[SOLVED] Amd 7nm VS Intel 14nm My Simple Thoughts

Sep 8, 2019
8
1
15
0
Hello Guys I'm New to CPU hardware and i want to learn more so i ask question about AMD 7nm and 14nm Intel...

First of all i would like to give AMD a BIG thumbs up because they pushed Intel to increase more core to their CPUs and AMD now in 7nm gen of their CPUs...

Why AMD can't give higher boost clock since theyre already in 7nm, imagine i7 9700k(14nm) that can boost to 4.6 all core and AMD 3000 series that cant even reach the advertise speed in 7nm?

Are they having a problem with this 7nm chips?

Did Intel Can keep up even they're 7nm left behind? I Know Intel 9th gen is Hotter and Cost A lot than AMD 3000 series...

Can't imagine what intel can do if they reach 7nm...

Maybe in my post i'm on a little side of intel coz on my mind intel is still in 14nm and still keeping up with 7nm AMD... This Topic is about 7nm vs 14nm...
 

nooneisback

Honorable
Jun 14, 2014
544
2
11,165
98
First of all, larger manufacturing processes often reach higher stable clocks just because they can hold stable high voltages on the expense of an enormous heat (FX-9000 series would come with an above 4 GHz clock and a water cooler).

Secondly, Ryzen CPUs use Infinity Fabric, which is an amazing technology, but still requires some work. It limits overclocking greatly, but allows AMD to cram an enormous amount of cores into sepparate dies on a single CPU.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Levhardware

nooneisback

Honorable
Jun 14, 2014
544
2
11,165
98
First of all, larger manufacturing processes often reach higher stable clocks just because they can hold stable high voltages on the expense of an enormous heat (FX-9000 series would come with an above 4 GHz clock and a water cooler).

Secondly, Ryzen CPUs use Infinity Fabric, which is an amazing technology, but still requires some work. It limits overclocking greatly, but allows AMD to cram an enormous amount of cores into sepparate dies on a single CPU.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Levhardware
Sep 8, 2019
8
1
15
0
First of all, larger manufacturing processes often reach higher stable clocks just because they can hold stable high voltages on the expense of an enormous heat (FX-9000 series would come with an above 4 GHz clock and a water cooler).

Secondly, Ryzen CPUs use Infinity Fabric, which is an amazing technology, but still requires some work. It limits overclocking greatly, but allows AMD to cram an enormous amount of cores into sepparate dies on a single CPU.
that's a lot of new knowledge for me... so if we give amd more time for them to stabilize Infinity fabric technology amd is long way ahead of intel?
 

Gam3r01

Titan
Moderator
Hard to say what the future holds, because intel will be working at improvements the same time as AMD.
Overall, the 14nm process intel uses is more like 14nm+++++++++++ because its been refreshed and refined so many times.
7nm is still a new node.
 

nooneisback

Honorable
Jun 14, 2014
544
2
11,165
98
Hard to say what the future holds, because intel will be working at improvements the same time as AMD.
Overall, the 14nm process intel uses is more like 14nm+++++++++++ because its been refreshed and refined so many times.
7nm is still a new node.
The only real advantage AMD has is that they don't own any factories. Intel designs and manufactures their chips in their own facilities. AMD outsources their designs meaning they don't have to worry about expensive machinery.
 
Intel is still the king for gaming performance but for most other things it is AMD all the way. Also AMD is very close to Intel in gaming performance. So for most people simply a Ryzen 5 3600 is enough. In fact it is more than enough most of the time especially for a gamer.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Amd had always been 1 step ahead of Intel. If you go back, even the FX cores were ahead of what Intel was pushing out mainstream, 8 cores vs 4. But that doesn't mean anything else is. The software most definitely favored higher speeds, higher IPC and left fx cores to power Xbox and Playstations and cell phones etc.

Amd didn't really push to get Intel on board with more cores/threads, just the natural progression of demand. Games especially had gotten so complex in coding that even with higher IPC, the cpus were going to have serious issues pushing through massively long strings. Better to push 2 much shorter strings on 2 threads simultaneously. Single thread strong games said goodbye and quad core + HT finally became viable as an expenditure.

AMD's biggest issue wasn't that it was behind, but too far ahead in thinking and the software wouldn't support it well enough, and you ended up with failed attempts at supremacy with the original FX releases, compounded by quicky supposed fixes by later releases that still never had a chance.
 
7nm vs. 14nm allows more circuitry to be put in a single chip.
It does not necessarily mean anything about the operating speed of those circuits.

AMD has leveraged this by putting more cores and threads on the chip.
That is wonderful for batch apps that can use many threads.
Most games do not make effective use of more than4 threads, perhaps 6.
The single thread performance is what games need most.
Today, you get adequate compute power for gaming from most current gen processors in the $200 + range.

What is going to happen when intel has 7 or 10mm processes available is to introduce a new architecture that makes use of more circuitry. Here is an article on sunny cove architecture as implemented first on mobile processors.
It demonstrates a 18% IPC improvement.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14514/examining-intels-ice-lake-microarchitecture-and-sunny-cove

Ultimately, the proof is in comparative benchmarks of the workload you do.
 

Groveling_Wyrm

Distinguished
Amd had always been 1 step ahead of Intel. If you go back, even the FX cores were ahead of what Intel was pushing out mainstream, 8 cores vs 4. But that doesn't mean anything else is. The software most definitely favored higher speeds, higher IPC and left fx cores to power Xbox and Playstations and cell phones etc.

Amd didn't really push to get Intel on board with more cores/threads, just the natural progression of demand. Games especially had gotten so complex in coding that even with higher IPC, the cpus were going to have serious issues pushing through massively long strings. Better to push 2 much shorter strings on 2 threads simultaneously. Single thread strong games said goodbye and quad core + HT finally became viable as an expenditure.

AMD's biggest issue wasn't that it was behind, but too far ahead in thinking and the software wouldn't support it well enough, and you ended up with failed attempts at supremacy with the original FX releases, compounded by quicky supposed fixes by later releases that still never had a chance.

Um, the FX line was not exactly what AMD said it was. That's why they just settled a class action lawsuit because of the false claims they made with the FX series having 8 cores, whereas they are actually only 4 core chips. So saying that AMD was ahead with the FX line, is not really true. At that point, most people would agree that that point in time was NOT AMD's best moment, and that they were putting out some less than stellar products, while Intel was releasing their i3/i5/i7 lines.

Both companies have been working on new advances, so saying that AMD is in any way more advanced, or that Intel is more advanced is just misinformation. If it were so, there wouldn't be so much impact from the Ryzen line.

Have you noticed that even with the Infinity fabric, the new architectures, and all the nice things that the Ryzens have, they still can't get much past the latest Intel products? At best, they keep pace. Ask yourself, if AMD or Intel is so advanced, why the parity?

Food for thought...
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Amd had always been 1 step ahead of Intel. If you go back, even the FX cores were ahead of what Intel was pushing out mainstream, 8 cores vs 4.
The jury is still out on whether the FX qualifies as 8-cores since there is no legal definition of what is/isn't a core and AMD decided to settle the lawsuit instead of letting the class action go through court. Also, those eight cores perform significantly worse in many workloads than Intel's Core architecture. AMD was vastly inferior throughout Intel's Core generations until Zen came along.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Oh, there are 8 cores alright but connected in 4 *2 configuration with no direct way to use each one individually.
With the cores sharing a single instruction decoder and retirement back-end, that's some uncomfortably intimate sharing between them especially when you consider that the instruction decoder is often a major bottleneck and power hog in architectures lacking uOP cache. This resource sharing makes it nearly impossible to get anywhere near full performance out of the two integer pipelines and if AMD decided to fight the class action, that's likely where it might lose - claiming the CPU has twice as many int cores but being unable to perform anywhere near twice as fast in the majority of favorable workloads.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Jees, I just said AMD thinking was ahead, didn't say actual implementation was. Even with advancements in architecture Intel is basically only streamlining a process it started in lga1156. And silicon is about to hit a brick wall. At 5nm. Intel is only going to get a few more generations of getting smaller before its forced to come up with a new idea.

