Caporegime
-
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 Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.
- Thread starter AStaley
- Start date
- Status
Yeah I know, I meant it was meant for 10nm but they shrunk on to 14nm, so it's lost a lot of its performance per watt, but Rocket Lake is not another Skylake revision, and it is deinitely coming Q1 or Q2 at worst, with a good increase in IPC.
Anyway, I as predicted, this delay rumour was fake. Ryzen 4000 coming to kick Intel's ass this year.
As we've seen in the GPU space, it doesn't matter how good your products are, it takes a long time for an old reputation to die. If AMD want people to think they make good products instead of second-rate stuff, it's got to keep hammering the nail again and again as long as they can until the message gets through. AMD can't wait for Intel to counterpunch and use marketing against them, they have to keep bringing out better products for several generations until the message starts to stick that AMD are no longer a second best option.
Last edited:
Soldato
Do you know what @Steampunk ? that is the actually the most sensible post i have read on here in a long long time. Even my own thoughts about waiting until next year, are really stupid when you think that AMD could and hopefully can just hammer Intel into the ground........release after release.
It depends whether AMD are favouring market share or revenue, but there is so much market share there to be gained if they can get a slice of Intel's mostly-a-monopoly, at this stage gaining market share will gain them a lot more money too. The chiplet approach gives AMD much better yields and profit per chip (compared to Intel's monolithic chips), AMD can afford to forgo some profit (because they are still making good margins with chiplets) in order to attack Intel's market share.
I fully agree. AMD used to be really good, I remember my AMD K6 2 450 was incredible at the time.
Moving to another AMD though it was no longer the case and Intel wiped the floor with it (i forget what AMD it was)
Hopefully they release some great chips, i’ll happily switch back when they prove they are on par with Intel again
Soldato
On par? AMD are kicking shintels butt now!
I just hope AMD can finally beat Intel at gaming this time, assuming Intel is still using Skylake whenever these launch. I find it pretty embarrassing for AMD that their brand new architecture and latest process can't beat Intel's old pathetic Skylake crap in gaming. I'm aware the difference is minimal, though considering how much newer AMD's architecture and process is, it should really be far ahead!
Permabanned
Maybe single threaded performance is already as fast as it can be. Maybe that’s why Intel have released products after product with minor improvements.
AMD are are beating Intel on price, cores, multi-threading performance, storage (via PCIe 4), and have parity or near parity on single thread. AMD also have better security in their architecture. 4000 series should increase that lead and put single thread firmly ahead of Intel. APU products should be in a class of their own, as there's no one out there with the combined GPU/CPU capability and performance of AMD.
AMD are on an upwards trajectory where Intel are stalled out, so I can't see how AMD can fail with the 4000 and 5000 series products. They have a clear path because I can't see Intel sorting themselves out before then at the earliest.
Usually there's only a few frames difference unless there's some significant reason. Now that things are going multi-threaded in a big way, you're going to see AMD pull ahead, especially with the next generation of consoles coming in soon with AMD multi-core CPU's. Those games will be built for AMD multiple cores, and that will translate to the PC too.
Soldato
Still remains that Intel are the go to for pure gaming needs though.
I mean I know the argument that the higher the res the more the gap closes but this really just seems more of an excuses if we are being honest.
I mean I know the argument that the higher the res the more the gap closes but this really just seems more of an excuses if we are being honest.
Yes, but who uses their PC just for gaming at 1080P today and nothing else? Who's going to buy a high end Intel system for gaming today, knowing what's coming down the line for games during the lifetime of the machine? You've got to have pretty narrow requirements to decide the one benefit of Intel is worth the many drawbacks compared to the AMD alternative. I'd suggest brand loyalty will make more of a difference to buying choices, rather than the positives of an Intel offering the way it stands today.
Maybe the fact that Intel only claims any slightly significant performance at a lower resolution is an excuse for the lack of any significant performance margin at higher res?
What's Intel going to so when that margin more than disappears with the 4000 series and ports from the new consoles? It doesn't look like they can match performance at the same price points.
Always find it a bit amusing that both Intel and AMD seem to highlight single core boost (because its a bigger number) on CPU's with upwards of 8 cores. Be far more interested if all cores could get that number out of the box rather than a single core for a duration of time. How many apps are actually going to make use of a single core boost anyway? Really old ones like games from 15-20 years ago?
You hope they beat them in gaming for yourself? If so, I sincerely hope you do not game at 1440p or 4K, or game with a card under the performance level of a 2080 if you game at 1080p. In these scenarios the CPUs are already identical, its madness that people whine about 160fps or 155fps yet ignore cost and power draw, things that do make a tangible difference.
Even gaming at 1080p using a 2080 Ti to see the maximum difference between, say a 3800X and a 9700K, the difference is not noticeable is it? 200fps vs 220fps and only under this rather silly setup. I mean I'll keep repeating this, it's astounding that people are not engaging their brains (I'm not talking about you) when assessing gaming performance. Or maybe they're being wilfully ignorant on forums for Intel fanboy logic reasons, which Ryzen outselling Coffee Lake/Comet Lake massively reveals, as when it comes to putting your money down, only an idiot spends another £150 extra so they get 220fps on a HD monitor instead of 200.
it depends how you game and what you do. there is differences if you notice them. some people dont or dont think the extra price between cpus is worth it for the performance. just be happy with what you buy enjoy it. previously amd have touted cpus which have been behind even if close for so many years that even with great cpus they arent good enough or they have minor issues which just makes going intel easier.
some gaming benchmarks will show amd cpus close with intel but what they often dont show you is fps drops or in high paced games the extra you can often have with intel cpus. if you running high hz monitors and dont want dips you go intel .
now...with the 4000 amd cpus AMD shouldnt need to do anything. as they finally hopefully have a actual intel topper. not close actually infront. i really do hope they drop this year. as i will be first in line to buy one.
also 550 mobos should probably come down to reasonable prices by then. so its looking really good for AMD. welcome back !
some gaming benchmarks will show amd cpus close with intel but what they often dont show you is fps drops or in high paced games the extra you can often have with intel cpus. if you running high hz monitors and dont want dips you go intel .
now...with the 4000 amd cpus AMD shouldnt need to do anything. as they finally hopefully have a actual intel topper. not close actually infront. i really do hope they drop this year. as i will be first in line to buy one.
also 550 mobos should probably come down to reasonable prices by then. so its looking really good for AMD. welcome back !
With gysnc/freesync how are you going to experience the dips?
Last edited:
i'm with you, but also with DG. if you set GFX to low for max clarity in an FPS you'll notice the difference on something much less powerful than a 2080ti...however it's up to you to say if that difference is worth the extra £££ an intel set up will cost. For me it's not, but am tempted by a 4700x say (from my 5820k) when they come out.
Gaming performance is highly dependant on the game being played, resolution and of course GPU used. One example - World of Warcraft. Even at 4K resolution, Intel has a solid lead over Ryzen, as the engine is so dependant on 1-3 thread performance. The DX12 update for the game helped to make it use more threads, but Intel is still clearly ahead of Ryzen in this title. That's just one title, but there are many other games that also depend on 1-4 core performance.
Regarding the GPU side of things, we have to remember that many people tend to keep their CPU/motherboard for many generations of GPU. The 2080TI is about to be replaced by the next generation, where a 3070 (or AMD equivalent mid-high end GPU) will likely match it's performance. Now imagine 2 years beyond this, we'l have another generation of cards much faster than the 2080ti available.
Making games use 8+ cores (16+ threads) is a incredibly hard and expensive thing to do, though I agree over the next 10 years of the PS5 lifespan we'll gradually see this transition. For now though, 1-4 core performance is very important to many gamers. This is reflected by Intel's massively higher market share in gaming, though AMD are starting to chip away at it.
- Status