• 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 ***

This is also with AMD on a less dense process, with Zen 2 vs whatever Intel have next AMD will have a seemingly on par or even better process. Many dies vs one die is winning for AMD with a fairly hefty process disadvantage, when the processes are on par if anything the gap between Zen 2 and the successor to Skylake-SP could be even bigger. If AMD are winning enough business to be financially viable, the extra die space available with 7nm could make AMD add a vastly more lanes to their interconnect link to start going after 4 and 8 way systems, though the volume of them and the requirement of an extra die to tape out might make it not all that worthwhile, those extra links would be a complete waste of die space on every other platform. But that is the good thing about infinity fabric, it's completely scaleable as it was designed to just put in as much as you want or need.

By all accounts GF are using a IBM's 7nm process which largely is the same as Intel's coming 10nm process (atleast on paper - GF seem to manage to screw up even 1:1 copies of another companies node somehow) the 7nm process has some slight advantages but largely they will just make it a little easier for designing purposes and have little impact on realworld performance or yields, etc.

You are massively underestimating Intel though - they've been working on all the stuff relevant to IF and so on for years (doesn't take 2 seconds of googling to find dozens of whitepapers they've published on that kind of stuff and pdfs detailing where they've worked with other companies on developing similar features etc.) they've just been artificially holding it back and trickling in feature updates to their own advantage - for instance there are changes in the way cores communicate that emerged in Knights Landing that they'd done all the work on years back and could have released much earlier.
 
You are massively underestimating Intel though - they've been working on all the stuff relevant to IF and so on for years they've just been artificially holding it back

If so, I would have thought that there would have been multiple patents and IP for Intel and AMD would have struggled to get past those. So no, I think that they did not see this working until now.
 
If so, I would have thought that there would have been multiple patents and IP for Intel and AMD would have struggled to get past those. So no, I think that they did not see this working until now.

Some of it would be really hard for Intel to patent - it isn't like Intel or AMD are first to this game in the semiconductor world albeit different scales/products - many of the fundamental aspects have been used for boards based around basic microcontrollers, etc. for years and years. Intel does actually have a load of patents for relevant stuff filed in ~2006 and ~2011 but much of it would be hard to enforce in general application.
 
If so, I would have thought that there would have been multiple patents and IP for Intel and AMD would have struggled to get past those. So no, I think that they did not see this working until now.

AMD certainly does have multiple patents for IF. That is IMO why Rroff is wrong on this one. Yes they have been forced into Mesh for Knights Landing, but it simply is not good enough up against IF and the way that Zen cores are put together.
It's my view at the end of the day that Intel will have to go back to drawing board and start over again with the entire way they do things.
 
AMD certainly does have multiple patents for IF

They'll have patents for stuff like the specific way their caching works, etc. but that is another story and one of many potential approaches to the overall system.

EDIT: Infact it looks like AMD and Intel have a patent cross license agreement when it comes to quite a bit of MCM related stuff.
 
They'll have patents for stuff like the specific way their caching works, etc. but that is another story and one of many potential approaches to the overall system.

EDIT: Infact it looks like AMD and Intel have a patent cross license agreement when it comes to quite a bit of MCM related stuff.

Of course they have cross license agreements with regards MCM's. IF though is a completely different matter, in fact so much a different matter that Intel obviously can't even go back to MCM licensing to put leverage on AMD for IF to use themselves. If they could have done, they would have done it ages ago.
 
Seen some reports on ThreadRippers IPC today - seems identical to Ryzen, as expected - Ryzen 1800x single core score 4208 - thread ripper score 4216 - seems quad channel memory doesnt do to much - anyone got any more info on IPC? - this is whats stopping me buying Ryzen now - but if its essentially 'the same' - then I may as well get Ryzen.
 
Seen some reports on ThreadRippers IPC today - seems identical to Ryzen, as expected - Ryzen 1800x single core score 4208 - thread ripper score 4216 - seems quad channel memory doesnt do to much - anyone got any more info on IPC? - this is whats stopping me buying Ryzen now - but if its essentially 'the same' - then I may as well get Ryzen.

Look the official video. However we do not know anything yet. Ram speeds, quad channel anything. Guesses.
Up to last week the "reports" were showing MT performance similar to 1700X, with everyone trolling about it. Then AMD posted the C15 benchmark, trashing the 7900X by a big margin, and silence. (hell the 1920X beat the 7900X).

Just wait 2 weeks for reviews. You can make your mind by this video
 
all this craze for cores, when the only practical purpose aside from benchmarking is encoding :D

a quad core i5 is still better than one of these as long as amd cannot match single core performance.
 
Seen some reports on ThreadRippers IPC today - seems identical to Ryzen, as expected - Ryzen 1800x single core score 4208 - thread ripper score 4216 - seems quad channel memory doesnt do to much - anyone got any more info on IPC? - this is whats stopping me buying Ryzen now - but if its essentially 'the same' - then I may as well get Ryzen.

IPC should be exactly the same as Ryzen because they all use the same Zen cores. Which is the same as Broadwell, so you can't really go wrong with them.