Personally I think it's a little pathetic that amd would even have to respond to such bs as core count definitions in a legal battle. From an outside perspective it just seems amd is trying to give ppl decent value for the money while Intel charges consumers more, just to pay its giant legal team to smack amd around every time they get a little uppity.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,225
11
19,315
21
Hard to say what the future holds, because intel will be working at improvements the same time as AMD.
Overall, the 14nm process intel uses is more like 14nm+++++++++++ because its been refreshed and refined so many times.
7nm is still a new node.
They still mostly king of Gaming even they are behind...
 
Sep 8, 2019
8
1
15
0
Have you noticed that even with the Infinity fabric, the new architectures, and all the nice things that the Ryzens have, they still can't get much past the latest Intel products? At best, they keep pace. Ask yourself, if AMD or Intel is so advanced, why the parity?
Base on my noob knowledge about CPUs... I Think AMD won by more cores/cheap and i think that intel is more future proof because they can give 4.6+ clock speed even with just boost clock...

Maybe 7nm+ of amd is that can give us higher clock speed since this is their first time implementing the 7nm?

_
I understand everyone's reply but it's hard for me to reply coz im not good with my english...

I want to keep this Thread coz i want to learn more about their technology... thanks guys keep replying...
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
From an outside perspective it just seems amd is trying to give ppl decent value for the money while Intel charges consumers more
Because $1000 for a 225W FX9590 was such good value for money? There was no bang-per-buck advantage to AMD while AMD thought it could get away with it and I'm expecting AMD to do this again while Intel is out of the game. It has kind of already begun with AMD choosing to adjust its 3rd-gen offerings to the minimum it can get away with for a given price point instead of obliterating Intel across the board while it can.
 

nooneisback

Honorable
Jun 14, 2014
544
2
11,165
98
There's always exceptions...

And the 9590 didn't last long at $900+ before dropping badly, even dumping it's cooler in attempts to sell the mistake.
It didn't cost them anything. The CPU itself is just another 8 core Vishera that just manages to run on higher clocks on a lower voltage. They just did somd cheap rebranding.

In fact, the thing somewhat boosted their sales on other CPUs since it showed the OC potential of even the lower end models.
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Higher clocks on lower voltages? The 9 series ran extremely high voltages. Stock voltage was 1.537v and was higher if you wanted to actually push the 5+GHz, and not the 4.7/4.9GHz. You are talking about a 200w+ cpu, there was nothing low about that cpu.

The liquid cooler was dropped (H80 wanna-be) because it simply wasn't big enough, and nobody used it, opting for much larger. At the time they dropped it, you could buy either, with and without the liquid cooler, for a $100 difference. Sales with the cooler tanked overnight, so the decision was made not to loose more money buying coolers from asetek that ppl were not going to opt for.
 

nooneisback

Honorable
Jun 14, 2014
544
2
11,165
98
Higher clocks on lower voltages? The 9 series ran extremely high voltages. Stock voltage was 1.537v and was higher if you wanted to actually push the 5+GHz, and not the 4.7/4.9GHz. You are talking about a 200w+ cpu, there was nothing low about that cpu.

The liquid cooler was dropped (H80 wanna-be) because it simply wasn't big enough, and nobody used it, opting for much larger. At the time they dropped it, you could buy either, with and without the liquid cooler, for a $100 difference. Sales with the cooler tanked overnight, so the decision was made not to loose more money buying coolers from asetek that ppl were not going to opt for.
Lower voltage for the clock. I could easily get my FX-8320 to 4.3Hz on a screechy 120mm water cooler I got for €60 on a discount and even to 4.4 on a Cooler Master air cooler. These results are the best I had so far and it could actually run all modern games without bottlenecking my 2 R9 280Xs.
 

TechyInAZ

Titan
Moderator
You can't just compare 7nm to 14nm. It all depends on how the architecture is made, there are a ton of variables as to why 7nm Ryzen doesn't boost as high as 14nm Intel. not just because it's larger and not just because of the infinity fabric.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS