6 ms·
"You're getting 24.83% more performance while costing 73.29% less." This is a terrible performance summary. Let's try to normalize it in terms of Geekbench poi
by localhost 7y ago
"You're getting 24.83% more performance while costing 73.29% less."
This is a terrible performance summary. Let's try to normalize it in terms of Geekbench points / $:
Intel = 155050 / $52044 = 2.97 / $
AMD = 193554 / $13011 = 14.88 / $
AMD has a 5x advantage on the price of the CPU alone, not factoring in the price of the motherboard and other components (this is a 4 socket Intel motherboard vs. a dual socket AMD).
5X. That's incredible.
- hesdeadjim 7y agoAnd don’t forget power consumption.
- pinkfoot 7y agoOpex: amortised immediately
- rrss 7y agoWhat's terrible about it? It says the same as yours. 1.25/0.25 = 5
- Buraksr 7y agoAMD has always had the problem of having weaker cpu's that were better per dollar. I agree they should have highlighted the 5x advantage, but for a long time people have regarded AMD as the value weaker option; this is what changed this gen and what they are trying to higlight. Finally AMD gets more performance for cheaper and is no longer just a better value in some applications
- stefan_ 7y agoWell, they weren't better per dollar once you factored in power consumption.
- philjohn 7y agoFor bulldozer, maybe, but pre core uarch they were faster and more energy efficient.
- antisthenes 7y agoPhenom, Phenom II, Bulldozer & Piledriver, all had worse performance/power. Basically all of their CPUs from 2007 until 2014, a full 7 years.
- rodgerd 7y agoAre you factoring in the Spectre losses?
- philjohn 7y agoYes, as I said, pre Core uArch, which launched in 2006 for laptops and 2007 for desktops. Prior to that Intel was on the dead-end NetBurst and Athlon 64 and derivatives were the better chip when it came to performance per watt and outright computational power.
- nolok 7y agoWhich also got majorly reversed now, intel uses way more power than amd for equivalent performances
- joemag 7y agoInteresting pricing decision by AMD. Given their performance, and no other competition in x86 market besides Intel, surprised they chose to sell at such a steep discount. Sometimes, such pricing decisions can perpetuate “you are a weaker substitute” perception.
- BubRoss 7y agoThis isn't a lifestyle brand like whiskey or hand bags, CPU performance, power consumption and system price are all fairly easy to quantify.
- trhway 7y agoOur BigCo catalog contains only few high-core 1x/2x Xeons. Our huge C++ project linearly benefits from hardware performance, yet there is no way one can get anything outside of the catalog. The product is also certified to run only on Intel, so our customers are running only Intel.
- catexception 7y agoYou are correct that customers that already use both Intel and AMD would likely choose AMD over Intel even with a price difference of 10% if they were deciding on price/performance ratio. However, I think it's likely that AMD is trying to win market share from customers that are currently mostly using Intel. In my humble opinion that strategy is paying off now that more big shops such as Amazon AWS have AMD options.
- SteveNuts 7y agoIt's a smart decision in the era of public clouds, for sure. On-prem shops will be more hesitant because with things like VMware you can't hot move VMs between differing CPU architectures. In order to win these customers over you have to have longevity (that you'll still be the price/performance in 5 years when you lifecycle your hardware).
- localhost 7y agoLisa Su is on record as talking about revenue / market share being a key focus:[1] “We are always looking to increase our market share. That’s why we put out great products. As it relates to our market share targets, for server what we’ve said is we can achieve double digit market share from 4-6 quarters from the end of 2018.” [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/14579/all-ryzen-qa-with-amd-ceo-dr-lisa-su https://www.anandtech.com/show/14579/all-ryzen-qa-with-amd-c...
- zamadatix 7y agoI think it's best to say it the way they did. It's one thing to be faster per dollar but it's another thing for to win on performance as well. From single core to same number of cores to having more cores the 7742 wins in each case and still comes out on top. That's far more amazing than being 5x cheaper. Everyone has known Intel has charged an outrageous premium for a long time but it was also the best so people dealt with it.
- nextos 7y agoThe single core performance is remarkable given that Intel has always been very strong there. How is Linux compatibility in case of AMD these days? Intel is really good, if we ignore the need for blobs for their wireless cards. Everything just works, and it is energy efficient.
- genkimind 7y agoI can only speak for the first gen zen. There's a bug with most motherboards that cause a hard lockup every day or so. Changing the power state fixes the problem with an updated bios but disables boost. Thread: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196683 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196683
- roenxi 7y ago> How is Linux compatibility in case of AMD these days? You install linux on an AMD system and it runs. Its been that way for a decade. If you buy an AMD GPU and choose a wireless card with care then there really isn't anything to think about when using linux except maybe needing a firmware blob. AMD is one of the better vendors for linux compatibility. CPU, GPU, whatever. All has first class open source support. It isn't fun like the good old days when things went wrong and people had to learn about the internals of the system to make things run, fighting the hardware every step of the way. Kids these days will have no opportunity to learn how all this stuff hangs togther. It could be worse than the time everyone stopped having to learn assembly. We live in an age of moral decay.
- 7y ago
- jsjohnst 7y ago> AMD has a 5x advantage on the price of the CPU alone Maybe I missed something in your comment, but how did you come up with 5x? $52,044 / $13,011 = 4.000000000 If instead, I use the numbers from the article, you get: Intel: $52,044 AMD: $13,900 Which comes out to 3.74x. If you normalize for performance, then yeah, you get 4.86x. But that doesn’t match up with your numbers ($13,900 vs $13,011). So was it a typo, or are you doing something different?
- MuffinFlavored 7y agohttps://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16819113581 https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16819113581 When will a product where consumers who don't want to spend $7.5k on a processor but still benefit from 5x-bang-for-buck be released?
- Tepix 7y agoThe price advantage is less pronounced for desktop CPUs, however if you buy a AMd Ryzen CPU you are already getting more bang for the buck than buying Intel.
- nolok 7y agoAnd is destroying intel bang for the buck on desktop and high end computer. Way more power and still for a lower cost, with massively lower power usage too. The only area where intel is not currently being destroyed that way is laptop chips, everything else from the 100$ chip to the 7500$ chip going and means cheaper than intel’s alternative for more performance and less power usage.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]