• 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 on the road to recovery.

LePhuronn said:
We are in agreement, @humbug and @SiDeards73, like I said it just makes me chuckle that some people chow down so hard on Intel's big blue dingaling they're utterly blind to what's actually happening.

Not that I can be bothered to get involved in the "debate" any more with those people; even by the standards of these forums, that 9000 series thread is astoundingly petulant and toxic.
Click to expand...

I'll happy use Intel or AMD, i will admit im more biased towards AMD, but im like a 2500k owner, except i upgrade a bit more frequently, maybe ever 2-3yrs, but i generally buy whats best bang for the buck at the time. This time round it was the AMD 1700, admittedly i almost bought Piledriver or Bulldozer instead of the 4770k lol, dodged that bullet.

I bought an Nvidia 1070 because the wait for Vega was so bad, glad i bought it, but i miss freesync and now Vega is at a reasonable price (£450) im extremely tempted to jump on that. Ive owned probably more Intel CPU's in the past 15 years than AMD ones, and i would buy the 9900k, if it was what i deem as reasonably priced (£400-450) but i also worry about Intels total and utter lack of intent to fix the glaring security issues with their CPU's, to me thats just a huge FU to their user base, whether AMD lucked out and their arch was just better to prevent this or whether they had some kinda sixth sense, i dunno.

I was planning on waiting out 7nm Ryzen before doing a rebuild, but depending on Z390 and 9900K prices i may just build an Intel rig before Xmas as my kids need a PC for School work, and i figure i can just give them mine.

Or i may just go 2700X with a view to putting that in their X370 mobo next year when i put 7nm Vega in an X470 for me. I actually fancy an all AMD rig, as it seems Vega and Ryzen harmonise extremely well together, and its not like i play a ton of twitch shooters, i mainly play MMO's and ARGP's, so theres plenty in the tank for those with an all AMD build.
 
GloFo promised 10% higher clocks for the same volts 12nm vs 14nm, that has been delivered, just, on mainstream depending on chip its Ryzen 1### 3.8Ghz - 4.1Ghz to Ryzen 2### 4.2Ghz - 4.4Ghz.

Add to that through microcode tweaks (the CPU's internal firmware) AMD managed to squeeze and extra 3 to 4% IPC, so a total performance jump Ryzen 1### to ryzen 2### of about 13%, pretty good for a tweaked new node refresh.

Coffeelake, which includes the core 9000 series has 3% higher IPC in single core workloads and 4% lower IPC in SMT workloads.

Ignoring the increased core counts and just on per core performance: Ryzen 3000 is Zen 2, it has tweaks at the hardware level, rumours are 10 to 15% higher IPC, i'm going to ignore that and go with very slightly better IPC than from Ryzen 1### to 2###, call it a nice round 5%, add another 10% clock speed bump and we are looking at 4.6 to 4.8Ghz with a per core performance about 2% higher than the core 9000 series, because of the 5% added IPC.
Lets say the core 9000 series overclocks to 5.2Ghz, that's about 10% higher clock speed with about 2% lower per core IPC.

Yes that still gives Intel the per core performance crown, but its only 8% and with half the cores, and if i'm only being a little bit conservative with my estimates the best Intel are doing is matching AMD on singular core performance while losing everywhere else.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
GloFo promised 10% higher clocks for the same volts 12nm vs 14nm, that has been delivered, just, on mainstream depending on chip its Ryzen 1### 3.8Ghz - 4.1Ghz to Ryzen 2### 4.2Ghz - 4.4Ghz.

Add to that through microcode tweaks (the CPU's internal firmware) AMD managed to squeeze and extra 3 to 4% IPC, so a total performance jump Ryzen 1### to ryzen 2### of about 13%, pretty good for a tweaked new node refresh.

Coffeelake, which includes the core 9000 series has 3% higher IPC in single core workloads and 4% lower IPC in SMT workloads.

Ignoring the increased core counts and just on per core performance: Ryzen 3000 is Zen 2, it has tweaks at the hardware level, rumours are 10 to 15% higher IPC, i'm going to ignore that and go with very slightly better IPC than from Ryzen 1### to 2###, call it a nice round 5%, add another 10% clock speed bump and we are looking at 4.6 to 4.8Ghz with a per core performance about 2% higher than the core 9000 series, because of the 5% added IPC.
Lets say the core 9000 series overclocks to 5.2Ghz, that's about 10% higher clock speed with about 2% lower per core IPC.

Yes that still gives Intel the per core performance crown, but its only 8% and with half the cores, and if i'm only being a little bit conservative with my estimates the best Intel are doing is matching AMD on singular core performance while losing everywhere else.
Click to expand...


