• 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.

Ryzen "2" ?

its not define its they know what " we " actually use and sell it to us. thats what amd cant do.so they offer more cores to make the offer seem more enticing. intel charge for giving you the fastest best experience.why have 10 cores for slower everything when you can have 6 or 8 faster in everything we actually use ? it makes no sense at all unless the price is right and the performance is very close.

amds problem is a few things.often they market there products terribly.they cant match the mhz we want or need to best intel.to highlight this if ryzen 2 came out tomorrow and whatever cpu came out and it was a 5 ghz chip at the same price as intel they would be instantly gone ! most of us like amd better but because in gaming which is a big market we all mainly in for they cant give us that raw intel matching performance.if they could we would all just buy amd.if the extra cores mattered and they could give the raw mhz matching intel.there would be no reason to buy intel. other than price.
 
Not everyone's a gamer, if you doing development work or any work that benefits from more cores you can get better performance for your money on AMD right now.

I can run 64 small but performant VMs on my machine with a chip that cost half of the Intel equivelent!
 
The only reason things got so bad was that AMD went with CMT instead of SMT for Bulldozer and it failed spectacularly, causing ~5 years of lost ground. AMD were behind Nehalem/Lynnfield for sure with their Phenom II line-up but not that far behind, and let's not forget they had 6-core mainstream offerings back then! Sandy Bridge pretty much put the nail in the coffin though. If they had went the SMT route and gone straight to something like Zen things would probably be a lot different now.
 
Last edited:
DragonQ said:
Yes but you have to assume everyone is a gamer otherwise the narrative of "Intel is always better" doesn't fit.
Click to expand...

Even in gaming Intel aren't winning anything of worth, it's neck and neck. Intel have to drop the ring bus make a change of tack to the platforms before they can compete and it will be 2021 before we see that.
 
BongoHunter said:
I thought that the general consensus right now is if you want the very best game benching machine - you go intel
Click to expand...

Yeah if the task is DX11 benchmarking at 800x600 then something like a 5.5Ghz 6700K and what ever the topend Titan we're on now, would be the nuts. You'd need to be nuts to do that, but hey some people seem into that sort of thing.

300FPS vs 270 might impress the lady's.
 
Last edited:
~>Dg<~ said:
amds problem is a few things...they cant match the mhz we want or need to best intel.to highlight this if ryzen 2 came out tomorrow and whatever cpu came out and it was a 5 ghz chip at the same price as intel they would be instantly gone ! most of us like amd better but because in gaming which is a big market we all mainly in for they cant give us that raw intel matching performance.if they could we would all just buy amd.if the extra cores mattered and they could give the raw mhz matching intel.there would be no reason to buy intel. other than price.
Click to expand...

One of the big reasons Intel keep giving us tiny incremental changes and rehashing the same cores (6700k/7700k/8700k) is they can't get their 10nm fab working properly. The last two gens should have been on 10nm but it just won't work. Latest information put the first Intel 10nm chips at Q4'18.

AMD on the other hand are catching up to to Intel very very quickly. If Zen+ can do 4.4GHz then that gap is already rapidly diminishing. Then Zen2 is due H1'19 on the arguably better 7nm process. At which point Intel are going to have some real trouble on their hands if AMD move to 6C CCX's and can deliver a 12C/24T ~5GHz CPU...

This time next year is going to be very interesting.
 
I heard someone at work use the word "performant" about two years ago and I'd never heard it before. I googled it and got nothing, so I assumed he made it up.
 
I think the 'proper' usage would be to describe a performer or something - having now spent about an hour trawling a few writers forums...


...and back to the topic

Intel suck, Nvidia are C U next Tuesdays, AMDs resurgence is better than the second coming of Christ, and CTS-Labs are funded by a secretive and shady all powerful intelligence agency headed by @Rroff...

amidoingthisright

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom