Intel's CEO is thinking about his bonus. Products don't matter, sales don't matter, customers don't matter. It's all about the share options.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.
- Thread starter AStaley
- Start date
- Status
Intel's CEO is thinking about his bonus. Products don't matter, sales don't matter, customers don't matter. It's all about the share options.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
Intel do not give a four X about what some enthusiasts think on the web - they are quite happy selling overpriced under-performing crap security silicon to everybody because everybody buys it.
AMD however will keep pulling in mind share though.
AMD however will keep pulling in mind share though.
I love how despite all these terms being thrown at Intel, people are still forgetting Intel has the gaming performance crown.
Let that sink in. Their 5+ year old 14nm process, and 5 year old Skylake architecture, still beats AMD's brand new Ryzen in gaming. Gaming is still a massive market, and it's the type of market where an extra few FPS means the difference between getting an kill, or dying (wining or losing). The majority of gamers have voted with their wallets, and are happy to pay the extra for the top gaming performance.
I just hope to god that the Ryzen 4000 desktop series can actually beat Intel at gaming. We all know Intel's brand new architecture with massive IPC gains is coming (Rocket lake), followed up by LGA 1700 Alder lake 10nm DDR5, PCI-E v5 platform, which will most likely catupult Intel forward massively. It would be nice if AMD get the gaming performance crown for a few weeks/months before Intel's new chips arrive.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,574
- Location
- Warwickshire
The outright performance argument is stupid. What matters is performance and cores per £.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,422
Couldn't care less about 90fps vs.100fps. 60fps v synced, I guess, is the sweet spot for most.
Intel only have the lead because they overclocked it to oblivion. That lead will disappear when games start using the cores/threads, which you generally get more of, for the same money. Intel has closed the gap at the low-end with Comet Lake, but it's still true at the high-end.
Except in very high refresh scenarios or top-end competitive gaming, those few extra FPS won't make any difference.
Rpcket Lake, as far as I'm aware it'll be a small bump over Icelake.
Unless you already have the cash for the top end Gpu a cheaper ryzen CPU with the difference going towards a better Gpu will give more FPS.
PC games are increasing ported from console games. This act will increase with the upcoming console generation, as they will be so powerful. In the next 5 years, probably longer, you'll not find a game that wants more than 8 cores/16 threads. Heck, I'd be surprised if you see any performance increase from 6C/12T, as games are still not well threaded.
GPU power increases over time. Today's 2080ti will be tomorrow's 3070 performance level. 2 years from now, the 4070 will be the 3080ti's performance level. Unless you replace your CPU/Motherboard every year or two, it makes sense to get the best gaming CPU you can, if you mostly game. IMO at least
Also, this forum, and others, grossly overestimate the number of consumers who'll benefit from more than 8 cores 16 threads. The vast majority aren't running VM's, aren't rendering video/projects and aren't decoding terabytes of data. The high core count CPU's are absolutely great for workstations, where the user will be actually benefiting from those cores.
That said, IMO now is a very bad time to buy into any platform, AMD or Intel. We're at the absolutely tail end of DDR4. DDR5 is coming soon, as is PCI-E V5, USB4 and other goodies. That's what I'll be upgrading to at least, hopefully AMD are within 5% of Intel's 10nm LGA 1700 Alder Lake performance for gaming, though I doubt it.
Last edited:
PC games are increasing ported from console games. This act will increase with the upcoming console generation, as they will be so powerful. In the next 5 years, probably longer, you'll not find a game that wants more than 8 cores/16 threads. Heck, I'd be surprised if you see any performance increase from 6C/12T, as games are still not well threaded.
GPU power increases over time. Today's 2080ti will be tomorrow's 3070 performance level. 2 years from now, the 4070 will be the 3080ti's performance level. Unless you replace your CPU/Motherboard every year or two, it makes sense to get the best gaming CPU you can, if you mostly game. IMO at least
Also, this forum, and others, grossly overestimate the number of consumers who'll benefit from more than 8 cores 16 threads. The vast majority aren't running VM's, aren't rendering video/projects and aren't decoding terabytes of data. The high core count CPU's are absolutely great for workstations, where the user will be actually benefiting from those cores.
That said, IMO now is a very bad time to buy into any platform, AMD or Intel. We're at the absolutely tail end of DDR4. DDR5 is coming soon, as is PCI-E V5, USB4 and other goodies. That's what I'll be upgrading to at least, hopefully AMD are within 5% of Intel's 10nm LGA 1700 Alder Lake performance for gaming, though I doubt it.
The best way to see if more cores will help in the future is look at new game engines and what they are using. It looks like we may be at the beginning of highly multithreaded games.
As for DDR5 and PCIE 5, you could argue we're not maxing out the current limits yet so I'm not sure there's a rush to be an earlier adopter. My bet was to buy into higher end DDR4 and PCIE 4 and leapfrog the first few iterations of DDR5 until it matures and pricing stabilises. We'll see if my strategy is right over the next few years.
Not jumping on the first generation of Ram is always a good idea. Kits are always slower to begin with and always have rubbish timmings. Waiting until they are faster with tight timmings is really a no brainer.
Will Intel be able to get 5ghz+ 8 core processors on 10nm? I very much doibt it they'll likely be at lower clocks than AMD with similar ipc and less cores.
if anyone is playing 60 fps v synced i will be shocked. low frame rate and a weird cap in 2020. maybe 10 or 15 years ago but now...
intel do still have the gaming crown. thats why these cpus are so exciting as finally AMD may for the first time in about 15 -20 years be could actually in front again in gaming. alalala its not about cores mhz amd havent been in front for that long. been close a couple of times but these next ones could be the ones. my god these forums will be like jesus has arrived if they are...
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,675
- Location
- Livingston
If Rockstar can get RDR2 running beautifully on multi core but low boost binned CPUs (certainly seems to be the case with my 10c24t 2.6GHz Xeon) I’m inclined to think the correlation of MHz or GHz and gaming performance is soon to be turned upside down.
More cores and power efficiency, clock speed meh, who cares.
More cores and power efficiency, clock speed meh, who cares.
Physical cores and logical cores are already proving to be important in some respects, but the way some applications and games are programmed are very last decade, with limited CPU resources being the focus and brute forcing the running of said programmes with extra clock speed. You only need to look forward a few years to see that when SMT-2 or SMT-3 appears at the normal desktop level, your Ryzen 3600 equivalent could have as many as 24 threads to work with, which will do nothing unless it is programmed for. You can see this today with SMT sometimes causing a degradation of achievable performance in some application/games, and lowering the logical core count helping, which goes to show how far behind software is.
The issue with trying to protect against GPU upgrades and avoiding a CPU bottleneck is you can't predict how long it will be before a new level of performance is reached, the GTX 1080 for example is over 4 years old, and the closest card to it now is the GTX 2060 Super which has been out less than a year.
So unless you start pricing yourself into a much higher bracket of GPU, the 2080 Ti of today is going to take 5 years to become the 2060 Super of tomorrow, and after 5 years a huge amount of people will be looking to swap systems, not just whack in a new CPU. Then if you can get 95% of the performance of a 'new 2080 Ti equivalent' with your 5-6 year old processor then I don't think you'll care too much if your system lasted you that long, and you've had 100% performance for most of its life, regardless of what is in it now.
The issue with trying to protect against GPU upgrades and avoiding a CPU bottleneck is you can't predict how long it will be before a new level of performance is reached, the GTX 1080 for example is over 4 years old, and the closest card to it now is the GTX 2060 Super which has been out less than a year.
So unless you start pricing yourself into a much higher bracket of GPU, the 2080 Ti of today is going to take 5 years to become the 2060 Super of tomorrow, and after 5 years a huge amount of people will be looking to swap systems, not just whack in a new CPU. Then if you can get 95% of the performance of a 'new 2080 Ti equivalent' with your 5-6 year old processor then I don't think you'll care too much if your system lasted you that long, and you've had 100% performance for most of its life, regardless of what is in it now.
DDR5 & PCIE 5 are irrelevant tbh at the moment and we wouldn't be at a point of saturation of DDR4 or PCIE4 speeds so that point is mute tbh for at least another 5 years in my view. Even now the speeds for instance of PCIE4 M.2 drives would be happy to support streaming of textures in real time.
So AMD IPC is somewhere around 6% higher than Intel currently when you compare at the same Ghz. So with that and AMD looking to be pushing this IPC increase further in Ryzen 4000 series (17% being discussed) then you are needing a large chunk for Intel to keep up IPC wise. Of course rumour talk is in region of 25% which means at best would put them on par with AMD. Not to mention that discussion also suggests Intel is aiming for around 3.2GHz base / 4.3Ghz boost with those new 8 core/16thread Rocket Lake chips and they are going to be topping out at 8 core chips.
Also the beating you are on about at anything over 1080p high settings is generally within single digit % which honestly is not exactly a performance crown at the cost I would consider good or something to shout about like you have. The majority of gamers and voted with their wallets and still gone AMD, what are you even on about? If you mean those playing twitch shooters whom are looking to max out 240hz monitors then yeah there is a limited number but that isn't close to the gaming majority or the market trend we can literally see with the data on sales out there.
What AMD has issue with isn't IPC & clock speed generally, it is latency in their cores, the 3300x has already shown this and Ryzen 4000 looks like it should be a good step forward in that regards to improve significantly in gaming. Intel will need to pull something special in honesty with Rocket Lake to keep the gaming crown and I don't see that happening at the moment with what Intel have shown currently and what has been rumoured.
For more than 3 years a diminishing amount of Intel enthusiasts have been crying "oh Next CPU Intel will be so much better and Crush AMD"
No one cares about +10% FPS at 1080P with a 2080TI.
Look around you, about 80% of self build Desktop CPU sales are Ryzen.
Also, you have a 6700K. That's slower than a Ryzen 5 3300X, a budget CPU.... if you feel that strongly about it why haven't you got the latest and greatest 10900K?
Last edited:
All comes down to how the architecture has been designed, Intel is on 10th generation although really still on 6th with a very mature process so they have pushed the design to the limit so they have barely hung onto the gaming crown and it’s barely hanging on, people overstate the difference like it’s night and day when really it’s only using top end card at 1080p and it’s a few %, only people on forums and professional e-sports running 300 FPS + even care about that so minuscule %.
Self build retail desktop sales AMD are crushing Intel since Zen 2.
AMD coming from essentially nothing took Ryzen in a direction so it would cheap to manufacture while offering a lot of cores relative to the competition. Some sacrifices have been made in that design such as latency and IPC as their CPU had to be an excellent all rounder as they needed to claw back some market share in data centre as priority as it’s the most lucrative. They made a design where it’s was cheap to manufacture a lot of cores and priority on the best silicon can go to data centre where it matters and the not so good ones go to desktop where margins are smaller, overclocking and E-Peen 5Ghz+ are irrelevant in the scheme of things.
Zen showed they are back and can offer close to Intel in all markets for lower cost, now they have gotten IPC sorted with Zen 2 and are now ahead in metrics for data centre, workstation and desktop, mobile is gaining momentum. They are clawing back market share in everything.
All a balancing act on several factors. To knock them when they have built architecture from essentially nothing that has got the competition probably beaten in every aspect in a space of 3 years...Unrealistic to expect them to bring out something that wipes the floor in everything.
By 3rd generation they will have improved the architecture to where it’s massively ahead in core count and now also IPC and hopefully latency is sorted to where it’s ahead in gaming.
Self build retail desktop sales AMD are crushing Intel since Zen 2.
AMD coming from essentially nothing took Ryzen in a direction so it would cheap to manufacture while offering a lot of cores relative to the competition. Some sacrifices have been made in that design such as latency and IPC as their CPU had to be an excellent all rounder as they needed to claw back some market share in data centre as priority as it’s the most lucrative. They made a design where it’s was cheap to manufacture a lot of cores and priority on the best silicon can go to data centre where it matters and the not so good ones go to desktop where margins are smaller, overclocking and E-Peen 5Ghz+ are irrelevant in the scheme of things.
Zen showed they are back and can offer close to Intel in all markets for lower cost, now they have gotten IPC sorted with Zen 2 and are now ahead in metrics for data centre, workstation and desktop, mobile is gaining momentum. They are clawing back market share in everything.
All a balancing act on several factors. To knock them when they have built architecture from essentially nothing that has got the competition probably beaten in every aspect in a space of 3 years...Unrealistic to expect them to bring out something that wipes the floor in everything.
By 3rd generation they will have improved the architecture to where it’s massively ahead in core count and now also IPC and hopefully latency is sorted to where it’s ahead in gaming.
This is one of the most insightful things ever written here, AMD came from literally nothing with a catch all architecture, like Intel they can't make a 16 core Ring Bus CPU that's brilliant at gaming, but what they have come up with is something that is so close it doesn't matter to about 90% of gamers while still being able to 'easily' make 64 core CPU's to crush Intel with where the real money is while also providing top end HEDT level performance in the mainstream.
That's one hell of an achievement and has Intel in cold sweats. From Intel's point of view its "Impossibly" scalable and versatile.
Last edited:
There's not going to be a GPU that a Zen 2 or 3 can't power than an Intel CPU can, they're all in the same generational ballpark, but if a game loads the cores heavily the Intel CPU can't jam in more of those.PC games are increasing ported from console games. This act will increase with the upcoming console generation, as they will be so powerful. In the next 5 years, probably longer, you'll not find a game that wants more than 8 cores/16 threads. Heck, I'd be surprised if you see any performance increase from 6C/12T, as games are still not well threaded.
GPU power increases over time. Today's 2080ti will be tomorrow's 3070 performance level. 2 years from now, the 4070 will be the 3080ti's performance level. Unless you replace your CPU/Motherboard every year or two, it makes sense to get the best gaming CPU you can, if you mostly game. IMO at least
Also, this forum, and others, grossly overestimate the number of consumers who'll benefit from more than 8 cores 16 threads. The vast majority aren't running VM's, aren't rendering video/projects and aren't decoding terabytes of data. The high core count CPU's are absolutely great for workstations, where the user will be actually benefiting from those cores.
That said, IMO now is a very bad time to buy into any platform, AMD or Intel. We're at the absolutely tail end of DDR4. DDR5 is coming soon, as is PCI-E V5, USB4 and other goodies. That's what I'll be upgrading to at least, hopefully AMD are within 5% of Intel's 10nm LGA 1700 Alder Lake performance for gaming, though I doubt it.
A lot of the work that goes into making a game scale will also apply to having more cores/threads and even if it doesn't, people do a lot of additional stuff with their PC while they're gaming, or when they're not gaming. Heavy video/audio work is way more popular in the mainstream than it used to be before esports and social media took off, you can see that in the marketing nowadays and Ryzen CPUs offer a smoother gaming experience in these contexts, from what I've seen (though admittedly it depends what part of your PC you're using to record or stream).
I agree about the 8 cores/16 threads, but the push toward AMD and Zen happened prior to Intel moving their CPUs up in core/thread count. It's only with Comet Lake they've matched AMD at the low-end, prior to that you'd get 2 less cores for the same money. If that isn't a problem yet for casual users, it very soon will be.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,422
if anyone is playing 60 fps v synced i will be shocked. low frame rate and a weird cap in 2020. maybe 10 or 15 years ago but now...
I tend to game at 5760x1080 and, to have 120FPS +/-, would probably need a couple of 3080ti or 4080ti.
- Status