That’s actually 7 generation’s of Intel quad cores and most of Intel’s performance come from them pre overclocking CPU’s.
26**
27**
47**
49**
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
26**
27**
47**
49**
Permabanned
Humbug wrote everything nicely and accurately. Until Zen 1, Intel offered the same number of cores with minimal advancements, and on top of that, we had to buy a new motherboard for each new generation. And how much did those 6+ core processors and the entire platform cost? Thanks to AMD, it's now mainstream, and with each generation, AMD brings advancements, all on the same platform. Thank God for Zen 1; we have emerged from the dark CPU era that Intel served us. Intel's HEDT segment is practically dead, which speaks volumes about how heavily they inflated the prices. If it weren't for AMD, we would still be forced to buy that Intel HEDT garbage.
edit: Now Bencher will write that AMD is the villain because it killed Intel's HEDT platform
, and if it weren't for AMD, Intel would still have HEDT xD.
edit: Now Bencher will write that AMD is the villain because it killed Intel's HEDT platform
, and if it weren't for AMD, Intel would still have HEDT xD.
Last edited:
Soldato
Yeah, amd gave us huge performance increases, 10% per gen. We already established thatHumbug wrote everything nicely and accurately. Until Zen 1, Intel offered the same number of cores with minimal advancements, and on top of that, we had to buy a new motherboard for each new generation. And how much did those 6+ core processors and the entire platform cost? Thanks to AMD, it's now mainstream, and with each generation, AMD brings advancements, all on the same platform. Thank God for Zen 1; we have emerged from the dark CPU era that Intel served us. Intel's HEDT segment is practically dead, which speaks volumes about how heavily they inflated the prices. If it weren't for AMD, we would still be forced to buy that Intel HEDT garbage.
edit: Now Bencher will write that AMD is the villain because it killed Intel's HEDT platform
Ryzen 1800X: 9,314
Ryzen 2700X: 9,971 (+7%) meh
Ryzen 3950X: 24,050 (+141%, +158%)
Ryzen 5950X: 28,577 (+19%, +200%)
Ryzen 7950X: 38,657 (+35%, +315%)
I made a mistake earlier, i counted the pre decimal 4 as the whole of the equation, like an idiot.
So we don't leave Intel out of this because they have made huge strides during the same period, competition, right?
7700K: 6,055
8700K: 8,960 (+48%)
9900K: 12,450 (+39%, +106%)
10900K: 15,945 (+28%, +163%)
12900K: 27,472 (+72%, +354%)
13900K: 39,652 (+44%, +554%)
Ryzen 2700X: 9,971 (+7%) meh
Ryzen 3950X: 24,050 (+141%, +158%)
Ryzen 5950X: 28,577 (+19%, +200%)
Ryzen 7950X: 38,657 (+35%, +315%)
I made a mistake earlier, i counted the pre decimal 4 as the whole of the equation, like an idiot.
So we don't leave Intel out of this because they have made huge strides during the same period, competition, right?
7700K: 6,055
8700K: 8,960 (+48%)
9900K: 12,450 (+39%, +106%)
10900K: 15,945 (+28%, +163%)
12900K: 27,472 (+72%, +354%)
13900K: 39,652 (+44%, +554%)
Last edited:
You forgot 11th gen
Deliberately, lets do that...
Permabanned
I'm quite certain that if it weren't for AMD, Intel would have charged a hefty price for ADL. They invested a tremendous amount of money in the big/little architecture, and software optimization is also necessary. There's no doubt that they would have charged a premium for it. However, now they are offering discounts from day one, which Intel isn't happy about, and their financial results reflect that.
I think they thought they could put AMD back in their box by having these massive cores for low threaded IPC and then tag on a bunch of little cores for MT scores.
Its a good idea, a good strategy, but again its a big CPU with high power consumption, all AMD did was up the IPC and clocks, while the core chips are actually smaller than Zen 3, 81mm vs 73mm.
And they will do it again with Zen 5, up the IPC and clocks, the core chips might be even smaller again while Intel add another 8 half cores on and increase the power consumption.
I imagine its frustrating for Intel, they must be thinking no matter what we do we can't win. But them scraping like this is good for us.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,560
You're almost as bad as Bencher with your selective comparisons; at least chose the same years for each.2017 to 2023, 6 years.
R23
1800X: 9,314
7950X: 38,657 (+415%)
2011 to 2017, 6 years.
i7 2700K: 4,434
i7 7700K: 6,055 (+37%)
Nope....
The simple point that it is silly to argue against is that for years Intel held folks back with just 4 cores for main stream and it wasn't really until AMD gave us the 3900x/3950X at decent pricing did it really put the cat amongst the pigeons for Multi-core performance and then the follow up with the 5000 series for single thread performance.
If it wasn't for AMD we almost certainly wouldn't have the performance gains we have now across the board.
You're almost as bad as Bencher with your selective comparisons; at least chose the same years for each.
The simple point that it is silly to argue against is that for years Intel held folks back with just 4 cores for main stream and it wasn't really until AMD gave us the 3900x/3950X at decent pricing did it really put the cat amongst the pigeons for Multi-core performance and then the follow up with the 5000 series for single thread performance.
If it wasn't for AMD we almost certainly wouldn't have the performance gains we have now across the board.
