AMD Vs intel

Jamie Archer · 26 Aug 2018 at 19:00

Lokken86 said:

Lol

DarrenM343 · 26 Aug 2018 at 19:07

Blimey, some quote IPC and Mhz like it's written in the bible or something. Some folks are so serious about this stuff.
Few really give too much of a damn about IPC and Mhz unless they're studying stats all day long rather than getting the most out of their systems. And that goes for gaming at any "enthusiast" resolutions.

Steampunk · 26 Aug 2018 at 19:09

Jamie Archer said:
To me Amd's answer is always to add more cores for a lesser price because they simply cannot compete core for core. Whether it's IPC or clockspeeds (both normally), intel always wins (although this gap has been closing significantly recently).

Sure lots of cores and loads of threads of secondrate is great for workers or people opening 1000 apps at the same time, but for everything else (including gaming), speed is key and intel wins here.

Multiple cores is the way to go, with a shift to parrellizing tasks. You can't shrink processes for ever, look at the problems Intel is having with 10nm, and things are only going to get worse and more expensive as time goes on. There will have to be changes in programming techniques, materials science (eg diamond or graphine chips), and maybe complete changes in how we do CPUs (eg quantum computing). The more time Intel spends now developing monolithic chip technologies, the more they are going to hurt down the line when that approach reaches the end of it's life.

AMD pretty much has to take an innovative approach, they can't compete with Intel's 900 lb gorilla, so AMD has to try and go around the problem with a different approach, such as Zen, Epyc or being in GPUs.

Panos · 26 Aug 2018 at 19:12

DarrenM343 said:
Blimey, some quote IPC and Mhz like it's written in the bible or something. Some folks are so serious about this stuff.
Few really give too much of a damn about IPC and Mhz unless they're studying stats all day long rather than getting the most out of their systems. And that goes for gaming at any decent resolutions.

I cannot be bothered to argue with people like Jamie. Even if I post here videos disproving him, he will argue against it dismissing it as fake.
There are a several of them here in this forum surprisingly.

Jamie Archer · 26 Aug 2018 at 19:23

Steampunk said:
Multiple cores is the way to go, with a shift to parrellizing tasks. You can't shrink processes for ever, look at the problems Intel is having with 10nm, and things are only going to get worse and more expensive as time goes on. There will have to be changes in programming techniques, materials science (eg diamond or graphine chips), and maybe complete changes in how we do CPUs (eg quantum computing). The more time Intel spends now developing monolithic chip technologies, the more they are going to hurt down the line when that approach reaches the end of it's life.

AMD pretty much has to take an innovative approach, they can't compete with Intel's 900 lb gorilla, so AMD has to try and go around the problem with a different approach, such as Zen, Epyc or being in GPUs.

I know I've wrote a fair bit in essays and it's probably a bit of a chor to read, but I've pretty much said the same as you have here and mentioned the limitations there are and also mentioned quantum computing as well if you did get to read it all...so yeah, I also mostly agree.

Lokken86 · 26 Aug 2018 at 19:23

I don't understand. If premium price means better then why does the I9 7980XE get smoked by the 2990x.

Jamie Archer · 26 Aug 2018 at 19:27

Panos said:
I cannot be bothered to argue with people like Jamie. Even if I post here videos disproving him, he will argue against it dismissing it as fake.
There are a several of them here in this forum surprisingly.

I research heavily but if someone gives me their views or ideas and backs it with what evidence they find, I will listen and take it on board and give my honest views...I'm only debating, not arguing, I give my opinions based on hours of research as an enthusiast.

Jamie Archer · 26 Aug 2018 at 19:36

Lokken86 said:
I don't understand. If premium price means better then why does the I9 7980XE get smoked by the 2990x.

Again, smoked how exactly?...I've only said the same thing, Amd add more cores to compete or take the only sector they can and thats workloads by offering lots of poorer cores because again, core for core they arent on the same level as Intel 'YET' (hence the van analogy).
Put the max oc on both chips and run 99.9% of any other tasks other than some multicore benchmark or rendering software and the Intel will smoke amd...

Jamie Archer · 26 Aug 2018 at 19:38

Says it all when it takes a chip with 32 cores and 64 threads to outdo a 16 core 32 thread to get a mention of superiority, and even then can still only 'smoke' Intel in one specific area.

Lokken86 · 26 Aug 2018 at 20:02

Jamie Archer said:
Says it all when it takes a chip with 32 cores and 64 threads to outdo a 16 core 32 thread to get a mention of superiority, and even then can still only 'smoke' Intel in one specific area.

Who cares how many cores it's got. It will trash the Intel chip in almost any multi threaded task. Seems like "enthusiasts" only seem to think gaming performance is what matters but give it a couple years and the 2990x will be beating the intel chip in that too.

I assume you mean multi threaded apps or multi tasking as one specific area, cos it's kinda of a biggie. You make it seem like it's irrelevant.

gavinh87 · 26 Aug 2018 at 20:17

Panos said:
I cannot be bothered to argue with people like Jamie. Even if I post here videos disproving him, he will argue against it dismissing it as fake.
There are a several of them here in this forum surprisingly.

The irony

Jamie Archer · 26 Aug 2018 at 20:32

Lokken86 said:
Who cares how many cores it's got. It will trash the Intel chip in almost any multi threaded task. Seems like "enthusiasts" only seem to think gaming performance is what matters but give it a couple years and the 2990x will be beating the intel chip in that too.

I assume you mean multi threaded apps or multi tasking as one specific area, cos it's kinda of a biggie. You make it seem like it's irrelevant.

I presume you mean just like how games will use more cores and amd will dominate since every release from a decade ago?
And sure that is a biggie but it's a very small area of overall computing where anything else that requires speed the amd will be second in.

Quoting 'enthusiast' in your post and at the same time stating how it will compete in a couple of years time?....Well any enthusiast wants the best now and don't usually think about what happens in a couple of years time....in 2 years time, I've had the use of a faster chip for most tasks and Intel will have a new chip out that will again be faster.

If amd ever takes the speed crown then I'll happily jump ship, but until then, I can give my opinions on what i feel is best and why.

As I say, each to their own and everyone can have and share their opinions/views.

Destination · 26 Aug 2018 at 20:35

Jamie Archer said:
If i need proof to prove what is all over the web then you can't call yourself an enthusiast, therefore your opinion is null and void.

Are you certain that all the new processors will work on all the z370 boards with a bios update?

Lokken86 · 26 Aug 2018 at 20:39

Jamie Archer said:
I presume you mean just like how games will use more cores and amd will dominate since every release from a decade ago?
And sure that is a biggie but it's a very small area of overall computing where anything else that requires speed the amd will be second in.

Quoting 'enthusiast' in your post and at the same time stating how it will compete in a couple of years time?....Well any enthusiast wants the best now and don't usually think about what happens in a couple of years time....in 2 years time, I've had the use of a faster chip for most tasks and Intel will have a new chip out that will again be faster.

If amd ever takes the speed crown then I'll happily jump ship, but until then, I can give my opinions on what i feel is best and why.

As I say, each to their own and everyone can have and share their opinions/views.

I'm just going to agree to disagree with the premium price argument. Obviously I don't believe in it. That's why I drive an Octavia VRS and not an A4.

Destination · 26 Aug 2018 at 20:40

Jamie Archer said:
I presume you mean just like how games will use more cores and amd will dominate since every release from a decade ago?
And sure that is a biggie but it's a very small area of overall computing where anything else that requires speed the amd will be second in.

Quoting 'enthusiast' in your post and at the same time stating how it will compete in a couple of years time?....Well any enthusiast wants the best now and don't usually think about what happens in a couple of years time....in 2 years time, I've had the use of a faster chip for most tasks and Intel will have a new chip out that will again be faster.

If amd ever takes the speed crown then I'll happily jump ship, but until then, I can give my opinions on what i feel is best and why.

As I say, each to their own and everyone can have and share their opinions/views.

Are you certain you mean what you are saying?
You are back to soeaking of intel having the speed crown, maintaining the speed crown, yet earlier said the new gen might not be needed as it was good enough on the old gen.
I don’t understand your points when you conflict yourself.

The odd th8ng is, in two years amd will likely still be running the same socket, intel will not, nor would they be for this gen only amd completely sideswiped them.
I would argue that intels lack of bother to innovate and make more cored chips over the past half decade has held back software programming, pc gaming, and utilization of how good a pc can be in general.
I would suggest that although they might be the speed kings, the entire engine usage of games and various software would be completely different if better chips had been more predominant.

humbug · 26 Aug 2018 at 21:20

Jamie Archer said:
Ive not got a problem at all, and sure, comparing amd's latest chips to Intel chips of the 4th generation (where at the time and in that era there was no compeition or need for innovation) you will of course see improvements...Amd do offer good value as ive insinuated, but my point still remains the same...core for core amd are second best at this time and because of this they therefore offer more cores for less or competitive pricing. That's my point.

