Ryzen vs i7 (Mainstream); Threadripper vs i9 (HEDT); X299 vs X399/TRX40; Xeon vs Epyc

Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by ajc9988, Jun 7, 2017.

  1. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,094
    Messages:
    20,398
    Likes Received:
    25,151
    Trophy Points:
    931
    1.35x was from when the difference was between 14nm and 7nm performance, and now we have the difference between 12nm and 7nm performance as 1.25x?
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2018
  2. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    2,620
    Messages:
    5,876
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    431
    14nm and 12nm was pretty much the samething tbh. it boosted the frequency by like 100mhz on average chips and out of 3800mhz in total thats like 2.5%. 1.35 down to 1.25 thats closer to 10%, there are issues for sure. even with the issue the .5x power envelope is sitll a big win.

    i just hope intel doesnt go to TSMC for 7nm lol
     
    ajc9988 likes this.
  3. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    1,704
    Messages:
    6,083
    Likes Received:
    8,742
    Trophy Points:
    681
    That would equal the death of Intel fabs.

    In any case, have to do some errands and on phone. So later today I will hop on to discuss my thoughts on the uncore as implemented, IF (the IF controller is on the uncore chip, meaning speed may be divorced from memory), arrangement of dies, the performance numbers, etc.

    Also, I'll bring up cache talk a little, even though my knowledge on cache is not where it should be, the changes here could be quite important.

    I also feel they overstate the impact of I/O double bandwidth and made a mistake by not doubling memory bandwidth through doubling channels, instead increasing supported speed to 3200 which gives an approximate 33% bandwidth improvement, likely due, in part, to equalized memory latency to each die, along with frequency increase.

    I'll come to give more details to what I gleaned later. Here is AMDs video of the event:


    Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
     
    hmscott likes this.
  4. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    2,620
    Messages:
    5,876
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    431
    given that full working 8 core die will be used on Rome, we likely wont get a single 8 core die for consumer, not to mention it is made without imc/cache. ryzen 3700x w/e chip will be 2 core dies with an I/O die in center, up to 8 cores. for 16 cores.. 4 die or 2 die still unsure.

    they probably willing to UP the latency and Lower latency for 1st/2nd die compare to what it was before, 1st and 2nd ccx.

    ryzen 2 intra core latency was less than intels by about a good 8-10%, within a single ccx vs intel's uncore is also a good 8-10% so overall if a single die with it's I/O we expect to have possibly better IPC than intel. im hoping for something along the line of similar latency for all the core die yet come close to intel in terms of IPC
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2018
  5. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,094
    Messages:
    20,398
    Likes Received:
    25,151
    Trophy Points:
    931
  6. ghegde

    ghegde Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    40
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    56
    if anyone from AMD is listening, we want AMD in laptops. 8Core Zen2 v+ 2070 in XPS 15 body would be killer
     
  7. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    1,704
    Messages:
    6,083
    Likes Received:
    8,742
    Trophy Points:
    681
    I agree with Nvidia GPU being used, but stop with the worrying on 8 core CPU. Think about it, if they are talking half the power, they could get the performance of like the 2700X in a TDP envelope of 48W. Cannot guarantee the 25% performance uplift at that point, as AMD showed at next horizon 25% performance at isopower, which is the 95W TDP. So instead, shouldn't you yell at OEMs and ODMs to make laptops with it?

    Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
     
  8. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,094
    Messages:
    20,398
    Likes Received:
    25,151
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Intel i9-9980XE Review: Disappointing Overclocker, But Good Stock
    Gamers Nexus
    Published on Nov 13, 2018
    The Intel i9-9980XE didn't perform exactly as we expected. Our review of the CPU looks at stock and overclocking performance, including extensive thermals. Article: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews...
    This review benchmarks the Intel i9-9980XE vs. AMD Threadripper 2990WX, Intel i9-7980XE, 9900K, and more. Testing includes a focus on overclocking and thermals, with additional testing for power consumption, Premiere rendering, Handbrake transcoding, Photoshop, gaming tests, and more.
    http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...-x299-xeon-1p-2p.804776/page-27#post-10819820

    Intel i9- 9980XE Review - ANOTHER Skylake Refresh?
    HardwareCanucks
    Published on Nov 13, 2018
    The Intel i9-9980XE is an expensive processor that's supposed to perform well in benchmarks against the AMD Threadripper 2 2950X. But at $2000 its VERY hard to recommend.
    http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...-x299-xeon-1p-2p.804776/page-27#post-10819820
     
  9. jclausius

    jclausius Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    5,857
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    Trophy Points:
    231
  10. TANWare

    TANWare Just This Side of Senile, I think. Super Moderator

    Reputations:
    2,547
    Messages:
    9,585
    Likes Received:
    4,996
    Trophy Points:
    431
    Presently at 14nm and 12nm the chips do not really seem to have a great mobile equivalent. We have to wait and see where 7nm leads us and even if it is feasible being as they are using the 14 nm (or possibly the 12nm) I/O chip?
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2018
Loading...

Share This Page