Lets not forget the rumour that the next round ot Zen CPUs are not low power ones but High Performance. (so higher speed). Because currently we have 2700X consuming 2/3 the power of the stock 8700K!!!! I do not dare to think how much power the 9900K burns, as it is not any node change. Yet suprisingly everyone forgot the power consumption..... If AMD was burning more power, everyone would be out with calculators on how much more power it consumes.... (look at some threads in the graphic card forum)....

Also lets not forget the fact that AMD is making 16 core chiplets. Which must say seem great for "must own" even if they clock at 4.4Ghz if AMD puts them to mainstream CPUs.
It would basically kill, if someone assumes is still alive, the whole Intel HEDT platform outright and for good, including the whole mainstream....

In addition having owned at the same moment in time 1800X (4.2 auto XFR with 3600C15 ram), 8600K (5.1Ghz 4000C17 ram), 7700HQ 3.8ghz (Predator 15) in parallel, the only game that I could see a difference of 8600K being better is HOI IV. And even when if you trigger WW2 as Germany, is a dog to run on the 8600K also.
 
humbug said:
As near as makes no difference we are...

I7LTuwf.png
Click to expand...
When they was just above $2 I was contemplating a grands worth, but at the time I only had a few K saved up and didn't think it was worth taking the risk. If I was in the situation present back around 3 year ago I would be laughing now.

Absolutely kicking myself.
 
I bought 100 units after the dip in November, mainly as I was wanting to divest away from a crap performing fund. Up 140% as of today.

Kinda tempted to cash out...but might just leave it until there's an AMD GPU available to treat myself to :p Barring the whole market turning bear (not impossible given how long this bear run's gone on for), I think it's got plenty more legs if they continue to take market share away from Intel.

The main thing they need to do is start clawing back nVidia's lead in machine learning.
 
Last edited:
mid_gen said:
I bought 100 units after the dip in November, mainly as I was wanting to divest away from a crap performing fund. Up 140% as of today.

Kinda tempted to cash out...but might just leave it until there's an AMD GPU available to treat myself to :p Barring the whole market turning bear (not impossible given how long this bear run's gone on for), I think it's got plenty more legs if they continue to take market share away from Intel.

The main thing they need to do is start clawing back nVidia's lead in machine learning.
Click to expand...
Think share price may have further to go but it's also climbed rather quickly too, a bit too quickly IMO. They're also traditionally a more speculative share, although this may be changing and we could now see a period of sustained growth.
I may take some profit soon. My target was $24 which has been and gone. I do I see potential for at least $40 now but in no rush to see that. However, the share price isn't cheap and expectation is being built into the current price (disappointing results that don't meet expectations = hammer time probably)
 
Last edited:
On the discussion of the Arete announcement who stated that AMD will drop to $15 (company is a shorting hedge fund), there were investors claiming $150 per share for 2020 with $100 end of 2019.

Food for thought. If you go to the live website link posted few pages back you will find the article and discussion on the news article in relation to Arete.
 
I tend to not read too much of what others think to be honest or care too much for price predictions by third parties (despite putting my own in place but that was an easy target). If you look hard enough you can find someone of some belieft or another. A fund shorting stock will of course want you to beleive their bearish stance, likewise someone slapping $100 on it
Compared to NV you could say AMD are twice as expensive though, probably a reason why the $15 was mentioned by the hedge fund. But we have no idea at this stage whether they can knock out the numbers to back up the current price. I also read somewhere too that someone else thinks AMD are 100x more expensive than NV. Cant remember the reasoning behind that but.....
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
BOOM!!!!! here it is, $30.

$35 next...

ZOOBbOK.png
Click to expand...

$40 more likely
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amd-target-hiked-to-40-at-rosenblatt-2018-09-11

If you read most of the professional analysts, they are coming out of meetings with AMD and straight way they raise their price predictions.

Yet in this forum a visit on some Intel & Nvidia discussions in here, are calling AMD doomed doing a race to the bottom, which shows the ignorance.
On some other forums today they are screaming with ecstasy on the leaked 9900K 5Ghz overclock benchmarks, beating stock 2700X by 1000 points in TimeSpy CPU....
Nobody puts their head down to do the maths, how's possible the 9900K to be just 10% faster on CPU synthetic benchmark at 25% higher clock speed?

So is either fake benchmarks, or truly there are performance issues with the Z370 platform when fully patched.... Which we saw also on the 9700K benchmark.
 
I have noticed that ^^^^ both your points.

I did read, HPE (Hewlett Packard Enterprise) have started advising people to buy EPYC, i can't remember if it was specifically instead of Xeon, but it was certainly significant. i lost the bloody link and i can't find it on google.

And not just Intel, these people are citing AMD's strength against, a lot of these are also based on what they have seen in these meetings in regards to competition against nVidia, which is encouraging.
 
Live from AMD headquarters! :D
giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom