6 ms·
AMD's new Zen-based $499 CPU beats Intel's $999 CPU
- MichaelBurge 10y agoKeep in mind the author isn't exactly a hardware engineer: > Working in IT retail for 10 years gave him great experience with high-end, custom-built PCs. So treat the article with a slightly smaller grain of salt as you would a salesperson at your local Best Buy pushing AMD chips.
- superkuh 10y agoAnyone have a link to the story that doesn't send you to a nag page if you have javascript turned off?
- wingless 10y agohttps://archive.fo/xgqlz https://archive.fo/xgqlz
- 0x4a42 10y agoYou can switch on the Reader View Mode in Firefox to avoid the nag.
- theandrewbailey 10y agoLook around for a browser extension that disables meta refresh tags.
- webmaven 10y agoRight click, inspect, delete, delete.
- DeepYogurt 10y agoConsidering the chip isn't out yet this story should be taken with a grain of salt.
- smegel 10y agoI hope AMD make a comeback. It is all I have ever owned (currently running a Phenom x6), but was contemplating going to Intel. That being said, it sounds like these are AMD benchmarks so be wary...
- static_noise 10y agoMy Phenom II X4 940 on the desktop machine is still going strong. I couldn't yet justify replacing it because it just isn't that bad yet. I think I'll put off replacing that rig for another year. Some desktop AMD processors support ECC memory which would need a Xeon and more expensive mainboards from intel for replacement. This tunes up the price quite a bit when switching. That ECC support was the deciding factor back then.
- baq 10y agoWith rowhammer reality this should actually be a deal breaker for the conscious...
- AYBABTME 10y agoHow does it "beat" Intel, with just frequency and cache size numbers? Seems like marketing material and nothing, yet, to see here.
- static_noise 10y agoIt will probably beat intel in the performance/price ratio when not considering the cost of electrical power. That low difference (<10%) between turbo and sustained clock speed is a bit troubling, though. It indicates that these processors are not limited by the TDP but by the transistor speed. Combined with the high TDP, this means that AMD is still much behind intel in their manufacturing process.
- nottorp 10y agoWe should all hope they come up with something that's competitive. Even 80% of the performance for 50% of the price would be good enough. And this is because the last 3-4 Intel CPU generations have been simply not worth upgrading to. If some real competition from AMD shows up, things will change.
- static_noise 10y agoAMD seems to have lost their way back when they merged with ATI and integrated their GPUs into the processors. I remember that in a restructuring they switched from hand-optimizing hotspots in the CPUs to a more abstract approach using design software that worked well in GPUs. After that decision they fell behind in performance and efficiency. I don't know if that was the root cause but it stayed in my memory as one pivotal point. It would be interesting to read an insider story on how that decision played out in the meantime.
- rincebrain 10y agoI don't know if the GPU integration is actually a negative, though - Intel's doing the same thing these days and doing well enough, and they both don't waste die space on integrated GPUs for their server lines. I think they just needed to have the next major line with enough time to try to respond to the P-M/Core switch to really knock it out of the park...and we got Bulldozer instead, where they bet big on trying to partition resources and a different notion of distinct "cores", and didn't come out ahead.
- elcct 10y agoI was hoping for $999 cpu but twice as fast as example Intel cpu...
- CyberDildonics 10y agoThey have 16 and 32 core count processors planned. These should be faster for programs with good concurrency although one detail that has gone under the radar is that Zen has half the SIMD performance of Intel AVX chips (it should take 256 bit SIMD instructions but doesn't execute them all at once). Still, this is unlikely to make a difference in the vast majority of software out there.
- user5994461 10y agoThey already have > 20 cores for servers (> 40 with HT). It is pointless for consumers. Well, except for squeezing a few dollars from the enthusiast who only want THE best, a profitable niche.
- elcct 10y agoWhy is it pointless? There is never too many cpus
- user5994461 10y agoMost user applications cannot fully utilize 40 cores.
- elcct 10y agoBut users run many applications at the same time.
- user5994461 10y agoNot 40 of them ^^
- ksec 10y agoSandy Bridge-Ivy Bridge > Haswell-Broadwell > Skylake-KabyLake That is now 5 - 6 years without much performance improvement. You will need to use those newer instructions (AVX2). So basically we have been getting the same CPU performance at a lower power usage, and at a similar price point. From SandyBridge to Kaby Lake, there is may be maximum 15% IPC difference. So all AMD will need to do, is to catch up to Haswell or Broadwell, i.e Catch up to performance of Intel's CPU 4 years ago, and offer 20%-50% discount price. The higher end, Server, high margin CPU that intel currently enjoys are exactly where AMD needs to hit. Theoretically, those who need high end CPU for gaming will also need a high end GPU. But knowing AMD it is hard for me to imagine how two unit within the same company could cooperate.
- curt15 10y agoI remember Amd's K10 series being hyped to high heaven before release (something like 40% faster than Intel's competitors) only to be a major letdown.
- hatsunearu 10y agoLet me channel the /r/AMD sentiment here: Wait for benchmarks! Don't let hype take over.
- znpy 10y agoWhat about power consumption ?