There's nothing wrong with buying Amd, it's each to their own and is relevant of late but my point was that to buy the best of anything comes at a premium, that's why it costs a premium for an i9.

Amd have this argument about multicore workloads and if that's solely what you do and you have a budget or want to save, then sure, go amd...
If you want the latest and greatest and want the fastest (no matter how marginal) and you also do more than editing or opening 4000 apps at the same time and also don't mind or care about pricing, then go intel.

I made my point based on opinion backed by research and facts, I wasnt debating about how best to save money, i was giving my opinion on what is the best current tech regardless of price/cost.

Amd have a lesser ipc when comparing to current Intel releases from the same generation, that is fact, no matter how little you claim it to be, but it doesnt stop at IPC, it also has significantly lower clockspeeds and struggles to come anywhere near to intels recent 5ghz+ clocks..

I wasnt singling you out and clearly you have your reasons for going for an amd chip, you've stated why and with your budget it was a very good / sensible choice.

This is not my debate.

Actually i compared it with the 8600K, even 3.9Ghz vs 5Ghz the 1600 is faster than the 8600K in the workloads that matter to me, while still being a lot cheaper.

As for IPC.

@ 4Ghz

MT
1600X: 1326
8700K: 1325

2600X: 1384 (+4.5%)
8700K: 1325

ST
1600X: 163
8700K: 174 (+6.5%)

2600X: 168
8700K: 174 (+3.5%)

So vs 2'nd Ryzen Coffeelake has 3.5% higher IPC when a single core is in use, but because of better multicore scaling Ryzen 2 has 4.5% higher IPC when multiple cores are in use.
I'd call that give and take about even.

With Games they haven't done a clock for clock comparison yet but they did do 8700K @ 5Ghz vs 2700X @ 4.2 Ghz and across 35+ games the 8700K with an 800Mhz higher core clock speed was 13% faster.
13%, 5Ghz vs 4.2Ghz, i don't have the slide to hand but i can dig it up if you don't believe me.

Core i9's, or Skylake-X.

Result of 37 game average 720P 1080TI

7800X 12 threads @ 4.6Ghz: 115 Min 171 Avr
2600 12 threads @ 4.2Ghz: 118 Min 168 Avr

Yes that's Ryzen with about 10% higher gaming IPC than Skylake-X

No actually you're wrong, Ryzen is very capable, just as capable as Intel while also being cheaper.

Jamie Archer · 26 Aug 2018 at 22:51

Destination said:
Are you certain that all the new processors will work on all the z370 boards with a bios update?

Yes i am sure else I wouldn't post it and if I'm ever proven wrong then I hold my hands up.
There are many intel slides and released specsheets that have given away Intel's tock release...it's the same each and everytime with intel, 2x iterations per socket before needing a whole new socket (tick/tock).

Jamie Archer · 26 Aug 2018 at 22:57

Lokken86 said:
I'm just going to agree to disagree with the premium price argument. Obviously I don't believe in it. That's why I drive an Octavia VRS and not an A4.

I was just debating that for some, speed is king over core count and some enthusiasts care little about bang for buck, some people happily waste money for the best performance even if that means declining buying something that offers better bang for buck...i dont dispute amd has some great offers for great prices, what I do say is that Intel core for core is technically faster than amd.

I like the amd competitiom as it gives us all innovation and helps with pricing. I never said I liked or agreed with Intel's pricing strategy, the same as I don't Nvidias, but as an enthusiast I still buy them (As silly as that maybe for some).

Jamie Archer · 26 Aug 2018 at 23:06

Destination said:
Are you certain you mean what you are saying?
You are back to soeaking of intel having the speed crown, maintaining the speed crown, yet earlier said the new gen might not be needed as it was good enough on the old gen.
I don’t understand your points when you conflict yourself.

The odd th8ng is, in two years amd will likely still be running the same socket, intel will not, nor would they be for this gen only amd completely sideswiped them.
I would argue that intels lack of bother to innovate and make more cored chips over the past half decade has held back software programming, pc gaming, and utilization of how good a pc can be in general.
I would suggest that although they might be the speed kings, the entire engine usage of games and various software would be completely different if better chips had been more predominant.

I just stated that Intel's 8th gen is as far as I can tell as fast as the 9th gen per core but the 8th has lesser cores (both of which beats anything amd has core for core on both ipc and clockspeed anyway)...comparing intels 8th to Intels 9th gen for an individual has nothing to do with contradiction or me conflicting myself as my viewpoint is still the same...(both 8th and 9th gen Intel chips have better/faster cores than any of amds).

