3 ms·

„AMD is back again after more than a decade of struggling behind Intel, and more competition means better prices and better products.“ Except that new Ryzen pl

„AMD is back again after more than a decade of struggling behind Intel, and more competition means better prices and better products.“ Except that new Ryzen platform cost is so high that Intel wins the bang-for-buck race, at least in the low-mid end. We didn’t get lower prices, but at least we got technological progress.

tehbeard 4y ago
For a brief time with Ryzen 3000, AMD held the bang for buck. AM5 is a bunch of new tech all at once with the good OR of AND being a multithreaded king. It'll be interesting to see what there answer to p/e cores is.. I'm curious how much of the swing of pricing for Intel is better "material sourcing/economics of scale", or just digging into the war chest built up after a decade on top to counter the bad PR of locked features and high TDPs (thermals).
- iforgotpassword 4y ago
  I wonder if the P/E core thing is here to stay. Sure, we had it for a while now on phones, but I'd say they are still a different target when it comes to the desire for power saving. Overall they cause additional complexity for the chip itself, the OS scheduler, and software developers. See the whole AVX512 debacle. It seems like a quick solution, but once the performance race slows down again it might just make more sense to focus on making the fast cores more power efficient when under light load.
  - ColonelPhantom 4y ago
    Power efficiency isn't actually the point on desktop. The point is that a Gracemont cluster is around the same size as a Golden Cove core, while being faster in multithreaded workloads. However, because they're slow at lightly threaded work you still need some really fast cores too. Because Gracemont is so small, a chip can pack more MT performance for the same price.
thejosh 4y ago
Early adopter tax. DDR5, PCIE5, new CPU design was never going to be cheap for the first iteration.
iforgotpassword 4y ago
It was a smart move of Intel to still support DDR4 with the latest gen, letting AMD take the hit for the initially high prices of a new DDR generation. Let's hope AMD at least got to simplify their chips a bit by going 5 only.

tehbeard 4y ago

For a brief time with Ryzen 3000, AMD held the bang for buck. AM5 is a bunch of new tech all at once with the good OR of AND being a multithreaded king. It'll be interesting to see what there answer to p/e cores is.. I'm curious how much of the swing of pricing for Intel is better "material sourcing/economics of scale", or just digging into the war chest built up after a decade on top to counter the bad PR of locked features and high TDPs (thermals).

iforgotpassword 4y ago
I wonder if the P/E core thing is here to stay. Sure, we had it for a while now on phones, but I'd say they are still a different target when it comes to the desire for power saving. Overall they cause additional complexity for the chip itself, the OS scheduler, and software developers. See the whole AVX512 debacle. It seems like a quick solution, but once the performance race slows down again it might just make more sense to focus on making the fast cores more power efficient when under light load.
- ColonelPhantom 4y ago
  Power efficiency isn't actually the point on desktop. The point is that a Gracemont cluster is around the same size as a Golden Cove core, while being faster in multithreaded workloads. However, because they're slow at lightly threaded work you still need some really fast cores too. Because Gracemont is so small, a chip can pack more MT performance for the same price.

thejosh 4y ago

Early adopter tax. DDR5, PCIE5, new CPU design was never going to be cheap for the first iteration.

iforgotpassword 4y ago

It was a smart move of Intel to still support DDR4 with the latest gen, letting AMD take the hit for the initially high prices of a new DDR generation. Let's hope AMD at least got to simplify their chips a bit by going 5 only.