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

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

  1. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    825
    Messages:
    3,531
    Likes Received:
    4,724
    Trophy Points:
    331
    So, you are arguing that IPC is higher, but speeds are going way down, meaning that it will have lower performance because slower, rather than IPC lower, but keeping the speed. Either way, INTEL STATED ITSELF THAT PERFORMANCE (edit: of transistors) OF 10NM IS LOWER THAN 14NM++!

    THIS SLIDE IS ONLY INTEL, PRESENTED AT ITS TECHNOLOGY AND MANUFACTURING DAY MONTHS AGO! INTEL ITSELF SAYS THAT 14NM++ IS BETTER ON PERFORMANCE, 10NM IS BETTER ON USING LESS POWER!
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017 at 8:01 PM
  2. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    825
    Messages:
    3,531
    Likes Received:
    4,724
    Trophy Points:
    331
  3. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    755
    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Trophy Points:
    231
    i wont try to argue with you man, intel can say whatever they wanted to say, in order to benefit their business and further their own agenda. kabylake vs skylake difference was 0-1% within margin of error, which already puts the graph you quoted and debunked your statement. again you can believe what you want to believe.. i'll believe in that coffeelake will be lower ipc than cannonlake but will be able to clock higher due to better refined 14nm process vs first gen 10nm.
     
  4. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    755
    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Trophy Points:
    231
    i for one can't stand to have a 6 cores laptop while desktop people could get 14-18 cores, unlocked. you know what i mean? difference is just too big. i could live with 6c laptop and 8c desktop or 8c laptop and 12c desktop, but not 6 vs 12 or 14c lol.
     
    Papusan likes this.
  5. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    825
    Messages:
    3,531
    Likes Received:
    4,724
    Trophy Points:
    331
    I'm not saying you are wrong here, I'm saying that Intel still says 14nm++ has better transistor performance than 10nm. Intel regularly says 15% improvement (bw to skylake, skylake to Kaby), but delivers less. Now, they are claiming coffee will have 30%, while saying the transistor performance of 10nm, which is cannonlake, will be lower than coffee. So look at which they are moving to 14nm++- mainstream and server chips. Look what isn't -mobile (needs low power) and HEDT. This means GloFo getting 40% transistor performance at 5GHz suggests if AMD uses that, TR replacement gets 25% from speed boost and a sizeable jump in IPC over their 14nm design. We'll see if that pans out.

    So, we all know Intel inflates things, but admitting a process won't be beat until 10nm+ ice lake for transistor performance is very telling, especially if they don't go crazy on adding cores. That is my point, although I can admit it may not be on IPC.

    Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
     
  6. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,161
    Messages:
    11,455
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Trophy Points:
    631
    A storage company doesn't care about fastest speeds - it cares much more on total capacity. ;)

     
  7. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,161
    Messages:
    11,455
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Trophy Points:
    631
    From your link below:
    Notice the part where it says they can change anything and everything at anytime without notice?

    So... go ahead and buy AMD 14nm today just because AMD's partner stated they might (or might not) deliver 7nm, uhmm... sometime in the future.

    With this kind of logic; it brings all your statements into question, huh? :)

     
  8. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    4,161
    Messages:
    11,455
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Trophy Points:
    631
    It is only you and a few online rags that are pushing for page hits that think Intel has no clear path.

    The path they are following is very clear; give definite performance improvements to their customers...

    Because, if they don't? They won't have them (the customers) any more.

    Other than price on a single component (CPU), AMD isn't offering anything close to what Intel has (and has had for a long time).

    You can analyze and twist the info they're sharing with the world; but in the end, the only thing that matters is where is the product(s) for my productivity.

    Oh; there they are - over in Intel's corner. :)

     
    ole!!! likes this.
  9. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    825
    Messages:
    3,531
    Likes Received:
    4,724
    Trophy Points:
    331


    Edit: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-7900x-skylake-x,5092-11.html
    So, tom's could not do above 4.6 on the 10-core, so went with a water chiller.

    Edit 2: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i9_7900x_processor_review,22.html

    "Issues - Hardware P states
    I won't lie, the past two weeks with the Core i7 7900X and the X299 boards I have tested have been an absolute challenge. Memory XMP profiles would not stick, power consumption with one BIOS was OK, the other through the roof. But most of all the processor performance was all over the place. We've seen perf differences of up-to 20% in-between merely different motherboards. MSI however with it's latest BIOS seems to have found equilibrium. Now the biggest fight the two weeks was ironically game performance, it was severely lacking. Example a platform like this should run Rise of the Tomb Raider at 140 FPS at 1080p on a GeForce GTX 1080. We'd end up at 90~100 FPS. And that problem occurred with pretty much all games. I have been discussing this with the motherboard partners (as yes it is widespread) and we all agreed, it has everything to do with 'hardware P states' that Intel recommends to leave enabled for the new platform. Intel recommends certain power states to keep the TDP in line, as otherwise they simply cannot achieve that 140W TDP. For most overall tests that worked out okay enough, but specifically the toll on game performance was abysmal. Days before this launch MSI however released and provided a new BIOS, this restored the performance to what it needs to be. But as you have been able to see, the power consumption is certainly on that high-side. In the end though, the performance is there, but we do expect several BIOS updates that will have an effect in performance overall, in gaming and on power-consumption. "

    "Two things I find to be significantly bothersome, this launch is clouded by too many architectures and processors that really haven't been released. You can choose from 4 to 10 cores, which is fine. However Intel went big with announcement on 12, 14, 16 and even a 2000 USD 18-core part. The 12-core version should see the light next month, however the last three are nowhere to be found and I am starting to doubt that you'll see them anytime soon. The latest indication is October. Sure perhaps a review here and there to show off that Intel can do it. But retail availability? I don't know man. So this all is cloudy and confusing really."
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017 at 1:26 PM
    hmscott likes this.
  10. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    825
    Messages:
    3,531
    Likes Received:
    4,724
    Trophy Points:
    331
Loading...

Share This Page