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. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,877
    Messages:
    12,304
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Trophy Points:
    631
    No Intel propaganda necessary, I use my own experience, including my interactions with 1,000's of 'normal' users too, over the years. And btw, this is a mobile forum, no?

    Keep trying to side-skirt the real issues I'm highlighting. No worries. I'll try to keep you focused.

    Intel may be stumbling for a few years now, comparing to ~2016 and earlier, but what it does offer, has real substance. I know I don't buy a new platform (Intel or not) without reason - others must (obviously) feel the same. And while it is not on its unreachable peak anymore, it is still comfortably above anything AMD offers in the mobile space.

    To see for yourself where Intel is excelling at today, look at even the entry-level SP7 w/8GB RAM and 256GB SSD. Nothing AMD offers even comes close to that level of responsiveness in mobile and in my experience so far, even on the desktop space (vs. an appropriate desktop Intel platform, of course).

    I don't expect everyone to appreciate these types of 'performance' gains, but just because one is not sensitive to these metrics, doesn't mean we're drinking the Koolaid either... from either side.

    To give you an analogy to better understand my perspective, AMD is like a big dump truck that can handle a lot of 'load' at once. Intel is more like a sports ute that can handle everyday/normal 'loads' without waste (i.e. having 12+ extra cores sitting there idle).

    I can appreciate the power of that dump truck with its high load limits that it offers. But I'd rather be more connected to the 'road' (i.e. real life) with something a little less powerful in an absolute sense, but much nimbler and satisfying each time I take it for a spin (whether that is just a little spin around the block, or, for a trip across the country).

    And while I am more focused (in this forum) on mobile systems, I don't see that much difference on the desktop side either for normal, everyday users (because most of them are using a mobile platform by now too).

    The propaganda that has permeated our society over the last three years is that 'moar cores' are the answer to everything. Not yet. There are other things just as important that have to be mastered still.

    I'll once again thank AMD for giving Intel the push it needed to provide us with the choices (from both AMD and Intel) we all want and welcome.

     
  2. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    1,591
    Messages:
    5,798
    Likes Received:
    8,191
    Trophy Points:
    681
    First, my comment was a reference to Intel using how mobile users use their computers to say AMD is useless, putting it right beside Intel's HEDT presentation with no separation, which Intel was derided by the press for doing.

    Second, this is a mobile forum, but look at the section this is in and the title of the thread. NOT TALKING MOBILE! It is literally all desktop and server. So you admit to being off topic.

    Third, as countless reviewers point out, Intel can have the highest frame rate in gaming. For the average performance, AMD gives the performance per dollar, and with Zen 2 often the straight out performance, which is why they are recommended over all Intel desktop chips but the 9700K and 9900K, which are just recommended for gaming scenarios.

    For mobile, I already conceded Intel has best performance. But trying to them say because they perform best in mobile, but their desktop systems is malarkey.

    You are now moving away from saying your workloads to generalities. Guess what? Your generalities have been proven false by countless data points. Even your subjective "snappiness" standard has been refuted by countless reviewers, which have used WAY more variety of hardware each release cycle than you ever touch and consider.

    Also, your reference to history MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Nowhere in that time did AMD have an IPC lead, process lead, and ever have roughly the same performance or better than Intel's in the past 15 years or about that. So comparing things you heard or saw during the bulldozer days does not and cannot apply to Zen 2 chips.

    That is how absurd you are being. Nearly as bad as Lyan Shrout and his bs.
     
  3. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,877
    Messages:
    12,304
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Trophy Points:
    631
    I see you've already made up your mind and know me better than I know myself (or my experience). And, I haven't changed my stance at all, and I'm not talking 'just' gaming either (for myself). Sigh.

    The entire forum here is 'notebookreview.com', that is why I question a mere thread talking about desktops. o_O

    Average performance means squat. I'll repeat it again: Intel gives the gains where it is actually needed, today (and still). 'Moar cores' (for normal, everyday users/workloads) are the Koolaid that AMD offers. I don't accept (but have tasted/tested it - and not just for my workloads/workflows (and just stop with that flimsy excuse, it's really getting old now)...).

    ...

    Here you go, take it. You win. Happy? :rolleyes:


    Everyone else reading along can see my points clearly enough.

    And here is exactly what I'm talking about. ;)

    Uh, where exactly are those applications for the masses... (the question I've been asking for over 2 years now...).

    See:
    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/a...ores-coming-in-the-era-of-a-slowed-moores-law
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2019
  4. TANWare

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

    Reputations:
    2,525
    Messages:
    9,507
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    431
    Pre Ryzen I was in a DTR culture. This was spurned by Intel as from all C2D's thru quad core I7's there were fairly powerful mobile offerings. I was fine for a long time on this model.

    Then came the 16 core monsters for desktop's, all heavy workloads became menial. So here we are today.
     
  5. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,877
    Messages:
    12,304
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Trophy Points:
    631
  6. TANWare

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

    Reputations:
    2,525
    Messages:
    9,507
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    431
    Thos numbers are misleading. Since they encapsulate results from specific types of users and usually newer machines they may show a trend towards but not actual full typical user data.
     
  7. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    1,591
    Messages:
    5,798
    Likes Received:
    8,191
    Trophy Points:
    681
    So you seem to miss my explanation of retail numbers being DIY, which is a subsection of the consumer market. Never did I claim overall market share. Nor did I point to those two places, steam and passmark, due to sample size and polling procedures. A couple years back, steam would not ask to sample my AMD 1950X, but wanted to sample my laptop's 4790K whenever it connected every couple months.

    Retail sales figures, Amazon's top selling skus, mindfactory's sales data as the largest retailer in Germany, or he EU hardware survey done by a company which polled 10,000 people, that has a very low error rate due to sample size, are very different than your article attacking those two specific sources. Polling on what consumers want at over 10,000 when the error rate is around 2% for 2,000 people polled says people want AMD. https://www.techspot.com/news/82972-survey-amd-cpus-preferred-60-europeans.html

    If instead you want analyzed market share numbers, I can look those up, but the last time I did, AMD was mid-single digits in servers (Epyc 2 and subsequent Intel vulnerabilities may have changed that a bit), AMD had 12% of mobile, and 18% of desktop. Would you like me to check the update on those numbers?

    As I said, Intel's manufacturing woes leading Dell to consider AMD for OEM machines would be the easiest way for Intel to lose market share. Intel will have chip shortages until H2 2020, continuing to shrink their presence in server and desktop, while they focus on keeping mobile.

    Server sales take awhile to filter in due to test beds.

    Edit: Here is Mercury Research, an oft cited company that analyzes market share. I usually use another company, but it was a quick search and I haven't had my coffee this morning.
    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/a...-share-7nm-makes-landfall-as-price-war-begins

    So according to them AMD is under 5% in server, which is about a percent off from what I've seen elsewhere, but not a large discrepancy. Mobile is over 14%, which my numbers were from Q2, so possible and inline with projections. And the 18% before really counting impact of Zen 2 chips also makes sense. Overall, it is about the same as the other company.

    Now look at what people want versus what the market share is. That suggests the desktop segment will be shifting significantly. Mobile will take AMD releasing Zen 2 or Zen 3 chips for it to make a splash, which is early 2020 and in 2021. But Intel is also still cranking away with comet and ice lake ATM.

    But enthusiasts and DIY types have spoken and Zen+ and Zen 2 CPUs really are flying off the shelves. As their mindshare changes, and that of tech reviewers which now recommend AMD over Intel, it is a matter of time.

    That is why I point out that since Intel is still having manufacturing woes, unless they get their 7nm process working by 2021 (equivalent to TSMC 5nm) when AMD goes to 5nm TSMC, which a report yesterday suggested yields on 5nm at TSMC have already reached the yields seen on 7nm, then Intel will have even worse problems.

    TSMC has greatly expanded their 5nm capacity. They have outspent Intel on expanding capacity and are the largest semiconductor fab in the world! Intel and Samsung usually tout their profits or revenue to say they are the largest, but that includes SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS. It looks at market float. Since TSMC is ONLY a pure play fab, they are not selling products. All they sell is fab time. So them drastically spending $11B to increase 7nm and 5nm capacity, along with their fab 18 for 5nm coming online for phase 2 next year and phase 3 in 2021 to do volume production, along with switching over some 7nm fabs and their 5nm fabs being able to switch to 3nm, which their 3nm fab in 2023 being a MONSTER size, suggests AMD's ability to provide more chips to market will only grow in the coming years while Intel can barely get 10nm to market STILL TO THIS DAY. How are they really going to do with Ice Lake SP?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
  8. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    2,301
    Messages:
    5,776
    Likes Received:
    3,680
    Trophy Points:
    431
    for responsiveness, assuming zen 3 is 8% IPC over zen 2 as current rumor suggest, it will need ~4.3ghz to be equivalent to cascade lake at ~4.9 ghz.

    the good news is that the large cache isn't really changing so maybe the improvements are from inter core and ccx latency reduction which would be nice to have, which actually means better IPC due to more efficient CORE instead of Cache and zen definitely needs that if it wants to beat intel with lower frequency.

    i really want to see zen3 with an excellent IPC over zen2 while getting us 4.6ghz on all cores but I think intel will probably get there first with tiger lake and 10nm++. 4.6ghz doesn't seem all that unreachable with 10nm++ even considering how bad 10nm+ is right now, next year we'll have tigerlake mobile or possibly desktop chip at 4.4 to 4.6ghz with 20-25% IPC over my 8700k.
     
    tilleroftheearth likes this.
  9. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    1,591
    Messages:
    5,798
    Likes Received:
    8,191
    Trophy Points:
    681
    First, Intel is NOT doing a tiger lake desktop CPU. They are doing comet in Q1 if shortages allow, then rocket lake, which is Willow cove back ported to 14nm and due to core size will only allow for 8 core CPUs on mainstream. I won't argue that tiger on mobile will likely be better than the AMD Zen 2 mobile chips, because that likely is the case. But the optimism on desktop is foolhardy.

    Now, let me cover the current rumors on Zen 3 and what they likely mean. The first rumor I'd like to address is IPC. The most recent rumor suggests around 10% on integer, up to 50% on floating point, and around 17% in mixed integer and floating point operations. No matter what, this means AMD is going wider on the CPU designs. One possibility for such a high floating point is AMD adding AVX512 support. That would mean either adding a single 512 pipeline or using 2x256 pipelines and some magic. That would give that large of a jump.

    The other possibility is they are adding the similar AI inference tech that is also able to do some floating point, but would need some software mods for some programs to use. This is supported by Papermaster mentioning they do plan to support this in hardware at some point. The AVX512 argument and wider pipeline is supported by AMD's statements of waiting for software adoption of instruction sets before implementation.

    For the integer IPC, part would come with change in pipelines, part in inter core comms, part from access to L3 increasing per core with less hassle to access it.

    As to frequency, for servers, there is talk of an additional possible 200MHz. But this may not result in a boost to consumer offerings already clocked close to the curve on the frequency/voltage knee.

    Also, where are you getting your bull from? Thinking Intel, who can't even provide sufficient supply of ice lake mobile chips to OEM laptop manufacturers and was in the low teens on yields on 10nm a year ago will magically get increased yields and over a 17% improvement in frequency in a single generation when nothing they have actually shown supports this. In fact, in many ways the ice lake mobile chips are MORE power hungry than the 14nm counterparts. Without solving that, you cannot improve the efficiency enough to get the higher frequency.

    Further, your statement that the cache size is not changing shows you don't understand that cache systems are not just about the size of the cache, but the implementation. By removing the CCX constraint, where each core only had access to 16MB before having to travel off of the chip, it can now access 32MB, fed by work done by other cores as well, before jumping off chip regarding L3 cache access. That is a large change!

    Further, AMD is already able to challenge Intel while having lower frequencies. Check out the reviews of the 3950X beating overclocked 18 core Intel CPUs.

    So you seem to be misunderstanding and misinterpreting the data available!
     
  10. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,877
    Messages:
    12,304
    Likes Received:
    2,316
    Trophy Points:
    631
    @ole!!!, don't worry! We have someone to interpret and understand the data for us. :eek: :rolleyes: :D
     
Loading...

Share This Page