And you think Intel can do no wrong, and everything he says that is based on fact you ignore. He is right. 8 cores is not really desktop, its enthusiast or HEDT.
And you think Intel can do no wrong, and everything he says that is based on fact you ignore. He is right. 8 cores is not really desktop, its enthusiast or HEDT.You are really making the case that you just view everything through the lens of AMD partisanship.
You are being ridiculous, and you know it.Practically an insignificant reduction compared to using the Second NVMe slot on AMD's X470 platform.
And you think Intel can do no wrong...
It's not the end of the world, but it's definitely something to keep in mind due to its ongoing security implications (regardless of the manufacturer). People like to downplay everything related to it as if all security implications are already resolved, they aren't (again regardless of the manufacturer).Over and over we get the same people harping on Spectre/Meltdown like it's the end of the world, when it is negligible in general usage.
Where's these test results showing 2 NVMe drives running at full speed using the Z370 chipset? I saw results for a single NVMe drive. If you're only using a single drive, why would you use the slower slot on X470?Practically an insignificant reduction compared to using the Second NVMe slot on AMD's X470 platform.
By doing a simultaneous copy during a full transfer speed test, he reduced speed on Z370 drive to ~2600 MB/s.
Using the Second NVMe slot on AMD X470 speed was reduced to ~1300 MB/s, while it was doing nothing at all.
So Z370 was still twice as fast while doing a simultaneous copy. How terrible for Intel.
In practical terms running two fast NVMe drives:
1: On Intel Z370 your drives are almost always running full speed in normal use cases (not benchmarks will copying) and very occasionally you share some bandwidth and still have very high speed, that would almost certainly go unnoticed.
2: On AMD X470, one of your drives is fast all the time, while the other drive is drastically slower all the time.
Only extreme AMD partisans, make the the Z370 bandwidth sharing into some kind of major show stopping drawback, while quietly ignoring how much worse it is for X470.
This has to be one of the most "dripping with irony" statements I've ever seen here.Not at all.
I am just tired of people picking sides and then turning into partisan FUD machines, to support their chosen company, and spending their time making massive exaggerations, based on largely theoretical situations that have negligible impact in real world practical usage.
...............................................................................................................
We shouldn't be having these arguments. We should just be celebrating the great options we have on the desktop.
The sooner you get over this ardent defender syndrome, the sooner you'll start to realize the real benefits of this forum and eventually make a meaningful contribution to it. Many of us have been in your situation, I know I certainly did, and moved on towards a more constructive activity on the forums, or so I hope.But the FUD slinging against Intel isn't swaying me to AMD, in fact it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth that it makes it harder to chose AMD.
I really wish the FUD would stop, because it makes it that much harder to choose AMD, because it's being tainted by it's most ardent supporters.
Where's these test results showing 2 NVMe drives running at full speed using the Z370 chipset? I saw results for a single NVMe drive. If you're only using a single drive, why would you use the slower slot on X470?
If you think what people discuss about Intel is FUD, you need a bird's eye view on the historic content around here. At some point the FUD against Zen was so intense that the promoted ideas around here were "Zen is just a low power mobile core" because "AMD does not have the (financial) resources to build a high performance core anymore". The's FUD and HYPE trains on both sides of the isle, and what's even more sad than that this is the people who can only see half of the picture.
I'm talking about the period prior to the CB demo, since once the CB demo was out, the radical Intel side had an "oh **** moment" and went silent, while the radical AMD side had an "oh ****" moment and went full retard (which had the undesired effect of alienating many users with a positive view of Intel, who did not really mind the AMD FUD but kinda took it to heart when it transitioned towards Intel FUD). A thread like this should suffice to get the general feeling. It wasn't healthy skepticism, it was FUD in the lines of "AMD did not deliver anything decent in the last years, this arch will be no better".That is BS, i am around here for ages, and with Ryzen prerelease and leaks there were two stages:
I am not talking about partizan guys from both camps, but people with actual clue, some of whom were driven from these forums by never ending BS and attacks.
So the thing that many of us are awaiting is the new CPU in 2015 ? or do we wait for the new thing in 2016, will it be competitive with anything from intel in terms of games etc ?
No. Small cores is also their only future.
When you look on the R&D budget, there is no way AMD will be creating a big core that cost 4-5B$ or more to develop.
So to recap:
I'm sorry OP, but this is textbook FUD coupled with some official sources only to add credibility.
- Zen may have a hardware defect, may require re-manufacturing, but nobody can tell what that defect is or what the symptoms of the defect are.
- Zen may have "major" memory speed problems, except quoted problems refer to overclocking, which cannot be major by definition
- 6 days before launch without a final BIOS never happened before, except with Broadwell in recent history. Yes, the CPU that had issues with overclocking settings on some boards even months after launch.
Whether you like it or not, claiming they will sell a 6C/12T CPU with competitive IPC/clocks at $200 sounds way too optimistic.
I'm talking about the period prior to the CB demo, since once the CB demo was out, the radical Intel side had an "oh **** moment" and went silent, while the radical AMD side had an "oh ****" moment and went full retard (which had the undesired effect of alienating many users with a positive view of Intel, who did not really mind the AMD FUD but kinda took it to heart when it transitioned towards Intel FUD). A thread like this should suffice to get the general feeling. It wasn't healthy skepticism, it was FUD in the lines of "AMD did not deliver anything decent in the last years, this arch will be no better".
Also here's a set of quotes on what skepticism looked like back in the day:
But let's look further, how about a thread posted on 25 Feb 2017? I'll quote my own post from that thread, since the original content was removed.
So call BS if you feel like, but fact is between H2 2014 and up until Feb 2016 there was a lot of FUD promoted on this forum about the capabilities of AMD to execute a high performance core.
One last gem before I end my completely offtopic rant. While this may truly be healthy skepticism, it should serve us all as a lesson in how the status quo can bend perception even for people who really have a clue about tech:
Well who can argue against such a scientifically performed bench?! .... Can't possibly be anything other then pci lane count.EDIT: and system was in use at the time, perfectly usable, sound was coming out of USB headphones, playing youtube video in background.
The desktop PC use case for saturating more than one fast NVMe drive?
Many, you have one M2.0 drive and then you have a Secondary large SATA/USB 3.0/1 drive for storage. The moment you are going to transfer/copy from one to the other or to a third drive, your primary M2.0 on Intel Z370/390 will have half the speed.
And as prices going down, you may start with a single M2.0 drive but get a second or even third down the road. Then your Intel Z370/390 platform starts to have a serious bottleneck.
But if you think logically, you will only saturate a fast m2 ssd if you copy to another fast ssd.
I hate to say it, but this does make sense. But on HEDT, the threadripper has a dedicated 4x pcie lanes for all 3 m.2 slots directly to the CPU, while Intel is still limited as above.That is a bit too much to ask from average AMD fan i guess. No offense, but even without testing it is clear that AMD copy speed will be 1.5-1.7GB/s between two M.2 drives, one on CPU, second on chipset, cause the second one is bound by PCIE speed. And on Intel the speed will be 1.9-2.1GB/s (as shown by my testing, and predicted by common sense), cause total DMI bw is 3.9GB/s or so.
AMD is inferior but it does not matter in normal desktop use.
Yet somehow AMD zealots manage to spin this Intel "limitation".
P.S. I hate Intel marketing and management induced SKL-X platform PCI-E segmentation as everyone else, but on desktop both platforms are fine.
Correct me if I am wrong please.
If we are comparing Intel Desktop with AMD HEDT, then yeah. But HEDT versus HEDT i don't think storage is a problem on either platform? Those 44 PCI-E CPUs are obviuosly fine, with 28 CPUs one needs to be creative with PCI-E cards ( and adding extra 1-2 M.2 off chipset is perfectly fine ).
The problem is infamous Intel management and marketing, there must be a special kettle in hell with label VROC for them.
I am just tired of people picking sides and then turning into partisan FUD machines, to support their chosen company, and spending their time making massive exaggerations, based on largely theoretical situations that have negligible impact in real world practical usage.
Fair point, but not all of us feel that way. Intel has been consistent for the last 12 years - pushing the frontiers of performance and technology on the PC. Yes, the Intel platform may be more expensive than AMD's, but top tier performance comes at a cost, and not always proportionally. Intel didn't invent the wheel here. Where has AMD been all these years? Where was Plan B when Intel dropped Core? Well, AMD is an option now for those who felt forced to join the Intel platform. I just wish they can do so quietly without trying to force everybody to join them.While this is ironic from you as has already pointed out, what you don't realize is most people aren't picking AMD as their "chosen company" and then defending it with ridiculousness like The Elf, rather there is an enormous pent-up demand for schadenfreude wanting to see Intel get their come-uppance due to getting the Intel gouge for so long. They want to see someone/anyone cause Intel to suffer in the wallet, just like Intel has made them suffer in the wallet. Unfortunately since AMD has come close, but not quite far enough to outperform Intel, that leaves them frustrated so arguments get stretched and oranges get compared to apples, etc..
rather there is an enormous pent-up demand for schadenfreude wanting to see Intel get their come-uppance due to getting the Intel gouge for so long.
Why not just ignore the chipset lanes for higher speed stuff and just arrange more direct to CPU lanes for the higher performance ones?Both platforms need work. Intel not allocating some CPU lanes to m.2 is simply not appropriate for 2018 anymore. Amd needs to work on their chipset lanes and their 4k random read latency because the performance of the chipset slot is abysmal.
I speculate this plea will fall on deaf earsLess arguing. More speculation. Please.