7 ms·
> in a HandBrake-based video transcoding task, Ryzen scored a narrow win [against a stock i7-6900k] Man, if that holds true in more benchmarks, that's fantasti
by vcarl 10y ago
> in a HandBrake-based video transcoding task, Ryzen scored a narrow win [against a stock i7-6900k]
Man, if that holds true in more benchmarks, that's fantastic news. AMD chugged along by "competing" further and further down Intel's product line more or less since Sandy Bridge, if they can genuinely compete with the i7 now I can't wait to see the next few years. Intel has always seemed content to release incremental improvements until they get kicked in the pants by somebody else, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a bunch of stuff waiting in the wings to maintain their edge over AMD.
- dom0 10y agoI think AMDs downfall started way before SB. AMD was competitive against Core and Core 2, but already Nehalem was rather... troubling. SB and the following iterations where just the death stab in many markets for AMD; after SB AMD didn't even try to compete with Intel in the server markets (their platform is six years old. Their newest server processors were released in 2012). AMD fell the moment they failed to improve over K10.
- swasheck 10y agoPurchasing ATI didn't seem to help them much, either. Perhaps it was to offset the losses that they saw coming, but it also seemed to distract them a bit.
- agumonkey 10y agoI never understood what were the failure and what could AMD have done better. When intel started to be ahead in single threaded IPC, AMD tried to innovate by bringing low consumption, multi threaded, with embedded GPUs cheap SoC. It seemed quite in touch with the early netbooks where people would need a blend of capabilities (hardware video accel, compositing / CSS3 able GPU) instead of a compilation workhorse. I don't know if the designs were really absurd, or if the market couldn't understand AMD's value prop. Or if the programmers couldn't (or wouldn't) tap into their APU idea. Multiple papercuts made them fall I guess.
- EpicBlackCrayon 10y agoThe funny thing is that that's where the market is sort of heading now.
- dom0 10y agoAPUs didn't take off except in low-end-ish notebooks and low-end desktop computers not because the idea is bad, or the graphics performance was poor (it wasn't), but because the CPU part was subpar. The gaming consoles show how well the concept works, although, sadly for AMD, these deals may be high volume but don't have high margins. AMD dedicated graphics have only minor issues imho, they're very competitive with nVidias offerings. But in the professional and compute segments they fail to take off, because nVidia established the popular, proprietary CUDA standard there. I don't think there's a (major) technical reason why AMD has much less market share there.
- gsnedders 10y ago> The gaming consoles show how well the concept works, although, sadly for AMD, these deals may be high volume but don't have high margins. They're likely fairly consistent income, however, even if the margins are relatively slim. For a company in AMD's state, constant income no matter how small is likely a good thing.
- agumonkey 10y agoAlways good to have economic mass, market presence. I have no data, but I could see a guy owning an AMD based game console thinking about other AMD products for its PC.
- theandrewbailey 10y agoThe problem with that is unless that guy figures out what's inside his console, he would never realize that an established PC vendor was providing key parts inside. I've never had a game console, but I don't remember seeing AMD stickers on consoles or their packaging.
- agumonkey 10y agoDelta of 5 seconds (54s for ryzen, 59s for 6900k). Also IIRC, ryzen wasn't using any form of boost while the 6900k was allowed to push its enveloppe. Not a time to buy an intel cpu.
- dogma1138 10y agoTre 6900k was not only not boosting they downclocked it to a locked 3.0ghz.... If there is no room for boost on Zen parts it's gonna be dead in the water for enthusiasts. My 5820k does 4.6ghz and it's a 6 core part. That said what's even more important is going to be USB 3/3.1, storage and PCIe performance which ATM on AMDs current platforms are abysmal.
- agumonkey 10y agoI missed the mention to 3GHz lock, did they mention it on the live feed or to journalists ?
- dogma1138 10y agoNo you didn't I thought you were referencing the old blender demo. They apperantly did another one. Would be interesting to see the boost stats in that case, 3.7 boost is a bit low for a 6900k part tho everyone I know that had it rubs it around 4.2-4.3ghz.
- pixel_fcker 10y agoAnyone know how well handbrake scales with number of cores? Also are the 8 cores they're claiming 8 physical cores or logical?
- ac29 10y ago8C/16T
- pixel_fcker 10y agoOop yes it says so on the image on the page. Depending on price point this could be very interesting. I'm particularly looking forward to seeing what they can offer in high-core-count models. Shame they still seem to have a 15-year-old in charge of marketing though. Should have just stuck with "Zen".
- anonbanker 10y agoit seems like their naming scheme is to take a three-syllable name, and cut off the first syllable. Triathalon -> Athlon, Centurion -> Turion, Horizon -> Rizen.
- elihu 10y ago"Zen" is a lot harder to trademark than "Ryzen". Also, it sounds like "Ryzen" is their consumer product line. Their server product line might be called something else. It makes sense to have multiple product lines with different names and to refer to the common microarchitecture as "Zen".
- pixel_fcker 10y agoAnyone know how well handbrake scales with number of cores? Also are the 8 cores they're claiming 8 physical cores or logical?
- gsnedders 10y agoThe i7-6900K is a Broadwell-E part (i.e., not their "mainstream" high-end parts)—while it implies an eight-core part against an eight-core part is competitive, it doesn't say anything about four-core against four-core (which as far as I know at Intel are different designs from different masks, and that's ignoring the fact that now the competition there is Skylake and a different microarchitecture too).
- CyberDildonics 10y agoIt isn't boxing, you don't have to put two chips in a head to head battle to see who wins. AMD was never expected to beat Intel's best, they are expected to beat Intel on price performance.
- bluedino 10y agoYou could cherry pick benchmarks back in the Bulldozer days that AMD would edge intel out in - while getting handily beat in everything else
- tormeh 10y agoThey were real-world though. The Bulldozer architecture is optimal for some applications, just not very many that mattered at the time (and even now). I think the architecture was just way ahead of its time. It anticipated the software practices of the future and tried to build a CPU for it within the confines of today. Such futurism is impressive, although kinda foolish, for such a capital-intensive product.
- Zardoz84 10y agoThe final result is that the Bulldozer and derivated cores, has aged very well. Any FX core works better now that they was released, because actually a lot of programs have in mind multicore that when the original FXs was released.