• 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 ThreadRipper ***

jigger said:
Twice as fast for three times as much as an already overpriced 7700K...
Click to expand...

Alternatively that performance per $ stat is worse when compared to say the Ryzen 1700.

But still way better than Intel.

Also you can't exactly glue two 1700 chips together yourself. You also get HEDT features like loads more PCI-E lanes etc.
 
DarrenM343 said:
it's an interesting line up. Must remember they're not true multicore processors though but seems like amd managed to stitch together a few quads with seemingly little downside and also lower manufacturing costs. As far as I understand the 16 core is 2 1800x's whichitself is two quads?

might have to give one a try for work pc!
Click to expand...

Huh not true multicore? Why would you say that? They are still full cores and there are multiples of them? And honestly does it make a difference about it as long as the performance is there? I have no doubt they could have made 16 core cpu's like Intel do but they would have been as expensive or more. There was no advantage in going that route. We are talking about something that has almost limitless scaling if they get it right. You could see in a decade from now going from 64 core to 128 core CPU's as they move across to 7nm. That isn't something you would ever want to be doing with a single chip like Intel. Also as bandwidth increases with DDR5 we are likely to see the CCX become faster and thus have less issues with latency. This is only the start from what is shown and looks like there is a bright future.

With that it is the reason Intel although mocking AMD in their slides have already shown they are working on similar tech now.
 
DarrenM343 said:
it's an interesting line up. Must remember they're not true multicore processors though but seems like amd managed to stitch together a few quads with seemingly little downside and also lower manufacturing costs. As far as I understand the 16 core is 2 1800x's whichitself is two quads?

might have to give one a try for work pc!
Click to expand...

Or glued together according to intel :rolleyes:
 
Curlyriff said:
Huh not true multicore? Why would you say that? They are still full cores and there are multiples of them? And honestly does it make a difference about it as long as the performance is there? I have no doubt they could have made 16 core cpu's like Intel do but they would have been as expensive or more. There was no advantage in going that route. We are talking about something that has almost limitless scaling if they get it right. You could see in a decade from now going from 64 core to 128 core CPU's as they move across to 7nm. That isn't something you would ever want to be doing with a single chip like Intel. Also as bandwidth increases with DDR5 we are likely to see the CCX become faster and thus have less issues with latency. This is only the start from what is shown and looks like there is a bright future.

With that it is the reason Intel although mocking AMD in their slides have already shown they are working on similar tech now.
Click to expand...
agree and thanks for informative post. It's more like multicore processors than processor.As you said it doesn't matter as long as it works
 
Well anyone that buys the high end thread ripper will be set for at least the next 5 years on performance ;) and will get faster and faster as games get optimized for it ;)

i was going to go X299 with 7900X but i think im going to be going ryzen imho..... it looks the better performance/price ratio which intel imho sucks at.
 
kitfit1 said:
That's not the only one. At least half of the slides Intel put up in that set just try to rubbish AMD with out and out lies. They must be very seriously worried if the only thing they can come up with is to publish complete lies about a competitor.
Click to expand...

Ironically the people who would see that presentation and make decisions for their companies, will have a team making the decision, and they will look at a lot of factors with TCO being one of the bigger ones, i can honestly say Intel will have lost a lot of credibility with childish slides like they produced, over complication of market segmentation, prices that do not reflect the product when compared to a competitive alternative.

But the one thing that will get people talking, especially corporately is Intels childish assault on AMD, people will remember their anti competitive practices of years past and wonder why Intel are on the attack again. Intel right now are scared of AMD and the damage they will inflict on Intels Marketshare.

They are a huge monolithic company that is getting a kicking from all angles right now too, Samsung just knocked them off the Semi-conductor top seat and replaced them, im fairly certain that has not gone down well, especially since Intel were 1yr from matching Texas Instruments long 25yrs at the top achievement.

So glad AMD and Glo-Fo licensed Samsung processes, while the current GPU stuff might be a bit pap, and Zen's 1st Iteration is a little underwhelming with regards to clockspeed etc, once the processes improves i think Intel are going to be really up against it.
 
SiDeards73 said:
Zen's 1st Iteration is a little underwhelming with regards to clockspeed etc, once the processes improves i think Intel are going to be really up against it.
Click to expand...

Very much this. Intel are going to be in a world of hurt when refined Zen comes along. AMD could do nothing else but ramp up clockspeed and Intel lose any advantage.
 
kitfit1 said:
That's not the only one. At least half of the slides Intel put up in that set just try to rubbish AMD with out and out lies. They must be very seriously worried if the only thing they can come up with is to publish complete lies about a competitor.
Click to expand...

Yup, calling Zen a desktop only core and more. Hopefully AMD manage to capture some proper marketshare to get out of debt and put some proper funding into R&D.
 
Doogles said:
How can Intel say "Lack of Ecosystem" when you get 2 generations for one socket, with little improvement in either of them and AMD always supports their sockets until they need to change for DDR4 and newer features?
Click to expand...

They're saying that because AMD has no marketshare in Enterprise. Ignoring the absolutely massive contracts and partners that signed up with them on launch last month.

Dell, and HPE are putting Epyc in all their best and most popular racks and servers as well.

Intel are just slinging mud because there's actually competition out there.

Andantech even found that in AVX loads using the Intel Compiler, Epyc was hammering Intel on price to performance. 41% faster, at AVX, under Intel's compiler. ;)

Developed by the Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, NAMD is a set of parallel molecular dynamics codes for extreme parallelization on thousands of cores. NAMD is also part of SPEC CPU2006 FP. In contrast with previous FP benchmarks, the NAMD binary is compiled with Intel ICC and optimized for AVX.

Again, the EPYC 7601 simply crushes the competition with 41% better performance than Intel's 28-core. Heavily vectorized code (like Linpack) might run much faster on Intel, but other FP code seems to run faster on AMD's newest FPU.
Click to expand...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/21
 
Panos said:
The irony is Intel is talking about gluing chips together, and forgot Core2quad, pentium D and most important literaly gluing the IHS with the guano they call TIM even on their HEDT SkylakeX today......
Click to expand...
Indeed, it's incredible. I think it's highly likely that the 7900X would have been Intel's top model without AMD providing competition: at a higher price like the 6950X and lower clock speeds. It's not like the new mesh interconnect is free of problems either, in some games the 7700k and 6950X are beating the 7900X by a significant margin!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom