AMD THREADRIPPER VS INTEL SKYLAKE X

[SiDeards73]

I work for a very large global corporation, were are within the top 3 if not top of our chosen field worldwide. Our IT standards come from central group however they only detail what manufacturers we use, not what chips we put in the hardware we buy, i can assure you, if AMD is cheaper than Intel and performs as well if not better, that alone will be reason to swap to AMD.

I do procurement for our department for Client Hardware, i am also consulted for Server hardware, bottom line though, is if it performs as well as Intel and is drastically cheaper, we will swap to it, its simple economics, we have a 3 year turn around on client hardware, similar if not slightly longer on server hardware, we have phased the majority of our physical severs out to be replaced by VM's, if Epyc shows it can run VM's as well as Intel can, there is no question in my mind we will swap to AMD hardware, this is for the UK, it would not surprise me if this happens globally as well, after all most business are in business to make money, and if your TCO is lower with a similar if not better performing hardware, and there are no issues with the software you are running, you swap, its really that simple.

You cant tell me big business have not been waiting for a competitor with a good product at a cheaper price point, people have been waiting years for this moment, and i can guarantee a lot of big companies will grasp it with both hands.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Q6600 inter-core latency at 4 cores (despite using FSB with dual dies) is pretty much the same as the 6950X, almost double that of the 7700K and Ryzen platform but less than the 7900X - I don't think Intel is going to struggle too much on the latency side - aslong as the link has enough bandwidth which could cause some considerations.

I think people are confusing the lack of desirability of doing it previously with their level of preparedness to do it.

In that case it will be interesting to see how well it work with a modern lick of paint.

 

[Doobedoo]

Another interesting aspect is how the infinity fabric is going to function with amd graphics cards going forwards. If amd are right in what they have been alluding to, then if we start seeing a real benefit when using a Ryzen cpu with a Navi gpu, that will play into amd's hands very nicely and will give them an advantage over both Intel and Nvidia.

 

[KompuKare]

Of course Intel probably spend way more on manufacturing R&D than on designs, so they have investigated multi-die. They announced this EMIB back in March:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3185...e-cobbled-together-using-different-parts.html

Now that they plan to do with that is another question. It would be very good for the likes of Qualcomm but Intel don't SOCs nor do are they willing to take any major ARM fab clients.

Realistically, if Intel want to copy AMD's IF idea it will take years to do so. If they have already started (i.e. there's a design in progress with EMIB), then maybe 1-2 years, otherwise probably more like 2-4 years.

Currently, AMD's IF approach allows them to make Ryzen chips with good margins (even presumably R5-1600 and R5-1500) and their server parts at very good margins. In fact, their yields and silicon utilisation are so good, you'd wonder if Zen2 or even Zen+ could afford to grow the die just to get an even faster IF.

 

[Rroff]

then if we start seeing a real benefit when using a Ryzen cpu with a Navi gpu

So far when they've talked about stuff like that its subsequently come to light of the caveat of game developers adopting certain practises - which while nVidia is the dominant force in the market probably won't happen outside of a few studios like Dice. I won't rule it out but they don't exactly have form on it.

 

[kitfit1]

So far when they've talked about stuff like that its subsequently come to light of the caveat of game developers adopting certain practises - which while nVidia is the dominant force in the market probably won't happen outside of a few studios like Dice. I won't rule it out but they don't exactly have form on it.

Of course you are right on this one Rroff. But when you add in that game developers will not be unaware of what is going on within the hardware world............................things may well change and change a hell of a lot this time round.

 

[Rroff]

As I said not ruling it out - game developers though seem to be resistant to vendor specific extensions/features unless the vendor pays them a lot of money and/or works with them closely on it.

 

[kitfit1]

As I said not ruling it out - game developers though seem to be resistant to vendor specific extensions/features unless the vendor pays them a lot of money and/or works with them closely on it.

I know they are lol. Thing is though, when that attitude actually starts to hit the bottom line......................things have to and will change.

We can see that already with the AMD partner anouncements yesterday and today. These were not sudden, they had been pitched to over a year ago and have been tested before the release of any anouncements. Any game developers that just ignore things like that are either stupid or just coming up to retirement.

 

[queamin]

IT depends what in the next consoles really, I would think desktop and console APU will be very close, they been on about this for years.

 

[humbug]

So far when they've talked about stuff like that its subsequently come to light of the caveat of game developers adopting certain practises - which while nVidia is the dominant force in the market probably won't happen outside of a few studios like Dice. I won't rule it out but they don't exactly have form on it.

nVidia are not the dominant force in game development, not be a long way. 70% of the architecture computer games are played on is from AMD.

Also, The Q6600 is nothing like Threadripper, the Q6600 doesn't come to within a mile of what Threadripper is so don't pretend Intel have already done it, they haven't.

 

[Rroff]

nVidia are not the dominant force in game development, not be a long way. 70% of the architecture computer games are played on is from AMD.

Also, The Q6600 is nothing like Threadripper, the Q6600 doesn't come to within a mile of what Threadripper is so don't pretend Intel have already done it, they haven't.

In the PC games area which is where it is going to matter they are currently the dominant GPU platform.

