*Official* NBR Desktop Overclocker's Lounge [laptop owners welcome, too]

Discussion in 'Desktop Hardware' started by Mr. Fox, Nov 5, 2017.

  1. Mr. Fox

    Mr. Fox BGA Filth-Hating Elitist

    Reputations:
    31,792
    Messages:
    36,136
    Likes Received:
    58,940
    Trophy Points:
    931
    No, I know you're not pleased with this outcome and I did not think it was prickish on your part. This is deflating and discouraging to everyone. We're both pragmatic and opinionated even though it might surface from somewhat different angles.

    AMD has made amazing progress that surprised everyone beyond anything imagined. I think everyone would love to see the results enhanced by more elevated clock speeds, and it would be a joy to see the rivalry with Intel continue to escalate to an adrenaline-overdosed frenzy that carries both companies to heights never imagined.

    It's almost like watching a boxing match between two competent prize fighters; each with a strong fan base, one being an underdog expected to go down with a TKO making a strong comeback surge in the 10th round. Both are landing some bone-crushing body blows. Both are bleeding and badly bruised, eyelids are swollen... but the battering continues into an 11th round, then a 12th round. The pounding seems to be escalating. The adrenaline is flowing freely and the shameless exhibition of testosterone is in overdrive. The crowd goes wild. Then, suddenly, both just stop trading blows and go sit down in their corners. They're still giving each other dirty looks and making obscene gestures. They think that what just happened should be good enough to keep the fans happy. When it's not good enough. it's the fault of the fans that paid for tickets and sat through 12 rounds up to that point for having unrealistic expectations.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
  2. iunlock

    iunlock 7980XE @ 5.4GHz

    Reputations:
    1,884
    Messages:
    4,357
    Likes Received:
    6,099
    Trophy Points:
    581
    3970X benching coming soon. :) Build is in process... many of the water looping parts are in route so I have to wait, plus the Holidays. Busy busy...

    Very interesting read and I get both sides.

    When it comes to competition among the mainstream brands that are being discussed, there are a lot of things to be considered, which makes it hard to compare apples to apples whether it involves positive things about the company or negative things. ie....

    So looking at things neutrally from outside of the box;

    Intel has been flying solo in many of the sectors for years and years, dominating and eating its cake LOL'ing all the way to the bank... so the big question is even with AMD's success right now in the respected sectors will that be enough to make up for all the years lost?

    Is AMD's success that we're witnessing right now enough to catch them up?

    In the consumer PC realm, it has been a Blue world for a very long time, all the while AMD has been hanging on with workstations, all its contracts with game consoles etc...

    Some will argue that it's all about the nm process. But is it really? Intel with milking the 14nm process to the +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++'th degree already proved that newer doesn't always mean that the current or even the previous nm process is dead.

    What about Moore's Law? We're already hearing news about 3nm process... how far (small) can it or will it go, before running into situations that can not be overcome?

    I get that we've gone from computers being the size of a large room to now being a small device in your hand, but at some point that relativity will come to an end unless some quantum miracle happens that has yet to be discovered.

    My 2 cents on the whole Intel and AMD thing:

    Generally, because Intel has always had a much wider range of scalability than AMD, it made it more fun for enthusiasts and XOC'ers.

    Overclocking has grown to be an expectation to some degree due to Intel allowing that to happen. This isn't to say that AMD's can't overclock, which as we know is a major misconception, however, it is true that AMD isn't the one that transformed overclocking into the culture that we see today.

    Intel right now has a lot to prove, because it has a much longer, "credit history" on the table with a more established history left open to be scrutinized.

    Whereas, AMD was always just getting by trying to make ends meet so it never was in the spot light, nor did they achieve even the ability to have the scalablity that intel does, hence why AMD isn't facing the same issues due to the expectation being absent compared to intel.

    Ex. Let's look at the 9900K vs the 3900K at the ~$500 price point.

    Intel 9900K - 8 Cores / 16 Threads / 14nm / Base: 3.6GHz / Max Turbo Frequency: 5.0GHz

    AMD 3900X - 12 Cores / 24 Threads / 7nm / Base: 3.8GHz / Max Boost Clock: 4.6GHz

    Aside to the obvious differences with the core count etc... at this price point when looking at purely the ability to overclock, the 9900K is the better overclocker. Most would agree that it's also the more interesting one due to the ability to OC ALL cores that scales much farther than the 3900x.

