AMD's Future Chips & SoC's: News, Info & Rumours.

Page 92 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jdwii

Splendid
This is more then just slightly better performance per dollar this is about Amd finally since 2003 being competitive with Intel in gaming we have to wait for final benchmarks from 3rd party but seeing those CS:GO numbers made me pretty darn convinced that Amd has indeed matched or exceeded Intel's IPC.
 
I liked Unity's presentation to be fair* and how they showcased what they're planning on doing with some of the tech. I guess they couldn't go into further details, but seems like AMD's (late) DSR competitor is good. So a little point to the Navi siblings. I'm still horribly disappointed with the price points though.

As for the 16core "mainstream" CPU, I can't argue with that @jdwii. The only real usage would be heavy streaming for your "average" gamer. Maybe twitch user, at best...

EDIT: Navi didn't even reach parity to nVidia, but Ryzen may have reached parity as I anticipated.

Cheers!
 
Wow that is impressive. The 16 core is breaking records. All of the recent leaks were correct.
Im surprised amd didnt tweak the 5700xt 50th boost clock up by 20mhz. Amd was the first to hit 1ghz on gpu, so why not be the first to hit 2ghz.
 

rigg42

Prominent
Oct 17, 2018
536
164
640
13
I think AMD just made Intel's entire desktop lineup pretty much irrelevant. This assumes AMD's gaming benchmark data holds up. I would seriously have to question why they would put misleading data out there that would get debunked a few weeks from now. Intel might make some sense for some specific productivity workloads but by in large they just got destroyed in every price bracket.

https://www.dsogaming.com/news/first-official-gaming-benchmarks-released-for-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-as-fast-as-intels-i9-9900k/

I think Intel needs to do an entire 14 nm desktop refresh and rearrange their product stack down an entire bracket to stay competitive. I think this is much more likely than price slashes across the board on 8th and 9th gen. I see a repeat of what they did with 8th gen. Keep the same prices but make 10th gen i9 -10c/20t, i7 - 8c/16t, i5 - 8c/8t, i3 - 6c/6t, Pentium 4c/4t, Celeron 2c/4t.
 
Last edited:

junglist724

Commendable
Apr 10, 2017
63
13
1,565
8
That +100-200MHz auto overclocking on PBO really looks like it'll make manual overclocking pointless for Ryzen 3000. The biggest limiting factor on 2nd gen's PBO was 12nm + the "FIT" feature that limited voltages to try to maintain reliability and not degrade the CPU. Sounds like 7nm has a lot more headroom so I wonder how many cores can sustain the 4.9GHz boosts on a 3950X with PBO+Auto OC once you throw power limits away.
 

JaSoN_cRuZe

Respectable
Mar 5, 2017
340
23
1,865
25
The only way i think for Intel to counter AMD in this current situation is to reduce the prices drastically to match AMD's core count and value which seems to be highly unlikely so we can draw a conclusion that Intel is screwed until 10nm desktop parts.
 
I think AMD just made Intel's entire desktop lineup pretty much irrelevant. This assumes AMD's gaming benchmark data holds up. I would seriously have to question why they would put misleading data out there that would get debunked a few weeks from now. Intel might make some sense for some specific productivity workloads but by in large they just got destroyed in every price bracket.

https://www.dsogaming.com/news/first-official-gaming-benchmarks-released-for-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-as-fast-as-intels-i9-9900k/

I think Intel needs to do an entire 14 nm desktop refresh and rearrange their product stack down an entire bracket to stay competitive. I think this is much more likely than price slashes across the board on 8th and 9th gen. I see a repeat of what they did with 8th gen. Keep the same prices but make 10th gen i9 -10c/20t, i7 - 8c/16t, i5 - 8c/8t, i3 - 6c/6t, Pentium 4c/4t, Celeron 2c/4t.
Core as an architecture is just getting old at this point. Intel has basically run out of ways to optimize it, and all the security fixes have eaten its IPC advantage. Throw in Intel's manufacturing issues, and you can see why Intel has a problem.

Intel had better be working a new CPU design, or they could be in trouble down the road. And if I were them, I would make sure TSMC/Samsung could manufacture the CPU if required, just in case they have more foundry problems.
 
Reactions: goldstone77

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
The only way i think for Intel to counter AMD in this current situation is to reduce the prices drastically to match AMD's core count and value
AFAIK, Intel's production is still struggling to keep up with demand. It makes no sense to drop prices while nearly everything you manage to get out the factory doors is still sold-out. There won't be any price drops until Intel's sales drop to the point where it has to pick between shutting down production lines because it has run out of more profitable chips to re-assign them to or lower prices to boost demand so it can keep inventory rolling. Since Intel commissioned the construction of a new 14nm plant at a time where everyone else was on track for 7nm because its existing ones weren't enough to keep up with 14nm demand, doesn't seem like Intel expects to run out of stuff to make on 14nm any time soon.

I doubt we'll see much Intel pricing action until Zen 3 and even then, only if AMD does not decide to jack up its prices while Intel has nothing to compete with.
 

aldaia

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2010
493
2
18,795
1
Yeah if true I can no longer see anyone recommending Intel for any reason even if they are 5% ahead in single threaded performance its not enough to matter when you lose so much more in multithreaded performance and i would like to leave this here as well

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97sDKvMHd8c&t=0s


I5 sure isn't aging as well as the 1600
But ... but ... 2 years ago fanboys experts insisted that Intel core was more future proof than Ryzen for gaming.
 
But ... but ... 2 years ago fanboys experts insisted that Intel core was more future proof than Ryzen for gaming.
Haha, oof.

In all fairness, the uArch is still decent and can probably be squeezed out a bit more. I've said before Intel has a really easy solution for re-taking the crown from AMD: removing the iGPU from the mid-range and just adding it to some models via packaging. That will free up die space AND give a bigger thermal budget. They just need to match AMD on cores and they'll stay in a safe area for a couple more years. They've just been so damn stubborn to do so it irks me.

EDIT: APUs are also launching on the 7th! Yay!

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14523/amd-ryzen-3000-apus-up-to-vega-11-more-mhz-under-150

Cheers!
 
Intel fanboys made the point that in 2017, the core I5 7600k WAS better than ryzen for gaming.

In their defense, the core I5 WAS better for gaming. And if newer games hadnt gained optimization to scale to many cores and modern games hadnt gained ryzen specific optimizations, the i5 might still be the gaming king.

Also i dont think people of 2017 expected all of the performance hits for exploit midigation that mainly hit intel.

But, the I5 is not the king anymore. And its hard to debate that.
 
Reactions: goldstone77

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
I've said before Intel has a really easy solution for re-taking the crown from AMD: removing the iGPU from the mid-range and just adding it to some models via packaging. That will free up die space AND give a bigger thermal budget.
It isn't that easy. First, removing the IGP has no impact on thermal budget since most gamers use a dGPU and the IGP adds ~0W to TDP when unused, leaving everything to cores already. Second, active cores have higher power density than the IGP, which means higher power draw and TDP if you want to maintain clock frequency, which in turn makes the thing more difficult to power and cool.

Removing the IGP doesn't change the simple fact that Intel is near the practical limits of what is feasible on 14nm. The only real fix for this is moving to 10nm and beyond.
 
Reactions: remixislandmusic
It isn't that easy. First, removing the IGP has no impact on thermal budget since most gamers use a dGPU and the IGP adds ~0W to TDP when unused, leaving everything to cores already. Second, active cores have higher power density than the IGP, which means higher power draw and TDP if you want to maintain clock frequency, which in turn makes the thing more difficult to power and cool.

Removing the IGP doesn't change the simple fact that Intel is near the practical limits of what is feasible on 14nm. The only real fix for this is moving to 10nm and beyond.
Lol, what? No. That's completely wrong. Intel doesn't completely turn off the iGPU and it's always running, albeit at a very low power, but it still IS there. Also, die space. It was like 30 or 40% of the die a couple gens ago? You can pack a lot of extra cores in that space or cache.

Cheers!
 
Intel cant add much more performance before a redesign, even if they free up space by removing an igpu. The 9900k has proven this with its incredably high heat output and powrr consumption.
Removing the igpu wont reduce heat output and power consumption enough so that intel can add more cores, cache, etc.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS