5-5200 runs it just fine. My GPU is more important to HEVC 4K60 playback. Games will surely be more Ryzen optimized with the new console generation.

This reminds me of the old Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 wars. Northwood and Prescott against Sledgehammer and Clawhammer.
 

Revenant_Knight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
307
The amount of performance todays cpu's deliver, and with the parity between Intel and AMD, it really doesn't matter much anymore. If you can get 10 more fps at 260 fps is it going to change your life? Does it warrant spending an additional 300$?

That argument has been made since the Apple II and 8086 days. ^_~

"....640kb ought be enough for anyone...." - said no one ever, but Bill Gates is often attributed so lets keep rolling with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
743
The amount of performance todays cpu's deliver, and with the parity between Intel and AMD, it really doesn't matter much anymore. If you can get 10 more fps at 260 fps is it going to change your life? Does it warrant spending an additional 300$?
Single threaded performance actually matters a lot for emulation. There are many drivers in MAME that don't run at full speed today, and emulation is often not a multi-threaded friendly application.
 

SkateFreak

n00b
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
1
Core, complicated question here!
The top 4 highest overclock records are all held by AMD chips! (AMD FX-8370), so we know they could one point pull the highest frequency period!
However clock speed alone != performance (bandwidth, instruction set implementation etc make a difference to work done) therefor a lower frequency CPU can potentially 'do more work'.
So outright performance is really about benches tbh...
However, when value for money is plugged into the equation (because that matters to a lot and has recently become a prominent factor) then AMD is blowing Intel out of the water. AMD chips vs Intel chips of comparable prices are of a much higher spec period.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,793
The amount of performance todays cpu's deliver, and with the parity between Intel and AMD, it really doesn't matter much anymore. If you can get 10 more fps at 260 fps is it going to change your life? Does it warrant spending an additional 300$?
There are other single threaded PC uses beside games. Shocking, I know. I would gladly pay $300 more for a CPU twice as fast in single thread and half as fast in multi thread tasks.
 

bluestang

n00b
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
43
Is there a "Who Cares" option? As in I need a crapload of powerful cores for compute work and not gaming, in which case AMD is king right now :)
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,272
Would love to if I could.
Hell if I could get 2x single thread ipc for 300 more I would as well. Too bad that doesnt exist. Because that chip would be 2x as fast per core anyways making the whole chip 100% faster than the other for 300 dollars extra. Thats a no brainer.
 
Top