    Note: Let's make something clear... real enthusiasts* generally don't look at a 1 or 2 core OC at 5.0GHz for example, being a true overclock*. In my example here, a true overclock* is an OC on ALL Cores at 5.0GHz and most would agree... The difference between an all core OC vs a single core OC is far to vast to even consider them to be of the same.

    Therefore, between the two chips above there's a reason why the 9900K is still the king of $500 gaming CPU despite having fewer cores. For now most games are still single-quad core optimized and although that will change in the future......

    ....unless AMD can achieve higher frequencies, they'll continue chasing Intel in the frequency war, while winning at the core count war.

    When games/devs do start utilizing multi core and assuming that things remain the same, it'll be interesting to see how well the 9900K @ 5.0GHz/5.3GHz on ALL 8-cores handle the games vs the 12-core 3900x with a single core @ 4.6GHz ...

    So the question becomes, what CPU is more fun for an overclocker? Definitely not the AMD. (IMO)

    All the while, with AMD mopping the floor with their 3000 series CPU's, it's absolutely not surprising at all, because most people / gamers are just regular users who don't even know what temp their system is running at.

    For me personally, I find way more joy in my 9900K/KF/KS than the 3900x, which honestly was a very boring chip. To be fair, I went into it already not expecting much from the 3900x for the reasons that I've mentioned above. That OC expectation just wasn't naturally there, because it really never existed in my books with AMD chips. (Scalability)

    When it comes to work station CPU's I still really like the 7980XE for what it can do and it'll always be a classic in my library, but even with the new AMD Threadripper CPU's, it's the core count that excites me over its boost frequency. Relatively speaking the same factors apply here between let's say the 7980XE vs the 3960x TR.

    7980XE 18-Cores all at 46x-53x -OR- a few cores at 4.7GHz with the 24-Core 3960x

    For those who actually utilize the cores, they will still favor the 3960x with having 6 more cores, despite them being at a lower frequency. This is why retailers can't even keep the new Threadrippers on the shelf. It's also the reason why I'm in the process of a 3970x build.

    Didn't mean to write a book, but with all that being said, Intel isn't dead necessarily, it's just that they were caught off guard (being lazy really) and now the clock is ticking for them to answer back. The loss for Intel with AMD's current success can potentially be so great that it'd make all the years Intel had flying solo, less and less irrelevant. The gap is closing....and for the benchers here we'll go with the whoever has a better overclocker to get points in that category / class.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
    Raiderman, Rage Set and Mr. Fox like this.
  3. Mr. Fox

    Mr. Fox BGA Filth-Hating Elitist

    Reputations:
    31,792
    Messages:
    36,136
    Likes Received:
    58,940
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Great post! :vbthumbsup: I totally agree with just about all of it. We are living in some interesting days.
     
    Rage Set and iunlock like this.
  4. ssj92

    ssj92 Neutron Star

    Reputations:
    2,117
    Messages:
    4,031
    Likes Received:
    5,030
    Trophy Points:
    581
    I've been using older CPUs even today.

    Intel Core i7 3920XM @ 4.7Ghz ~31% OC
    Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 @ 4.4Ghz (for the moment) ~33% OC
    Intel Core i7 4800MQ @ 3.9Ghz (not unlocked) ~12% [my 4930MX was around ~25%]

    Only exception is the Intel Core i9-9900K @ 5.3Ghz (4.7Ghz daily for now) ~13%

    They all clocked decently (~30% all core for Ivy/Haswell) and ~14% for newer CPUs

    Some older CPUs I had recently

    i7 6700K @ 4.6Ghz ~15%
    i7 7700K @ 5.0Ghz ~ 14%
    5820k @ 4.5Ghz ~ 32%

    To be fair 6700K, 7700K, 9900K were in laptops but the overall trend does seem to point out less OC over the years. Newer CPUs are already clocked much higher than before.

    All mine are on air though so I'm sure people have pushed all these CPUs even further.

    I'm worried what my next computer will be able to OC.

    I've seen the same with GPUs.

    My 400 series GPU clocked very high and with voltage.

    600 series was less
    900 even less
    1000 was locked on laptops and 2000 has 2.1Ghz clockblock so yeah
     
  5. iunlock

    iunlock 7980XE @ 5.4GHz

    Reputations:
    1,884
    Messages:
    4,357
    Likes Received:
    6,099
    Trophy Points:
    581
    Thanks Brother and yes we are indeed. Let's hope that all the competition right now will work in our favor for Blue and Red to bring us something even better than what we're seeing now. I think after AMD launches their 64-Core 3990X, the core battle will mellow out and hopefully they'll focus on bringing better version chips in the sub $1000 line. In the meantime, it'll be even more interesting on how Intel fights back. Either way it'll be a win-win situation for all consumers and perhaps very favorable for us enthusiasts if Intel's keeps getting forced to drop prices.
     
  6. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    1,609
    Messages:
    5,854
    Likes Received:
    8,260
    Trophy Points:
    681
    You miss the plot by focusing on frequency without looking at IPC. IPC*frequency=IPS (instructions per second), which is the true metric of performance. For example:

    1*5.0=5.0
    1.1*4.4=4.84

    In this example, you have a CPU with 5GHz compared to a CPU with a 10% IPC advantage running 4.4GHz. The 5GHz CPU is still the victor in this scenario. As you approach 1.2, you get 5.28 on IPS, making the slower CPU faster. This is what I refer to as the "FX scenario," referencing how the FX CPUs could hit higher frequencies, but it didn't matter because their IPC sucked, so Intel's slower CPUs were a better buy.

    As I said, who cares so long as the points are there.

    That is also why I gave the analysis of rocket lake getting a large IPC boost while having the frequency advantage. Zen 2 does have a solid lead on IPC, but the frequency deficit makes them only about equal with Intel's 14nm designs. Intel getting the IPC boost from a back port, while AMD gets an IPC boost on Zen 3 makes that an interesting match up. But Intel is releasing cascade around April, meaning rocket may or may not come out in 2020. If it doesn't, then it is coming out against Zen 4, which will carry another large IPC boost. If that is the case, then Intel's frequency and IPC may not be able to overcome the IPC and lower frequency of Zen 4, creating an "FX scenario."

    This isn't necessarily about process and smaller being better. Intel being forced to optimize 14nm and their results from doing so are simply amazing. But, there does come a point where being on too old of a node is a problem. Would you buy a 32nm CPU today and expect it to keep up with a 14nm or 7nm CPU? I doubt it.

    I also pointed out previously Nvidia doesn't need the cutting edge note to own the market either.

    But there does come an inflection point. At that point, not being able to go smaller matters. Where that is can be different for each node.

    Now, you point out there are limits. This, in part for nodes smaller than 5nm Intel and 3nm TSMC, has to do with electron bleed. Many assumed using a cobalt casing would prevent the electromigration, but Intel tried this on their 10nm and the cobalt, in part, was too brittle, compromising the integrity of the transistors. Silicon, overall, is coming to an end, which is why III-V materials and 2D materials are now being considered as replacements or in transitions from.

    We also may have to move away from finFETs at that point. Gate-all-Around nanowire/nanosheet transistors and silicon on insulator (like sapphire, which makes me wonder if Intel will go that route, considering IBM/GF/Samsung worked on GAA and have patents for their own processes) seem to be where this is headed.

    Controlling cooling due to the die shrinks and heat densities will be an issue moving forward as well.

    So it is a bit more complex than your presentation suggests. And yes, more cores depends on having an ability to use those cores by the software. Considering that is now a thing, we are seeing more software do those optimizations, as well as APIs.

    So just wanted to put that in context.
     
    ssj92, Raiderman and Rage Set like this.
  7. Raiderman

    Raiderman Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    720
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    2,409
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Not true with that statement. AMD pretty much owned frequency, and performance crowns for around 6 years or so beginning in the late 90's with Athlon, T-bird, and Athlon 64 lines. Even their K6 chip smoked Intels Pentium II. This is when Intel used underhanded tactics to deny AMD market share, which was settled with a lawsuit as we all know. Nearly all enthusiasts where on the AMD platform during that time.
     
    Robbo99999, jaybee83 and ajc9988 like this.
  8. iunlock

    iunlock 7980XE @ 5.4GHz

    Reputations:
    1,884
    Messages:
    4,357
    Likes Received:
    6,099
    Trophy Points:
    581
    No I'm well aware of the plot as I was just emphasizing a general point that catered to the view point of most consumers, because they see things differently than most of us here. I think perhaps you missed the point of what I was trying to say and not seeing this.

    Your example about the IPC and the result of IPS is correct and something we've known all along between Intel and AMD. When you break down the technicality of how the wheels turn under the hood as stated above, it only goes to compliment the points that I was trying to make.

