Discussion in 'AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by Frontl1ne, Sep 11, 2014.
No, not at all. That's why Intel is now upping their core counts. Because nobody cares.
for the tiny fraction of the market that is interested.
the majority will be on 6, 4, and to a lesser degree, 8 cores.
Yes this is one region but focus on the core count, more people are buying 8 core CPUs than they are quads.
It's very interesting to see for sure as it gives us (end users) valuable insight
ok. but only in the amd stack; factor in the 7700k and non k's and everything below, that's all quad cores. definitely outselling 8 core.
looking at that graph there is a growing trend in the amd stack of 8-core sales...
Of course, If the price and performance is right then people will want them, I'm over the moon seeing higher core count CPUs selling this way as it only means good things for gaming
where are you guys i feel all alone well not in the game score only got a little vega here but cpu scores just searching for the 4 and 8 core cpus....can't seem to find many if any...hmmm since this is the way gaming is moving that would be a shame
love the fact a threadripper took out top spot.
and at 4.1 gig
oh and the 4 way cards only 4 entries and 3 of those are amd....
have fun with the little chips and dragging back software innovation a few decades
tell the likes of microsoft to tailor their software toward multicore optimisation.
once intel brings multicores into the mainstream, amd will need to lift its game in the ipc department and core clocks.
the points of difference between intel and amd products...what are they?
they are very similar 8086 64 bit instructions sets. (whatever that means )
what are the nitty gritty details of product differentiation?
exactly and intel if you believe teh rumours are releasing an 8 core mainstream CPU next year (icelake)
hence the reason why I think zen 2 will have to add moar cores as they still wont beable to compete on IPC and clockspeed.
I am surprised AMD have sold any ryzen systems with all these bugs
for what purpose? adding more than 8 cores wont do squat for the mainstream. looks like currently they need 8 cores to match 6 cores in intel multicore.
next: a 12 core amd and an 8 core intel....then a 16 core amd vs a 12 core intel ....and a continued difference in ipc and clockspeed.
5.0ghz. yet to see ghz limits on 10nm. dont know how high that will go. amd need to increase ipc and clocks or they will lag further and further behind.
still too many programs are not written for multi-threads.
Would it be crazy to buy a Ryzen R3 1200 and overclock to 4GHZ to game at 2560X1440?
Looks like you could buy a board for around $120 and the CPU for $140 for a total of $260, thinking aloud cheap entry to Ryzen and spend more on the GPU, upgrade the CPU in a year or 2.
Only got me thinking because of how well the Intel G4560 does in games(for what it is) and thats a dual core part, atmittingly a cheaper CPU but the R3 1200 has 4 cores so its gotta count for something...
Did you happen to compare cpu scores? I know 7980XE is a dear mofo cpu but it destroys TR for physics ... ie 50% higher ... (twice the price I know ...)
There is a 7900X physics score that is pretty close to that TR score.
Ryzen 3 is better overall: https://www.techspot.com/review/1463-ryzen-3-gaming/page2.html
4.2Ghz vs 4.2Ghz
A fair comparison for budget systems would be the i3 8100 which is a good cpu hampered by expensive motherboards, quick look on statice suggests around $370 for the mothboard + CPU ($200+$170).
It's hardly an upgrade but I was given an ASRock Z77 extreme4 motherboard and looks like people are still paying good money for these on ebay, thinking about selling that for $150 maybe get another $50-$70 for the 8gig DDR3 + i5 2400, could then upgrade to Ryzen + 8gig ddr4 for an extra $130 odd, seems a waste to hang onto a good older motherboard when I'll never use SLI.
Sounds like you've already got it planned out then
Yeah I do.
The "logical" thing might be to buy a used 3570K overclock that to 4.5ghz but it's older hardware motherboard could cark it and it's nice to buy new things.
If I can be completely honest I'm an AMD fanboy and it's not all about the most performance, Ive always gone for the underdog.
Thinking of buying budget DDR4 and could sell the CPU & memory and upgrade to better stuff later on, Ive always bought cheap and upgraded later on just the way I do things, don't keep up with the Jones('s) when it comes to computers.
I don't think you actually understand the economics of semiconductors. AMD don't have to compete on raw IPC and clock speed. They only need to be there or thereabouts, they can undercut on price because their margins don't have to be anywhere near as high, because they don't need to fund the next fab upgrade, and fab costs at these new nodes are getting outrageous.
To be honest, if AMD actually had an IPC lead, it would be a miracle, given the difference in R&D budgets, and it would really make Intel look pretty poorly managed. The fact that they are even competitive in perf/W is pretty amazing.
In the server market with EPYC right now, Intel have been caught with their pants down, it is looking like it will be a bloodbath. The "glued together cores" comment on an official slide is an indication of how desperately they are clutching at straws. Ultimately they probably have no choice but to react like last time AMD were competitive (basically pay customers to not buy AMD), the only question will be: can they get away with it again?
eypc wont sell intel have parts with many more cores still and better performance on a proven reliable platform
no company worth a damn will take a risk on eypc considering the amount of bugs / issues ryzen had and continues to have.
OF COURSE YOU CAN CHERRY PICK WHERE INTEL ARE BETTER, OR WHERE AMD PERFORMS BETTER.
Dell clearly not worth a damn. Time will tell, let's re-visit this in 6 months time and see what happens in server market share. I am tipping > 20% turnaround, on the record.