AMD announces RYZEN 8-core processor

I'd say that's the result of the marginal increases of the last few years and the lack of reasonably priced CPUs with more than 4 cores.

 

It is the result of lack of innovation due to no real competition. The performance gap between a 2nd gen and 7th gen CPU should not be under 50%. ARM chips double their performance every year, I am sure we will see better x86 gains once ZEN hits the market.

 

Yes but no matter how you spin it, I got incredible value out of my Intel CPU.

 

Even more so here... Had this beasty since '10.

 

We did for sure. And no matter how you spin it almost everything after Sandy has been blatant ripoff.

 

I've been running my 3570K for awhile now, I'd say I've had plenty of value out of it. Frankly, when you compare i5/i7 releases from generation to generation the price differences aren't huge. At the end of the day, Intel is a business and if it has the performance edge it's going to charge for it. AMD did exactly the same back in the day with its top end processors.

Don't get me wrong, it'll be great to have proper competition and more options, but the anti-Intel sentiment seems a little over the top to me. It isn't their fault that AMD fell behind in the processor game. Imagine if Intel pumped all of its resources into genuinely increasing the speed of its processors from generation to generation? AMD wouldn't be able to keep up at all, they don't have the budget. Intel would have effectively killed any chance AMD had of continuing as a CPU manufacturer. Even when AMD has been at its best it still hasn't held market share over Intel. You either have no AMD at all or you have Intel taking the stance it has over the past few years.

 

Look at what they accomplished. Accomplished with a dramatically smaller R&D budget. What can one infer about Intel from this? Their R&D team is not as talented? They are more wasteful? Not really. When one is fighting for their existence, miracles will happen. Sitting on the top for so long has made Intel lazy. Necessity is the mother of all invention. Hopefully AMD has caught Intel with their pants down again. Let's sit back and watch what Intel is able to accomplish with its vastly greater resources. It is best for the market if Intel fervently reacts to the fire light under their backside.

On a darker note; if this amounts to another Bull session, the only thing left of AMD in the consumer market will be ATI and the "Heath Kit" market they will be remanded to.

 

P67, Z68, X58, Z77, Z87, X79, Z97, X99, Z170, Z270, X299.

Exactly the same as the Athlon XP, FX, and X2, right? At least they gave double the cores after the second iteration.

 

If you're asking about AMD charging high amounts for their processors when they were on top performance wise? Yes, they absolutely did the same thing.

Edit:

Here's an article from back when AMD was on top, the conclusion discusses what I'm talking about when it comes to value: http://techreport.com/review/7484/amd-athlon-64-4000-and-fx-55-processors/17

 

Intel didn't get lazy. They simply held back.

 

I would love to throw some money at AMD for an 8 core. It needs to be in Q1 next year though and it needs to handle gaming but i will need to see Guru3D's review first.

 

They did. Just when the dual core time came, they didn't keep serving the same platform seven times.

 

I wouldn't say otherwise. It's just disappointing to think about how long it's going to have taken before they moved past 4C CPUs in their regular lines. Not that I don't understand from a profit perspective.

 

I definitely agree that they should have at least moved to 6 cores mainstream (aka i5 and up) by now, but I don't think it's entirely fair to say they've gave us exactly the same thing seven times in a row. There have been improvements, albeit in other less noticeable areas from an enthusiast perspective.

 

Intel competes directly with ARM, now even moreso with Windows on ARM coming soon. Which is why most of Intel's advancements is at the core-m level and GPU stuff. Also ARM chips don't double in IPC each year - overall performance yes, but IPC, no. Cortex A9 to A15 was a 60% jump, A15 to A57 was a 30% jump (if you remove the power increase) and A57 to 72 was a 20% jump. Plus most of ARM's increases are their take on technologies that Intel has had in it's processors for a while now. The only reason why ARM's perf/w is at that level is because ARM doesn't have a massive x86 decoder tacked onto the front of their chip.

Obviously Intel is going to make choices that favor profit and I think that's a large reason why they haven't introduced 6/8 core mainstream parts yet, but people act like Intel is just doing nothing - they aren't, they shifted focus to mobile (5w+) and graphics. Guru3D may not like that - but that's where the industry is headed. On the desktop side I really believe they are running into diminishing returns with the current arch/or even with all possible architectures given reasonable constraints. At some point you're going to hit the maximum perf/transistor - as you approach that your gains are going to diminish. It's no different in GPU's - GCN has only gained 15% IPC since it was first introduced in 2011. Nvidia is probably even less than that. You just don't have the luxury of massively increasing clockspeed/core count like you do in GPU's/ARM CPUs.

 

Blender v2.78

I got ~ 1:21sec for 200 and ~36sec for 100 samples @4.7ghz.:nerd:c1:

 

Your 200 almost matched my 100 lol

 

Not really. They have exited the mobile/tablet market earlier this year. They just sell modems that are so bad that iPhone users have learned to try and avoid iPhone models with Intel modems.

Apple's A10 is also almost as fast as the Core M in the Macbook. So they have basically f*cked up everything else except desktop/server CPUs the last five years. And even there they are basically on autopilot.

 

When I wrote 5w+ I specifically meant core-m which has a configurable TDP of 3-6w which is perfectly capable of powering mobile devices like tablets, I would never refer to Atom because the changes they make in modern desktop architectures never effected Atom parts, but they do effect Core-M parts. Also Intel's low power devices have been making pretty significant strides - Core M-5Y71 is considerably better than the 11w Haswell Y series it replaced despite being half the TDP.

And regardless, part of my point is that Intel has competition, its just not in the desktop space (until zen launches obviously). There has been multiple posts on Guru3D about how Intel is delaying things like 10nm purposely because there is no competition - but their process is arguably their best weapon against their only current competitor, ARM. Now that Microsoft is adding Windows on ARM functionality and AMD is actually competing, Intel is probably in the worst spot it's been in a while. And it's not like this just magically happened overnight the writing has been on the wall for a while.

Edit: Just to be clear, I don't think Intel is innovating as much as it could given it's R&D budget. I think they are playing it safe for the most part, but it's honestly the correct business decision. They could go looking to redo their entire architecture every few years, but you're not even guaranteed to get something better at the end. I just think it's silly that people think Intel does literally nothing - like they make no improvements anywhere and they have no competition at all. You read some of the posts here and you'd think that Intel is detrimental to computing. I don't agree with that.

 

Ok I made a small mistake, was talking out of my head :nerd:



200 was 1:12sec



100



made this test for @ techpowreup

but there it was a big debate, did AMD used 100 or did v2.77 made a difference. Someone tested 2.77 & 2.78 there and was basically no difference or 1-2sec.