His wished for Intel chips would put AMD right out of business...
His wished for Intel chips would put AMD right out of business...Your whole post boils down to you want (a) cheaper CPUs and (b) you want to reuse motherboards. That was quite a lot of ranting for two simple points.
Intel will either lower their CPU price, or will suffer at the enthusiast level. I personally suspect that Intel will lower their price, but I could be wrong. Ryzen is not out yet, so of course Intel won't yet respond. Probably Intel won't do much until Skylake-X comes out this summer.
As for reusing motherboards, you are in such a minority that Intel doesn't care. Even among enthusiasts most people get a new motherboard with new CPU generations. Yes, it is a nice-to-have. But, you are now putting a top-of-the-line processor into a motherboard with ports that are all out of date.
If you need or wanted more than 4 cores, Intel has had it since last spring. It isn't like Intel "failed to see the need". And the price point of ~$380 for the last few months isn't a deal breaker either for those who need the cores. In reality, the 10 nm process is delayed, so Intel didn't have another line ready in time for Ryzen. Plain and simple.
His wished for Intel chips would put AMD right out of business...
+1
It's crazy how many 'gloom and doom' threads about Intel have popped up since Ryzen was announced. They have only gotten more bombastic the closer we have gotten to its release. Sure there have been leaks, but nobody really knows how well it performs until the NDA expires tomorrow.
Your whole post boils down to you want (a) cheaper CPUs and (b) you want to reuse motherboards. That was quite a lot of ranting for two simple points.
As for reusing motherboards, you are in such a minority that Intel doesn't care. Even among enthusiasts most people get a new motherboard with new CPU generations. Yes, it is a nice-to-have. But, you are now putting a top-of-the-line processor into a motherboard with ports that are all out of date. Remember, Intel's customers are Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc who want to sell complete systems. You are not Intel's customer focus.
If you need or wanted more than 4 cores, Intel has had it since last spring. It isn't like Intel "failed to see the need".
So, AMD has had a once in a decade IPC improvement and caught up to 10 year old Intel architecture and all of a sudden Intel is doomed. When Intel releases Skylake X this year and Cannonlake next year....let's see what happens. Plus, everyone hating on Intel for not making IPC improvements this generation with Kabylake will hopefully give AMD the same treatment as Zen+ barely makes strides next time around as well. We all know that won't happen though. I'm not saying that Kabylake is the greatest chip for mainstream...but being able to run 4.8ghz core and 4.5ghz cache at 1.285v is not 'not' making progress over Skylake. Skylake chips can't sniff those speeds at that voltage.Lots more slides in the main WCCFTECH article.
Regards,
Vishnu
So, AMD has had a once in a decade IPC improvement and caught up to 10 year old Intel architecture and all of a sudden Intel is doomed.
Maybe I have my information wrong then. I am not above making an honest mistake. How old is Nehalem? I heard it being discussed and they said it was basically 10 year old architecture and that is the architecture Intel is still using. Not that Intel has not made improvements on it...just the basic framework is 10 years old.The way to respond to hyperbole is to present the level-headed argument as the alternative. Not more hyperbole.
I assume you are exaggerating that Intel hasn't really changed since much fundamentally in a while.
Or are you going on record with your prediction with Ryzen IPC only matching Kentsfield (Q6600)? That's what came out almost exactly 10 years ago.
Good catch! Didnt even notice! Thanks for the heads upI know it was an honest mistake when quoting and replying, but I just want to point out UsandThem did not say that anything that involves WCCFTECH. That was user thepaleobiker.
Oh, dang. My bad lol. I was trying to clean up the post and not make it so long and obviously goofed up on that.I know it was an honest mistake when quoting and replying, but I just want to point out UsandThem did not say that anything that involves WCCFTECH. That was user thepaleobiker.
I doubt Optane vs. SSD will "feel" the same way for users as SSD vs. HDD, especially with SSDs still being a moving target. It may be excellent for enthusiasts and professionals though.
Cue the Intel apologists, who claim that AMD was irrelevant for competition in the x86/x64 market, and that "Intel only competes with itself". If Intel wasn't so hell-bent on milking the market, then they wouldn't be "behind" (in mind share) today, on the eve of the Ryzen launch.Intel would have needed to decide to make the move to 6/8 core mainstream CPUs on their own, a long time ago, without reference to AMD's upcoming effort, in order to be in a good position when the RyZen benches leaked.
Optane is one possible edge that may keep people coming back to the Intel platform, even if they aren't absolutely in love with the CPUs..
Or NVMe drives may short-circuit the whole Optane revolution. Who knows?
How many programs can make use of "instant on" where load times is just a few ms or less, I can't think of any & we already have NVMe ssd that can achieve such feats ~ https://www.techpowerup.com/231084/kingston-announces-the-dcp-1000-pci-express-nvme-ssdRight now, there are still some situations where SSDs can have significant load times. If Optane can get around that, and basically make everything instant-on . . .
Coffeelake alone probably won't make much of an impact.
Kingston today announced the DCP-1000 line of high-performance PCI-Express SSDs, targeted at enterprises, particularly at data-centers with high bandwidth demands, the drives come in the half-height add-on card form-factor, and take feature a PCI-Express 3.0 x8 host interface (64 Gbps), and takes advantage of the NVMe protcol. It puts this interface bandwidth to good use, belting out sequential transfer rates in excess of 6,800 MB/s. The drive comes in capacities of 800 GB, 1600 GB, and 3200 GB.
All three models offer sequential read speeds of up to 6,800 MB/s. The 800 GB variant writes at speeds of up to 5,000 MB/s, while the other two models write at up to 6,000 MB/s. The 4K random access performance of the 800 GB variant is 900,000/145,000 IOPS (reads/writes); with the 1600 GB variant belting out 1,100,000/200,000 IOPS, and the 3200 GB variant 1,000,000/180,000 IOPS. The drives come with full-length heatsinks cooling the MLC NAND flash chips and controller; and a bank of capacitors that provide power-outage data-loss mitigation.
We are talking diminishing returns here. Think about how many people max out RAM on their systems in order to dramatically improve loading times in many apps through caching, and RAM is very cheap by comparison.Right now, there are still some situations where SSDs can have significant load times. If Optane can get around that, and basically make everything instant-on . . .
Just talking about Intel knowing about RyZen and reacting to it, which I don't think they could have done in time.Cue the Intel apologists, who claim that AMD was irrelevant for competition in the x86/x64 market, and that "Intel only competes with itself". If Intel wasn't so hell-bent on milking the market, then they wouldn't be "behind" (in mind share) today, on the eve of the Ryzen launch.
How many programs can make use of "instant on" where load times is just a few ms or less, I can't think of any & we already have NVMe ssd that can achieve such feats ~ https://www.techpowerup.com/231084/kingston-announces-the-dcp-1000-pci-express-nvme-ssd
I agree that Intel should have moved forward anyway, regardless of AMD, and should be in a better position now.
I get that & I recall some debate about this last year & on AT front page, anyway the point is the OS & programs are simply not there to handle drives that do I/O in ns, even if someone tried it'd be limited to certain enterprises because I'd assume the avg (program coded for) NVMe ssd could never match that. At that point RAM cache, as others have pointed & I have personal experience with, could simply be cheaper &/or less complex to implement.The NVMe SSDs are fast, but not for true instant-on computing. The SSD announcements almost always focus on MB/s, or IO/s. That's fine and dandy but its really only useful for a handful amount of people. To get the speeds they claim you'd have to be on a workload that matches the characteristics they got the speeds from.
Boot times exist because of storage limitation, be it SSD or so-called spinning rust drives. The latency is too high for storage compared to DRAM(like DDR4 RAM).
Optane has the potential to make instant-on happen but only when its on a DRAM interface, and only when the whole computing architecture is overhauled for it. I mean, BIOS changes, OS changes, applications you run on. Hard drives are so slow programs often insert delays to accomodate for them. For super fast technologies like Optane, the artificial delays are the limitations of true instant-on computing.
IMO Optane will have to undercut NVMe SSD on price, for it to truly gain traction, whether it be in the consumer sector or enterprise.
I didn't mean you when I said "Intel apologists". I was talking about a certain other member here, that often posts pro-Intel stuff, that has repeatedly claimed that AMD was irrelavent for competition, and that Intel only competes with itself.I agree that Intel should have moved forward anyway, regardless of AMD, and should be in a better position now.
Not sure how I am apologizing, especially since I don't think Intel needs any apologies.
The only consumer Optane is on NVMe.
How many programs can make use of "instant on" where load times is just a few ms or less, I can't think of any & we already have NVMe ssd that can achieve such feats ~ https://www.techpowerup.com/231084/kingston-announces-the-dcp-1000-pci-express-nvme-ssd
General rant on what Intel is doing, and why they haven't made "mainstream" 8C earlier...
There just hasn't been huge demand there; AT is the 0.1% when it comes to hardware, and 95% of the consumers out there couldn't max out a quad core if you told them to. For what little demand there is for consumer 8C, you can cough up $$$ for 6900, because it's called Intel Corporation not Intel CPU Charity and that's the state of the market.
Intel hasn't been trying to deliver POWER to the desktop. Desktop is no longer a growth segment for them. They have told shareholders they are shifting their focus away. Mobile has overtaken desktop and so the CPU R&D isn't aimed at power, but at making low TDP chips with iGPUs, so laptops can stream 4K, have better battery life, etc.
Intel is shifting their spending away from desktop. They will cede some small portion to AMD when the professional workstation users opt for 8C ryzen.
They are getting into FPGAs, AI, autonomous driving, 3DXP R&D, 5G, Internet of Things, etc. They are not devoting all of their budget to desktop chips.
Problem is, how many if any of those new initiatives will ever be profitable? I am not an intel hater by any means, but they have an atrocious track record when breaking into new markets. Just look at the money they poured down the rathole of mobile, where they should have had considerable expertise, but failed miserably and eventually gave up. I have said long ago in other posts that I thought intel's extreme segmentation of the market and obsession with margins would eventually catch up to them and bite them in the butt, especially in a declining market. I think with Zen, it finally has. If intel had brought a mainstream hex core to the market a year or two ago, such a chip on the Skylake architecture and with the high clocking 14nm+ process could have done a lot to defuse the frenzy for Zen. Now Coffee lake will be just "too little, too late". And they will most likely have to cut prices anyway, especially on the HEDT platform. But I guess from Intel's POV, they maximized profits for as long as possible.