Lol, ABWX claims to know about Intel's manufacturing processes, yet doesn't even know their name.
Priceless.
Priceless.
As said, that average number (and based on simulations anyway), doesn't apply equally to any benchmark. Take 2 SPECCPU results of different uarchs with one being 40% higher and have a look at the variance of the sub benchmarks.If it has higher than 40% uplift over Excavator, why didn´t AMD say so. It´s not like they can afford to make any understatements...
Llano vs. Sandy Bridge was about old vs. new feature set and lots of uarch improvements (unified scheduler, uOp cache, SMT, 4-wide decode, etc.).So, back to Llano ??? 2x Llano cores were almost the same as a single SandyBridge. But this time "Llano" has 40% increase of IPC and SMT.
Could they make such a wide core with 4x ALUs, 2x AGUs and FPU unit at 4-5mm2 on the 14nm FF ???
And if ZEN core is only 4-5mm2 they could make a 8x Core 16x Threads die at 120-140mm2 or even smaller (depending on the L3 cache size and hyper-transports or equivalent).
The exact size also depends on the libraries they use. My first estimations were based on scaled down XV components with an high performance library compensation factor.So do you think AMD could cram enough hardware on 4.5mm^2 to be competitive in terms of performance and efficiency against a 8mm^2 Skylake core on integer performance, meaning that Intel is basically doubling the size of the core just to get better FP performance?
This plan sounds like a fast death sentence for AMD ,in other words, BD no 2. Why go with many small cores plus SMT when you can have similar MT performance but better ST performance If you go with a moderate amount of wider cores+SMT?
What a ridiculous argument. 8 core Broadwell-E will probably slot nicely into the $600 price point, so it's not an "either or" between your two scenarios.
I get that you really want AMD to succeed, but you shouldn't assume that the people determining which SKUs to offer at Intel at complete morons.
How much does it cost for 14nm 100mm^2, 150mm^2, 200mm^2 cpu chips?
Intel had been enjoying the fat margin on those high end parts.
People buy them because of no competition.
How much does it cost for 14nm 100mm^2, 150mm^2, 200mm^2 cpu chips?
Intel had been enjoying the fat margin on those high end parts.
People buy them because of no competition.
Is Intel price gouging? What makes you say that anyway? Intel sold the i7 920 at $280 when released. The i7 6700K was $320. Given that was 7 years ago, that's pretty darn close. It's AMD that has been lowing the prices, due to lack of value, that makes you think Intel is price gouging. And don't bring up the retailers who are upping the price due to high demand, that was not Intel's price point.
Is Intel price gouging? What makes you say that anyway? Intel sold the i7 920 at $280 when released. The i7 6700K was $320. Given that was 7 years ago, that's pretty darn close. It's AMD that has been lowing the prices, due to lack of value, that makes you think Intel is price gouging. And don't bring up the retailers who are upping the price due to high demand, that was not Intel's price point.
Nobody said anything about gouging, but CPU margins have been increasing for Intel, rather than remaining steady.
The exact size also depends on the libraries they use. My first estimations were based on scaled down XV components with an high performance library compensation factor.
It could be close to 6 mm^2, but then it starts to get unlikely.
They might simply have sacrificed some FP performance scenarios (AVX 256b), exactly that, what still takes ~1/4 of Intel's 256b AVX cores.
Ah, I see, AMD is a charity. Got it.
According to Intel, the price per transistor drops 30% or 1.43x per generation.Bad math
According to Intel, the price per transistor drops 30% or 1.43x per generation.
Well if price does not matter and you want max MT performance, then you should be looking at the Intel Xeon series. Perhaps the 18C/36T E7-8890v3 at "just" $7174.
Seriously, I guess even you have some price sensitivity.
Also, Zen is 2016Q4, so it'll be competing with Broadwell-E, not KabyLake-E or CannonLake-E which will be much later.
So just a hypothetical example:
-Broadwell-E performs 10-20% better than Zen
-Zen costs $600
-Broadwell-E costs $1000
Which one would you pick?
And how about a 10% performance lose against Intel on stock.... but with 10% more overclocking potential?I should only look at the E7-8890 v3 if it outperforms other processors for my mixed usage scenario. If that processor outperforms a Broadwell-E in gaming, I'll buy it. Currently, no one bothers to even benchmark those because they don't, though.
And I would buy the Broadwell-E. 20% more performance is ENORMOUS, and there's nowhere else in the system I could make up that performance deficit for $400. At least no place that I know of... I already have 3 GTX 980 Ti cards, so would adding a 4th make that up for $400? First I'd have to find a $400 one, which isn't likely, unless its used, maybe.
And no, price is not an issue for me, at all. You're talking to someone who ordered a Storinator S45 with 45 WD Red 6 TB drives. Total price was around $27000. And its sole purpose in life is to store television and movies for me. So let me repeat.
Price is not an issue.
Ok, I see. Well in that case I don't think 8 core Zen is what you're looking for. And you should maybe even be looking at something with more performance than the Intel HEDT series too.
I should only look at the E7-8890 v3 if it outperforms other processors for my mixed usage scenario. If that processor outperforms a Broadwell-E in gaming, I'll buy it. Currently, no one bothers to even benchmark those because they don't, though.
And I would buy the Broadwell-E. 20% more performance is ENORMOUS, and there's nowhere else in the system I could make up that performance deficit for $400. At least no place that I know of... I already have 3 GTX 980 Ti cards, so would adding a 4th make that up for $400? First I'd have to find a $400 one, which isn't likely, unless its used, maybe.
And no, price is not an issue for me, at all. You're talking to someone who ordered a Storinator S45 with 45 WD Red 6 TB drives. Total price was around $27000. And its sole purpose in life is to store television and movies for me. So let me repeat.
Price is not an issue.
And how about a 10% performance lose against Intel on stock.... but with 10% more overclocking potential?
There's nothing better for gaming right now. There's a such thing as throwing good money after bad, and that's what I'd be doing if I, say, went with a dual processor LGA 2011-3 motherboard.
Two Broadwell-E processors might give me 20 total cores and 40 threads, but that doesn't mean anything if my games can't take advantage of it.
My upgrades are always based on what kind of benefit I'll say for gaming, primarily, then video editing. At some point, you're just saying you have bigger better badder stuff to dick measure.
I'm not interested in that. I built a 270 TB storage array because I legitimately believe that it will last me for the next 5-10 years of Blu-ray ripping, not because I wanted to say that I have 270 raw TB of storage.
Having said all this, I would be ecstatic if benchmarking showed that a dual processor -E series solution actually improved FPS in games, but I'm not hopeful that DirectX 12 is going to be able to make use of even 8 cores, much less 10 to 20.
So wait, you have an assload of money to throw away on hardware, but pirate movies and software?
So wait, you have an assload of money to throw away on hardware, but pirate movies and software?