Threadripper is more like the Q6600 than I think you realise - obviously in terms of architecture there are some major differences but the general implementation is very similar and if you read the papers Intel published off the back of it they are basically describing Threadripper in general terms - don't underestimate how much that would help them take existing architecture to produce something like Threadripper.

People joke about the Core 2 being "alien" tech but that isn't entirely without reason - it represented years of progress in one development cycle and most of what has come since has been refinements enabled by node shrinks

 

[humbug]

In the PC games area which is where it is going to matter they are currently the dominant GPU platform.

Threadripper is more like the Q6600 than I think you realise - obviously in terms of architecture there are some major differences but the general implementation is very similar and if you read the papers Intel published off the back of it they are basically describing Threadripper in general terms - don't underestimate how much that would help them take existing architecture to produce something like Threadripper.

People joke about the Core 2 being "alien" tech but that isn't entirely without reason - it represented years of progress in one development cycle and most of what has come since has been refinements enabled by node shrinks

Repeating yourself over and over... again does not change the facts, the Q6600 is about as close to Threadripper as i am, it is not the magic bullet you are looking for, no matter how much twisted logic you use they are not the same thing.

Your nVidia dominant logic is completely twisted, having the most market share on the PC platform means nothing given that the PC platform is only about 30% of the gaming platform, so nVidia are dominant in 30% of the gaming market, that puts AMD what? 80% dominant?

Another way to look at it, 80% of games available for PC are developed for Game Consoles first and foremost, so even for the PC 80% of games are developed for AMD GPU's.

 

[Rroff]

Repeating yourself over and over... again does not change the facts, the Q6600 is about as close to Threadripper as i am, it is not the magic bullet you are looking for, no matter how much twisted logic you use they are not the same thing.

Your nVidia dominant logic is completely twisted, having the most market share on the PC platform means nothing given that the PC platform is only about 30% of the gaming platform, so nVidia are dominant in 30% of the gaming market, that puts AMD what? 80% dominant?

Another way to look at it, 80% of games available for PC are developed for Game Consoles first and foremost, so even for the PC 80% of games are developed for AMD GPU's.

I don't want to underplay Infinity Fabric here but the Q6600 is much more like Threadripper than you think - it utilises 2 dies on an interposer and while the way it works, especially in terms of core to core communications and scaling is far more rudimentary and required communicating via the FSB and chipset it was the first steps that were later built on to develop a mesh system Intel went on to do R&D on which they will be drawing on i.e. the development of crossbar systems to compensate for inefficiencies in the current ring bus implementation when scaling up core counts or communicating with cores/devices off die - all the papers on it are out there if you do a bit of googling.

More games are made for PC than console - lots more - nothing like 80% of the games made for PC are available for console (don't forget there are loads of Indie PC game developers whose products will never see a console), of the global games market the PC has a total 27% share in 2017 so far compared to 31% for console (which is roughly the same as for 2016) - PC brings in around $30bn a year total compared to $33.5bn for console (typically the AAA titles tend to outsell PC on the consoles considerably and are where a good chunk of that money comes from). Obviously in terms of dominance I'm talking about the PC area as nVidia has little presence elsewhere (ignoring shield, etc.) even today console games only superficially effect how games are made for the PC even when they were developed for console first - we are a long way (assuming it does happen) from the point where vendor specific functionality of the type most likely required for Ryzen<>Navi synergy to be best taken advantage of hits mainstream support on the PC platform regardless of what happens on console.

 

[humbug]

Games on PC are not made for PC and ported to Console, they are made for Console and ported to PC, market shares have nothing to do with it, XXXXX game is made for and designed to run on consoles, AMD hardware, and then made to work on PC, or rather made to work also on nVidia hardware given the hardware the game was made for natively was AMD, the hardware in consoles.

 

[Rroff]

Games on PC are not made for PC and ported to Console, they are made for Console and ported to PC, market shares have nothing to do with it, XXXXX game is made for and designed to run on consoles, AMD hardware, and then made to work on PC, or rather made to work also on nVidia hardware given the hardware the game was made for natively was AMD, the hardware in consoles.

Uh no - there is a whole mix of development approaches going on - one of the most common is using i.e. the Unreal Engine that can compile for multiple platforms and using a design approach that minimises the work required to switch between platforms to facilitate being able to simultaneously compile for all target platforms. AAA titles tend to have a more console focus in development and rebuilt for PC later but that isn't the case across the whole sphere of game development.

EDIT: As I mentioned in another post/thread this isn't so much a criticism of AMD just an observation that game developers as a whole don't tend to embrace these kind of things - none the least they have no idea who is going to end up on top next generation which could make significant engine development to support vendor specific features a legacy nightmare.

 

[faceman123]

 

[gavinh87]

Intel has stepped on their dick

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

Spoiler

Some of what he says sounds ok, some of what he talks about makes me wonder if he knows what a HEDT system is.

 

[triss]

Some of what he says sounds ok, some of what he talks about makes me wonder if he knows what a HEDT system is.

+1 I dont think he understands what a HEDT system is.

 

[Martini1991]

Another interesting aspect is how the infinity fabric is going to function with amd graphics cards going forwards. If amd are right in what they have been alluding to, then if we start seeing a real benefit when using a Ryzen cpu with a Navi gpu, that will play into amd's hands very nicely and will give them an advantage over both Intel and Nvidia.

This has been the rhetoric for about a decade