News AMD Launches Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 CPUs, Launches September 27

[TerryLaze]

Am I reading something wrong here? Because I feel like this conversation is somehow wandering down the path of "It's AMD's fault that Intel didn't go down the less-cores, more gigahertzes path."

This seems like a really weird argument to make.

No, what you are reading is that, ever since ryzen, reviews are convincing people that only cinebench and similar are relevant to home users, and companies like amd and intel are only too happy to up-sale you as many cores as you can afford, or get a loan for.

 

[-Fran-]

No, what you are reading is that, ever since ryzen, reviews are convincing people that only cinebench and similar are relevant to home users, and companies like amd and intel are only too happy to up-sale you as many cores as you can afford, or get a loan for.

Benchmarks are relevant, including CB. It's a matter of understanding what is presented to you. Otherwise, industries wouldn't use them. AMD or Intel aren't thinking about your exclusive use case either and while the huge majority of people does not need a bazillion cores for their daily use, proper enthusiasts are happy with breaking the status quo of not having mainstream options for multi-core systems that can help with a lot of things that maybe, in your very particular case, just don't care about.

Regards...

 

[shady28]

Benchmarks are relevant, including CB. It's a matter of understanding what is presented to you. Otherwise, industries wouldn't use them. AMD or Intel aren't thinking about your exclusive use case either and while the huge majority of people does not need a bazillion cores for their daily use, proper enthusiasts are happy with breaking the status quo of not having mainstream options for multi-core systems that can help with a lot of things that maybe, in your very particular case, just don't care about.

Regards...

Virtually no one understands what is being presented, and many who do simply like to see that kind of data so they can mis-use it to prove a point with fallacies.

This would be pretty much everyone who ever referred to a peak power load run on a $400 motherboard with a halo chip and concluded a CPU was efficient and/or inefficient.

 

[-Fran-]

Virtually no one understands what is being presented, and many who do simply like to see that kind of data so they can mis-use it to prove a point with fallacies.

This would be pretty much everyone who ever referred to a peak power load run on a $400 motherboard with a halo chip and concluded a CPU was efficient and/or inefficient.

Then the obvious question is "what do you trust and willing to use?".

Let's just arbitrarily say that CS:GO is now the undisputed criteria to determine if a CPU is good enough for everyone, yes? It's a "real world application" and we obviously can extrapolate all potential use conditions of the CPU with it, right? I mean, you don't really need anything else, otherwise you'd be a raging fanboy, no?

Sarcasm aside, you all realize that AMD, Intel, nVidia and, obviously, independent reviewers show MORE than just canned benchmarks, right? Debating relevance of one over the other is, sorry to say, kind of stupid. What matters is the methodology and interpretation of those numbers. If you can't understand what they represent, then maybe you shouldn't be making purchase decisions and rely on someone that actually understands what they mean?

Context matters.

Regards...

 

[King_V]

No, what you are reading is that, ever since ryzen, reviews are convincing people that only cinebench and similar are relevant to home users, and companies like amd and intel are only too happy to up-sale you as many cores as you can afford, or get a loan for.

Ok, so, you realize we're in Tom's Hardware, right?

And you realize that the very site we're on does not work on that ridiculous assertion of "only cinebench and similar," right?

And you realize that, even with gaming, threading has become relevant, and but only that, but this very site has had articles noting how more modern games are taking advantage of that, vs older games that did not?

And, people do more than one thing at a time on their PCs, whether or not they're consciously aware of it, right?


I mean, you said no, but it should an awful lot like you're saying "no, but AMD and Intel are trying to screw their customers and send them into debt by pushing more cores and threads."

ie: "no, but yes."

I don't understand the point of this debate at all, other than to simply argue about it for the sake of arguing.

It's feeling more like my initial guess is being reinforced here.

 

[digitalgriffin]

No, what you are reading is that, ever since ryzen, reviews are convincing people that only cinebench and similar are relevant to home users, and companies like amd and intel are only too happy to up-sale you as many cores as you can afford, or get a loan for.

Intel sat on their hands for years. Over 7 generations with no real core or performance improvements. Great for profits, not for innovation or user value. Like the US Auto industry in the 70's and 80's, Intel got fat and complacent. There was no incentive to improve until competition forced a hand.

AMD came along and changed all that. We should be thanking them for bringing competition.

Do I recommend a 12900k or 5950x to everyone? No. But I will admit being able to virtualize my GPU on 12 threads, download and install new games in the background (which can take hours) and still allow my son to play modern games without my system slowing down much. (Which I'm doing today. Monthly game download. Driver updates, anti virus updates, and windows patch day on the vr system)

I recommend best value for buck and longevity of platform. For power users for a long time, AMD Ryzen was the best choice. Not so much anymore. It's a grey area who's best.

 

[shady28]

Then the obvious question is "what do you trust and willing to use?".

Let's just arbitrarily say that CS:GO is now the undisputed criteria to determine if a CPU is good enough for everyone, yes? It's a "real world application" and we obviously can extrapolate all potential use conditions of the CPU with it, right? I mean, you don't really need anything else, otherwise you'd be a raging fanboy, no?

Sarcasm aside, you all realize that AMD, Intel, nVidia and, obviously, independent reviewers show MORE than just canned benchmarks, right? Debating relevance of one over the other is, sorry to say, kind of stupid. What matters is the methodology and interpretation of those numbers. If you can't understand what they represent, then maybe you shouldn't be making purchase decisions and rely on someone that actually understands what they mean?

Context matters.

Regards...

If you were to actually have a serious question about performance metrics, one would need to weight the relative value hence use of various benchmarks.

What percentage use do you suppose cinebench - representing rendering applications - has with the general public?

So if you wander over to techpowerup and look at the 12900K or 12900KS review, you can see they divide up CPU intense workloads into various categories including one just for rendering.

You'll find that a 5950X trades blows with 12900K in rendering.

And then, the 5950X promptly loses in every other use case, from Offie to Science to Gaming. Usually by very significant margins.

So what relevance is Cinebench, except to those who do rendering as a normal part of their day to day use?

I'd say absolutely zero relevance.

 

[-Fran-]

If you were to actually have a serious question about performance metrics, one would need to weight the relative value hence use of various benchmarks.

What percentage use do you suppose cinebench - representing rendering applications - has with the general public?

So if you wander over to techpowerup and look at the 12900K or 12900KS review, you can see they divide up CPU intense workloads into various categories including one just for rendering.

You'll find that a 5950X trades blows with 12900K in rendering.

And then, the 5950X promptly loses in every other use case, from Offie to Science to Gaming. Usually by very significant margins.

So what relevance is Cinebench, except to those who do rendering as a normal part of their day to day use?

I'd say absolutely zero relevance.

Uh...

I don't know what else to say here, so I'll let it rest, I guess? If you don't like CB as another set of numbers to consider when measuring performance, be my guest. Just don't extrapolate from your narrow view, unless you can confirm CB does, indeed, show nothing relevant at all for any potential workload a user may actually be interested in.

"Just because I can't see it, doesn't mean it does not exist".

Regards...

 

[shady28]

Uh...

I don't know what else to say here, so I'll let it rest, I guess? If you don't like CB as another set of numbers to consider when measuring performance, be my guest. Just don't extrapolate from your narrow view, unless you can confirm CB does, indeed, show nothing relevant at all for any potential workload a user may actually be interested in.

"Just because I can't see it, doesn't mean it does not exist".

Regards...

It's obviously not being used as 'just another test'. If it were, it would not be being discussed. That's pretty disingenuous of you.

 

[King_V]

It's obviously not being used as 'just another test'. If it were, it would not be being discussed. That's pretty disingenuous of you.

So, CB is NOT being used as just another test? Are you saying it's being used as THE test? Given an overwhelmingly unreasonable amount of weight relative to other tests?

What are you actually claiming, and, more importantly, how, pray tell, did you come to this conclusion?

 

[shady28]

So, CB is NOT being used as just another test? Are you saying it's being used as THE test? Given an overwhelmingly unreasonable amount of weight relative to other tests?

What are you actually claiming, and, more importantly, how, pray tell, did you come to this conclusion?

You two think you're being smart, I suppose.

Anyone who has been watching PC benchmark sites for the past few years knows that Cinebench is front and center. It's one of the first if not the first benchmark to leak on every new CPU offering.

It tends to be the very first benchmark on reviews - and quite often readers don't get past the first test. It's to the point where people confuse Cinebench, a rendering engine test, with IPC.

But go ahead and keep pretending that isn't true. I don't think it makes you look nearly as smart as you seem to think it does.

 

[-Fran-]

You two think you're being smart, I suppose.

Anyone who has been watching PC benchmark sites for the past few years knows that Cinebench is front and center. It's one of the first if not the first benchmark to leak on every new CPU offering.

It tends to be the very first benchmark on reviews - and quite often readers don't get past the first test. It's to the point where people confuse Cinebench, a rendering engine test, with IPC.

But go ahead and keep pretending that isn't true. I don't think it makes you look nearly as smart as you seem to think it does.

Your incapability to accept CB is just one of many is your own shortcoming, not ours. You do realize "THE PEOPLE (tm)" is (are?) not wrong when looking at CB and talking about IPC, right? IPC is SOFTWARE SPECIFIC, since, you know, each software will issue instructions differently, so each can have different IPC; this also explains why not all software behaves the same and both AMD and Intel give software-specific comparisons for "IPC" (go check all their past 20 years of IPC power points). I hope this one is a bit easier to digest.

I can, kind of, agree "THE PEOPLE (tm)" will simplify things to a dangerous degree and just look at one number and bunker down on bias, but alas, do you actually stop an listen to those people shouting about armaggedon (not the movie) on the streets? How the world is coming to an end and such? Yeah, one data point. That's on them, not you or anyone else that actually understands (allegedly). I will disagree CB is always at the forefront. Nowadays there's so many data points that CB is just one of many. I'd even argue people using specific game titles is more common (see my CS:GO sarcasm from before).

Last post from me on this topic.

Regards.

 

[shady28]

Your incapability to accept CB is just one of many is your own shortcoming, not ours. You do realize "THE PEOPLE (tm)" is (are?) not wrong when looking at CB and talking about IPC, right? IPC is SOFTWARE SPECIFIC, since, you know, each software will issue instructions differently, so each can have different IPC; this also explains why not all software behaves the same and both AMD and Intel give software-specific comparisons for "IPC" (go check all their past 20 years of IPC power points). I hope this one is a bit easier to digest.

I can, kind of, agree "THE PEOPLE (tm)" will simplify things to a dangerous degree and just look at one number and bunker down on bias, but alas, do you actually stop an listen to those people shouting about armaggedon (not the movie) on the streets? How the world is coming to an end and such? Yeah, one data point. That's on them, not you or anyone else that actually understands (allegedly). I will disagree CB is always at the forefront. Nowadays there's so many data points that CB is just one of many. I'd even argue people using specific game titles is more common (see my CS:GO sarcasm from before).

Last post from me on this topic.

Regards.

I didn't need to read past your first sentence to know you are making straw man arguments. I never said CB was anything other than a data point, from my own perspective - in fact I've been saying just the opposite, over, and over, and over.

It's these sites that put renderers like CB on a pedestal, not me. Comprehend?

 

[KyaraM]

AMD came along and changed all that. We should be thanking them for bringing competition.

That's a cute narrative you got there. Too bad one can also argue it has been AMDs mismanagement that brought us in that situation in the first place... or does it not count anymore that their CPUs at that time were hot garbage?

 

[King_V]

You two think you're being smart, I suppose.

Anyone who has been watching PC benchmark sites for the past few years knows that Cinebench is front and center. It's one of the first if not the first benchmark to leak on every new CPU offering.

It tends to be the very first benchmark on reviews - and quite often readers don't get past the first test. It's to the point where people confuse Cinebench, a rendering engine test, with IPC.

But go ahead and keep pretending that isn't true. I don't think it makes you look nearly as smart as you seem to think it does.

I didn't need to read past your first sentence to know you are making straw man arguments. I never said CB was anything other than a data point, from my own perspective - in fact I've been saying just the opposite, over, and over, and over.

It's these sites that put renderers like CB on a pedestal, not me. Comprehend?

WHICH sites? You keep making vague pronouncements, but no specifics. NAME the sites that use CB and put it front and center!

Or, are you trying to say, without saying, that you're just assuming that because some sites happen to put it first in sequence among a number of tests, and that somehow you know that people stop after the first test they see, that this is the fault of . . someone? Somehow?

It sounds an awful lot like you're not naming names, then also making assumptions about how people who go to these unnamed sites use them.

 

[digitalgriffin]

That's a cute narrative you got there. Too bad one can also argue it has been AMDs mismanagement that brought us in that situation in the first place... or does it not count anymore that their CPUs at that time were hot garbage?

The point is they offered something Intel didn't. Whether or not piledriver and before we're steaming hot garbage is not the point.

Sorry you are offended AMD did something good that made Intel change to compete.

 

[KyaraM]

The point is they offered something Intel didn't. Whether or not piledriver and before we're steaming hot garbage is not the point.

Sorry you are offended AMD did something good that made Intel change to compete.

LMAO
I'm not offended by AMD making something good, I use their products myself if they are good and I'm very happy with better Intel products thanks. But the way their fanboys hail them as the absolute saviour is just plain ridiculous, indifferentiated, and, no offense, just plain stupid at times. Again, they brought themselves to near bankruptcy, by their own power, and essentially handed Intel the market on a silver platter. Had they not been so completely incompetent that situation would have never happened. For once Intel had nothing to do with that. Hailing them as some kind of saviour when they pretty much had a hand in causing the situation is disingenuous and ridiculous. But sure, sure, it doesn't matter that during the same time Intel stagnated AMD had absolutely nothing of value to offer when before they did, because their management apparently was on drugs when they green-lighted that utter failure. Nooooot at all. We aren't talking about a newcomer to the market here ffs. We are talking about an established, big corporation with billions of dollars that has been on the market since forever and utterly failed one of the most crucial tasks in management. Most companies that frick up that badly go down in flames. You can rightfully criticize Intel for <Mod Edit> business tactics because they did that without denying, but if you really believe AMD is in any way better and some kind of heroic big corp you failed your reality check hard. They aren't heroes. They are big corp that only cares for your money, just like Intel. The sooner you get that into your head the better. There is no point in worshipping one or the other, they will both screw you over the first chance they get.

 

[TerryLaze]

The point is they offered something Intel didn't.

Two quads "glued" together with terrible latency between them?
We already had that in the ps4 by that point.

Also intel offered 8 core desktop cpus with HT, 3 years before amd did, so amd didn't offer something Intel didn't, they just reduced the price by a lot because they where 3 years late and had a huge disadvantage with that lag and far lower sequential execution also they had to win over the market again so they had to be somewhat cheap.

Intel Haswell-E Core i7-5960X, Core i7-5930K, Core i7-5820K Prices Unveiled - ASUS X99 Deluxe Pictured

The official specifications and prices of Intel's upcoming HEDT Haswell-E platform which includes the flagship Core i7-5960X Extreme Edition processors have been unveiled.

wccftech.com

Competition is a good thing but you don't need to lie about it to make it look even better, it's good enough as it is.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Also intel offered 8 core desktop cpus with HT, 3 years before amd did, so amd didn't offer something Intel didn't, they just reduced the price by a lot because they where 3 years late and had a huge disadvantage with that lag and far lower sequential execution also they had to win over the market again so they had to be somewhat cheap.

