-
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.
Intel - Going Nowhere, Fast.
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 15,991
- Location
- Fareham
I think the slower progress on more recent CPU performance is much better for us consumers, who can safely buy a good CPU today and have it still be decent in 3-4 years time.
The speed increases were always going to be harder and harder to do.
The speed increases were always going to be harder and harder to do.
Infinity fabric isn't without it's faults but it works well enough, well too work. It has allowed AMD to bring us a whole range of CPU's from quad core to 32 core EPYC.
The second generation has improved certain areas and push clocks up quite a bit.
Intel on the other hand are still trying to get it right, I don't think the mesh system works as well, but of course it would be silly of any of us to count Intel out, they have the money and resources to get their act together, eventually and just like with their 10nm node they are having trouble to start out.
They will get it right and when they do I'm sure they will be back with a vengeance.
On a side note @humbug the Q6600 was a two dual core, quad core glue together not a dual.
IF works pretty well for what it sets out to do - it just doesn't magically add something in terms of scaling CPU cores together that hasn't been possible before. People keep talking about IF as if it is a specialised CPU interconnect but it isn't at all - it is a high performance scalable bus that is able to be used even to transfer data between different types of hardware that don't actually understand each other - its strength is in its flexibility with minimal if any impact on performance or features over specialised implementations in any area it is applicable to.
I linked before to Intel R&D for specialised CPU interconnects going back to I think 2006 or something what is holding Intel back seems to be as much mindset at the top as anything else - they seem entrenched in an approach and lacking flexibility to deal with a changing market.
The fact that people think like this makes me weep for humanity.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 15,991
- Location
- Fareham
What is your counter argument? Do consumers need more speed for something? No point going faster for the sake of it. It's inevitable that technology can't keep increasing linearly.
If hardware does not advance / get more powerful developers don't improve their products to take advantage, this of course includes games.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 968
There is loads of software being regularly updated that isn't hardware limited so that is false for the majority of software I'd say.
I may be able to keep my current system for 5+ years but will still upgrade and buy new software in that period.
My counter argument is that the slower progress on more recent CPU performance is worse for us consumers.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
Lol i cant believe i am reading this..of course slower cpu progress is bad.
Yes, suddenly AMD's architecture design choice became successful and Intel felt the need to coach AMD that it's "wrong". I wonder if Intel had even commented on the Bulldozer architecture flaws or it had been ok?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,312
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Yes, suddenly AMD's architecture design choice became successful and Intel felt the need to coach AMD that it's "wrong". I wonder if Intel had even commented on the Bulldozer architecture flaws or it had been ok?
Intel probably laughed themselves into a stupor at Bulldozer.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
Yeah they prob did have a good laugh at BD, well up until they remembered they dished out plenty of stinkers as well in the past...
Like... i dunno the Pentium that couldn't count, the P4 fiasco er the 7740x.. and the 7640 cough... almost anything trying to use intel graphics drivers...10Nm production... ect ect ect...
BD isnt alone in crapness.
Like... i dunno the Pentium that couldn't count, the P4 fiasco er the 7740x.. and the 7640 cough... almost anything trying to use intel graphics drivers...10Nm production... ect ect ect...
BD isnt alone in crapness.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,312
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Ha, I love the AMD defence.
There's no point making any rebuttals, because neither company is perfect (far from).
There's no point making any rebuttals, because neither company is perfect (far from).
Bulldozer was indefensible but the brilliance of Zen more than makes up for it.
The IPC on Zen is about 80% higher than Bulldozer. Even a Ryzen 1400 will rip the FX-8350 a new one.
The IPC on Zen is about 80% higher than Bulldozer. Even a Ryzen 1400 will rip the FX-8350 a new one.
What did you use before - a Cyrix Media GX?
IPC is poor, each "dual core" module shares an FPU which really hurts gaming performance (also see point 1) and it runs hot. Very hot. About the only good thing I can say for it is that it's got a soldered heat spreader...
My first PC CPU was in fact a Cyrix, it ran Doom perfectly.
I've got an X58 Xeon and a 3470k currently as well but I simply find the FX at 5ghz to give a better day to day experience. I mean its not like it cant run every game locked at 60fps 1440p.
I've got an X58 Xeon and a 3470k currently as well but I simply find the FX at 5ghz to give a better day to day experience. I mean its not like it cant run every game locked at 60fps 1440p.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2017
- Posts
- 9,275
- Location
- Beds
I think I saw you mention this before - do you mean a 3570k?