    Ex. "Zen 2 does have a solid lead on IPC, but the frequency deficit makes them only about equal with Intel's 14nm designs. Intel getting the IPC boost from a back port, while AMD gets an IPC boost on Zen 3 makes that an interesting match up."

    I was purposely explaining the real simple reality of the fact that the 8-Core 9900K @ an ALL core 5.0GHz/5.3GHz with less cores overall and other minor handicaps -vs- the 12-core 3900X with a FEW cores at 4.6GHz with handicaps of its own; still makes the 9900K the better gaming chip and IMO the more interesting chip for overclockers.

    As for the complexity of what all goes into the smaller nm process and all the questions surrounding that, it has already been heavily discussed in threads about a year ago. I'm not sure if you were in the discussion, but it pretty much talked about all the things that you've listed.

    My purpose wasn't to shed light on any of the technical details, rather the goal was to just give a birds eye view of the very simple realities that I think often gets overlooked with people overthinking things too much.

    To sum it up, this is why I personally give a lot of attention in respecting the different classes of CPU's, which is why I do run the 9900K OC'ed for my main gaming rig and not the 3900X and also why I'm building a 3970X work station rig and not using my 7980XE.

    The simple reality IMO is that when it comes to core count, AMD has that in the bag and with results to prove it, eating Intel for lunch all day. However, when it comes to overclocking, scalability and overall fun factor, Intel still is the go too choice.

    Unfortunately, the group of people who understand and enjoy the art of overclocking is very small compared to the majority that can't even tell what the temp on their computer is. - It's not good for us OC'ers/Benchers at all and yes it totally sucks.

    I think this is the main point that @Mr. Fox was trying to make in that we're all being doomed due to the complacency and ignorance of the majority of the consumer base, which would naturally give the companies a silver platter to take advantage of that in doing what they want...

    Overall, I agree with most of what you're saying and I think we all share the same frustration of where the market is headed in the overclocking realm. The danger here is with Intel in likely following AMD's footsteps in releasing cpu's that run at the upper end of of the chips potential, leaving little left for non XOC overclocking. That would kill the scalability and OC culture that Intel is famous for.

    However, the direction of where Intel goes from here could be interesting as their only weapon might be to milk the nm+++++++ process again and offering the very chips like the 9900KS just to get by....

    We shall see... until then Happy Holidays & Overclocking...
     
  9. iunlock

    iunlock 7980XE @ 5.4GHz

    Reputations:
    1,884
    Messages:
    4,357
    Likes Received:
    6,099
    Trophy Points:
    581
    You're going way way back into the days my friend. :) I used to be all team Red back then. Fun era for sure...

    The statement is true if you don't go back that far in time lol. I had thought this would be something that would be obvious due to the conversations right now talking about chips in this era, but apparently not. I'll try to be more specific to save any confusion, but really shouldn't have to. :p

    So to be clear, we're talking about the recent era...
     
    ajc9988 and Raiderman like this.
  10. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    1,609
    Messages:
    5,854
    Likes Received:
    8,260
    Trophy Points:
    681
    I was the one leading that conversation, and now IEDM was dominated with that discussion this year! That means we are much closer to market, which is exciting.

    But, you also are not accurately representing the market. The majority buy at the $200 mark for CPUs or lower, not the 9900K/F/C/S level. So although you focus on that, and that is Intel's best selling level currently for DIY segment, it is NOT where consumers are or what they want.

    I pointed out that only less than 10% who buy a K series SKU overclock. So we are now in subsection of a subsection. Because of this, people do, in part, ignore some overclocking numbers. Instead, if it can boost and leave less performance on the table, they like it (like MCE or PBO). To them, it is a simple switch and gives what they want.

    So even you may be mischaracterizing the market, focused on high end gamers and enthusiasts, not your average consumer. Companies rely on those individuals to have the goodwill rub off to lower skus in the stack. That is where Intel is trailing behind AMD except in older games heavily single threaded. But even that is changing with new optimizations and newer titles.

    What we need is a new API that allows the simplicity of optimization of DX11, but where with a switch they can deeper dive into optimizations like DX12 or Vulkan, while also having better use of multicore CPUs.

    So it is time for software to catch up.

    Also, AMD had a problem with M$ not fixing their antiquated OS in many ways. So they started putting the fixes in hardware to guarantee it works as intended. This tend will continue. So it is interesting times.

    It's only 15-20 years. Although that may literally be a lifetime for some forum users here. Lulz.
     
    Raiderman and iunlock like this.
Loading...

Share This Page