Intel Says AMD EPYC Processors "Glued-together" in Official Slide Deck

[Galactic S.O.U.L]

[QUOTE][IMG]https://www.techpowerup.com/img/D6yg00RK3J4Y9OcL.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]So, yes, Intel, I think the AMD engineers who have developed the Zen architecture from the ground-up would take issue with that. Especially when AMD's "Glued-together" dies actually wipe the proverbial floor with the blue company's chips in power-performance ratios, and deliver much better multi-threaded performance than Intel's offerings. Not bad for a "Glued-together" solution, I'd say.

Our resident W1zzard had this to say regarding AMD's latest CPUs: "The SenseMi power-management system seems to be working well in idle, with the 8-core machine drawing the same amount of power as Intel's quad-core "Kaby Lake" machine." And "At stock speeds, the energy-efficiency of Ryzen is truly phenomenal. Prime95 loads all cores and threads on the chip, and the Ryzen ends up with as much power draw as the quad-core Intel i7-7700K. The high power draw result of the overclocked chip is due to the increased voltage needed to achieve stable operation." And let's not forget this: This is epic. We're assuming you've sifted through our game-test results before seeing this page, and so you'll find that the gaming power draw of the 8-core Ryzen makes Intel's quad-core i7-7700K look bad. Power draw is as much as 30W lesser! Ryzen is hands down the most energy-efficient performance CPU AMD ever made, and easily outclasses Intel's 14 nm "leadership." Good show."
[/QUOTE]

[url]https://www.techpowerup.com/235092/intel-says-amd-epyc-processors-glued-together-in-official-slide-deck[/url]
Some perfomance metrics of EPYC vs Xeon and power consumptuon on the same program
[QUOTE][IMG]https://www.techpowerup.com/img/SCirlIirH74lRr7A.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]https://www.techpowerup.com/img/HRRIC0m9JfoqfD7P.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

[Hieruda]

-snip-

[RockSushi]

Someone is envy

[BryBreadmin]

"Glued together" says the company using cheap-ass thermal paste under their lids instead of soldering them like AMD.

[Omilinon 👻]

A little off-topic, but does anyone else see the "EPYC" label as a really cringe/off-putting name for a processor line?

Hilarious that Intel is the one trying to take a jab at AMD though, considering what a shitfest of a launch the company has pulled through this year with the i9.

[Froztshock]

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;52463776][img]http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/AMD-Intel-Q3-2017-CPU-Market-Share.png[/img]

lmao[/QUOTE]

Honestly this is kinda' a relief. It would suck if one company overtook the market completely. Competition begets better products and prices.

[Curls]

Intel is sweating

[Galactic S.O.U.L]

[QUOTE=Omilinon;52463772]A little off-topic, but does anyone else see the "EPYC" label as a really cringe/off-putting name for a processor line?

Hilarious that Intel is the one trying to take a jab at AMD though, considering what a shitfest of a launch the company has pulled through this year with the i9.[/QUOTE]

I guess they did it to keep the theme with RYZEN

[daigennki]

You know AMD succeeded when Intel gets that salty. Cannot wait to see their reaction when Ryzen gets into the mobile (laptop) market.

[YOMIURA]

[QUOTE=daigennki;52463855]You know AMD succeeded when Intel gets that salty. Cannot wait to see their reaction when Ryzen gets into the mobile market.[/QUOTE]

Can Ryzen be scale down for mobile? I remember too well intel's disasterous attempt, and I don't think AMD has ability to experiment.

[octopod]

This is hilarious, but I hope Intel comes to their senses and actually tries to compete. It would suck for AMD to basically take Intel's place in the market.

[Cutthecrap]

This even more incredible as Intel invests a crapton of money in R&D. Waaaay more than AMD.

[IMG]https://hardzone.es/app/uploads/2015/03/1amd_nvidia_intel.png[/IMG]

Can someone who knows more about the industry verify this? If it is as the graph says then this is really incredible.

[YOMIURA]

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;52463905]This even more incredible as Intel invests a crapton of money in R&D. Waaaay more than AMD.

