Nope. Half that figure, add 50% to the time frame while standing on your head and squinting from the right angle, and maybe that’s close-ish to accurate between one or two generations over that time.
Last edited:
-
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.
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
Nope. Half that figure, add 50% to the time frame while standing on your head and squinting from the right angle, and maybe that’s close-ish to accurate between one or two generations over that time.
Soldato
Your comparison proves - to me at least - that we both know AMD is worse than Intel. That's why you are comparing equal priced products on the Intel side, vastly different priced products on the amd side. I swear, that to me is a complete acceptance that my point is factually correct.Mate we've been through all of this......
i3 2100 1500
i7 6700k 5500 (336%) in just 4 years instead of 6.
Soldato
Some Intel CPUS cost 10k € as well. Some AMD chips too. So? You said 8cores cost 2k which is just not true. Do you care about the truth jigger or just ******** on Intel? If it's the latter, then obviously talking to you is pointless.
Fact is, on the 300-350€ price point (which all mainstream i7s cost from 2010 up to 2017), Intel gave us at least equal if not better (if you include the 8700k) performance increase per year. That's just a fact and no matter how you or humbug try to move the goalposts, it aint going away.
Its so easy to prove how wrong his statement there is, he should check what he says before he posts, and when you prove him wrong he changes what he said and tries again.
Like that forever round and round and round, its like a war of attrition, he just keeps saying stupid #### and then says new stupid ####, keeps doing that until you give in.
Last edited:
Soldato
The average was actually 10% per year, excluding of course the 8700k which was a huge jump. I'm giving all the benefit of the doubt to AMD, excluding the best Intel cpu, and they still fall short.
The fact that you are going to avoid the following question says all that needs to be said. I bought an R7 1700 in March of 2017 for 300€. What would the MT performance increase be if I bought the newly released zen CPU in October of 2020 (3.5 years later) for the same 300€? Yeah, 35%
Depressing, worse than Intel
Soldato
Yeah, you are playing pidgeon chess. I never said anything different, the last 2 years my argument has not changed an IOTA. At the 300-350€ price point (that all mainstream i7 costs from 2010 up to 2018) Intel gave us a bigger performance increase than AMD on average. That's my argument, argue against it or accept its true.
Last edited:
The average was actually 10% per year, excluding of course the 8700k which was a huge jump. I'm giving all the benefit of the doubt to AMD, excluding the best Intel cpu, and they still fall short.
The fact that you are going to avoid the following question says all that needs to be said. I bought an R7 1700 in March of 2017 for 300€. What would the MT performance increase be if I bought the newly released zen CPU in October of 2020 (3.5 years later) for the same 300€? Yeah, 35%
Not everyone has the luxury of such a wild imagination as you. You must have been made up with your 10% performance jump year.
I read page 1 and thought this might be a good discussion and skipped to 94 and I am flabbergasted by the sheer denial of reality in this thread.
I assume you are using the cpumark or cinebench scores to provide the results you are using but that is just a single metric. If you were to use gaming benchmarks then the move from a 1700 to a 5600x is around 100% and not the 35% bandied around. Ryzen 1 was an excellent productivety cpu and almost all of the subsequent improvements were in other areas , specifically gaming. Yes for render tasks the improvements were not as huge but that is not the only metric available.
This is almost too stupid a point to argue so I will not feed the troll. Intel did not get the nickname of "toothpaste" for no reason.
I assume you are using the cpumark or cinebench scores to provide the results you are using but that is just a single metric. If you were to use gaming benchmarks then the move from a 1700 to a 5600x is around 100% and not the 35% bandied around. Ryzen 1 was an excellent productivety cpu and almost all of the subsequent improvements were in other areas , specifically gaming. Yes for render tasks the improvements were not as huge but that is not the only metric available.
This is almost too stupid a point to argue so I will not feed the troll. Intel did not get the nickname of "toothpaste" for no reason.
Last edited:
Soldato
Yeah, totally my imagination. Let's see techpowerup. So the 5600x released at the same price as the 1700 around 3 and a half years later wasn't even 30% faster. That's less than 10% per year. It was even slower than the previous year's 3700x at the same price. Totally my imagination
Soldato
Im comparing similarly priced CPUs. You are comparing cpus that cost 2-3-5--10 times as much. Sure, let's bring 20 core xeons into this then, let's compare an i3 2100 to an 20 core xeon while we are at it. I mean come on, you know you are wrong, just stahp it.
With the majority of that coming from clockspeed hikes. It’s was a truly dire time in home computing.
Soldato
Yeah gaming performance gains where good on AMD, but that didn't stop people from bashing on Intel. I mean the 7700k was the fastest gaming CPU back then and it's still got flamed into hell (by me included) for it's atrocious mt performance. Now suddenly MT performance doesn't matter cause amd sucks as it and we are focusing on gaming?
Yeah, totally my imagination. Let's see techpowerup. So the 5600x released at the same price as the 1700 around 3 and a half years later wasn't even 30% faster. That's less than 10% per year. It was even slower than the previous year's 3700x at the same price. Totally my imagination
Nearly time for your afternoon sleep?
My 2550K was the fastest. My week 27 4770K was the second fastest.
That's not what you said, i can read, its in print in your post, it does not lie, i quoted it, directly.
The jump per generation, you never said anything about similar pricing, not until after i proved your stament of fact wrong, you claimed to have said something you never did. again, its in print.
Soldato
Yeah, totally my imagination. Let's see techpowerup. So the 5600x released at the same price as the 1700 around 3 and a half years later wasn't even 30% faster. That's less than 10% per year. It was even slower than the previous year's 3700x at the same price. Totally my imagination
Yes in rendering you are comparing a 6 core to 8 core cpu. Look at every other metric and you will see how large that particular step up was. It is great that you are highlighting the single largest performance increase gen on gen we have seen for a long time. Was it 30% single threaded increase or just 20%.
All metrics matter when considering a cpus performance. Single thread , multi thread , power consumption etc etc. You cannot consider just one. Pricing is interesting metric to use but it is not a good one because both Intel and AMD will price too high at launch if they have a great product with good performance. Ryzen 3 was priced too high at launch because of how good it was and AMD had huge debts to pay off.
Soldato
It's obvious? Why would you ever compare a CPU that cost 100€ with a CPU that costs 900? And why stop at 900? Why not compared to TR's for 5k? Man....come on. The performance jump per euro is pretty terrible on AMD, as bad if not worse than Intels years. Period.
Graphs, graphs everywhere. 3.5 years, 27% performance increase. GO amd
PMSL, look at the graph?