AMD "Future Power" Myth

[mannnelite]

Hey All, I know that this is a topic that has been debated for hundreds of years but I see this phrase surfacing again by AMD fans, "more future proof" or "more powerful for the future". I used to hear this years ago too, now it REALLY puzzles me... Now that I3's are quadcore and a broad variety of Intel's chips have hyperthreading, how could an AMD cpu be more future proof than even the I3 line, let alone the multi core I7's? I don't understand, I thought that it was an OKAY argument years ago when AMD was dropping multi cores like the 6300 and 8350 and Intel was stuck in dual and quad core land... And even now, years later (In the Future!), old Intel cpu's (Quad Core) are still in high demand for second hand gamers, while I never seem to hear of old AMD CPU's being in demand for gaming..... So can someone please explain to me why in every Ryzen video or thread people are saying "MORE FUTURE PROOF THAN INTEL" even though Intel has quad core I3's with hyperthreading and it seems to have been proven already over the years that Intel CPU's hold their value longer... and before people say that the APU integrated graphics are the future, they are not even on par with 750ti performance...

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

With the FX series, they were ok, but they were not great. Now they are kind of sub par, which is why little demand for them.

Historically, a quad core was enough the last few years. Now, some games are actually starting to take advantage of more cores/more threads.

With ryzen, AMD literally had a 40-50% boost in single thread applications, like performance in games for example. They are now only a few % points behind Intel there, and in multitasking, are winning in a lot of scenarios.

Case in point, a lot of i5 CPUs are now 6 cores. No hyper threading. Same with quad i3. In fact, I think they are talking that off of i7.

If you look at the ryzen roadmap, I think within the next generation or two of CPUs, they may match or exceed Intel in IPC. If they can match it, or get close, especially as Intel seems to be increasing prices and having supply shortages of newer generation CPUs, it could be an in for AMD. But AMD ryzen is an entirely different animal than FX was.

 

[dudeman509]

The 4-core i3's do not have hyperthreading. They are essentially the old i5 - 4 cores, that's it. Nothing [in a desktop SKU] up until the i9 will have hyperthreading in their 9th gen lineup, and that may continue for 10th.

Ryzen was a complete redesign of AMD's chip architecture, and it puts it within a stone's throw of Intel's single-threaded performance these days. Bulldozer/FX had its strengths (number-crunching, mostly), but because of the 2 cores/module design, and other compromises, it had very low instructions per clock, which usually put it somewhere between 1st gen and 2nd gen Intel Core processors.

I had an 8-core FX-8320 with a healthy 1.2 GHz overclock on it, and the i7-3770k I picked up - at stock speeds - absolutely destroys it in single-threaded things such as web browsing and basic Windows application responsiveness, and it has a slight advantage in gaming FPS. The FX shone in file management tasks in Windows (more cores?) and things like video conversion, where hyperthreading just doesn't quite make up for the extra cores.

Games these days are beginning to use more and more threads, and in such games (Battlefield, for example), more cores = less lag/more playable. My brother's i5-7500 struggles quite a bit in more recent games. Windows 10, as well, with all of its background crap, gobbles up CPU power like my old Jeep used to gobble up gas.

 

[mannnelite]

Yeah you guys have a point that Intel seems to be moving away from hyperthreading, but they are heading towards a higher physical core count, Which means unless AMD can catch them in IPC (which they never have) they will still be the second best gaming processor... Will be interesting to see how this hashes out in the future. I know this is anecdote but in most games I play, my GTX 1080 hybrid regularly ramps up to 100% usage all the time while gaming while my 7700k usually chills out around 50% utilization during that time, that is such a low CPU usage with a 1080 at almost 2100mhz I feel like 50% headroom qualifies as "future proof" as well. no?

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

Give it time. Zen 2, aka ryzen 3000 series comes out in just a few months. About 6 months or so. I think right now they are only 10-15% behind Intel in IPC on current generation.

Zen 2 is supposed to be a new ryzen design and a die shrink to 7nm. For reference, ryzen 1000 series was 14nm, 2000 was 12nm. Intel is currently having trouble with 10nm I think. I would not be surprised in a few months if they are on par with intel. Even if they are say 5% behind, that's still nipping at their heels. And sometime in 2020 according to their roadmap, ryzen 4000 series will improve upon the ones coming in a few months.

So don't be surprised if the situation changes quickly. Remember, ryzen 1 was around a 40% jump in ipc performance from the FX processors. Plus ryzen 7 does have 8 cores with smt, aka hyper threading. Rumors are next generation may be even more, but we'll have to wait until they announce.

 

[dudeman509]

Yeah you guys have a point that Intel seems to be moving away from hyperthreading, but they are heading towards a higher physical core count, Which means unless AMD can catch them in IPC (which they never have) they will still be the second best gaming processor... Will be interesting to see how this hashes out in the future. I know this is anecdote but in most games I play, my GTX 1080 hybrid regularly ramps up to 100% usage all the time while gaming while my 7700k usually chills out around 50% utilization during that time, that is such a low CPU usage with a 1080 at almost 2100mhz I feel like 50% headroom qualifies as "future proof" as well. no?

Depends what you play. We are starting to see games/game engines take more and more CPU power, which may tip the scales in favor of # of cores/threads rather than high single-core performance. 4-core i5's are beginning to struggle. I even see my OC'ed 3770k hit 100% usage loading things a lot more than it used to, although that typically lowers to 50-70% in-game @ 1080p/60 FPS.

However, game developers try to focus on the hardware that most of their target market - and for right now, that is 4C Intel CPUs from 2nd-4th generation on up. Up until basically 8th gen, CPU performance was pretty stagnant in the market.

 

[mannnelite]

That's a good point, wasn't until this year that my trusty old 4690k starting struggling with games on max ultra, now by struggle I of course mean averaging ~60 @1080p utlra, and thats only like on Atilla TW or Battlefront, or Battlefield. I was thinking of getting a Ryzen for my friend's new build, his budget for the whole thing was like 800, I ended up going with a i3-8100, I was kind of nervous about switching platforms and since the computer wasn't for me I didn't wan't to experiment.