Comparing Intel for Intel with their 6 core 12 threads 8700k/8086k vs 8 core 9700k with no multithreading doesn't alter what I've stated, it's just an interesting one to bench for multicore workloads tests.

Jamie Archer · 26 Aug 2018 at 23:35

humbug said:
Actually i compared it with the 8600K, even 3.9Ghz vs 5Ghz the 1600 is faster than the 8600K in the workloads that matter to me, while still being a lot cheaper.

As for IPC.

@ 4Ghz

MT
1600X: 1326
8700K: 1325

2600X: 1384 (+4.5%)
8700K: 1325

ST
1600X: 163
8700K: 174 (+6.5%)

2600X: 168
8700K: 174 (+3.5%)

So vs 2'nd Ryzen Coffeelake has 3.5% higher IPC when a single core is in use, but because of better multicore scaling Ryzen 2 has 4.5% higher IPC when multiple cores are in use.
I'd call that give and take about even.

With Games they haven't done a clock for clock comparison yet but they did do 8700K @ 5Ghz vs 2700X @ 4.2 Ghz and across 35+ games the 8700K with an 800Mhz higher core clock speed was 13% faster.
13%, 5Ghz vs 4.2Ghz, i don't have the slide to hand but i can dig it up if you don't believe me.

Core i9's, or Skylake-X.

Result of 37 game average 720P 1080TI

7800X 12 threads @ 4.6Ghz: 115 Min 171 Avr
2600 12 threads @ 4.2Ghz: 118 Min 168 Avr

Yes that's Ryzen with about 10% higher gaming IPC than Skylake-X

No actually you're wrong, Ryzen is very capable, just as capable as Intel while also being cheaper.

Hey, I can only see that people are getting a bit over defensive about what I'm saying and are also missing points on what I have said.

1. I never said Amds recent ryzen and higher cpus weren't 'capable' at any point.
I have only reiterated that intel takes the ipc and clockspeed crown per core (no matter how smaller margins) making intel superior with regards to performance per core.

2. I wouldn't ever say 'i don't believe you', I can see you are enthusiast, you do your research and back what you say and give valid points and I like that. I can only back my points and give my honest opinions.

3. I have always said that due to amd offering more cores for value that it makes amd strong in multicore/threaded workloads. This to me is amds only way to compete as they certainly are behind otherwise so simply offer more of what's second best for the same or less cash.

4. Your IPC charts also back what I've been saying (no matter how smaller the margins are) and you also seem to want to show 4ghz accross all chips whilst failing to show true performance graphs on untapped overclocking potentials where amd would otherwise top out and Intel would continue on to 5ghz and beyond in some cases (along with that superior ipc).
Redo the tests with the max possible oc on both sets of chips and then show the graphs/charts.
I also dont understand intels x299 HEDT rubbish, that to me doesnt seem to know what it wants to be and isnt particularly good at anything, and youve chosen that platform as a comparison for games benchmarks with that platform probably having the lowest intel clockspeeds going. Youre also using ryzen 2 (amds latest) against intels chips from over a year ago. Lets change the i9 for the 9900k mainstream and the i7 for the 9700k if you want to make it fair in terms of tech eras, else we also need to use amds chips that came out at a similar time, such as the ryzen 1700/1800/1700x/1800x, but we actually both already know how that plays out dont we?
With a max oc on both chips (8700k vs 1800x), the 2 cores and 4 threads less intel almost matches the same results and even surpasses in odd multithreaded loads whilst also obliterating amd in any games you throw at it with much better overclock headroom and a better ipc.

5. I have never said I agree with Intel's price strategies and to certain people who do mostly use multicore workloads I'd also recommend amd as it is best bang for buck this area, so of course, you made the right choice for you and performance per pound im sure you're up there at the top, but for most tasks it still isnt the best and some people want the fastest regardless of price, that is why someone buys a Ferrari when they couldve got by with a Skoda and still got from a to b (well possibly) at a much lower price per mile than the Ferrari ever could.
Ferrari could start making cars like Skoda and also offer more, but their market is to cater for those enthusiastic in speed and style with a carefree attitude to cash saving.

As I say, it's each to their own and I've said amds latest is closing the gaps and it does compete to keep innovation alive and prices in check. It is great value for money but it's still 2nd place in my book. Amd just offers more of something thats not as fast...Again, my van analogy is a good way of describing this.

I will say that is a good, well set out reply you've given me, it offers some real substance and backing to what youre saying. Thanks for this (whether we disagree or not).