• 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 5 rumours

humbug said:
Look like another 35% boost in performance tho....

So long as they keep doing that, IMO that's better than just adding more cores, its all good, this is not stagnation :)
Click to expand...

Yeah for sure, increasing core counts not really that big of an issue. If they can get this level of performance uplift whilst still using same number of cores thats a win win all round
 
FredFlint said:
Developers target midrange hardware, if the midrange had 16 cores, software/games would use them. The hardware needs to be out before developers will target it. AMD should not stops adding cores or it will be the quad core stagnation again but this time 6/8 cores. They should add at least two cores per-CCD.
Click to expand...
Yes they do. But the core count stagnation does not matter much if the IPC/architecture improvements are yielding double digit performance increases with each generation
 
FredFlint said:
Developers target midrange hardware, if the midrange had 16 cores, software/games would use them. The hardware needs to be out before developers will target it. AMD should not stops adding cores or it will be the quad core stagnation again but this time 6/8 cores. They should add at least two cores per-CCD.
Click to expand...
Have you played and recent releases? Developers can hardly be asked to use more than 1 core, but that's a different issue and I get your point.

Processing across multiple threads is not an easy task, so there is also value in improving what 1 core can do.
 
jigger said:
AMD are a better chip builder than Intel, AMD can do more with less etc. It’s been this way for a some time and the lead AMD have is borderline embarrassing.
Click to expand...
IMHO I wouldn't discount Intel, IF they can do properly heterogeneous architecture they can bring some serious innovation.
AMD does have an advantage in chiplets but so far they have been relatively homogeneous, specialized chiplets could in theory be a lot more efficient in some workloads if properly exploited.

This isn't the first time we see this, specialized instructions were the precursor to that (from MMX to AVX) and with node improvements becoming less cost effective it might very well be the future.
 
Zarax said:
IMHO I wouldn't discount Intel, IF they can do properly heterogeneous architecture they can bring some serious innovation.
AMD does have an advantage in chiplets but so far they have been relatively homogeneous, specialized chiplets could in theory be a lot more efficient in some workloads if properly exploited.

This isn't the first time we see this, specialized instructions were the precursor to that (from MMX to AVX) and with node improvements becoming less cost effective it might very well be the future.
Click to expand...

I’m not discounting Intel at all. I’m sure at some point Intel will emerge from the doldrums. Equally, I’m not discounting the strength of AMD or the distance between both firms that AMD have opened up.
 
Last edited:
Zarax said:
IMHO I wouldn't discount Intel, IF they can do properly heterogeneous architecture they can bring some serious innovation.
AMD does have an advantage in chiplets but so far they have been relatively homogeneous, specialized chiplets could in theory be a lot more efficient in some workloads if properly exploited.

This isn't the first time we see this, specialized instructions were the precursor to that (from MMX to AVX) and with node improvements becoming less cost effective it might very well be the future.
Click to expand...

To be fair 12 and 13'th gen are pretty good and right now Intel have a $100 CPU that's decent, AMD don't.

There isn't anything to complain about RE: Intel, its a very very long way from AMD's Bulldozer, its just not that at all.

But, and there is a but, Intel's CPU's are not profitable, Intel are not profitable, they are churning out CPU's that are far more expensive to make than AMD's and then selling them at cost, that's not BOM costs but the overall costs of running Intel, despite already having sacked 30% of their staff. A lot of whom are now at AMD, Intel can't keep going like that and they don't have an advantage with these specialised instructions that they are trying to charge a recuring fee for, AMD have the largest and best FPGA people under their umbrella, Xilinx, the sort of #### they can do with that could blow both Intel and Nvidia out of the water RE: specialised instructions, its their bread and butter.

Intel shout a lot, they constantly big themselves up to look like the leaders they used to be, the problem is they have been doing that and failing to deliver for so long now they have become a joke, hence their market position compared to AMD now who just quietly do.
 
Last edited:
jigger said:
AMD are a better chip builder than Intel, AMD can do more with less etc. It’s been this way for a some time and the lead AMD have is borderline embarrassing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. In what world are 14 intel cores equivalent to amds 8? In anything that makes use of those cores there is a big gap in performance.
 
I agree with Humbug here, and think it’s worth keeping in mind that one firm has a history of delivering innovative hardware on time and at spec, while Intel have a history of releasing underperforming hardware years late. Intel have a lot of work ahead of them and must start delivering to have any chance of reaching parity. I hoped that Intels A18 fab would be the point Intel could make inroads, but true to form, Intel have already delayed at least twice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom