AMD's next-generation CPUs could destroy Intel

X-Gamer said:
Let's be honest here, Intel are terrible at graphics and everyone knows it. A lousy control panel update doesnt mean anything. Whatever they release will only be suitable for the casual gamer already running onboard graphics.
They will need atleast 2 revisions before anyone will take them seriously.
Click to expand...
Lol, how would you know as there isn't even a product to show at this stage. We will see their 11 series, IIRC, integrated GPU being announced next week and then it is the run up to Xe. Whether we will be shown a proof of concept next week, that is the question.
 
Wasabee! said:
They currently have 14nm shortages and their 10nm fab process is behind their competitors' 7nm/8nm. These shortages have become double digit now to OEMs and with Ryzen being released on 7nm, it could provide another interesting turn of events.
Click to expand...

Their 14nm parts out-perform AMD's 12nm Zen parts...it's not as simple as a node-to-node comparison when looking at performance. Power consumption would favour the smaller process but performance is what drives the market.

It's going to be really interesting how the market responds when AMD have the better-performing products. It's the OEM guys who need to get on-board before AMD starts taking market share in a big way.
 
sajunky said:
I will chose AMD as now they are Spectre/Meltdown free. Intel CPU's are not (not all), even the latest crop. New ways to use these backdors are discovered, it requires constant workaround patches and system becomes less stable or slower after applying patches. So chosing Spectre/Meltdown free CPU for a new PC is a priority.
Click to expand...
You do know specter variant 2 is exploitable on AMD hardware, right? They did "fix" it with micro code updates though, but I do worry on those who don't patch their BIOS (I mean, how many of us actually check for BIOS updates? Just isn't done. Nice that most laptops have it in their software suite, e.g. Dell update center and Lenovo's one).
 
Fulcrum29 said:
Lol, how would you know as there isn't even a product to show at this stage. We will see their 11 series, IIRC, integrated GPU being announced next week and then it is the run up to Xe. Whether we will be shown a proof of concept next week, that is the question.
Click to expand...
Their track record, mainly. lol.

As you may tell, I have no concrete evidence :ROFL:
 
Neoprod said:
It's the OEM guys who need to get on-board before AMD starts taking market share in a big way.
Click to expand...
The HPs, Dells etc have not really embraced the amd cpus to date and i dont really get why, the cost vs performance is awesome, the power consumption is great etc. The only place where intel still hass an advantage is in ipc & single core performance but that is only in the extreme high end, for most applications like home & corporate office environments amd makes more sense.
 
Johnatan56 said:
?
Click to expand...
Your Google broke?

https://bgr.com/2018/11/01/ipad-pro-vs-xbox-one-s-specs-games-apple/
Of all the impressive features and specifications that Apple rattled off at its iPad Pro event in Brooklyn on Tuesday, the one that caught my attention was the company’s claim that the updated iPad Pro “delivers Xbox One S class graphics performance in a product that’s 94% smaller.”
Click to expand...

https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/...-nearly-matches-top-end-x86-cpus-in-geekbench
Geekbench 4 reports an iPad Pro with a single-core score of 5030 and a multi-core score of 17995. This compares well against the Apple MacBook Pro
Click to expand...
 
Johnatan56 said:
You do know specter variant 2 is exploitable on AMD hardware, right? They did "fix" it with micro code updates though, but I do worry on those who don't patch their BIOS (I mean, how many of us actually check for BIOS updates? Just isn't done. Nice that most laptops have it in their software suite, e.g. Dell update center and Lenovo's one).
Click to expand...
The first things, there were fixed already by microcode update. They do not require OS patching, that cause slowing down and instability. It is why I do say, they are Spectre/Meldown free and this is what I want. I will not invest in any CPU which requires OS patching, especially for a new PC.

Second things, I don't like marketting tricks of Intel. First they make CPU's truly Spectre/Meldown free and they spend a lot money for marketing this fact, then they release new series which have the old backdors. That is a cheat and not focusing on security at all.
 
Will wait for the proof in the pudding.

I game, so I use Intel. Willing to change my mind, if the results show Ryzen ahead in the games I play.
 
quovadis said:
As with all attempts in the past Intel will either adjust their pricing or release something with more performance.
Click to expand...
Except it seems Intel can't manufacture enough CPUs on 10nm at the moment causing prices to be inflated. I will definitely love to switch to Ryzen 3000 if the price is right and clock speed are 4ghz+
 
Roobir said:
Will wait for the proof in the pudding.

I game, so I use Intel. Willing to change my mind, if the results show Ryzen ahead in the games I play.
Click to expand...
Well the difference at 1080p was minor and at higher resolutions it was pretty much none, since it's near always the graphics card that matters. Save a little and get a better graphics card.

Here in South Africa though most Intel are still cheaper via Carbonite up until ~2 years ago, not sure current.

Since Ryzen was competing quite well at 14nm, they should beat Intel in IPC at 7nm. Intel also had the advantage of volume,so better binning. The bigger AMD gets the better they can bin, plus the modular design improved this even more.
 
Johnatan56 said:
Well the difference at 1080p was minor and at higher resolutions it was pretty much none, since it's near always the graphics card that matters. Save a little and get a better graphics card.

Here in South Africa though most Intel are still cheaper via Carbonite up until ~2 years ago, not sure current.

Since Ryzen was competing quite well at 14nm, they should beat Intel in IPC at 7nm. Intel also had the advantage of volume,so better binning. The bigger AMD gets the better they can bin, plus the modular design improved this even more.
Click to expand...
I am not too sure about minor difference at 1080p:

https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2018/cpus/9700k/intel-i7-9700K-f1-2018-1080p.png

https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2018/cpus/9700k/intel-i7-9700k-aco-1080p.png

https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2018/cpus/9700k/intel-i7-9700k-fc5-1080p_1.png

I am not trying to bash at all - I believe that the Ryzen CPUs are excellent value. Unfortunately, I am just interested in having the best gaming performance for now.
 
sajunky said:
The first things, there were fixed already by microcode update. They do not require OS patching, that cause slowing down and instability. It is why I do say, they are Spectre/Meldown free and this is what I want. I will not invest in any CPU which requires OS patching, especially for a new PC.

Second things, I don't like marketting tricks of Intel. First they make CPU's truly Spectre/Meldown free and they spend a lot money for marketing this fact, then they release new series which have the old backdors. That is a cheat and not focusing on security at all.
Click to expand...
There is also the new SPOILER exploit:
https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...data-spewing-spec-exec-vulnerability.1011250/
 
Roobir said:
I am not too sure about minor difference at 1080p:

https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2018/cpus/9700k/intel-i7-9700K-f1-2018-1080p.png

https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2018/cpus/9700k/intel-i7-9700k-aco-1080p.png

https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2018/cpus/9700k/intel-i7-9700k-fc5-1080p_1.png

I am not trying to bash at all - I believe that the Ryzen CPUs are excellent value. Unfortunately, I am just interested in having the best gaming performance for now.
Click to expand...
You're not going to notice those differences so it's minor.
 
Roobir said:
I am not too sure about minor difference at 1080p:

https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2018/cpus/9700k/intel-i7-9700K-f1-2018-1080p.png

https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2018/cpus/9700k/intel-i7-9700k-aco-1080p.png

https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2018/cpus/9700k/intel-i7-9700k-fc5-1080p_1.png

I am not trying to bash at all - I believe that the Ryzen CPUs are excellent value. Unfortunately, I am just interested in having the best gaming performance for now.
Click to expand...

The main thing is nobody with a 2080ti is gaming at 1080p.

I understand the rational of benching CPU's with the highest end GPU to eliminate any potential GPU bottleneck but it simply does not hold true for real world scenarios.

1080ti has a 1.6% market share, 2080ti 0.2%. Right now the 1060 has the most market share at 16% and for that gpu there's not gonna be a huge difference in performance when it's paired with something like an i5 8400 or r5 2600 which are more realistic.

Benchmarks are interesting but they don't tell the whole story. If you have the budget for a 2080ti then you also have the budget for an i7 9700k and it should be the the CPU to buy for such a build. For your average budget gamer the r5 2600 is exceptional value for money and it will trade blows with the more expensive i5 8400 in gaming but in productivity the 2600 takes the cake and you still have the option to overclock it with the stock cooler.
 
UrBaN963 said:
Destroy. Intel will be no more. Because of the release of a competitor processor. Because they are on the brink as it is. This single release could be the forest that breaks the camel's back. Because they have no other sources of revenue. Because they're just a startup.
Click to expand...
You, I like you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X