You need to read more of the thread to get the context of this.
Soldato
And if it wasn't for Intel we wouldn't have the performance gains we have now across the board either. I mean the whole reason the 1st gen Ryzen offered so many cores at that low a pricepoint was because Intel was so much faster in ST performance.
I do not like Blue Teams. Man City, Everton, Chelsea. Yuk
Soldato
And if it wasn't for Intel, Dell and other builders might have used AMD chips in a fairer market back then which likely would have led to performance gains sooner..
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,560
No, I don't.
This. For context because its worth reminding every generation.
In around 1979 Intel created the X86 architecture, a set of instructions that basically made it so that you didn't need a Phd in computer science to use one.
It was a revolutionary breakthrough, no question about that, IBM saw its potential and developed a UI interface operating system for it, the precursor to Windows.
So together Intel and IBM created the Personal Computer (PC) and called it as such, The IBM Personal Computer, every home could have one.
IMB was worried about how much supply Intel could provide, so part of the deal was that Intel would also source manufacturing from who were then the world's second largest semi conductor manufacturer, Advanced Micro Devices, (AMD)
Intel never sent AMD the engineering tapes, so they reverse engineered the CPU and manufactured them anyway, there were allowed to do that, AMD had the X86 licence.
AMD manufactured and sold copies of Intel's X86 CPU's through the 1980's, by the end of that decade AMD were tired of reverse engineering iterations on Intel's designs and started designing their own X86 architecture, through the 1990's AMD's designs surpassed Intel's in performance and efficiency.
AMD was small scale with only about 10% market share, but with the quality of their X86 designs they started to grow, and grow at Intel's expense.
By the late 1990's 32Bit instruction sets had reached their limitations, everyone was trying to develop 64Bit architectures, not easy, its a very complex thing, AMD was late to that party, by the time they started developing their own others had been trying for near a decade, in 2003 AMD cracked it, AMD 64 was born, but the real genius was to design it to plug right in to X86 (X86_64) so all existing software needed was a modification, pretty quickly there were two versions of Windows XP, a 32Bit version that would run on Intel and AMD and a 64Bit version that would run only on AMD Athlon64 CPU's.
This was a potential disaster for Intel, they quickly rushed out their own 64Bit CPU they had been working on for near a decade, Itanium, it was massive, slow, inefficient and broken, it didn't work, it was no where near ready.
By the mid 2000's AMD tipped in to 51% market share to Intel's 49% and growing rapidly, Intel could see the writing on the wall.
Intel licenced AMD64, they had to, no choice.
AMD at this point was up and coming, but unlike Intel they didn't have decades of accumulated wealth, Intel did and they used that wealth to buy AMD out of business. When AMD's orders abruptly stopped they to tried figure out what was going on, they offered Dell 1 million CPU's for free, Dell told them they couldn't accept them, they told them if they did they would actually lose money, AMD launched an investigation and found out that Intel had been paying vendors like Dell, HP ecte.... not to use AMD CPU's, AMD focused on Dell and revealed that Intel had been giving them their CPU's for free and on top of that had been paying them $850 million annually not to use AMD CPU's in any of their products, it was the same with HP and the rest of them on a smaller scale.
AMD took Intel to court and put a stop to it but by this point AMD was flat broke, they used what little cash reserves they had to buy ATI, $5.9 billion and tried to make a success of it in GPU's, starting with the HD 4870, a damned good GPU i might add. Unlike Intel's first GPU it actually worked and worked well.
In 2008 the market crashed, that added to AMD's problems and Bulldozer was a flop which almost finished them, the rest is history.
To those of you who vowed for whatever reason not to have anything AMD, you're running an AMD base architecture, even if it is branded Intel, also the multicore aspect of it, that as it is today in all X86 CPU's was another AMD invention and adopted by Intel.
Last edited:
Permabanned
Ouch, that comment is going to hit some people really hard, especially since they're already struggling
.
Soldato
And they lost. Intel was found innocent lol
EG1. Yes I know, again, the tiny little details like guilty or innocent don't really matter when it comes to shilling for AMD, but im just posting it for people that do care about the truth and not just pooping on Intel
Last edited:
And they lost. Intel was found innocent lol
Not quite, AMD won but Intel never stopped trying to overturn that verdict, they succeeded in that a couple of years ago.
Too late though, Intel just don't have the financial muscle today to do that and AMD are now a wealthy company in their own right, its a fights Intel would lose.
They do try, you can see it in Intel's finatials, in datacentre, where this matters Intel's margins are 2-4%, compared with AMD's 30-40%, Intel are still giving thier CPU's away to try and stop AMD, they are failing, AMD marketshare today stands at around 30 to 40% and growing.
Permabanned
That's right, Intel resorted to all dirty tactics to stop AMD, and AMD heroically endured it all. Today, they are a stable company that acquired Xilinx, the biggest transaction in history, and now they have all the tools to remain competitive. They are crushing Intel in every segment, and as you wrote, the only thing Intel can do is give away their products and forego profits, which doesn't sit well with shareholders, and they will rebel sooner or later. Pat Gelsinger will be gone just like all the previous CEOs. And let's never forget this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzshhrIj2EY&ab_channel=GamersNexus
Last edited:
Soldato
So, they were found innocent at the end, right? I mean I can link you the decision from last year if you want me to.