3 ms·

Intel must be pretty desperate, according to the review article - * Intel doubled the price of a threadripper 1950x for giving you a 8% increase on multithread

Intel must be pretty desperate, according to the review article - * Intel doubled the price of a threadripper 1950x for giving you a 8% increase on multithread performance (measure by Cinebench R15 scores). * when Intel could't afford to match AMD high end CPU's 60 PCIE lanes, they invented the term "platform PCIE lanes" to include those from chipsets. * when Intel couldn't match AMD's TDP, they came up with some different TDP definition, as a result the 165w TDP Intel 7980xe draws 15w more than a 180w threadripper 1950x. Intel must have a pretty good propaganda department known as "marketing"? for those who believe Intel is responding to AMD's challenge - no, it is not, according to leaks, Intel is about to release i3-7360x, which is going to be 1.25% faster (yeah, 1.25% faster, no typo, source linked) than the previous generation. when you can fully utilize your well established marketing department to fool consumers to buy your overpriced slow processor with far less cores and PCIE lanes, why bother giving those customers anything better? https://videocardz.com/72775/intel-preps-dual-core-i3-7360x-for-x299-but-why https://videocardz.com/72775/intel-preps-dual-core-i3-7360x-... * why Intel released Q6600 10 years ago and made quad core mainstream? because AMD was competitive. * why Intel repeatedly refused to make 8 cores mainstream in the last 10 years? because AMD was not competitive. * why Intel finally made 6 cores mainstream 10 years after the release of Q6600? because AMD is competitive again.

Iv 9y ago
I haven't followed the market for a while but a few years ago it was more or less established that the top Intel CPU had about 10% better performance and 2x the price of the nest one. Has it changed much?
- dis-sys 9y ago
  business as usual, nothing changed.
michaelbuckbee 9y ago
The new chip is smaller (and I'd presume more energy efficient) while being slightly faster. Those characteristics are what a good chunk of the server market craves (more blade server density per rack at the same power draw).
- AlphaSite 9y ago
  Actually, from another source the perf per watt is lower than the equivalent AMD CPUs.
onli 9y ago
That's not too accurate: > when Intel couldn't match AMD's TDP, they came up with some different TDP definition, as a result the 165w TDP Intel 7980xe draws 15w more than a 180w threadripper 1950x. So far it was AMD which had a weird way to calculate the TDP, and it was them that went over while with Intel TDP pretty much equaled max power draw. That Intel now goes over is clearly a sign that they are stressing their boundaries and the of their architecture, but it's not really a big distinction against AMD.
- dis-sys 9y ago
  7980xe's TDP is 165w, it draws 190w during the test 1950x's TDP is 180w, it draws 176w during the test everything else is just cheap talk.
- ianhowson 9y ago
  Intel's TDP measures power consumption/heat production in the intended application. The same silicon has a TDP of 5W, 15W or 35W depending on whether it's going in an ultralight laptop, pro laptop or desktop. All modern Intel CPUs will draw more than their rated TDP if you run them hard.
  - Coding_Cat 9y ago
    And these are high end 'prosumer' parts. Running the CPU at peak 80-100% load for a significant amount of time should be considered the intended application.
    - ianhowson 9y ago
      What does 80-100% even mean, though? The CPU cores are merely one component of the CPU 'package'. The GPU on most Intel parts consumes way more power than the CPU cores when running flat-out. Even just within the CPU cores, different ops consume vastly different amount of energy while still 'maxing out' utilisation. And we haven't even considered accelerator hardware within the CPU which is totally independent of the CPU cores but can still consume a large amount of energy (e.g. H.264, AES). Intel no doubt calculate a maximum power consumption figure where every bit of hardware on the CPU is consuming as much as it can. It'd be utterly meaningless -- probably on the order of 100W for a 2-4 core laptop part or 400W for a server part. You can design a computer to handle those figures, but you don't want to. So TDP reflects intended usage rather than peak demand. If you're a 'prosumer', you're presumably smart enough to size your power supply and cooling appropriately. TDP is not the number you're looking for.
mbell 9y ago
> according to leaks, Intel is about to release i3-7360x, which is going to be 1.25% faster (yeah, 1.25% faster, no typo, source linked) than the previous generation That CPU is built for overclocking competitions, don't know why so many people are upset over it.
piinbinary 9y ago
An AMD engineer explains how TDP doesn't actually mean power draw: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6svy1a/tdp_vs_tdp/dlg8tn8/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6svy1a/tdp_vs_tdp/dlg8...

Iv 9y ago

I haven't followed the market for a while but a few years ago it was more or less established that the top Intel CPU had about 10% better performance and 2x the price of the nest one. Has it changed much?

dis-sys 9y ago
business as usual, nothing changed.

michaelbuckbee 9y ago

The new chip is smaller (and I'd presume more energy efficient) while being slightly faster. Those characteristics are what a good chunk of the server market craves (more blade server density per rack at the same power draw).

AlphaSite 9y ago
Actually, from another source the perf per watt is lower than the equivalent AMD CPUs.

onli 9y ago

That's not too accurate: > when Intel couldn't match AMD's TDP, they came up with some different TDP definition, as a result the 165w TDP Intel 7980xe draws 15w more than a 180w threadripper 1950x. So far it was AMD which had a weird way to calculate the TDP, and it was them that went over while with Intel TDP pretty much equaled max power draw. That Intel now goes over is clearly a sign that they are stressing their boundaries and the of their architecture, but it's not really a big distinction against AMD.

dis-sys 9y ago
7980xe's TDP is 165w, it draws 190w during the test 1950x's TDP is 180w, it draws 176w during the test everything else is just cheap talk.
ianhowson 9y ago
Intel's TDP measures power consumption/heat production in the intended application. The same silicon has a TDP of 5W, 15W or 35W depending on whether it's going in an ultralight laptop, pro laptop or desktop. All modern Intel CPUs will draw more than their rated TDP if you run them hard.
- Coding_Cat 9y ago
  And these are high end 'prosumer' parts. Running the CPU at peak 80-100% load for a significant amount of time should be considered the intended application.
  - ianhowson 9y ago
    What does 80-100% even mean, though? The CPU cores are merely one component of the CPU 'package'. The GPU on most Intel parts consumes way more power than the CPU cores when running flat-out. Even just within the CPU cores, different ops consume vastly different amount of energy while still 'maxing out' utilisation. And we haven't even considered accelerator hardware within the CPU which is totally independent of the CPU cores but can still consume a large amount of energy (e.g. H.264, AES). Intel no doubt calculate a maximum power consumption figure where every bit of hardware on the CPU is consuming as much as it can. It'd be utterly meaningless -- probably on the order of 100W for a 2-4 core laptop part or 400W for a server part. You can design a computer to handle those figures, but you don't want to. So TDP reflects intended usage rather than peak demand. If you're a 'prosumer', you're presumably smart enough to size your power supply and cooling appropriately. TDP is not the number you're looking for.

mbell 9y ago

> according to leaks, Intel is about to release i3-7360x, which is going to be 1.25% faster (yeah, 1.25% faster, no typo, source linked) than the previous generation That CPU is built for overclocking competitions, don't know why so many people are upset over it.

piinbinary 9y ago

An AMD engineer explains how TDP doesn't actually mean power draw: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6svy1a/tdp_vs_tdp/dlg8tn8/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6svy1a/tdp_vs_tdp/dlg8...