• 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 ***

One thing i have been wondering is this... if AMD had not released Zen this year but say late next year, i wonder what Skylake-X and the new Xeon stuff would be like?
 
SiDeards73 said:
One thing i have been wondering is this... if AMD had not released Zen this year but say late next year, i wonder what Skylake-X and the new Xeon stuff would be like?
Click to expand...

Raving successes since they'd be faster than the current stuff, although still capped at their old prices and only 10 cores max.

I'd be on X299 right now if there was no other option.
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
Raving successes since they'd be faster than the current stuff, although still capped at their old prices and only 10 cores max.

I'd be on X299 right now if there was no other option.
Click to expand...
Really? It seems like X299 is worse than Broadwell-E in gaming and it's hard to even say if it's overall faster because it loses in some other areas too. You also get fewer PCIe lanes unless you go for the $1000+ SKUs, the only real advantage seems to be the proposition of more cores, although who knows how viable that will be with the ridiculous power usage and heat output of the currently available SKUs. X99 seems a better bet than X299 for gamers at least, despite being EOL. You don't even need to delid them! ;)

One could argue that applications need to be optimised for Skylake-X as they do for Ryzen, which is true in general. However, for games in particular, why would any developer optimise their game for an architecture that almost no-one is going to be using because it's so expensive? It will happen for Ryzen because they are cheap enough to sell en masse and will have much higher market share in the gaming sphere. For Skylake-X I don't see it being anywhere near a priority.
 
SiDeards73 said:
One thing i have been wondering is this... if AMD had not released Zen this year but say late next year, i wonder what Skylake-X and the new Xeon stuff would be like?
Click to expand...

They would only need to compete with X99 really which would have meant not a lot of improvement, incremental at best. AMD would still only have piledriver and excavator cores or variants thereof and would compete poorly in the mainstream let alone the HEDT sphere. Zen was a total gamechanger and a shock for the market hence the number of 'improvements' out of the blue (;)).
 
ltron said:
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!
Click to expand...

I leave you to read this.

https://mobile.twitter.com/IanCutress/status/885069342001508353


Is funny, because according to Intel's NUMA Clustering spec sheet of how to optimise the software for the SkylakeX & Skylake based Xeon, is EXACTLY the same as the AMD EPYC (and Threadripper) optimisation requirements :D
muahahaha
 
DragonQ said:
Really? It seems like X299 is worse than Broadwell-E in gaming and it's hard to even say if it's overall faster because it loses in some other areas too. You also get fewer PCIe lanes unless you go for the $1000+ SKUs, the only real advantage seems to be the proposition of more cores, although who knows how viable that will be with the ridiculous power usage and heat output of the currently available SKUs. X99 seems a better bet than X299 for gamers at least, despite being EOL. You don't even need to delid them! ;)

One could argue that applications need to be optimised for Skylake-X as they do for Ryzen, which is true in general. However, for games in particular, why would any developer optimise their game for an architecture that almost no-one is going to be using because it's so expensive? It will happen for Ryzen because they are cheap enough to sell en masse and will have much higher market share in the gaming sphere. For Skylake-X I don't see it being anywhere near a priority.
Click to expand...

These multicore > 4 core processors are not really gaming chips anyway? At high res apparently the CPu matters less unless going SLI, and nobody really interested in >4 cores at 1080P, surely, you'd upgrade the monitor first?
Currently the balance is high MHz for 4 cores maybe 6 (correct me if I'm wrong someone), but 8 10, 16+++ especially at lower MHz not required for gaming, probably slower for gaming unless multi-gpu.
 
DarrenM343 said:
These multicore > 4 core processors are not really gaming chips anyway? At high res apparently the CPu matters less unless going SLI, and nobody really interested in >4 cores at 1080P, surely, you'd upgrade the monitor first?
Currently the balance is high MHz for 4 cores maybe 6 (correct me if I'm wrong someone), but 8 10, 16+++ especially at lower MHz not required for gaming, probably slower for gaming unless multi-gpu.
Click to expand...
Um yeah, these chips aren't really for gaming, but most people here buying them will be gaming (as well as other stuff most likely). Multi-GPU is exactly what these HEDT platforms are designed for, yet Intel gimped the PCIe lanes in the sub-$1000 SKUs this generation. Not sure what 1080p has to do with it, dunno why you'd buy an HEDT platform just to game at 1080p.
 
DragonQ said:
Um yeah, these chips aren't really for gaming, but most people here buying them will be gaming (as well as other stuff most likely). Multi-GPU is exactly what these HEDT platforms are designed for, yet Intel gimped the PCIe lanes in the sub-$1000 SKUs this generation. Not sure what 1080p has to do with it, dunno why you'd buy an HEDT platform just to game at 1080p.
Click to expand...
Who wants to compromise on gaming? Seems like we're at a place where we need two PC's. One, a 4/6 core high Mhz processor for gaming, second one to do all the other stuff that benefits multicores > 6 cores. I can see me doing just that. I have no need for Sli so a 6700k ideal to run a Titan X and 16 core for my development work and running VM's
 
kitfit1 said:
Do you know Cat...........................that was was one of the most inspiring and genuine presentations i think i've ever watched.....................yep, brilliant.
Click to expand...

It was a good explanation of what they were aiming to do,and without trying any cheap shots like Intel apparently are doing. The fact Intel are doing it seems to indicate they are worried.
 
queamin said:
I happy they never name called Intel as well, as that would have brought Amd down to Intel's level.
Click to expand...

Yep used the word "competitor" which is polite showing dignity and respect.


kitfit1 said:
Do you know Cat...........................that was was one of the most inspiring and genuine presentations i think i've ever watched.....................yep, brilliant.
Click to expand...

I agree on that. (watched the whole video) It was inspiring of new tech, and was intrigued on the security aspect with the hardware encryption and the SME/SVE.

Lets hope tomorrow AMD uploads the whole video about the dev tools, OS etc, especially the Microsoft presentation.
 
Whilst Intel's tactics are pathetic, AMD have no moral high ground to take here. Their marketing campaign for Vega GPU was both insulting to their competitor and comical when you consider the marketing disaster that product remains to be.
 
SiDeards73 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I know we're on an enthusiast's forum, but if we ignore performance desktop, the process is actually really, really good for the two biggest markets namely servers and APUs where the efficiency at around 3.0GHz is actually almost ideal. Yes, the process was designed for ARM SOCs but with a good efficiency curve up to around 3.0GHz it is actually very good for server chips as well.
UCKKnez.png

(from The Stilt's Strictly technical thread over on AT).
Will be interesting how the 7nm process works out (those rumours of 5GHz+), but if the higher clock damage the efficiency a lot, AMD may have to do two designs for Zen+ one for servers and APUs and one for desktop and HEDT. Hopefully, by then they will have a bit more cash and volume to be able to afford this and for it to make sense.
 
String said:
Whilst Intel's tactics are pathetic, AMD have no moral high ground to take here. Their marketing campaign for Vega GPU was both insulting to their competitor and comical when you consider the marketing disaster that product remains to be.
Click to expand...

RTG and AMD are separate entities essentially; and different marketing.

What RTG should do is employ the AMD CPU division's marketing team to do all their work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom