What I am thinking this is bound to is that AMD has finally flipped to the same pin-off-chip format that intel has done a while ago, and with that they can create similar technologies.
Thats all yet to be seen.
But wenn it comes to value for money, they are in a difficult spot atm.
Essentially yes. Unless you really really need the IPC and don't care about price.
The IPC on Ryzen is fine, the problem is the clock rate.
I personally don't thin so, They do on the other hand need more L2 /L3 cache IMO...Consider an 8/16 part at 3.6Ghz across all cores, Intel doesn't have that across all core ( I may be mistaken )
LGA allows for more pins on the board which does come with some benefits...
Pretty sure you're mistaken. I dont have an 8c/16t intel but theres no reason to me why they couldnt sustain 3.6 on something like the 7820x which claims to turbo up to 4.5 (probably on one core and only for a second or so). That said the 7820x is $600 vs $300 for a 1700.
Clock rate isnt the whole story and on a single core/single thread the IPC of intel is slightly better but not enough to justify double the cost. I am wrong. AMD single core/single threaded IPC is slightly better, at least until the actual launch of the new line.
Intel isnt beaten though. They might not have the hearts of the enthusiast crowd right now, but they still have the server market and the manufacturers. I dont know if we represent enough of a drop in their bucket for them to stop being silly.
If you run stock.
Overclocking? Intel is up by almost a half GHz.
If Ryzen is an indicator...there's a pretty solid wall around 4GHz.
So as above, Intel is likely still going to be better from a raw performance standpoint, but potentially wrecked ina price:performance comparison.
Did you watch the video at all? It has to be on every core and unless you want to pay thousands of dollars for the same clock speed on each core, AMD has it and has nailed the clockspeed down. Thats why a lot of the xeons had to start getting pushged down to the i9 category which, I'm pretty sure, were supposed to be low end E5's.
Yeah it's across 2 cores/ 4 threads I believe... ( again, correct me if I'm wrong )
Not really sever side stuff, They need highe cache to really perform...
If were talking about turbo boosting:
In perfect lab conditions I could see it but in the real world with 140w TDP I dont think it will actually get anywhere near that. I could be wrong, but my own experience with my 7700k I dont think it will very often.
If were talking about overclocking:
I have only hit 4.7 with my 7700k on all cores. To go further I will need to delid. I'm purely speculating but I think the 7920x will have the same issue as the 7700k in that temps will spike easily and you can maybe get 500mhz out of it without delidding. Maybe even less.
Rumors of Intel's demise have been greatly overexaggerated. They went years and years making products that were barely better than the previous generation, and barely better than the competition. Even when AMD was besting them, Intel owned the system manufacturers (through anti-competitive practices as we found out) and came out of all that unscathed - even their fine was a pathetic slap on the wrist so inconsequential, their stock went up on the news.
I just watched that video... 60MB of cache... That's some crazy performance
How funny is it that there is legitimate competition in the market and people rush to proclaim that, "Intel is beaten." There is no clear winner here, that's obvious.
On the server side, AMD will have high core count models that ensure pressure on intel, to a point. AMD has no stated that Epyc is going to scale beyond 2 socket as it sits, while Intel offers up-to 8 cpu sockets. Intel and AMD will have identical max core count offerings on the server side, 32 each. AMD will offer more PCIE per cpu, but with lower IPC per core. Tradeoffs will have to be made to choice one over the other. More PCIE, or more performance IPC? More sockets, or less? Its no longer a case of simply going to intel's product stack and finding the cpu with your desired core count and frequency combo, no, there is now a brand choice that also has to be done. Fun, and good for the market, but definitely not a defeat for Intel.
I think a lot of people are really ragging on Intel for Kabylake-X more than they should. They're stupid parts, but, they don't affect the rest of the product stack up from that point. An annoyance for the motherboard makers? Yes. Does it affect the end product if you buy one of the other skylake skews? No.
This pretty much.
This whole debate is really getting exaggerated.
AMD managed to set a very compatitive product in the market,
after being absend for manny years.
This is really a good thing for us consumers.
But i can only be objective.
Can you blame people though? Intel sued AMD enough that they didn't have funds for a long ass time to be able to do much of a shit. Now they are ripping shit up and shitting in grampa intel's dinner while they were selling 4c chips for way too much.
We´ll see what its all gonne bring us.
I am pretty new here, but i just watched this video and found it really interesting from a couple of perspectives. The major point that was made was the modular aspect of the zen core/die. AMD is going to be selling basically 4 1800x's on a platform that has a minimum of 64 pcie lanes into the server market, that market will put 2 epyc's on the first level of board which has a reduced footprint/size for 64 cores and 128 threads, so ya there is a xeon out there with 24 cores and 48 threads and they can put 4 on a board and have 96/192 with the same amount of pcie and now lets talk about costs to server farms, what is the single biggest expense for a server farm?
