Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by HWgeek, Aug 5, 2018.
Repeat with me
If you are in the right country yes, sadly AMD CPU and GPU are very hard to get in some EU zone, as France and Germany are the main AMD's Target... While Intel's CPU are always aviable everywhere.
This is the Achile's weak point from AMD.
Awww, come on.
let the chip decide what religion it wants to follow
Intel wins by 16.3% in IPC (that's what many are always looking at anyway)
Most importantly, AMD probably wins in everything else (price/performance being the most important)
This will be a beast workstation CPU!
It has nothing to do with IPC - it's about clock speed. You cannot expect a 32-core CPU to run at the same clock speed as a 18-core CPU.
Its hard maintain low TDP with much cores, maybe has 16% lower clocks on "all core turbo" and stock
Intel does´nt has 16% more IPC than RYZEN, maybe 3% but the 2990WX does´nt have same clocks than i9 7980XE
I have no idea if in 3 pages it has been said, but this is wrong.
Is either 47% saving in cores cores for circa 35% loss performance
is 77% more cores for 52% performance gain
You can't go back and forth either intel is the baseline or AMD is.
Intel per core performance looks better in this single benchmark. There is nothing wrong with it and there is no need to flip the story.
I find this pissing contest everyone here has to be hilarious, on both sides. Other than maybe D3M1G0D or nizzen, none of you are going to be buying this CPU, and yet you're all fighting over it as though you already own it or have a workflow that could actually take advantage of it. It's basically just a higher clocked but otherwise crippled Epyc 7551P.
Why is it so important to any of you how well this CPU performs? It exists for 3 reasons:
1. Because it can
2. For people who are too cheap to get a 7551P
3. To give Intel the finger (which is also why the 7890XE was made)
For the vast majority of individuals, it's a dumb product that doesn't belong in the consumer market, yet all of you keep drooling over "moar corez" as though it'll affect your gaming experience in the near future. CPUs like this are not going to drive consumer-level software to be more multi-threaded.
And for anyone who is comparing this to a 7890XE... seriously, get your priorities straight. You don't buy a 64 threaded CPU for the sake of single-threaded performance...
TDP does´nt says much, even AMD and Intel calculates it differently but AMD RYZEN is more efficent than lastest Intel, if you compare same core count with same clock speed
Memory controller is´nt on chipset anymore, its on CPU, then, even if AMD launches new chipsets, memory controller gona be the same
dude ...come on ... sure there are funboys around but darn you sure get a medal on the amd side ... what kind of wording is that ?
"Intel fans refuse to except when they are defeated" come on ...really ? i mean is not a war now is it ?
"even after being smashed in the face they refuse to flinch." and again ... the wording .. is benchmarks and performance metrics ...
"talk about being devoted to a brand its honestly extremely retarded." again retarded sure it is not nice but even if you want to make your point heard calling people retarded ... will not do that if anything will just ignite things more !
and if you are wondering no i am not an intel fan boy ... and neither amd ... although you can feel free to look at all my past post ... you will see that i am fond of amd but in general i try to stay as objective as possible .
3335 / 18 cores = 185.28 per core
5099 / 32 cores = 159.34 per core
14% for intel
Intel's all-core turbo is 3.4GHz (max boost is 4.4). We don't know what AMD's is, but their base clock is 3.0 and max XFR is 4.2. If AMD's XFR performance scales similarly to Intel's, that means the all-core clock would likely be around 3.2Ghz. That's around 6% slower. Intel's IPC is known to be somewhere around 5-10% better. So, the performance lies right around where it should.
Well do not forget it is a classic marketing trick. The battle will be between the 28core intel and this 32core amd. Now beating the old cpu with their new it isn't really something to brag about. Yes, TR is cheaper and has more cores for specific apps. I agree AMD wins overall.
7980XE vs 7900X. 80% more cores and only 3317/2180=52% more score.
9900k is a fast sports car...
2990wx is a four wheel drive tow truck...
Good job AMD, you'll at least make Intel look up from there heads being so far up their own arses that you'll force them into some form of action. Intel are leaking desktop users faster than ever. While you was busy making the best 4 cores possible you were blind sided and now many, many cores is the way to go.
AMD basically brought Xeon level procs to the desktop table and Intel are gonna be mad because have you seen what they charge for a top Xeon lol.
Again, you can look at the picture above. 1950X (old zen) vs 7960X, both 16 cores. 3139/3028=3.6% for Intel. 1700$/1000$= 70% difference .
I'd imagine Intel would be fuming at this point, being forced to release a top Xeon chip to consumers to try to counter AMD. They were reluctant enough with the Core i9, deliberately crippling parts of the platform in order to not cannibalize Xeon sales (e.g., using paste for TIM, no ECC RAM support, VROC key for RAID support). I'm wondering how they will cripple this new 28-core chip?
I would say the 9900K is a sports car while the 2990WX is a tank.