AMD Vs intel

[humbug]

Well i'm glad you now see the light, i mean more is as always better, was that never obvious?... and when clearly AMD offering more for less its a double win. eh?

Well done, you learned something today.

Some more examples of where more is better

Spoiler: More AMD winning

What a load of old 4 core crap those over priced Intel CPUs are ^^^ hay?

 

[ilc72]

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.

You don’t buy an HEDT CPU for gaming, you buy it to run different workloads and there is no one winner. The 2990WX is a niche product for workloads such as rendering where memory bandwidth is not the primary consideration, the 2950X however is a mighty fine processor and in price/performance is by far the best value HEDT CPU available, just compare the cost of an Intel 7980XE to the cost of a 2950X and tell me a use case that would justify paying almost double for similar performance?

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.

If you play games and only games and want the fastest desktop CPU based on IPC that money can buy then buy Intel, if not, and value for money now and in the future then buy a Ryzen 2700X. However the argument becomes a bit flawed since above 1080p gaming most AAA titles in High/Ultra settings are GPU bound not CPU bound.

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).

Actually a much better and complete answer. Though a couple of points to add:

The IPC benefit could well be eroded if the Spectre/Meltdown and all the other speculative execution vulnerabilities present in Intel’s CPU’s are patched, interestingly Intel have tried to prevent various OEM partners publishing benchmarks so that is a concern. That’s not to say AMD is unaffected, but seemingly far less so!

I am genuinely concerned though that Intel have lost their way as innovators, their forays into mobile have been disastrous and their inability to deliver on 10nm has plagued them for almost three years with no end in sight other than a commitment in their last quarterly results to deliver by Holiday 2019 and by that I’m not assuming New Years Day! Lest us not forget Apple is ditching Intel by 2020 and both Facebook and Google are looking at developing custom SoC designs for their own cloud services.

Their recent performance reminds me of IBM in the early 1990’s, a disaster that almost saw them file for bankruptcy.

Intel continue to try and enter new markets (discrete GPU’s and Mobileye) whilst not addressing their core business first. They need to accept that MCM is now a necessity and large monolithic CPU’s have reached the end of the road. Whatever you think you have to credit AMD with their Ryzen architecture as it covers everything from entry-level (Ryzen), HEDT (Threadripper) all the way up to Enterprise (Epyc).

 

[Jamie Archer]

If you play games and only games and want the fastest desktop CPU based on IPC that money can buy then buy Intel, if not, and value for money now and in the future then buy a Ryzen 2700X. However the argument becomes a bit flawed since above 1080p gaming most AAA titles in High/Ultra settings are GPU bound not CPU bound.

Clockspeed, oc potential AND ipc you mean?
But sure, if you value your money then choose amd, I've never disputed value or performance per pound, my point still remains the same however...Intel has the fastest cores and is the fastest core for core. You could also say that your own theory on longevity is a little bit flawed also. You talk about the future and how amd can go on and on and on on with the same socket and last for years yet contradict this. You state anything over 1080p won't show amds slower cores and lesser ipc like it does at lower resolutions (admitting amd suffers here). Well if amd is so futureproof, tell me what happens in the future when the gpus improve each and they start to push bigger framerates at higher resolutions? Surely you will start to see the very same old situation of having slower clocks and ipc reflecting on the fps meter once again?...That is not what I'd exactly call 'most futureproof'. I'd say if you want to stay on top with the pinnacle of performance each year then this point/debate is far from flawed.

Actually a much better and complete answer. Though a couple of points to add:

The IPC benefit could well be eroded if the Spectre/Meltdown and all the other speculative execution vulnerabilities present in Intel’s CPU’s are patched, interestingly Intel have tried to prevent various OEM partners publishing benchmarks so that is a concern. That’s not to say AMD is unaffected, but seemingly far less so!

I am genuinely concerned though that Intel have lost their way as innovators, their forays into mobile have been disastrous and their inability to deliver on 10nm has plagued them for almost three years with no end in sight other than a commitment in their last quarterly results to deliver by Holiday 2019 and by that I’m not assuming New Years Day! Lest us not forget Apple is ditching Intel by 2020 and both Facebook and Google are looking at developing custom SoC designs for their own cloud services.

Their recent performance reminds me of IBM in the early 1990’s, a disaster that almost saw them file for bankruptcy.

Intel continue to try and enter new markets (discrete GPU’s and Mobileye) whilst not addressing their core business first. They need to accept that MCM is now a necessity and large monolithic CPU’s have reached the end of the road. Whatever you think you have to credit AMD with their Ryzen architecture as it covers everything from entry-level (Ryzen), HEDT (Threadripper) all the way up to Enterprise (Epyc).

I also say the same once again, if amd takes over in speed for my uses then i will happily jump ship. i have no need to be loyal to any single brand name, I simply go for what I find is fastest for what i do, regardless of pricing (within reason of course).

Intel is as of now faster per core and there is no denying it, however I also agree with lots of points you've made and I never stated Intel doesnt have it's issues. I agree and feel that amd has taken them by suprise, i also agree Intel can be greedy and this is why they are in this situation.

Intel has been laid back with no competitor for the best part of a decade, they didn't innovate as had no need to and overcharged consumers for 4 cores amd little improvements for many, many years. They didn't think about anyone coming from behind and so saved r&d costs and innovation costs whilst milking customers with their superiority. I actually thank amd for the competition and making intek try to innovate whilst keeping their prices a bit more in check.

I've never stated what I think about the future as that's not what the topic was about (I've been talking about mostly the here and now) but sure, in the future i think Intel will have issues and become 2nd best...as you say, intel has issues with the shrinking process and amd are already pencilled in.

You have kind of got to also hope intel do well with discreet graohics because Nvidia forgot the mining craze has gone for now and are milking the consumers with a monopoly just as Intel were when they had no competition. Hopefully intel push them to keep their pricing in check as well, because their prices ate starting to get out of hand (I highly doubt intel will be successful here).

But you're right and i agree with pretty much all of that last post.

 

[Troezar]

It seems to me the CPU is getting more complex and difficult to make direct comparisons. There is a lot of talk about core speed, IPC, the number of cores/threads, differing architecture, meltdown/spectre patching etc.

The best approach now I think I is to look at your workload and see which platform runs it best. Then look at cost and determine if the extra performance is worth it to you.

It is fun to debate the various merits of both companies approaches but due to the complexities we'll never get a satisfactory result without real world testing. I think ilc72 is spot on and if one CEO has earned her bonus in recent years that would be AMD's CEO.

 

[Destination]

Clockspeed, oc potential AND ipc you mean?
But sure, if you value your money then choose amd, I've never disputed value or performance per pound, my point still remains the same however...Intel has the fastest cores and is the fastest core for core. You could also say that your own theory on longevity is a little bit flawed also. You talk about the future and how amd can go on and on and on on with the same socket and last for years yet contradict this. You state anything over 1080p won't show amds slower cores and lesser ipc like it does at lower resolutions (admitting amd suffers here). Well if amd is so futureproof, tell me what happens in the future when the gpus improve each and they start to push bigger framerates at higher resolutions? Surely you will start to see the very same old situation of having slower clocks and ipc reflecting on the fps meter once again?...That is not what I'd exactly call 'most futureproof'. I'd say if you want to stay on top with the pinnacle of performance each year then this point/debate is far from flawed.

What precisely do you run currently?

 

[adidan]

The best approach now I think I is to look at your workload and see which platform runs it best. Then look at cost and determine if the extra performance is worth it to you

This ^

Intel v AMD is like arguing about apples and oranges. Hell they're both fruit.

Intel, with the what seems weekly security flaws that need patching, maybe the fruit that bruises more easily but you can keep cutting those bits off.

 

[Jamie Archer]

Just seen there's potential leaks of the 9700k 8 core registering an overclock of 5.5ghz (according to oc3d)
I've no idea what the amd fans think about 5.5ghz..but i reckon amd will now have to throw a few more poorer cores at the situation.

 

[Jamie Archer]

What precisely do you run currently?

I sold the z370 maximus formula I had and the delidded 5.2ghz 8700k with it in order to fund a different project, I've now finished this project so am now looking back to build a decent rig once again (starting with the phanteks evolv x case).

As a temporary measure I built a budget gamer to get me by and this is what I'm using now and have been using for the last couple of months.

Msi h61m e23 matx mobo (from a bulk load of college pcs I had for recycling). Cost me about £10 or less after stripping and selling other components.

A Xeon e3 1245 processor running at max turbo clocks of 3.7ghz (4 core 8 threads) cost me £30.

Corsair h115i liquid cooler purchased locally (Facebook.marketplace) for £25 (a bit tatty and abused but fully functional)

8gb (2x4gb) corsair vengeance pro 2400mhz ram that came from a previous build (however does run at 2133 xmp but resets itself sometimes to 1333mhz) this cost me £32.50 (ebay)

An msi GTX 970 gaming 4g which I got in a build I purchased complete and then stripped and sold bits individually, resulting in the card effectively costing me £100 along with the corsair cx750m psu that was in it.

Powered by the corsiar psu above.

A 500gb Samsung evo 860 ssd, i just got this from amazon for £96 and this will be one of a few I intend to be part of my new rigs storage after i also buy an nvme ssd to boot from.
It is currently only utilising sata 3gbs speeds in this pc but it sure is faster than booting and loading from an hdd.

A 2tb mass storage drive taken from a sky box i paid 25 quid for locally, this is only a 5900rpm drive, but it actually performs very well for mass storage.

And lastly all of the above inside a corsair carbide 2700r windowed case i also got locally (facebook market) place for £20....

Who says I don't know how to budget when I want to? Lol.

Trouble is I use a samsung 65inch 4k hdr tv (60hz) and i miss 4k gaming, I wanted something mega cheap to get by but I am an enthusiast, I'm actually far from loaded and have to work hard and save/put money aside for this new rig. I do get the value for money subject and also don't like Intel's pricing strategies at times, but as an enthusiast, i know what i feel is best for my personal needs and If i dont feel like I'm pushing the boundaries on the latest and greatest cutting edge tech, then I wouldn't call it enthusiast and I may as well continue to penny pinch and use the Xeon and game at 1080p with the 970.

 

[NinjaCool]

Just seen there's potential leaks of the 9700k 8 core registering an overclock of 5.5ghz (according to oc3d)
I've no idea what the amd fans think about 5.5ghz..but i reckon amd will now have to throw a few more poorer cores at the situation.

The 9700K will no doubt be a nice gaming CPU but that leak... I would not exactly call 5.55GHz at 1.53V valid for regular usage even if the 9700K is soldered this time around.
It will likely hit the thermal limits very quickly with any work that uses all 8 cores and I can just imagine what would happen if he had run anything with AVX

Regarding AMD, I think many generally underestimate what it actually means to be a generational die shrink ahead of the competition once AMD’s 7nm lands hopefully in early 2019.
Remember AMD had originally planned for their 7nm CPU generation to compete against Intel 10nm Icelake but now it will instead compete against yet another 14nm part, which is a detail I find very interesting.

 

[Jamie Archer]

The 9700K will no doubt be a nice gaming CPU but that leak... I would not exactly call 5.55GHz at 1.53V valid for regular usage even if the 9700K is soldered this time around.
It will likely hit the thermal limits very quickly with any work that uses all 8 cores and I can just imagine what would happen if he had run anything with AVX

Regarding AMD, I think many generally underestimate what it actually means to be a generational die shrink ahead of the competition once AMD’s 7nm lands hopefully in early 2019.
Remember AMD had originally planned for their 7nm CPU generation to compete against Intel 10nm Icelake but now it will instead compete against yet another 14nm part, which is a detail I find very interesting.

It's interesting definitely, but although Intel has issues and is delaying 10nm tech, testing rumours indicate that intel beats Samsung's 7nm, with that being said, a die shrink doesn't automaticly mean greater performance than the competitor.
AVX instructions or not, it's beyond the realms of anything that amd can do in terms of core performance. I did run an avx offset on my old 8700k but it was so rapid at doing anything you threw at it that it didn't bother me in the slightest

 

[NinjaCool]

True but gaining a die shrink superiority is something that will help AMD reach that goal but we simple don’t know how things will end up yet but 2019 could become a very interesting year

 

[Jamie Archer]

True but gaining a die shrink superiority is something that will help AMD reach that goal but we simple don’t know how things will end up yet but 2019 could become a very interesting year

Yes definitely, i dont mind who is superior for speed, ill happily buy whatever is best for me at the time.
The competition is healthy and in honesty Amd have shook Intel and I believe their push may even see them surpass Intel in the near future (with the die shrink) I think Intel are probably kicking themselves for their decade long despondency.

 

[Troezar]

Yes definitely, i dont mind who is superior for speed, ill happily buy whatever is best for me at the time.
The competition is healthy and in honesty Amd have shook Intel and I believe their push may even see them surpass Intel in the near future (with the die shrink) I think Intel are probably kicking themselves for their decade long despondency.

Probably still playing in the massive piles of cash they made in the last 20 years lol. They'll be back, I'm sure they are sitting on a load of tech they've held back until they needed to roll it out. Look at their quick response to Ryzen. That wasn't done from scratch and by all account the 9 series looks to be quick albeit potentially expensive.

I'm really enjoying the unpredictability of it all. I can't afford the high end but I do like to see what the tech companies can come up with.

 

[AndreiD]

First proper response to Ryzen would probably be the new uarch in 2020/2021, until then they're just releasing everything they've had in the pipeline for a while, this rapid core increase is mainly due to their 14nm being very mature at this point and was planned for years (prior to Ryzen releasing there were already plenty of leaks and info suggesting consumer Intel 6 cores were on the horizon).
I wouldn't worry about Intel, their revenue and profit from 1 quarter is that of AMD for 3 years and they're so diversified at this point that they can withstand increased competition in one market. Their failings with 10nm gave AMD plenty of leeway to release a competitive product and gain some market share, this competition as everyone has seen is benefiting us consumers. Ideally AMD & Intel will be close-ish to each other, I don't think any one company should dominate like Intel has been doing since Bulldozer since that will of course lead to stagnation. Ironically AMD did the same in the late Athlon days, they got complacent and Intel caught them by surprise with Conroe/Core 2 Duo.

 

[humbug]

Global foundries have already said 7nm will be 40% faster than 14nm, that's clock speed and yes it is coming from a low base of 3Ghz, that will bring it up to 4.2Ghz.

AMD's CPU's were 3.7Ghz on all cores on that 14nm, (1800X) 12nm was cited to be 10% above 14nm and sure enough AMD are getting 4 to 4.1Ghz out of the box on all cores, (2700X).

So take 3.7Ghz 14nm +40% would equal 5.2Ghz, no.... i'm going to say right here that there is no way Ryzen 3000 will be 5.2Ghz out of the box as at that point i think the Ryzen architecture will be the limiting factor. But 4.6Ghz out of the box, maybe 5Ghz overclocked, i think that's a real possibility.
Add to that the rumours are 10% or more IPC gain for Zen 2.... i think in April 2019 Intel will find themselves no longer with any sort of core for core performance lead, they may even fall behind slightly, certainly on IPC because per core in single core use cases Ryzen 2 is only 3.5% behind.

Add to that Ryzen 3000 will also be at least 12 core mainstream, possibly even 16 core mainstream.

Intel really don't have a lot going for them over Ryzen 2 and its very expensive, IMO Ryzen 3000 vs Core 9000 AMD will win everything.

 

[humbug]

Global foundries have already said 7nm will be 40% faster than 14nm, that's clock speed and yes it is coming from a low base of 3Ghz, that will bring it up to 4.2Ghz.

AMD's CPU's were 3.7Ghz on all cores on that 14nm, (1800X) 12nm was cited to be 10% above 14nm and sure enough AMD are getting 4 to 4.1Ghz out of the box on all cores, (2700X).

So take 3.7Ghz 14nm +40% would equal 5.2Ghz, no.... i'm going to say right here that there is no way Ryzen 3000 will be 5.2Ghz out of the box as at that point i think the Ryzen architecture will be the limiting factor. But 4.6Ghz out of the box, maybe 5Ghz overclocked, i think that's a real possibility.
Add to that the rumours are 10% or more IPC gain for Zen 2.... i think in April 2019 Intel will find themselves no longer with any sort of core for core performance lead, they may even fall behind slightly, certainly on IPC because per core in single core use cases Ryzen 2 is only 3.5% behind.

Add to that Ryzen 3000 will also be at least 12 core mainstream, possibly even 16 core mainstream.

Intel really don't have a lot going for them over Ryzen 2 and its very expensive, IMO Ryzen 3000 vs Core 9000 AMD will win everything.

Oh, one other thing.

https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/AMD





https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/intc

 

[Lokken86]

Global foundries have already said 7nm will be 40% faster than 14nm, that's clock speed and yes it is coming from a low base of 3Ghz, that will bring it up to 4.2Ghz.

AMD's CPU's were 3.7Ghz on all cores on that 14nm, (1800X) 12nm was cited to be 10% above 14nm and sure enough AMD are getting 4 to 4.1Ghz out of the box on all cores, (2700X).

So take 3.7Ghz 14nm +40% would equal 5.2Ghz, no.... i'm going to say right here that there is no way Ryzen 3000 will be 5.2Ghz out of the box as at that point i think the Ryzen architecture will be the limiting factor. But 4.6Ghz out of the box, maybe 5Ghz overclocked, i think that's a real possibility.
Add to that the rumours are 10% or more IPC gain for Zen 2.... i think in April 2019 Intel will find themselves no longer with any sort of core for core performance lead, they may even fall behind slightly, certainly on IPC because per core in single core use cases Ryzen 2 is only 3.5% behind.

Add to that Ryzen 3000 will also be at least 12 core mainstream, possibly even 16 core mainstream.

Intel really don't have a lot going for them over Ryzen 2 and its very expensive, IMO Ryzen 3000 vs Core 9000 AMD will win everything.

What do you think the chances are these chips will be supported by current boards?

 

[NinjaCool]

AMD has already confirmed that AM4 motherboards will be supported until 2020 so you can put in a 7nm Ryzen CPU on current motherboards with a simple bios update in the future

 

[humbug]

What do you think the chances are these chips will be supported by current boards?

Very high, As above AMD have committed themselves to AM4 support until 2020, this specifically stating from first gen AM4 boards right the way through.

 

[Lokken86]

Very high, As above AMD have committed themselves to AM4 support until 2020, this specifically stating from first gen AM4 boards right the way through.

Does the same apply for socket TR4? Not that I'm likely to get another CPU for a long time as this one cost me a fortune but it's nice to know the option is there.