The single biggest expense for a server farm is electricity/power. why is Iceland becoming one of the largest server farm locations? power and cooling are less expensive in Iceland than pretty much anywhere else in the world. Downside to Iceland the occasional volcanic eruption and an earthquake here or there.
So how do you get the attention of server farms, make them more profit, cut the cost of power/cooling by reducing the usage of the products they have to use to sell the service. How much power do 4 intel 24 core cpus use, 660 watt tdp give or take, how much power do 2 epics use, we do not yet know exactly but the rumor is about 150 per chip or 300 for the 64 cores.
what are you going to invest in for the next 5 year stint when you can cut your power consumption possibly in half while maintaining the basic size and get potential increased overall performance. Gee that would be a really hard choice for me to make as the CEO of server farm X.
Intel makes most of their money on xeon, why are they freaking out and trying to keep the attention of the public on something else? They are looking at a minimum of 2 if not at least 4 years to get back into the farm market with a competitive product, consumers do not matter, we don't really even begin to pay Intel's bills much less make the profits they need to show.
In summary, the zen architecture is modular, scalable and most importantly more efficient than the current Intel product and roadmap.
The second thing i found interesting is what happens when AMD moves to the 7nm process, do they add cores, shrink the die, save more power, or all of the above, that is only 2 years away, they are already taping these new processors out and creating engineering samples, are we going to see 64 core 128 thread epyc single chips and 128 core 256 thread 2 socket server boards? Ask yourself why are there over 4000 pins on this new huge socket, double intels 2066, what on earth do they need 4000 pins for? Here is a possible answer, you don't need a new board when threadripper 2 comes out, just buy the new chip with up to 64 cores and 128 threads for the HEDT oh and they will maintain 4.0 to 4.2 clock speeds. Oh and one more thing, that 64 core processor is only 1200 us dollars. What are you going to buy?
I for one want to waste my money on the new x299 intel chipset at 500 bucks that will already have a v2 out by the last half of '17 or 1st half of '18 to be able to use the 14/16/18 core processors because the boards coming out now supposedly do not support these new added chips.
AMD screwed up in 2009/10, they are not screwing up this time, they put together a 10 year roadmap in 2012/13 and we are now seeing the consequences of smart innovative people doing what they love. Good luck Intel, I am glad you have a large stockpile of cash, I for one think they may need a good portion of it to recover from this.
I think that from all of this rumors and speculative data the only thing that matters is that AMD has found a way to get back up into the CPU market and give Intel a serious shake. I like seeing competition because that's the only way consumers can get better things for lower prices and technology will move on faster. Also it's about time that Intel puts out a CPU core that's seriously an improvement over the old cores, even if it takes more time to make.
Power & Cooling is not everything for server farms.
That said most server warehouse facilities anyhow have relatively fixed power budgets(Current) based on the power lines that were installed + Backup power they have available. If with AMD they are able to get more compute performance out of the same power budget, they will go with AMD as they start phasing out/upgrading machines.
Not everyone can afford to setup a server warehouse in Iceland/Other cold areas for those benefits, what you really need and will need for the foreseeable future is many localized distributed warehouses near where the people that depend on them need them and can access them at low latencies preferably via the shortest peering path setup. This is mainly due to the increase in Video streaming and cloud file sharing as well as business oriented computing services that need to be globally distributed. Current data warehouses aren't going away either, existing ones are in a constant state of change as older machines get replaced all the time.
Many are also seriously underestimating/ or are unaware of the production difference in how AMD is making their CPU's now vs how Intel is making them. Intel's technique is very fragmented across the product lineup yet also very monolithic compared to AMD's Zen integrated production & testing. Everything from the Enterprise Epyc, Threadripper, Ryzen desktop and Mobile chips are composed of the same CCX Blocks, leading to next to no waste. A source of mine says next to 85-97% utilized dies with their current validation process.
The way cores are fused off also differs from AMD to Intel. NDA, oh NDA one has a very cheap & different way.
Where Intel is trying to make a different CPU for every different application, AMD is making single building blocks that can be applied to every different product variation imaginable.
There's also some sneaky sekrit stuff upcoming regarding the next Zen iteration currently under R&D. Particularly with regards to mobile and power efficiency and how the iGPU's are added into this.
AMD isn't playing at Intel's own game anymore, they're forcing Intel to change it's entire production and manufacturing tooling in order for them to compete and that's what's got Intel worried, they now have to play catch up not by designing a better CPU using their current tooling but to redesign themselves at an organizational and manufacturing level.
To setup and buy new tooling, retrain people and vertically+horizontally simplify/streamline their entire production lineup and redefine their market segmentation strategies to compete on price with AMD is not easy.
And If you thought CPU's & Silicon are hard to produce, wait till you see the tooling & test equipment used to produce it.
Intel will be hard at work until well into 2018 and after Skylake-X/Kabylake-X we will be seeing a vastly different product lineup from a different sort of Intel.
PS: If you've ever had a meeting with Intel Corporate, you'd know what level of bureaucracy I'm talking about.