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. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    2,184
    Messages:
    5,699
    Likes Received:
    3,611
    Trophy Points:
    431
    TSMC is not glofo, however the technological stuff behind them are similar, they are literally competition. is that the best you can come up with to justify yourself when you "call" me out? it wont matter even if TSMC is better than glofo, which i already stated in my statement that they are different. ultimately it'll run into the same problem once you overclock past a certain point, those numbers dont mean jack anymore.

    again what you seem to fail at understanding is that i would LOVE to be proved wrong. i want AMD at 5.5ghz if i can, all the more better for me when i buy TR 24cores.
     
  2. TANWare

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

    Reputations:
    2,505
    Messages:
    9,433
    Likes Received:
    4,856
    Trophy Points:
    431
    The problem with us overclockers is if we can get 5.5 GHz stable we then want 6.0 GHz. Enough is never enough!
     
    jaybee83, hmscott and Papusan like this.
  3. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    1,526
    Messages:
    5,688
    Likes Received:
    8,030
    Trophy Points:
    681
    Now toy moved the goal post. First it was discussing 8% IPC and 200MHz, now it's some crap about 5.5GHz. Are you kidding me. Even Intel couldn't hit 4GHz with their increase in IPC of supposedly 18%, all while ignoring the black mark cannon lake to make the claim.

    And yes, considering I would be called out using GF's process to explain Intel going from 14nm to 14nm+ (skylake to Kaby) or 14nm+ to 14nm++ (kaby to coffee), you cannot use the argument of GF to talk about TSMC. It's the same thing. I could argue like you did that they use similar processes. But the truth is the execution by the companies is different and those differences matter enough to make your statement false.

    So is that the best you can come up with? Slight of hand for a comparative argument justification followed by arguing the absurd with an injection of hyperbole?
     
  4. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    2,184
    Messages:
    5,699
    Likes Received:
    3,611
    Trophy Points:
    431
    not kidding you, if you can tell when im trying to make a point you may as well not reply at all.

    gonna sum this up and not argue with you no more. 100mhz at best to 7nm+, if we can get more thats good, doubt it.

    with the way cpu is right now 12-16 cores only at 4.2 - 4.3ghz at best all core OC with cancerous voltage like 1.4v, even 200mhz is nothing amazing. give that 4.6ghz @1.25v im still waiting.
     
  5. TANWare

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

    Reputations:
    2,505
    Messages:
    9,433
    Likes Received:
    4,856
    Trophy Points:
    431
    Even Intel on high core counts chokes on about 4.4 GHz water cooled. Considering the higher IPC of zen 2 4.3 GHz is awesome. You want better than 5.0 GHz setup your LN2 and go ahead.
     
    hmscott and ajc9988 like this.
  6. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    1,526
    Messages:
    5,688
    Likes Received:
    8,030
    Trophy Points:
    681
    And I'm not kidding you, make hyperbolic comments in argumentation, expect to get called out on the absurdity, as it doesn't help your point at all.

    Now, 10% power draw reduction is around 1.26V, assuming equal amps. So, the question is whether you can achieve 200MHz in the extra 140mV. It is possible, but looking at overclocks of Zen 2, it took around that much to go to 4.4 from 4.3 all core on a cherry chip, with that last 100MHz being where efficiency drops off a cliff. Had you argued this, without mentioning anything on IPC which you still haven't supported and have dropped from subsequent argumentation, then you'd have a point. This it's why I specifically agreed on the frequency assessment. There is datum to point to. It is this other braggadocio I'm challenging, as well as your use of deflection and trying to diminish or dismiss unfavorable facts instead of acknowledgment and addressing them. That behavior makes me mad, with its prevalence in politics, the news, and tech today.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2019
  7. TANWare

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

    Reputations:
    2,505
    Messages:
    9,433
    Likes Received:
    4,856
    Trophy Points:
    431
    I think what might be overlooked is with CCX at 8 cores on ZEN3 maybe we could see, albeit at lower clocks, a 32 core AM4 or even a 128 core Epyc?
     
    hmscott likes this.
  8. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    1,526
    Messages:
    5,688
    Likes Received:
    8,030
    Trophy Points:
    681
    I don't think we'll get that with Zen 3. Die size too large, power constraints, etc.

    But you now don't have just the best core or two out of 3 to 4 per CCX, you have the top core or two out of 8 cores. Also, it was pointed out at Tom's hardware that the wrong cores are being chosen for the top boost. Because of this, by changing the top core binning process and Microsoft coming with a better scheduler to select the best boost core to keep the CPU fed, we could see higher single core speeds.

    For Epyc, they are staying at 64-cores for Milan. It maybe higher on custom and semi-custom chips.

    But, eventually, they are working toward using an active interposer. Think of the I/O due integrated into the interposer, which was tested to have optimal throughput with an 8-core die, while no need for the artificial bifurcation anymore of a CCX. With that as a base, then attacking more chiplets, ASICs, or HBM makes sense. But that is my hopes off of known information, not hard evidence.
     
    hmscott likes this.
  9. ole!!!

    ole!!! Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    2,184
    Messages:
    5,699
    Likes Received:
    3,611
    Trophy Points:
    431
    you are entitled to your opinion and that 200mhz isnt happening here. the average uplift of 7nm+ vs 7nm is a measly 100mhz and even then i think thats too much given on the track record we saw from glofo's node. once again, i'll mention here since you seem to not read. TSMC MIGHT HAVE BETTER NODE THAN GLOFO SO WE MIGHT END UP MORE THAN 100MHZ.

    there you happy?
     
  10. TANWare

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

    Reputations:
    2,505
    Messages:
    9,433
    Likes Received:
    4,856
    Trophy Points:
    431
    Please stop the bickering over opinions, there is no silicon to test yet.
     
    jaybee83 and hmscott like this.
Loading...

Share This Page