4 ms·

Really looking forward to this, and I'm glad that AMD's management no longer seems to be on the pipe. Even if the real world perf is close to the $1K Intel chi

Really looking forward to this, and I'm glad that AMD's management no longer seems to be on the pipe. Even if the real world perf is close to the $1K Intel chips it will be a win. It's going to force price cuts from Intel and hopefully spark some competition again.

slantyyz 10y ago
It would be interesting if Apple used these chips in upcoming Mac desktops. I'm guessing that adopting these lower priced chips without lowering prices would have a negligible impact on sales for Apple if the performance is as good as AMD claims.
- edko 10y ago
  It would be nice. However, would they be able to still keep Thunderbolt?
  - samcat116 10y ago
    They would have to license it from Intel. Which I bet Intel wouldn't really want to do.
  - qmarchi 10y ago
    Considering that AMD Graphics Cards can be used behind the Thunderbolt interface I wouldn't be surprised. (XConnect) If I remember correctly, you'd have to get permission to add Thunderbolt support into drivers....
  - sp332 10y ago
    The standard chipsets do have support for USB 3.1 Gen 2. But mixing in support for DisplayPort would require either a custom chipset (which Apple may be able to do but might not be as cheap), or wait until a Zen-based APU comes out.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - samcat116 10y ago
      USB 3.1 Gen 2 plus display is not the same as Thunderbolt. TB is basically straight PCIE. Can't just combine data and video and call it Thunderbolt. Plus 3.1 Gen 2 is only half the speed of TB3.
- bluedino 10y ago
  I wonder what features are intel specific (like quicksync) that Apple is is using in MacOS
tracker1 10y ago
Agreed... upgraded to an i7-4790K about 2 years ago, and really, other than software (x265) video encoding, I've been extremely happy... getting a big boost in performance for about the same price (for the cpu) as I paid 2 years ago would make me relatively happy. Now, just need a refresh on the GTX 1080, so that 4K gaming can be consistent at >= 60fps. ASIDE: I've been using nvenc with vbr2 for h.265 with very good results (but about 10-15% larger than roughly equivalent x265).
- charrondev 10y ago
  Why not just add a second 1080? I've been thinking about doing that for a little while now that I got a good 4k display.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    I could do that.. it's been a while since I've done SLI.. last time, I was running linux and dual displays, and had a LOT of issues (went back to windows), it was very bad. Might give it another try though... though not planning an upgrade for another year... got the 1080, and a 40" 4k late last year... I try to space out my upgrades. Carry over video card, then upgrade that later.
tyingq 10y ago
I think the server chip (Naples, up to 32 cores!) based on Zen may have more impact than the desktop chip. The servers chips are a smaller market, but it's growing faster than desktop, and I assume has larger margins. Depends, I suppose, on how much AMD chooses to undercut on pricing.
- officelineback 10y ago
  A big part of it is going to be whether major cloud providers adopt these.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    I would guess at least some meaningful purchases, if only to keep Intel honest.
    - emn13 10y ago
      These chips look better suited to servers than clients as is. Most software still scales poorly with additional cores (or rather: most workloads still have a few single-core bottlenecks). E.g webbrowsers, compilers, video de and en-coders, all kinds of stuff. So even if you have twice the cores, catching up given the handicap of a single-core perf disadvantage is a pretty harsh battle. E.g. see http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1826?vs=1729 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1826?vs=1729 (6900k vs. 7700k) - there are quite a few relevant workloads where the 8 core loses significantly to the 4-core. Even stuff where you'd think more cores are really natural (such as POV-ray), the perf advantage of the 8-core over the 4-core is less than 50% (!). For an example where fewer faster cores obviously win, consider web-browsers: the 4-core is 36% faster in google octane v2. Servers that have lots of independant tasks, on the other hand, will love this cheap many-cores. And coincidentally, servers often don't use AVX all that much anyhow.
      - tyingq 10y ago
        In the comparison you linked, the 4 core CPU is clocked at 4.2GHz, and the the 8 core at 3.2GHz. If you pick a comparison where the clock speed isn't so far apart, things look different: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1832?vs=1729 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1832?vs=1729 Of course, fewer cores usually means a higher available clock speed. Just pointing out it's not just "code isn't parallel enough" that drives the disparity.

