• 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.

Core 9000 series

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Why is that a problem - do you want to pay more for an Intel CPU? :p

Or is it just co-incidence that in 18 months Intel has gone from consumer socket sub 5GHZ 4C/8T CPUs with TIM to 5GHZ 8C/16T CPUs with solder. Yet from 2009 to 2016,they stayed at 4C/8T on consumer sockets,which was exactly the period AMD couldn't compete.

AMD NEEDS to beat Intel,to make sure Intel does not run away with prices,and use TIM in parts for overclockers,etc. Intel will up the game to beat AMD,and then AMD will need to up their game and so on. If not it will be back to normal for years to come.

Intel margins are 70% and you moaned about milking - lack of competitive AMD lead to that.

You would have been an utter mess in the late 90s to the mid 2000s,then,the amount of to-ing and fro-ing was hilarious. All the people saying my latest Intel is faster than your latest AMD,then AMD releasing their response,and then it was my latest AMD is faster than your latest Intel,and then Intel responded...! It was hilarious at the time,with the higher end enthusiasts defending their purchases.

The rest of us loved it as,to get each one to their side,each company released CPUs which could overclock a lot,didn't restrict them,and you could even buy £50 motherboards to overclock on. Had everything from Athlons and Pentium 4 CPUs myself. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

You miss understand me. I WANT AMD to beat Intel. I want competition. I prefer AMD as a company.

But I want FACTS. I want to see why and how AMD will crush Intel next year. I've seen no evidence!!
 
beany_bot said:
But I want FACTS. I want to see why and how AMD will crush Intel next year. I've seen no evidence!!
Click to expand...

And again, this is not the forum for you then. You will not get any facts until the actual, real chips are released. Until then this is a place of discussion and bickering over educated guesses and wild speculation, and everything in between.

So go and buy your 9900K when it comes out, be happy with it and wait until 7nm Zen 2 is released and see what happens. There are no facts to give you.
 
LePhuronn said:
And again, this is not the forum for you then. You will not get any facts until the actual, real chips are released. Until then this is a place of discussion and bickering over educated guesses and wild speculation, and everything in between.

So go and buy your 9900K when it comes out, be happy with it and wait until 7nm Zen 2 is released and see what happens. There are no facts to give you.
Click to expand...
Ok. not facts then. evidence, rumour, just...ANYTHING to actually point to what AMD are preparing for next year. Other than "GONA CRUSH INTEL LOLZ" Just give me SOMETHING evidence based.

And stop telling me "this isnt the forum for you". I like this forum because it usually gives actual glimpses of tech, real reasons as to why Zen2 will be good. rather than just reddit style hyperbole.
 
You've missed my point, nobody here is an industry insider so we don't have anything to offer other than "reddit style hyperbole". There are educated and intelligent people here who can and will discuss and dissect architectures and make educated speculation, but it seems that it's not enough for you.

There is nothing evidence-based that can be shared, and therefore this forum cannot give you what you seem to want.

If you cut through all the shouting, fanboiism and bickering across this, and other, threads and look at some of the things we do know and the educated guesses you can see a few things. Consider this then:

Look at the new performance baseline Ryzen 1 set. Then look at the improvements Ryzen 2 made. Now look at the projected figures in performance boosts and thermal efficiency that the fabs themselves cite in moving to the 7nm node. From this you can get a very rough idea of what Ryzen 3 could be capable of, and extrapolate numbers from existing Ryzen 2 benchmarks.

Now look at Intel. Look at the performance baseline of Coffee Lake, its numbers, its thermals. From that you can get a rough idea of what the 8 core refreshes can do. Then factor in the problems Intel have with 10nm node and their ring bus design for multiple cores is hitting its limit. That gives an indication of stagnation and performance walls they may well hit past this 9000 series.

So then, with a very rough idea of where Ryzen 3 can go compared with a very rough idea of where 10000 series can go, how do they stack up? And what about AMD jumping onto Zen 5 at 3nm in the next couple of years? Can Intel even move past 10nm in time? What performance impact would these nods have?


Does this mean Intel get crushed? Will Intel pull a magic act and get everything sorted? Will AMD fluff Ryzen 5? Who knows.
 
LePhuronn said:
Does this mean Intel get crushed? Will Intel pull a magic act and get everything sorted? Will AMD fluff Ryzen 5? Who knows.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

So. As a gamer, looking to upgrade in Q4 this year. Is the 9700K that bad a purchase to make? no. It's "probably" the best purchase to make. Yes I could wait...and wait....and wait...

But I did that through series 5,6,7 and 8. None of them did enough for me. but as I said. 8 cores, soldered at 5Ghz will do me nicely thanks. Hopefully AMD pull a blinder next year and force my hand to upgrade again. Now that would be great.
 
AthlonXP1800 said:
Accorded to HWbot database, Ryzen 7 2700X at 5GHz needed dry ice, LN2 and phase change cooling to help cooled very high 1.6-1.7V for about 5 mins so nobody will OC Ryzen 7 2700X at 5GHz for 24/7. Sandy Bridge owners can run 2700K at 5GHz for 24/7 at around 75C with 240mm AIO water coolers so i9 9900K will capable to run 5 to 5.5GHz for 24/7.

2700X at 5GHz on either dry ice, LN2 or phase change cooling are slower clock to clock than i9 9900K at 5GHz on TimeSpy CPU score on either air cooler or AIO water cooler.

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4045611
Click to expand...

My point exactly! So whilst the AMD guys try and laugh about coffeelake needing decent cooling at 5ghz, at least the home user can get it to that speed.
So until AMD can do 5ghz whilst running cooler, they have nothing to write home about!
 
It isnt hard to extrapolate where amd and intel might be towards the end of next year.
Amd has a working 7nm process thats looking fine, no reports of any problems at least, it has targeted the 7nm process for its really big comeback (they said thats what they aimed for a few years back), amd also has a strong architecture in Zen and the 3rd iteration (2nd??) always was said to be a big jump and ~15% has been banded around more often that not. Couple that with the big clock speed jump from where they are now, at least 4.8 imho and its looking good for AMD - heck they even get a boost on the gpu side as well.

Where as, intel will be behind a burnt out dumpster drinking meths next year. It has a very very broken 10nm process that doest seem like it will be even half working right this time next year. Its got a chip architecture nearing the end of its life with decent improvements in ipc and is also caught between making a ringbus or more amd like fabric for its cores.

Heck amd could be looking at rolling out stuff on 3nm before intel gets 10nm working perfectly.
 
beany_bot said:
Aaaaand we're back to reddit.

Because a 229 BILLION dollar company with (including typical peaks and troughs) a steadily increasing share price is "drinking meth behind a dumpster".

JD4gfs8.png

FFS. Can we get some adults in here?
Click to expand...

You're clearly missing the context in which these statements are made. Nobody is saying Intel the company is going to crash and burn within a year. You're right, they have too much money and the mindshare they have in the marketplace is strong enough to increase stock prices despite the technical woes they're currently experiencing.

What IS being said is within the scope of the 9000 series and beyond, Intel face significant challenges which could impact their business. Meltdown and Spectre have ripped into them, their complacency in recent years has bitten them in the ass as AMD's resurgence is strong to the point where there's seemingly a need to suddenly push out 6 and 8 core mainstream CPUs, 5GHz 28 core stunts and press releases stating it's imperative they prevent AMD gaining server share. This is classic panic response.

As far as processors go, hurriedly rehashing the same arch AGAIN with more cores, hitting thermal limits, hitting implementation maximums with their ring bus design, and hiking prices with unnecessary granularity of product stack but unable to push a new arch or get their new process node working, all the while their competition is banging out new tech, new nodes and rapidly closing the performance gap for a lot less money to the customer, really IS the equivalent of drinking meths behind a dumpster next year.

Intel the company will weather the storm, Intel CPUs are in a bad way for the entirety of 2019. They will sell of course, but they're going to get kicked in the teeth all across their product stack. And if AMD gain some traction in terms of mindshare then Intel will have a fight on their hands.

Which is going to be lovely for us to see Intel actually do something about it. Proper CPU advances? Competitive pricing? No new platforms every CPU generation? Would be good.
 
gavinh87 said:
My point exactly! So whilst the AMD guys try and laugh about coffeelake needing decent cooling at 5ghz, at least the home user can get it to that speed.
So until AMD can do 5ghz whilst running cooler, they have nothing to write home about!
Click to expand...

The problem is that there's no clear winner leading to endless debate. They both have pros and cons. As a gamer, do you pay more for slightly higher fps due to clock speed but less cores and threads. I would rather Intel currently, but if AMD manage 4.5+ with Intel still at 5. I'd probably rather pay less for an extra 2 cores/more threads. The upcoming Intel chip in 8/16 is likely to be very expensive compared to AMD.

The 8 core Intel if soldered could prove really successful if 5ghz all core is possible comfortably.
 
Last edited:
Drollic said:
The problem is that there's no clear winner leading to endless debate. They both have pros and cons. As a gamer, do you pay more for slightly higher fps due to clock speed but less cores and threads. I would rather Intel currently, but if AMD manage 4.5+ with Intel still at 5. I'd probably rather pay less for an extra 2 cores/more threads. The upcoming Intel chip in 8/16 is likely to be very expensive compared to AMD.

The 8 core Intel if soldered could prove really successful if 5ghz all core is possible comfortably.
Click to expand...

There is a clear gaming performance winner. Whether it's justifiable is upto the end user.
What grinds my gears is people complaining that it's hot, I'm sure all ryzen chips would be hot if they could manage to run at 5.0 too.
 
gavinh87 said:
There is a clear gaming performance winner. Whether it's justifiable is upto the end user.
What grinds my gears is people complaining that it's hot, I'm sure all ryzen chips would be hot if they could manage to run at 5.0 too.
Click to expand...

The heat argument is pointless as you can run them at 4.8 at much lower voltage and temps and still beat the ryzen chips. 8/16 ryzen at 4.5 vs 8 core Intel at 5 for less money is an interesting one though. 8 more threads for less money and probably not a huge decrease in fps is a tough choice.
 
Drollic said:
The heat argument is pointless as you can run them at 4.8 at much lower voltage and temps and still beat the ryzen chips. 8/16 ryzen at 4.5 vs 8 core Intel at 5 for less money is an interesting one though. 8 more threads for less money and probably not a huge decrease in fps is a tough choice.
Click to expand...

Exactly, yet people continue to bang the same drum.
The 8/16 CPU will be interesting as you say. But I feel intel need to drop their prices.
 
Drollic said:
The heat argument is pointless as you can run them at 4.8 at much lower voltage and temps and still beat the ryzen chips. 8/16 ryzen at 4.5 vs 8 core Intel at 5 for less money is an interesting one though. 8 more threads for less money and probably not a huge decrease in fps is a tough choice.
Click to expand...

If AMD goes to a six core CCX,it means the top Ryzen 7 is 12C/24T,so 8C/16T cores is probably Ryzen 5 territory with lower end Ryzen 5 CPUs being 6C/12T. A Ryzen 3 will be 6C/6T. That is the issue,lower end Ryzen CPUs with an overclock might end up being good enough for most gamers compared to the higher end models of the Ryzen MK3 range.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
If AMD goes to a six core CCX,it means the top Ryzen 7 is 12C/24T,so 8C/16T cores is probably Ryzen 5 territory with lower end Ryzen 5 CPUs being 6C/12T. A Ryzen 3 will be 6C/6T. That is the issue,lower end Ryzen CPUs with an overclock might end up being good enough for most gamers compared to the higher end models of the Ryzen MK3 range.
Click to expand...

Very few gamers would bother with more than 8/16 I think as you say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom