Now let's look at another review for the same game with directX 11 and 12 up to 2160P. I arranged the benchmarks by resolution and DirectX 11 to 12 support for easy comparison.Click here for a link to the total review I posted in ThreadRipper Mega Thread.
I enjoy this continuous change of the review used when flaws or issues in the former review are mentioned.
At least I make the attempt to quantify issues over a given range of reviews. You are mostly just argumentative, and if you find 1 flaw you throw out the entire review as invalid. You pick and choose values to suit your own agenda. You know the 1700 is a sub $300 CPU, and is the same CPU as the 1700X and 1800X, but you always try to use the later when it suits your agenda. In an attempt to skew the view instead of looking at it holistically.
goldstone77 :
juanrga :
Moving up in resolution drastically reduces the gap even in Hitman, which is one of the most drastic FPS example between Intel and Ryzen. Skylake-X as said before many times, and overall it's not worth the cost of the CPU and Platform cost compared to Ryzen the 1700.
Increasing resolution generates a GPU bottleneck and the fastest CPUs are idle, awaiting to the GPU to do its work
We all know this, I use this to emphasize the point that unless you are gaming at low resolution with a 144HZ monitor the differences in FPS are mostly academic. For newer games or optimized games the average FPS differences almost disappear at 1080P. What are you getting for the extra $300 in CPU cost? Don't forget the extra $150-400 in motherboard costs? ~$50-100 cooling solution? 23% faster blender render?
Ryzen was 8% slower than the 7820X in this test when compared clock-for-clock and 23% slower once the 7820X was overclocked to 4.5GHz
This GPU bottleneck makes slower chips to appear faster than they are really. This GPU bottleneck is the reason why AMD wanted reviewers to test RyZen at higher resoliutions. And it is also the reason why AMD public demos, before launch, used higher resolutions.
They can't appear faster if they aren't doing any work. The massive amount of broken unoptimized games is why they wanted reviewers to use higher resolutions, and preferably ones they already knew would show good performance vs. Intel. I'm done talking about the subject those with eyes can obvious see the advantages and disadvantages.
(i)
That Hardware Unboxed review doesn't have "1 flaw". It has half-dozen of serious flaws, which invalidates completely the review doing it useless.
For the other reviews I have demonstrated the dirty tricks and flaws in the part is being discussed. For instance you did bring us IPC measurements from ArsTechnica and I demonstrated how they inflate the IPC for AMD chips. I didn't comment in the rest of the ArsTechnica review, maybe the rest is good maybe it is not. I didn't check.
The 1700 is not the same chip than the 1700X or the 1800X. That is why AMD prices them differently. I have compared the three chips when discussing performance/price. However, you only want to compare the 1700, because it maximizes performance/price and fits your narrative.
Same happens with mobos. As I have noted and how one moderator has noted you cherry picked the cheapest possible AM4 board (B350 based) to compare with the more expensive X299 board, as if both boards were comparable in quality and/or performance.
But your narrative is invalidated when one considers a broad selection of hardware.
(ii)
Reviews don't make 1080p and 720p game tests because some people play games at that resolution. Those low-resolution test (so-named CPU tests) give an idea of the true gaming potential of the CPUs at higher resolutions.
This true gaming potential at higher resolutions reveals in the future, when one updates the GPU to one much more potent and reduces or eliminates the GPU-bottleneck.
(iii) There is no "The massive amount of broken unoptimized games". This is the same weird excuse read during Bulldozer epoch. The reason why RyZen play games worse is because its microarchitecture sucks on latency-sensitive workloads. The Zen microarchitecture has been designed for throughput workloads such as rendering and encoding.
The reason why AMD wanted reviews to test only at high resolutions is because that generates GPU bottlenecks and reduces or hidden the deficit of the Zen microarchitecture. Reviews have reported AMD dirty tactics and attempts to mislead customers:
At this point, you might be left feeling disillusioned when considering AMD’s tech demos. Keep in mind that most of the charts leaked and created by AMD revolved around Cinebench, which is not a gaming workload. When there were gaming workloads, AMD inflated their numbers by doing a few things:
In the Sniper Elite demo, AMD frequently looked at the skybox when reloading, and often kept more of the skybox in the frustum than on the side-by-side Intel processor. A skybox has no geometry, which is what loads a CPU with draw calls, and so it’ll inflate the framerate by nature of testing with chaotically conducted methodology. As for the Battlefield 1 benchmarks, AMD also conducted using chaotic methods wherein the AMD CPU would zoom / look at different intervals than the Intel CPU, making it effectively impossible to compare the two head-to-head.
And, most importantly, all of these demos were run at 4K resolution. That creates a GPU bottleneck, meaning we are no longer observing true CPU performance. The analog would be to benchmark all GPUs at 720p, then declare they are equal (by way of tester-created CPU bottlenecks). There’s an argument to be made that low-end performance doesn’t matter if you’re stuck on the GPU, but that’s a bad argument: You don’t buy a worse-performing product for more money, especially when GPU upgrades will eventually out those limitations as bottlenecks external to the CPU vanish.
Agreed. I'm happy to see AMD competing with Intel (and they are, no doubt) but to see reviewers obviously biasing reviews makes me die a little inside.
Basically what these reviewers have done is created an army of people who think AMD chips are the best at everything, skylake-x is garbage, 7700k is a stupid buy, etc. If you dare challenge their opinion you are a stupid Intel fanboy. This just frustrates me to no end.
All because of biased reviewers and a couple of benchmarks that were essentially rigged. I get it, you're sick of Intel. But your job is to review chips, and you shouldn't let your opinion of a company get in the way of an honest review.
Yes, AMD chips have their advantages, especially in tasks where throughout put on lots of cores is advantageous.
But reviewers have just glossed over Intel's higher clocks and better IPC, as well as better latency.
All these people talking non sense are nuts. If you think the 1800x is faster than Broadwell-E core per core or that intel struggles to beat the 1800X at single core performance, you must be nuts to believe it and probably should stop ridding that unicorn before you get hurt.
This GPU bottleneck makes slower chips to appear faster than they are really. This GPU bottleneck is the reason why AMD wanted reviewers to test RyZen at higher resoliutions. And it is also the reason why AMD public demos, before launch, used higher resolutions.
You're comparing minimum FPS there. lol
Fairly sure the point still stands even comparing minimums.
This GPU bottleneck makes slower chips to appear faster than they are really. This GPU bottleneck is the reason why AMD wanted reviewers to test RyZen at higher resoliutions. And it is also the reason why AMD public demos, before launch, used higher resolutions.
You're comparing minimum FPS there. lol
Fairly sure the point still stands even comparing minimums.
As you look at the graphs and read the words you should be experiencing a sensation that happens when you get an idea in your head that you think it's right, and then finds out it's wrong. First stage is denial. Ultimately, for some people logic and reason will kick and the truth shall set them free!
Overwatch is one of the games with an unfortunate FPS cap: 300, in this case, but we don’t often approach that. The game does provide a beautiful demonstration of bottlenecking.
At 1080p, the resolution we usually test at, the 7700K has a hefty 22.2% higher FPS average than the 1700. At 1440p and 4K though, FPS is virtually unaffected by overclocking or choice of CPU: 1440p averages 167-171 FPS, while 4K averages 89-91 on both CPUs.
Starting at 1080p with max settings, we’re hitting 246FPS AVG on both the stock and overclocked 7700K, as we’re up against other limits here. These two are effectively identical in performance and fall within our error bars. The R7 1700 is capable of achieving our 144Hz goal, though the low-end frametimes do dip down below 144Hz, if that matters to you – this becomes a game of perception and subjectivity, and speaking subjectively, we don’t much notice the difference. There are certainly folks who think they see one, though, and it’s up to you to know whether you fit in that crowd. Both these CPUs can sustain 200Hz displays at 1080p, if desired. The 7700K is a much better option if higher quality settings at 240Hz are desired; although that 240Hz market is insanely small, the few who are truly fanatical about frames would still want to opt for the 7700K in this particular title. Otherwise, the 1700 is doing OK at 1080p.
At this resolution, everything levels out to perform within a couple percentage points in average framerate. The 7700K is technically leading, but it’s close enough to be within our margins for this particularly long test. The R7 1700 is consistently worse in frametimes, measurably and repeatedly, though not in a matter which is appreciable. Both CPUs are capable of sustaining 144Hz at 1440p.
Here’s 4K, just to show it. We are completely within test margins here, and can reliably state that this is completely GPU limited, as you’d expect. This has become a GPU benchmark, and as we’re using the same card for all tests, we’re seeing the same performance. Differences here are statistically insignificant and should not be read into further than “effectively identical.”
There a lot of poorly optimized games.There are games where higher clocks matter. There are games where high memory bandwidth matter. A lot depends on the gaming engine being used. Games have been built around Intel uArch for a decade, and there is peace of mind in that. Clearly this is one of those games it doesn't matter which processor you use, at 4k virtually identical, but the R 1700 3.9GHz does have the better 1% and 0.1% lows. I've said this before depending on the Game there is little to no perceivable difference in gaming other than you looking at the FPS counter and knowing the FPS. Not all titles are optimized for Ryzen, but a lot of the new games and optimized games show similar results for Ryzen and Intel. It very much depends on the titles.
AMD plans to support its Socket AM4 for all of its processors until 2020, so Intel’s lack of backward compatibility with existing 200-series chipsets will likely dominate the conversation.
That AM4 upgrade path is not confirmed. The only confirmed AM4 socket processor is Pinnacle Ridge. And even if it is finally confirmed that AM4 will last until 2020, AM4 customers will miss updates as DDR5 and Pcie5.
We are progressing quickly with the technology, but are slow to implement it.
AMD has slated PCIe 4.0 for 2020. We imagine Intel is also chomping at the bit to deploy PCIe 4.0 3D XPoint and NVMe SSDs, but the company remains silent on its timeline.
If everyone is saying and reviewing the same things, and they are all coming up with the same basic data using similar testing methodology. One could reasonably say there is some significance to be found with that data. Now, you look at say 5 reputable reviews and benchmarks and have to find one in a foreign language from another country to get a hypothetical win vs. the other reviews. From a logic and reason stand point how trustworthy is that review, or the person publishing that review.
bi·as
noun
1.
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias
Bias is the tendency to have an opinion, or view that is often without considering evidence and other information.
Confirmation bias is the tendency people have to favor facts or arguments that confirm the beliefs and positions they already hold. The extreme form of this bias is referred to as “belief perseverance” when people hold onto their beliefs even after they've been proven false.
What 75%? The 7800X is cheaper than the 1700X, still offers more performance in many cases. The 7820X is similarly priced to the 1800X, still run circles about it.
Note: I can get the 7820X in my country by much less than you quote above.
aldaia :
Not to mention the motherboard:
X299 ranges from 249 to 535€
X370 range from 125 to 359€ and B350 is even cheaper 75-129€
We were here before.
Launch price is irrelevant, when 1800x was launched 7820x didn't exist.
I just quoted a random well known site. And yes if we go cherrypicking you can find 7820x 7% cheaper than my quote. It's curious that you only cherrypick intel price. If I cherrypick also for AMD I can also find 1800X 12% cheaper than my previous quote (438€) , and an even cheaper 7820X at 564€. But, the point remains the same, 1800X is way cheaper than 7820X
While I wouldn't buy an 1800x, as the 1700 will hit similar clocks, for much less, yes the 1800x is a good deal cheaper than the 7820x, on CPU and overall platform cost.
The 7800x may be cheaper than a 1800x, but as previously mentioned, the platform cost is worse. Again, I would still choose the 1700. The 1800x is also a poor value.
Speaking about process density. According to Intel propaganda, Intel is a generation ahead and claims a 3-year lead over foundries.
It is true that on PAPER (or should we say on slide) intel is more dense. For instance according to Intel slides Intel 14 nm achieves on PAPER 37.5 million Trs/mm2 while foundries 14nm get only 30.5 million and TSMC 16 nm 29 million Tr/mm2. But that is far from a generation ahead. If Intel 14 nm was a generation ahead over foundries 14 nm density advantage should be 2x instead of 1.2x. So on PAPER and according to Intel`s own estimations 14 nm is only 1/5th of a generation ahead.
But what is the REAL density on REAL products?
The density on Intel products is actually way less than half what they claim on PAPER.
Broadwell Low Core Count is only 13.8 million Tr/mm2 (0.37x the PAPER density)
Broadwell High Core Count is only 15.8 million Tr/mm2 (0.42x the PAPER density)
Skylake i7 is only 14.3 million Tr/mm2 (0.38x the PAPER density)
The REAL density of foundry products is actually much better
Apple A10 (built on TSMC 16 nm) is 26.4 million Tr/mm2 (0.91x the PAPER density)
Yeah I already know the excuse here, SOCs are much denser and cannot be compared with CPUs. So lets include a CPU too.
AMD Ryzen die (built on Gf/Samsung 14 nm) is 22.5 Tr/mm2 (0.74x the PAPER density)
The thing is why Intel REAL density is so bad compared to PAPER density? (lets talk about hype?)
At 10 nm Intel claims a PAPER density of 100 million Tr/mm2 but if they keep the same ratio (some people claim the ratio will be worse), that will translate to ~40 million Tr/mm2. Meanwhile the Kirin 970 SoC built on TSMC 10 nm delivers a REAL density of ~55 million Tr/mm2 and SD 835 built on Samsung 10 nm has a REAL density of 41.4 million Tr/mm2. TSMC 10 nm has slightly better specs on PAPER that apparently translate to real products.
Not all transistors are the same, which makes transistor counts irrelevant, and your point moot. Density is measured in other ways. For instance
TSMC "16nm": 0.07µm² HD SRAM
GloFo/Samsung "14nm": 0.064μm² HD SRAM
Intel "14nm": 0.0499μm² HD SRAM
Well, that is even worse, if Intel SRAM cells are denser but REAL systems density is much worse than anybody else means their logic transistor density is very very bad.
We are not talking a small percentage here, we are talking that an Intel CPU is about 2,5 times less denser that the density they claim on PAPER, that is a big difference.
On the other hand AMD Ryzen is only 1.35 times less denser than the theoretical density.
Not only that, but the 14 nm Ryzen is much denser than Intel's 14nm CPUs by a significant factor (about 1.5X denser) despite all Intel PAPER superiority claims. But one thing I agree with you, not all transistors are the same, Intel transistors are HUGE 😀😀
Tr/mm2 is not measure of real density, because not all transistors are equal (comparing Transistors/mm2 has the same zero sense than comparing cars/m2) and because transistor counts are marketing lies
Intel 14nm is better than Glofo 14nm in any technical metric.
Considering that AMD corrected the value just 3 monts later, I'm more inclined to think it was a mistake instead of a marketing lie.
I got an email from AMD PR this week asking me to correct the Bulldozer transistor count in our Sandy Bridge E review. The incorrect number, provided to me (and other reviewers) by AMD PR around 3 months ago was 2 billion transistors. The actual transistor count for Bulldozer is apparently 1.2 billion transistors.
On the other hand no one answers my question, beyond the stereotypical "not all transistors are the same".
Yes, it is true, not all transistors are equal, SRAM transistors are the densest, followed by logic, and IO transistors are the less denser. That may explain why a SOC like A10 built on the less denser 16nm process is actually denser that both Ryzen and broadwell.
But if we compare the different broadwell processor with the zepelin die, the zepelin die actually has less SRAM and more IO. So there is no explanation to why intel only achieves 0.40X of it's paper density wile ryzen manages 0.74x?
I'm not claiming that intel 14nm isn't denser than GloFo 14nm but I do claim that achieving only 0,4X the PAPER density is really bad and makes me wonder what's wrong with intel process?. I also claim that Intels invented metric to measure PAPER density is just another case of marketing lie (in line with node noming) considering they are so far from it in reality. Anyone wonders why intel stopped to release transistor count lately?
While I wouldn't buy an 1800x, as the 1700 will hit similar clocks, for much less, yes the 1800x is a good deal cheaper than the 7820x, on CPU and overall platform cost.
The 7800x may be cheaper than a 1800x, but as previously mentioned, the platform cost is worse. Again, I would still choose the 1700. The 1800x is also a poor value.
Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. Without going crazy about cost a lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.
Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. A lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.
So basically you're saying Intel processors are made of magic. Okay, that's enough.
Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. Without going crazy about cost a lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.
I am one of those that seek quality over looks/aethstetics. You can look at the top of the crop Asus MoBos. In the Formula, Rampage and Crosshair families, you will notice the Crosshair ones have always been cheaper than the equivalent Intel one. The "normal" series, for the same amount of features (when they actually do it for AMD), Intel still comes out more expensive (not by much though) and they look the same (pretty much) to me.
Now, this is from memory and I'm sure other MoBo vendors might do it differently, but I do remember this when I was building and looking around constantly. The only place where Intel and AMD are feature and price equivalent, is in the lower tier or bottom price range.
The R7 series has a better price/performance than a 6900k. With the same budget, you are always going to get a better overall rig for your money with AM4 vs x99 or X299. From that perspective, it is the best for the vast majority of streamers. Only those with crazy high budgets can get better, and even then I would consider threadripper over x99, or x299, just for more PCI-E lanes. The price is just crazy for Intel's 6 core+ i7 offerings.
SKL-X has better price/performance than 6900k (Broadwell-E). The newest chips have to be cheaper and/or faster; otherwise people will not update.
About comparing AM4 and X299, I don't see that performance/price advantage of the AM4. SKL-X is cheaper and usually faster
Please break down pricing per core and discuss price/performance terms via per core pricing.
Last I checked you get 12 cores with Intel for the price of 16 with TR. I would call that a price/performance advantage.
Nope. Pricing per core is irrelevant because not all cores are the same. AMD cores are simpler and weaker, and that is why AMD has to add moar cores to get similar performance.
It doesn't matter if AMD gives moar cores for the same price when those cores are slower and less efficient.
In the end Intel’s i9-7900X appears to offer the best combination of singlethreaded performance, multithreaded performance, and efficiency at the $1000 price point. It’s not as fast as AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper in well threaded tasks, but it offers significantly stronger performance in single and lightly threaded workloads while remaining more efficient than the competition. More to the point its performance in multithreaded workloads is really quite good. Given the massive disadvantage it has in core count, the gap in performance is smaller than one would expect.
While I wouldn't buy an 1800x, as the 1700 will hit similar clocks, for much less, yes the 1800x is a good deal cheaper than the 7820x, on CPU and overall platform cost.
The 7800x may be cheaper than a 1800x, but as previously mentioned, the platform cost is worse. Again, I would still choose the 1700. The 1800x is also a poor value.
Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. Without going crazy about cost a lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.
AMD is not making cheap products in terms of quality, in fact...I have never had an AMD CPU die on me, and the only MB/CPU I ever had an issue with was a P4 back in the day that had to be RMA'ed twice for my brother.
This GPU bottleneck makes slower chips to appear faster than they are really. This GPU bottleneck is the reason why AMD wanted reviewers to test RyZen at higher resoliutions. And it is also the reason why AMD public demos, before launch, used higher resolutions.
You're comparing minimum FPS there. lol
Fairly sure the point still stands even comparing minimums.
But the point is that higher resolutinos bottleneck the GPU and reduce the performance gap between CPUs, because the fastest CPU is idle awaiting for the GPU to do its work. Your own link proves this
Battlefield 1
At 1080p the gap in average FPS is 40%. At 1400p the gap is reduced to 10%. There is no 4K benches for Battlefield, but Overwatch was tested at three resolutions and show the GPU bottleneck in action
There a lot of poorly optimized games.There are games where higher clocks matter. There are games where high memory bandwidth matter. A lot depends on the gaming engine being used. Games have been built around Intel uArch for a decade, and there is peace of mind in that. Clearly this is one of those games it doesn't matter which processor you use, at 4k virtually identical, but the R 1700 3.9GHz does have the better 1% and 0.1% lows. I've said this before depending on the Game there is little to no perceivable difference in gaming other than you looking at the FPS counter and knowing the FPS. Not all titles are optimized for Ryzen, but a lot of the new games and optimized games show similar results for Ryzen and Intel. It very much depends on the titles.
Neither there are "lot of poorly optimized games" nor "Games have been built around Intel uArch for a decade". Games are well-optimized and they have been designed for consoles, which use AMD hardware. The problem is not on games the problem is on Zen with is a microarchitecture designed for throughput.
Games run faster in Intel because Intel is faster. The rest are excuses.
Yes, it is true, not all transistors are equal, SRAM transistors are the densest, followed by logic, and IO transistors are the less denser. That may explain why a SOC like A10 built on the less denser 16nm process is actually denser that both Ryzen and broadwell.
But if we compare the different broadwell processor with the zepelin die, the zepelin die actually has less SRAM and more IO. So there is no explanation to why intel only achieves 0.40X of it's paper density wile ryzen manages 0.74x?
I'm not claiming that intel 14nm isn't denser than GloFo 14nm but I do claim that achieving only 0,4X the PAPER density is really bad and makes me wonder what's wrong with intel process?. I also claim that Intels invented metric to measure PAPER density is just another case of marketing lie (in line with node noming) considering they are so far from it in reality. Anyone wonders why intel stopped to release transistor count lately?
The point is that you are comparing apples and oranges. First, those density values I gave aren't paper densities. They are measured densities on SRAM cells. Second, to prove the existence of some discrepancy, you would take a chip measure the same density concept in that chip and then compare the value with the official value.
You are not doing anything of that. You are taking a useless metric Tr/mm² and then comparing among different foundries which makes the same sense (i.e. none) as comparing car/m² between Smart and Ferrari and pretending that Smart is better because can put more cars in the same space. Not all cars have the same size. Not all the transistors have the same size.
Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. A lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.
So basically you're saying Intel processors are made of magic. Okay, that's enough.
The reason why Intel owns the 99% of the server market, and three quarters of the PC market is not related to "magic", but to technology and business.
I wasn't even choosing the cheapest x370 board, with the x370 killer sli/ac. Asrock's Taichi series of boards have been pretty solid choices. The x370 version is a good amount cheaper than the x299 one. I only say go with the 1700 because the 1800x is a poor buy. Ryzen's clock speed limit is more of a factor than which R7 you choose. The R7 1700 commonly reaches the same 3.9-4.1 that the 1800x will. If you absolutely believe the more expensive chips are better binned, even a 1700x makes more sense than an 1800x. I could have made the AMD setup a bit cheaper, but wanted to keep the ram series the same, at the very least.
Not everyone want's to buy the cheapest board and the cheapest processors available. A lot of people care about quality, performance, features, optimization and looks. That's where Intel shine.
So basically you're saying Intel processors are made of magic. Okay, that's enough.
The reason why Intel owns the 99% of the server market, and three quarters of the PC market is not related to "magic", but to technology and business.
We know why Intel owns 99% of the server market!
[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k&ab_channel=AdoredTV"][/video]
Yes, it is true, not all transistors are equal, SRAM transistors are the densest, followed by logic, and IO transistors are the less denser. That may explain why a SOC like A10 built on the less denser 16nm process is actually denser that both Ryzen and broadwell.
But if we compare the different broadwell processor with the zepelin die, the zepelin die actually has less SRAM and more IO. So there is no explanation to why intel only achieves 0.40X of it's paper density wile ryzen manages 0.74x?
I'm not claiming that intel 14nm isn't denser than GloFo 14nm but I do claim that achieving only 0,4X the PAPER density is really bad and makes me wonder what's wrong with intel process?. I also claim that Intels invented metric to measure PAPER density is just another case of marketing lie (in line with node noming) considering they are so far from it in reality. Anyone wonders why intel stopped to release transistor count lately?
The point is that you are comparing apples and oranges. First, those density values I gave aren't paper densities. They are measured densities on SRAM cells. Second, to prove the existence of some discrepancy, you would take a chip measure the same density concept in that chip and then compare the value with the official value.
You are not doing anything of that. You are taking a useless metric Tr/mm² and then comparing among different foundries which makes the same sense (i.e. none) as comparing car/m² between Smart and Ferrari and pretending that Smart is better because can put more cars in the same space. Not all cars have the same size. Not all the transistors have the same size.
Man, you repeat the same ever and ever. But actually have no answer other than "Not all the transistors have the same size". Can you please elaborate a little bit more? And please go technical. I already know that some transistors are bigger that others, and that justifies why nobody achieves the PAPER density, but in no way it justifies such a big discrepancy between PAPER and REAL density for Intel.
SRAM is much denser than logic, and we know than intel SRAM is denser than GloFo, but the Broadwell designs I posted have a ratio of SRAM to logic much bigger than Ryzen so they should achieve a density closer to the ideal yet they are much less dense. Same with IO, there is where the big transistors are and we know that a ryzen die has a lot of IO (some is actually unused on Ryzen and is just for EPYC inter-die communication.
So anyone knows why, despite Intel having a density advantage (though much smaller than what Intel propaganda claims) and despite having a chip composition that (even under the same process) should be denser than ryzen, actually achieves much less density?
Ohh, and the car analogy is not valid, what we have here is Intel has the chip full of smarts and AMD has the chip full of minivans, yet AMD has more cars per meter, lol.
no sign of pcie-4.0 ...maybe they implement it with intel 4xx chipset whatever comes next after z390 ?
AMD has slated PCIe 4.0 for 2020. We imagine Intel is also chomping at the bit to deploy PCIe 4.0 3D XPoint and NVMe SSDs, but the company remains silent on its timeline.
There a lot of poorly optimized games.There are games where higher clocks matter. There are games where high memory bandwidth matter. A lot depends on the gaming engine being used. Games have been built around Intel uArch for a decade, and there is peace of mind in that. Clearly this is one of those games it doesn't matter which processor you use, at 4k virtually identical, but the R 1700 3.9GHz does have the better 1% and 0.1% lows. I've said this before depending on the Game there is little to no perceivable difference in gaming other than you looking at the FPS counter and knowing the FPS. Not all titles are optimized for Ryzen, but a lot of the new games and optimized games show similar results for Ryzen and Intel. It very much depends on the titles.
Neither there are "lot of poorly optimized games" nor "Games have been built around Intel uArch for a decade". Games are well-optimized and they have been designed for consoles, which use AMD hardware. The problem is not on games the problem is on Zen with is a microarchitecture designed for throughput.
Games run faster in Intel because Intel is faster. The rest are excuses.
You are being obtuse and argumentative without supporting documentation, which is par for the course for you. What you said goes contrary to common knowledge as well.
to believe it and probably should stop ridding that unicorn before you get hurt.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram