11 ms·
Once again it's amazing what Intel finds in the couch cushions when pushed by AMD. i7 consumer chips went from 4-core to 8-core since Ryzen launched. Where was
by berbec 8y ago
Once again it's amazing what Intel finds in the couch cushions when pushed by AMD. i7 consumer chips went from 4-core to 8-core since Ryzen launched. Where was this innovation before? Oh yeah, why would they bother. Ryzen is the best thing to happen to CPU architecture in years, even if you don't buy one.
- supernovae 8y agoI bought 2
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoYeah, I wouldn't buy a Ryzen, but I'm glad competition is forcing Intel to put the work in again. They sat on their laurels for a really long time.
- kahoon 8y agoWhy wouldn't you buy a Ryzen?
- sir_brickalot 8y agoHackintosh
- JackFaker 8y agoit seems that there is a community working on that https://amd-osx.com/ https://amd-osx.com/
- kristofferR 8y agoAMD Hackintoshes are wonky as hell, since you need a custom kernel. It's far more trouble than it's worth.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- berbec 8y agoTop end video gaming, those crazy 99th percential, 120hz 4k hdr guys. Workloads limited by a single thread. Overclockers. That's about all I see.
- jaxtellerSoA 8y agoFunny, I am the opposite. I wouldn't buy an Intel at this point.
- blihp 8y agoDunno... this looks like the bare minimum Intel thought they could get away with. Sure, they added a couple cores but you give up HT on many models, no Spectre/Meltdown architectural fixes (ok, might still be early to expect that), iGPU stagnant, cutting back on cache size, every variant still significantly more expensive than Ryzen counterpart. Be curious to see how the overall performance comes out. It doesn't look so much like they're trying to compete as they are trying to not compete with their server processors. I'll probably be going Ryzen when I'm next in the market.
- dunpeal 8y agoYeah, this looks very underwhelming. I also think you're letting them off too easy with "too early to expect a Spectre/Meltdown fix". This is a critical security bug that was discovered over a year ago. Intel just ignoring the problem and casually releasing yet another (underwhelming) upgrade that doesn't address it all... The fact anyone accepts that just goes to show how low our expectations have dipped when it comes to Intel.
- gsnedders 8y agoLow? How many instances are there of chip bugs being fixed in under a year? It's common across vendors for tape-out to be around a year before they enter the market. This is just the reality of microchip production: the design is set in stone a long time before the enter the market.
- blihp 8y agoNot letting them off, just trying to set realistic expectations. I'm not in chip design, but everything I've seen on the subject suggests that 2-3 years from design to fabrication is the general (minimum) ETA on architectural fixes. The testing needs to be extensive or they risk releasing a worse problem to the world.
- dunpeal 8y agoThey were aware of these bugs for (at least) 16 months. They could delay releasing new chips until they addressed the problem, even if it took them another year. They did not. Instead, they released a chip with a widely known critical vulnerability. That's on them.
- Fnoord 8y agoIf too many people don't buy Ryzen/Threadripper even though the price/performance is very competitive [1] then not much will change, effectively. I will only buy Intel if I'm forced to by other people (think: employer, laptop). By my own choice, I will buy Ryzen/Threadripper whenever I can. And I will do so gladly, knowing I give my money to the David who's fighting Goliath and giving me a much better bang for the buck at the same time. Win/win. [1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-athlon-200ge&num=7 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-athl...
- qaq 8y agoYep and look at the price point thats very competitive
- jaxtellerSoA 8y agoNot really.... Core i9-9900K 8/16 Cores 3.6-.5.0 GHz - $488 Core i7-9700K 8/8 Cores 3.6-.4.9 GHz - $374 Ryzen 7 2700X 8/16 cores 4.3 GHz - $320 Easy pick for me, Intel isn't even a consideration.
- qaq 8y agoAs AMD shareholder I am glad you see it that way :)
- jaxtellerSoA 8y agoFull disclosure: I am also an AMD shareholder :) I am not fanboying AMD here either. The facts for me are clear, AMD is going to continue to eat Intel for breakfast for the next 2 years at least. Intel isn't going to be competitive until they release a modular designed chip, which although they haven't announced they ware working on, I am 100% certain they are. Why am I certain, first they now have Jim Keller, who designed the Ryzen chip. Second, they acquired NetSpeed, which has IP around modular CPU design (likely a play to ensure they don't get sued by AMD when they release a modular chip). I know a lot of people are looking at Intel right now, thinking it is a bargain prices and a good time to buy. I think they have a long way more to fall. When the chips that Jim Keller is working on are about to hit the market, that is when it will be time to buy Intel. Until then I have no interest in anything Intel has to offer.
- O_H_E 8y agoWould be really interested if you could provide a source or explanation on modular chips. Couldn't find anything with a couple of searches
- 8y ago
- 21 8y agoWhat do you think it's more profitable to sell: one CPU with 8 cores or 2 CPUs with 4 cores? What do you think it's more profitable to sell: one CPU with many PCIe lanes that you can attach 8 GPUs to (8 NVIDIA GPUs for 1 Intel CPUs), or more CPUs with fewer PCIe lanes (8 NVIDIA GPUs for 2 Intel CPUs)
- gambiting 8y agoI mean, he is saying the exact same thing you are saying - Intel kept making quad core CPUs for ages, bevause....they could. They had the tech to make CPUs with more cores for years - my workstation at work 5 years ago was using an 8-core/16 threaded Xeon chip. The only reason why it wasn't available branded as an i7 was that they wanted to keep it to the more expensive enterprise platform.
- AmVess 8y agoIntel isn't innovating outside of process. They've been on the same µarch for most of this decade. They've gotten rid of hyper-threading for most of their desktop parts with this "generation" and have taken the "moar cores" approach to progress. Sure, Intel's clocks are slightly higher than before, and their parts use less electricity, but they've been standing still in virtually all other areas.
- craftyguy 8y agoHigher clock speeds and lower power consumption are not exactly trivial improvements when the process technology hasn't changed significantly...
- AmVess 8y agoThe process has changed significantly. They are on their 4th iteration since 2012, and that has provided all their performance increases.
- ianai 8y agoIndeed, the speed increases seem superficial - they probably could have achieved those speeds in earlier iterations but couldn’t be damned to do so.
- throwaway2048 8y agoJudging by how well earlier generations overclocked (when not artificially restricted), they had this clock headroom pretty much the entire time.
- djsumdog 8y agoIs the removal of HT part of the security concerns? I wonder what security fixes are in places compared to the last generation (or do they still depend on the Win/Lin/Mac kernel workarounds?)
- 8y ago
- laythea 8y agoWell if I was Intel, and developed some new technology that is better than my current lineup, I would not immediately release it. I would release it when the time is right. Maybe drip feed it into the market, at times when AMD challenge for example.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sfink 8y agoNo argument. But I'm a developer on Linux who uses a couple of languages that compile to machine code. Which means that I don't care if AMD has something twice as fast, I'm going to buy Intel for one reason alone: their performance counters support running rr. That's at least a factor of two improvement in my productivity right there. Last I heard, Ryzen's perfcounters weren't deterministic enough for rr, so it's dead to me.
- berbec 8y agoFor others who aren't as knowledgeable, could you give a quick rundown of rr and what causes this massive AMD penelty? I've never heard of anything that is "switch to Intel for double the performance".