slantyyz 10y ago

It would be interesting if Apple used these chips in upcoming Mac desktops. I'm guessing that adopting these lower priced chips without lowering prices would have a negligible impact on sales for Apple if the performance is as good as AMD claims.

edko 10y ago
It would be nice. However, would they be able to still keep Thunderbolt?
- samcat116 10y ago
  They would have to license it from Intel. Which I bet Intel wouldn't really want to do.
- qmarchi 10y ago
  Considering that AMD Graphics Cards can be used behind the Thunderbolt interface I wouldn't be surprised. (XConnect) If I remember correctly, you'd have to get permission to add Thunderbolt support into drivers....
- sp332 10y ago
  The standard chipsets do have support for USB 3.1 Gen 2. But mixing in support for DisplayPort would require either a custom chipset (which Apple may be able to do but might not be as cheap), or wait until a Zen-based APU comes out.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - samcat116 10y ago
    USB 3.1 Gen 2 plus display is not the same as Thunderbolt. TB is basically straight PCIE. Can't just combine data and video and call it Thunderbolt. Plus 3.1 Gen 2 is only half the speed of TB3.
bluedino 10y ago
I wonder what features are intel specific (like quicksync) that Apple is is using in MacOS

tracker1 10y ago

Agreed... upgraded to an i7-4790K about 2 years ago, and really, other than software (x265) video encoding, I've been extremely happy... getting a big boost in performance for about the same price (for the cpu) as I paid 2 years ago would make me relatively happy. Now, just need a refresh on the GTX 1080, so that 4K gaming can be consistent at >= 60fps. ASIDE: I've been using nvenc with vbr2 for h.265 with very good results (but about 10-15% larger than roughly equivalent x265).

charrondev 10y ago
Why not just add a second 1080? I've been thinking about doing that for a little while now that I got a good 4k display.
- tracker1 10y ago
  I could do that.. it's been a while since I've done SLI.. last time, I was running linux and dual displays, and had a LOT of issues (went back to windows), it was very bad. Might give it another try though... though not planning an upgrade for another year... got the 1080, and a 40" 4k late last year... I try to space out my upgrades. Carry over video card, then upgrade that later.

tyingq 10y ago

I think the server chip (Naples, up to 32 cores!) based on Zen may have more impact than the desktop chip. The servers chips are a smaller market, but it's growing faster than desktop, and I assume has larger margins. Depends, I suppose, on how much AMD chooses to undercut on pricing.

officelineback 10y ago
A big part of it is going to be whether major cloud providers adopt these.
- tyingq 10y ago
  I would guess at least some meaningful purchases, if only to keep Intel honest.
  - emn13 10y ago
    These chips look better suited to servers than clients as is. Most software still scales poorly with additional cores (or rather: most workloads still have a few single-core bottlenecks). E.g webbrowsers, compilers, video de and en-coders, all kinds of stuff. So even if you have twice the cores, catching up given the handicap of a single-core perf disadvantage is a pretty harsh battle. E.g. see http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1826?vs=1729 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1826?vs=1729 (6900k vs. 7700k) - there are quite a few relevant workloads where the 8 core loses significantly to the 4-core. Even stuff where you'd think more cores are really natural (such as POV-ray), the perf advantage of the 8-core over the 4-core is less than 50% (!). For an example where fewer faster cores obviously win, consider web-browsers: the 4-core is 36% faster in google octane v2. Servers that have lots of independant tasks, on the other hand, will love this cheap many-cores. And coincidentally, servers often don't use AVX all that much anyhow.
    - tyingq 10y ago
      In the comparison you linked, the 4 core CPU is clocked at 4.2GHz, and the the 8 core at 3.2GHz. If you pick a comparison where the clock speed isn't so far apart, things look different: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1832?vs=1729 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1832?vs=1729 Of course, fewer cores usually means a higher available clock speed. Just pointing out it's not just "code isn't parallel enough" that drives the disparity.