[IMG]https://hardzone.es/app/uploads/2015/03/1amd_nvidia_intel.png[/IMG]

Can someone who knows more about the industry verify this? If it is as the graph says then this is really incredible.[/QUOTE]

Intel develops its own fab, so the research cost will be magnitude different.

[Paul-Simon]

Interesting how POV-Ray is being used as a benchmark here, a ray-tracer essentially from the stone age. (Released in 1992)

[JustExtreme]

[QUOTE=froztshock;52463781]Honestly this is kinda' a relief. It would suck if one company overtook the market completely. Competition begets better products and prices.[/QUOTE]

Imagine if they worked together and reduced the wasteful duplication of effort and increased resource usage that comes from the market competition circle jerk.

I'll go back to my commie hovel...

[daigennki]

[QUOTE=YOMIURA;52463874]Can Ryzen be scale down for mobile? I remember too well intel's disasterous attempt, and I don't think AMD has ability to experiment.[/QUOTE]

No, of course I do not expect them to shrink it down to smartphone size if that is what you mean, there is no demand for that anyways. I meant mobile as in laptops. They already announced they will be coming later this year: [url]http://www.pcworld.com/article/3197117/components/amds-ryzen-mobile-chips-are-ready-for-liftoff-with-the-new-ryzen-pro-not-far-behind.html[/url]

[halfer]

So is gaming performance still [I]not good[/I] with Ryzen? That's what I remember hearing around release, not great gaming performance, amazing multi-threaded performance with specific workloads

[helifreak]

[QUOTE=halfer;52464189]So is gaming performance still [I]not good[/I] with Ryzen? That's what I remember hearing around release, not great gaming performance, amazing multi-threaded performance with specific workloads[/QUOTE]

I'm getting better performance than my i5 6600k in games but that might be due to 1333 vs 2800 MHz RAM more than actual CPU performance.

[editline]oh boy[/editline]

Ryzen 7 1700 that is.

[Rixxz2]

Last time I checked it was Intel who recently released processors with overclocking in mind. They cheaped out on those, not only in the way that they're not soldered, the thermal paste between the die and the IHS is extremely cheap, as in, barely thermally conductive fucking garbage cheap, leading to many processors reaching temperatures as high as 90C even with more than adequate cooling and stock clocks. "Just don't overclock it, then, and as long as it doesn't reach 100C it's totally fine thanks for your money btw man this no competition thing's real great :)"
Then we have their very recent, super expensive but admittedly also kinda fast (still not fast enough to justify the price IMO) LGA2066 processors, the problem is that they also consume tons of energy, and guess what, they still use the same fucking TIM. 1000+USD product but fuck you we're not gonna spend a single dime making sure it can dissipate heat properly. Conducting 200+ watt through a layer of almost literal shit, good job

Also;

[IMG]https://www.techpowerup.com/img/JuelvSaPA7rFAk6q.jpg[/IMG]
[quote=The Article]On SMT implementation between AMD's SMT and Intel's HT, Intel is basically comparing a $2,200 8-core Xeon to AMD's $499 Ryzen 7 1800X.[/quote]

lmao fuck off Intel

And yes, I am still salty about my 7700K

[Kaido]

[QUOTE=Rixxz2;52464203]Also;

[IMG]https://www.techpowerup.com/img/JuelvSaPA7rFAk6q.jpg[/IMG]

lmao fuck off Intel[/QUOTE]

And they lowered the speed of the Ryzen one at 2.2 GHz which by default is 3.6 or with turbo 4 GHz...

[Big D Duchovny]

Well the glued together approach is pretty fucking ingenious - right now AMD is using essentially (or well, they are) the same die in its entire Ryzen product stack. They're probably saving millions and millions on basically just having to do binning, and not having to design an actual 32-core design and have a line setup for only that design. What AMD is doing in the CPU space right now seems seriously smart.

The only issue with EPYC that I can see is when cores will have to pull data from L3 caches, because the data you need might be on a complete different die, driving up latency by a lot. Don't know how much that crops up in server/scientific work, though.

[SirJon]

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;52463776][img]http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/AMD-Intel-Q3-2017-CPU-Market-Share.png[/img]

lmao[/QUOTE]

as much as I like intel, I sure hope AMD goes on like this

[Ogopogo]

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;52463776][img]http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/AMD-Intel-Q3-2017-CPU-Market-Share.png[/img]

lmao[/QUOTE]

The graph has been updated since, and it isn't quite that sudden a jump anymore, though it still is a noticeable increase.

[Johnny on Flame]

[QUOTE=halfer;52464189]So is gaming performance still [I]not good[/I] with Ryzen? That's what I remember hearing around release, not great gaming performance, amazing multi-threaded performance with specific workloads[/QUOTE]

In all patched games the performance is amazing, you'll see reduced performance in very few games, the majority (all?) are titles you won't have that much trouble either way.

I'm getting great performance on basically anything I throw at it.

[404 Not Found]

[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;52464505]In all patched games the performance is amazing, you'll see reduced performance in very few games, the majority (all?) are titles you won't have that much trouble either way.

I'm getting great performance on basically anything I throw at it.[/QUOTE]

Performance is within 10-15% of intel's max when gaming, but often with better minimum and average framerates. For gamers who don't need 8c16t, they will find the same per-core performance on the 4c8t and 6c12t parts which can be cheaper than i5s.

It's really a no-brainer unless you like overclocking for the fun of it, because Ryzen doesn't OC past 4.0-4.2GHz unfortunately

[Johnny on Flame]

[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;52464595]Performance is within 10-15% of intel's max when gaming, but often with better minimum and average framerates. For gamers who don't need 8c16t, they will find the same per-core performance on the 4c8t and 6c12t parts which can be cheaper than i5s.

It's really a no-brainer unless you like overclocking for the fun of it, because Ryzen doesn't OC past 4.0-4.2GHz unfortunately[/QUOTE]

The performance on Multithreaded loads is absurd for the price tho, I never compiled so fast in my entire life :v:

[Ogopogo]

And on the note of AMD stuff, threadripper prices are out
1950X (16c/32t), 3.4ghz base, 4.0ghz turbo, $1000 USD
1920X (12c/24t), 3.5ghz base, 4.0ghz turbo, $800 USD

[Rixxz2]

[QUOTE=halfer;52464189]So is gaming performance still [I]not good[/I] with Ryzen? That's what I remember hearing around release, not great gaming performance, amazing multi-threaded performance with specific workloads[/QUOTE]

Gaming performance on Ryzen has never been bad, it's just never been quite as good as Intel's gaming flagships (I.E, i5 7600K and i7 7700K). When I think 'bad' I think processors that are more expensive than Intel's alternatives, while they also consume more power and are slower than them. I.E, how it was with the FX 8350 and Intel's Core i3.
If you on the other hand look price/performance, with, for instance, the R5 1600, it's closest competitor is the i5 7500. The 1600 currently performs about the same as it in games, but instead of 4 cores and 0 additional threads, you get 6 cores and 12 threads, making it absolutely crush it in anything multithreaded. On top of that you can squeeze even more performance out of it by overclocking it, which can be done with the stock cooler that's provided in the box.

[phyton92]

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;52464604]And on the note of AMD stuff, threadripper prices are out
1950X (16c/32t), 3.4ghz base, 4.0ghz turbo, $1000 USD
1920X (12c/24t), 3.5ghz base, 4.0ghz turbo, $800 USD[/QUOTE]

That pricing is going to make Intel run for its money. I for one welcome competition because the winner is obviously the consumer and if it means kicking Intel in the balls, im in.

[Da Space Core]

Ryzen isnt bad at gaming, its just that intel is slightly better at it.

But the extra core count gives ryzen a huge advantage in tons of other tasks and in multitasking.

Unless you are really pushing for that extra fps on your 8k, quad titan sli, 1000 watt setup, I see ryzen as being the better value for desktop users