Intel Haswell-E Core i7-5960X, Core i7-5930K, Core i7-5820K Prices Unveiled - ASUS X99 Deluxe Pictured

The official specifications and prices of Intel's upcoming HEDT Haswell-E platform which includes the flagship Core i7-5960X Extreme Edition processors have been unveiled.

wccftech.com

Ah yes the ever affordable Intel HEDT. The 5960X retailed for $1059 and that didn't count the required expensive motherboard. The difference was AMD brought those previous HEDT CPUs to the general consumer level. The Ryzen 1800X offered performance like the 5960X or 6900K but for $500 which was less than half the price. This forced Intel to adapt and get more cores into their desktop CPUs as well as reduce the price of their HEDT. Had AMD not been competitive with the Ryzen CPUs, Intel would still be selling 4c/8t CPUs as their standard desktop high end.

 

[TerryLaze]

Ah yes the ever affordable Intel HEDT. The 5960X retailed for $1059 and that didn't count the required expensive motherboard. The difference was AMD brought those previous HEDT CPUs to the general consumer level. The Ryzen 1800X offered performance like the 5960X or 6900K but for $500 which was less than half the price.

Yes, that's what I said as well.
AMD was three years late to the party...
if they could have they would have charged the same as intel but if you are 3 years late nobody will pay you that.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Yes, that's what I said as well.
AMD was three years late to the party...
if they could have they would have charged the same as intel but if you are 3 years late nobody will pay you that.

Not exactly. As always what you said is a 1/2 truth or twisted truth. You failed to bring up the special requirements in order to get more than 4c/8t on Intel until Coffee Lake. You said "they just reduced the price by a lot because they where 3 years late and had a huge disadvantage with that lag and far lower sequential execution also they had to win over the market again so they had to be somewhat cheap." That is again a half truth. Ryzen 1800X was on average as fast as the 6900K and slightly faster than the 5960X even with the "huge disadvantage with that lag and far lower sequential execution." While there was latency between cores, Zen 1 has very similar number of execution units as Skylake or Broadwell. https://www.anandtech.com/show/1117...review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/12 You also failed to mention that the Zen 1 CPU was able to keep up with those Intel HEDT CPUs despite the Intel CPUs having a 140W TDP & quad channel RAM. Sure the latency between core complexes did hurt performance in some instances, especially gaming. Overall though it was only 5% slower clock for clock vs Skylake, and its derivatives, and when software was able to use the extra cores it had better performance than the Kaby Lake of the time.

 

[digitalgriffin]

Two quads "glued" together with terrible latency between them?
We already had that in the ps4 by that point.

Also intel offered 8 core desktop cpus with HT, 3 years before amd did, so amd didn't offer something Intel didn't, they just reduced the price by a lot because they where 3 years late and had a huge disadvantage with that lag and far lower sequential execution also they had to win over the market again so they had to be somewhat cheap.

Intel Haswell-E Core i7-5960X, Core i7-5930K, Core i7-5820K Prices Unveiled - ASUS X99 Deluxe Pictured

The official specifications and prices of Intel's upcoming HEDT Haswell-E platform which includes the flagship Core i7-5960X Extreme Edition processors have been unveiled.

wccftech.com

Competition is a good thing but you don't need to lie about it to make it look even better, it's good enough as it is.

Okay let's not be disingenuous by cherry picking data to mislead people. That seems to be your specialty.

8/16 thread and 16/32 thread chips were an entirely different market segment out of reach if 99.9% of the market. You know comparing Intel HEDT to zen 1 and 2 is like apples and oranges. AMD put a lot of power into average consumers hands at an affordable price. AMD had a considerable cost : performance ratio advantage over Intel. You know it, I know it. Just don't dance around the truth like some politician. Everyone hates politicians for a reason.

Whether or not you want to give AMD credit for causing the new CPU innovation wars is not my concern. I know the truth. So as they say "Have a nice day."

 

[KyaraM]

Okay let's not be disingenuous by cherry picking data to mislead people. That seems to be your specialty.

8/16 thread and 16/32 thread chips were an entirely different market segment out of reach if 99.9% of the market. You know comparing Intel HEDT to zen 1 and 2 is like apples and oranges. AMD put a lot of power into average consumers hands at an affordable price. AMD had a considerable cost : performance ratio advantage over Intel. You know it, I know it. Just don't dance around the truth like some politician. Everyone hates politicians for a reason.

Whether or not you want to give AMD credit for causing the new CPU innovation wars is not my concern. I know the truth. So as they say "Have a nice day."

I certainly do hope you know the truth of AMD having pushed themselves out of the market and handing it to Intel on a silver platter, leading to the aforementioned situation of little innovation and quad-core CPUs. Something, however, tells me you will deny that and worship AMD as "heroes" instead... the "truth" indeed.

 

[King_V]

I certainly do hope you know the truth of AMD having pushed themselves out of the market and handing it to Intel on a silver platter, leading to the aforementioned situation of little innovation and quad-core CPUs. Something, however, tells me you will deny that and worship AMD as "heroes" instead... the "truth" indeed.

Uh, what?

So, let me get this straight: It's AMD's fault that Intel is going with more cores and threads, because AMD started it. And this is bad, for some reason, because fewer threads and more gigahertzes is moar better, also for some reason.

BUT - it's also AMD's fault that Intel stagnated, because AMD was doing terribly, and Intel felt no need to ever go beyond 4 cores for the consumer desktop space.

Intel's behavior during stagnation is bad, but it's AMD's fault. Intel's behavior in going into more cores and threads is also bad, and is also AMD's fault.

Why doesn't AMD just use its super-ability to manipulate Intel's behavior to just say "Give us all your money?"

Or is it "why didn't AMD just REFUSE to outperform the Pentium 4, so that Intel would've gone on to the (obviously scrapped) Pentium 5 architecture with the 7GHz+ speeds being planned?" How dare AMD outperform them at less hertzes?

Seriously, WTF is going on here?

 

[KyaraM]

Uh, what?

So, let me get this straight: It's AMD's fault that Intel is going with more cores and threads, because AMD started it. And this is bad, for some reason, because fewer threads and more gigahertzes is moar better, also for some reason.

BUT - it's also AMD's fault that Intel stagnated, because AMD was doing terribly, and Intel felt no need to ever go beyond 4 cores for the consumer desktop space.

Intel's behavior during stagnation is bad, but it's AMD's fault. Intel's behavior in going into more cores and threads is also bad, and is also AMD's fault.

Why doesn't AMD just use its super-ability to manipulate Intel's behavior to just say "Give us all your money?"

Or is it "why didn't AMD just REFUSE to outperform the Pentium 4, so that Intel would've gone on to the (obviously scrapped) Pentium 5 architecture with the 7GHz+ speeds being planned?" How dare AMD outperform them at less hertzes?

Seriously, WTF is going on here?

Do you even know what that comment aimed at and the context that came before it? No? Then why the heck do you feel you need to reply to it?

That guy acted as if AMD was some kind of heroic corporate entity that staged a revolution to throw the evil emperor Intel off his throne and liberate the CPU world from his iron grip. Not an established competitor that failed so bad they enabled Intel in the first place and help bring the stagnation along. They made horribly bad decisions that nearly bancrupted them and caused damage to everyone who needed a new computer, there is simply no blaming anyone else for it. It's great they made a comeback. I like having a choice and better products. It's still utter bulls to glorify AMD for it, especially when their decline was their own doing, and to blame Intel for it.

And just to make it really, really clear for everyone around what I mean. AMDs failure and incompetence is also what caused the stagnation for multiple years by effectively taking away the competition. You cannot just blame one when they are both part of the same whole. Had it been the other way round you can be 100% sure it would have been the exact same. So it's bulls to act as if they are so much better. They aren't. They made customer unfriendly decisions as well and will do so in the future. Stop that one-side bs already. They are both big corporations, they have the exact same goals. They aren't your friends any more than Intel is.