Threadripper is only there if you actually need the extra cores; and will likely have issues clocking all cores to 4.0Ghz since there's a lot more heat and voltage needed.

all this craze for cores, when the only practical purpose aside from benchmarking is encoding :D

a quad core i5 is still better than one of these as long as amd cannot match single core performance.

Why would anyone buy a i5 for single core which at best is 7% IPC over Ryzen/Broadwell-E when they need the cores?
 
all this craze for cores, when the only practical purpose aside from benchmarking is encoding :D

a quad core i5 is still better than one of these as long as amd cannot match single core performance.

Rendering (Lightwave, Terragen, Cinema4D etc). I imagine more cores would be a big boost for programs that make use of them.
 
all this craze for cores, when the only practical purpose aside from benchmarking is encoding :D

a quad core i5 is still better than one of these as long as amd cannot match single core performance.

Not so, in REAL WORLD use - my old i7 6 core x79 system totally ruined my current quad core haswell i7 setup - i thought going quad core with a faster IPC was the way to go.

It really really really really wasn't - REAL WORLD DAY IN DAY OUT use (im a full time photographer/videographer) - the 6 core was just plain and simple faster - im not on about benches - im on about actually doing the work - i dont care how long it took to render/export as its overnight, but with 6 cores the system is just way way way more responsive.

Adobe mostly does 4 cores, but also people dont really care that in some stuff it actually does make use of more cores.

Also the big thing I think from my first hand knowledge is, the extra cores free up cores to run windows etc as well as what im editing.

Day in day out, I miss the responsiveness & am looking forward to going Ryzen.
 
all this craze for cores, when the only practical purpose aside from benchmarking is encoding :D

a quad core i5 is still better than one of these as long as amd cannot match single core performance.

Because we do not only run game benchmarks at 1080p without anything else running on the system.
We either play games along side streaming radio/youtube, having TS open talking to team mates, and couple of tabs running for quick breaks. (or on second monitor).

And even an 6700K @ 4.8 struggles to perform all the above. Let alone an i5.

In addition 16 pci-e lanes are not enough. The moment we put second M2, eats from the GPU performance. (why you believe all benchmarks are with SATA drivers and not NVME/M2s?)
 
Seems 8Pack mems working xmp on Threadripper......

Be interesting to see if Threadripper can take higher clockspeed, and better timing, with RAM. Especially as its quad-channel.

Any chance of seeing a couple of games benched with lots of clock/timing configurations? Since RAM is so important for Zen.
 
We either play games along side streaming radio/youtube, having TS open talking to team mates, and couple of tabs running for quick breaks. (or on second monitor).

And even an 6700K @ 4.8 struggles to perform all the above. Let alone an i5.

While I can see some i5s struggling - I do all that on my i7 4820K no problems, no slowdowns or lag - at times I've had like 3x Eve Online clients in the background, while playing another game waiting for stuff to happen in Eve with voice comms running so I can hear if stuff is kicking off and I need to switch focus plus firefox open, spotify and streaming stuff on youtube to my second monitor, etc. As an aside I was just searching some of your old posts to see what clockspeeds you were running your 4820K - as I don't go above 4.6GHz - while the chip will hit 5GHz stable it needs so much voltage it would die in like a year - you were all positive and talking about how it handled all that kind of workload fine until 6+ cores came out and then suddenly complaining about how it struggles with that kind of workload :p

I have no idea what people do sometimes to bog their systems down as much as they complain of.
 
While I can see some i5s struggling - I do all that on my i7 4820K no problems, no slowdowns or lag - at times I've had like 3x Eve Online clients in the background, while playing another game waiting for stuff to happen in Eve with voice comms running so I can hear if stuff is kicking off and I need to switch focus plus firefox open, spotify and streaming stuff on youtube to my second monitor, etc. As an aside I was just searching some of your old posts to see what clockspeeds you were running your 4820K - as I don't go above 4.6GHz - while the chip will hit 5GHz stable it needs so much voltage it would die in like a year - you were all positive and talking about how it handled all that kind of workload fine until 6+ cores came out and then suddenly complaining about how it struggles with that kind of workload :p

I have no idea what people do sometimes to bog their systems down as much as they complain of.

You do forget we used to play EVE Online on single core 1.2Ghz CPUs and ATI 9700 without issues, with browsers open. It doesn't burn much of CPU or GPU. Personally I was running 2 clients on an overclocked Athlon MP 2500 without issues.
 
You do forget we used to play EVE Online on single core 1.2Ghz CPUs and ATI 9700 without issues, with browsers open. It doesn't burn much of CPU or GPU.

Eve Online of the last few years is a very different beast especially if you run with settings turned up.

The current client wouldn't even run on an ATI 9700 with low settings IIRC.
 
Seen some reports on ThreadRippers IPC today - seems identical to Ryzen, as expected - Ryzen 1800x single core score 4208 - thread ripper score 4216 - seems quad channel memory doesnt do to much - anyone got any more info on IPC? - this is whats stopping me buying Ryzen now - but if its essentially 'the same' - then I may as well get Ryzen.
What were you expecting? It's the same architecture, you just get more cores and a load of other platform features that'll sit somewhere between AM4 and Naples (e.g. 60 PCIe lanes) but which haven't been confirmed yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom