Nicely written.I wasn't contending that point as I agree. I hope we never have that big of a difference between vendors again. It's the best CPU market in forever because AMD got their groove back. They need to sustain another 5yrs to really get us where we need to be though. Wintel is still most of the PC pie. I'd like to see AMD and Linux get a significantly bigger slice.
The problem AMD runs into is TSMC. Intel could shift CPU production to TSMC on some CPU's. That would negate any silicon advantage AMD has over Intel. If Intel's upcoming (20A & 18A) processes are good. That will not be necessary. On the graphics side of things. All three players in the GPU market are on TSMC silicon. It matters a great deal moving forward. Give it another year and I will say I told you so. AMD is going to have to start buying the premium TSMC silicon to compete with Intel and Nvidia.Nicely written.
I think Intel will loose some market share, unless It can supply enough chips, which is questionable considering how much of MTL is made by TSMC.
Intel needs It's FABs to be competitive or It will be only a burden on finances and won't help in supplying enough chips to market.
On the other hand I think AMD is very conservative in It's wafer allocation.
Zen4 was not a misfire. The higher TDP was an overkill, and didn't look good in efficiency, but you could lower It to what you wanted easily.AMD needs Zen 5 sooner rather than later. Zen 4 was a misfire. Not a bad one but they should have stuck with the 65w/1052/125w TDP of Zen3.
Come on man. Pretty gutsy accusing somebody of being a "die hard fan". (Well it was a pretty good movie: Yippy ki ay MF). Anyway, you must have selective memory. Bulldozer had the same power issues that Intel has now. The difference is that Bulldozer was far behind in performance (something like 30 to 40 average percent in games I think), while intel is much closer in performance, even against the purpose built V cache models which sacrifice some application performance to optimize gaming. In fact in some segments, intel has the lead in application performance due to the presence of e cores on the six and eight core lines.Except? You are funny. Take away Intel's cache advantage over non V-Cache Ryzens and compare at the same memory specs and AMD still at least trades blow with Intel's offerings on average. In fact we are not far from the Bulldozer situation. It's almost the same, just vice versa. If you want the best gaming experience then there is no other choice than AMD's V-Cache models at the moment. They are faster and use only half or even less energy to achieve this. You must be a die hard Intel fan to believe they are competitive in gaming. They are definitely NOT at the higher end of the scale. Just like Bulldozer was.
The Barton 2500+ left no question of AMD's superiority.Guys, I remember back in 2001 saying that the Athlon XP 1600 was better than the Pentium III 1000.
Turned out I was right.
0wned biatches!
Guys, I remember back in 2001 saying that the Athlon XP 1600 was better than the Pentium III 1000.
Turned out I was right.
0wned biatches!
My dreams in that era consisted of Tualatin Pentiums and Rambus powered P4s coz that cursed RAM was the only one at that time that could feed the P4 well. That's why I really want Intel to resurrect the P4 with LPDDR5-8533. I don't care if it's no faster than an Atom. I just want it! Coz I couldn't afford it back then and now I want it to run Linux and Windows 95 and use all my old software but I don't want a space heater so it should be fabbed on Intel 20A. Seriously, if I had Elon Musk level of riches, I would buy the entire P4 design from Intel and fab it myself on TSMC N3CustomFU node.The 1ghz P3 was better than a 1.4ghz P4.
Should have called them "air conditioner" instead.Come on man. Pretty gutsy accusing somebody of being a "die hard fan".
It is remarkable that this has happened. If you think about it...All three players in the GPU market are on TSMC silicon.
Should have called them "air conditioner" instead.
It is remarkable that this has happened. If you think about it...
I don't remember seeing anything about 3600s on Gregs channel, but the last one I saw where he was building a rackmount server was kinda cringe.Precisely. His channel hasn't grown much in the last 5yrs. Meanwhile Dawid does tech is strictly for the LULZ and has already passed him by. Bryan's been click farming hard in an attempt to grow the channel. E.G. he and his buddy Greg Salazar claiming Ryzen 3600s are dying like flies. Or his attempt to make latency some kind of hot button issue in the community.
We shot the messenger which is usually poor debating, but sometimes they have it coming.
In 2017 games were highly multithreaded because they had to run on the crap Jaguar octacore cpus in the PS4/XB1 that had pathetic IPC and ran at half the clockspeed of modern gaming cpus.It is not, look better, 8370 is faster in MT than the 2600K and is not far in games, and this was in 2017 when few games were MThreaded.
In the CPU perf chart Computerbase average include ST scores of Cinebench and 3DPM, wich are irrelevant for a comparison since renderings Fi are not done in ST.
3DPM at the time was hugely unoptimised for AMD uarch, not counting that Euler 3D was officialy said as being purposely unoptimised for AMD.
I could never understand people paying $200 to $250 for Haswell i5 when you could get effectively an i7-4790 without an igpu for $250 with the Xeon E3-1231v3. When I bought that chip in 2014 it was crystal clear 4C/4T would age like milk due to the cpus in the consoles that demanded parallelization across 8 cores and if there was one constant in PC gaming, it was that you could always expect lazy console ports. So buying a 4C/8T seemed like a no-brainer since you got the IPC and clocks of the i5 but also the extra threads of the i7 that would largely mitigate the core count deficiency. That was a great gaming cpu for me until I finally replaced it in 2022 when it couldn't run 60 fps in Elden Ring at launch. Plus it was awesome even on the stock cooler in hot as hell Texas.I recently sold the FX 8350 I bought from Virtual Larry. I had a thread revisiting that CPU a few years back - http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...ime-to-talk-about-it-because-reasons.2581021/
What's important to remember is that by the time Haswell showed up, you could get a FX 8320e on sale for less than the cheapest i3, and an FX 8350 on sale for the same or a little more than the most expensive i3. Newegg would fire sale FX like that every few months. The i7 was in a class by itself for mainstream users and priced accordingly. I paid less than a $100 for my 8320e and 8350 BNIB BITD. That's less than the i3 sold for. By contrast I paid $220 for the Devil's Canyon i5. Go watch RA Tech's vids I shared in that thread and tell me how the 2/4 and 4/4 Intel CPUs held up in more modern gaming on windows 10 vs similarly or lowered priced 8 series Vishera. Or even in more multithreaded games of the era like Battlefield 5 64p and Witcher 3. Richard from Digital Foundry was the first reviewer I am aware of to point out that in Novigrad the i3 and i5 were having frame pacing issues while the 8350 was providing a superior experience. I had some stuttering issues with a 3200G in that scenario with 100% CPU usage. My testing with the 8350 showed it to be better in the same situation with the same GPU, despite PCIe 2.0.
I could never understand people paying $200 to $250 for Haswell i5
Don't forget the $200 Z97 board with armor back when a good B85 board cost $85. Got in so many arguments with PC Master Race telling them that 4690k was going to age like crap and that clockspeed could never make up for not having HT when you had a core count deficiency, otherwise a heavily overclocked Pentium G3258 would have smoked the i3-4130 in gaming.It is what the experts said was the best price/perf, bang for the buck. Then they would go overclock that K model with a $100+ cooler.
Anybody?What about ARM CPUs from Apple or Qualcomm, which do not have hyperthreading?
Are 8 cores without SMT, future proof?
Honestly it's too vague of a question to answer. It depends on what your definition of 'future' is. My i5-4670k still does what I need it to do, but I don't game nearly as much as I used to and the games I play tend to be older. I can play RDR2 and GTAV with a Radeon 5600XT just fine, so it's been future proof for me. On the other hand I don't think I'd get away with Cyberpunk or BG3. Win10 is going EOL next year, so definitely not future proof in that context either.Anybody?
If you don't have backward compatibility with a huge software library to begin with (which could be used to benchmark the status quo) asking to qualify future prooveness is kind of futile.Are 8 cores with no SMT, future proof?
What is this analysis doing in a retro Bulldozer thread? As much as I want to point and laugh at the idea of Intel effectively abandoning their own fabs (and undermining IFS) by shifting all their critical parts to TSMC, this thread is not the place for that.Intel could shift CPU production to TSMC on some CPU's. That would negate any silicon advantage AMD has over Intel.