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

[QUOTE=Drag#!;52464212]And they lowered the speed of the Ryzen one at 2.2 GHz which by default is 3.6 or with turbo 4 GHz...[/QUOTE] it would be funny to see a kill-a-watt reading for each test as well since they fucked with the clock speeds

Ryzen is perfectly fine for gaming. In most tests it's better than Haswell/Broadwell, but worse than Skylake/Kaby Lake. Which is a perfectly fine place to be - nobody in their right minds are throwing out Haswell rigs for Intel's latest, not when even Sandy Bridge is still not worth upgrading from. Shit, I'm just getting around to replacing my [I]Conroe[/I] rig, although I am quite a bit behind the curve on that. The high core count of Ryzen seems more future-proof to me than the high frequency of Skylake. It's a simple fact of physics that we're not going to see 8GHz chips with any current technology, so whatever small, incremental edge Intel has there doesn't mean much. But consoles are running 8 cores now, and I'd not be surprised if games start really taking advantage of that. And then all the 4C4T Intel chips are going to go obsolete pretty quickly, while the Ryzen 6C12T you can get for the same price will be fine.

Meanwhile [media]https://youtu.be/J3pJ_--nf5E[/media]

Intel seems to be grasping at straws here, I think they forget they did exactly that with the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad.

The comparisons that anandtech have up really put into perspective the pricing AMD released today. [img]https://period.pw/sc/2017-07-13_10-20-08.png[/img] [quote]Intel has already announced that they will be launching the 18-core Intel Core i9-7980XE processor later this year for $1999, although final specifications have yet to be announced. Given the launch this week of Intel’s Skylake-SP Xeon processors, there is one CPU in that line-up that would fit the bill for an i9-7980XE candidate: the Xeon Gold 6150, running at a 2.7 GHz Base and 3.7 GHz Turbo at 165W, but this part has a list price of $3358.[/quote] And the 12/24 1920X looks competitive as fuck: [img]https://period.pw/sc/2017-07-13_10-22-48.png[/img]

[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] Just like the election [sp]I am not in any way comparing AMD to Trump, AMD is a very good processor[/sp]

[QUOTE=Megadave;52464792]Just like the election [sp]I am not in any way comparing AMD to Trump, AMD is a very good processor[/sp][/QUOTE] [sp]make cpus great again[/sp]

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;52464821][sp]make cpus great again[/sp][/QUOTE] Make AMD Great Again!

[QUOTE=helifreak;52464195]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.[/QUOTE] it wont be due to faster ram, it makes negligible difference

[QUOTE=Anteep;52464987]it wont be due to faster ram, it makes negligible difference[/QUOTE] It's notable enough to bother spending an extra dollar when buying new RAM, but unimportant enough to keep your 2133mhz RAM if you're coming from Skylake.

Bought my first CPU in 2005, and it was an AMD 4800+ X2 dual core. Just last week I bought my first AMD since, a Ryzen 1600X. Feels good to see AMD closing that ground again. I'd really like to upgrade my i7 3930K to a Threadripper next year if everything goes as well as it looks like it will. I actually never thought I'd start seeing benchmarks that reminded me of those days ever again from AMD. [img]https://s11.postimg.org/ykes85m9f/7424.png[/img]

I personally enjoyed AMD talking so much about the microarchitecture and all the various things they did for Ryzen, it was really interesting to learn more about that. When discussing the Intel budget though, I think its also worth pointing out how much business/work they have in academia and R&D, including the job of (poorly) maintaining their proprietary compiler. Despite said compiler not even being fully C++11 compliant, iirc...

Intel really baffled me with the market slides. It's supposed to be a launch for Skylake-SP yet half of the slides are used to directly attacking AMD products. When AMD launched Epyc, they barely mentioned Intel and referred to them as "competitor" in nearly every situation because they didn't want to give them any publicity despite Intel being much more popular. By directly naming and attacking AMD, Intel shows that they consider them a threat to their 95% server market share. Ironically, this may make potential customers more interested in AMD because if a company so much smaller than Intel is making them lash out, they must be doing something good. [T]https://my.mixtape.moe/cwklro.jpg[/T] So much segmentation.

I wanted to get some AMD processors for some of our new line of servers. My Boss has a similar line of thought to "AMD being held together by glue" and won't let me pick those :s:

[QUOTE=Saxon;52465205]I wanted to get some AMD processors for some of our new line of servers. My Boss has a similar line of thought to "AMD being held together by glue" and won't let me pick those :s:[/QUOTE] Get a test/trial unit and benchtest that mofo to make him eat his words?

[QUOTE=Fayez;52465161][T]https://my.mixtape.moe/cwklro.jpg[/T] So much segmentation.[/QUOTE] To be fair, Intel has some chips that AMD isn't even trying to compete with. A fair list would have a couple "N/A" entries under AMD for quad/octa-socket systems, the ultra-low-cost Xeons (for shit that needs ECC for reliability but doesn't need much CPU power), and whatever it is the Omni-Path chips are actually used for. Granted, you could double AMD's product list and still not match Intel's grenade of product fragmentation, but it's slightly better than this image makes it look.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;52465014]Bought my first CPU in 2005, and it was an AMD 4800+ X2 dual core. Just last week I bought my first AMD since, a Ryzen 1600X. Feels good to see AMD closing that ground again. I'd really like to upgrade my i7 3930K to a Threadripper next year if everything goes as well as it looks like it will. I actually never thought I'd start seeing benchmarks that reminded me of those days ever again from AMD. [img]https://s11.postimg.org/ykes85m9f/7424.png[/img][/QUOTE] As far as I know, AMD's performance in consumer applications isn't beating Intel's counterpart. Their performance-price ratio is truly amazing nonetheless.

[QUOTE=B!N4RY;52465502]As far as I know, AMD's performance in consumer applications isn't beating Intel's counterpart. Their amazing price performance-price ratio is truly amazing nonetheless.[/QUOTE] Beating it in heavy multithreaded stuff, but that's not that difficult when you can just add more CCX's to the problem and have a architecture designed around value.

[QUOTE=B!N4RY;52465502]Their amazing price performance-price ratio is truly amazing nonetheless.[/QUOTE] Yeah I've seen tons of people go "the R5 1600 sucks the 7700K is faster in games and regular applications", yeah, but it costs like half as much as the 7700 and wipes the floor with everything Intel's got at it's price point, and on top of that it actually comes with a decent cooler. It makes about as much sense as saying "The GTX 1070 is fucking garbage man the 1080Ti is a lot faster"

[QUOTE=Rixxz2;52465583]Yeah I've seen tons of people go "the R5 1600 sucks the 7700K is faster in games and regular applications", yeah, but it costs like half as much as the 7700 and wipes the floor with everything Intel's got at it's price point, and on top of that it actually comes with a decent cooler. It makes about as much sense as saying "The GTX 1070 is fucking garbage man the 1080Ti is a lot faster"[/QUOTE] It's not even that the 1600 is that much worse than the 7700K in games. It losses by 10-20% when the GPU isn't the bottleneck which only happens if you're playing Dwarf Fortress or have a 1080 or 1080Ti.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;52465988]The 1600 really is incredible when it comes to value; $219.99 gets you 6 cores & 12 threads, no arbitrary lock on access to overclocking, and a stock cooler [I]that can handle overclocking.[/I] The lower clock speeds compared to Intel are easily forgiven as it's literally brand new architecture. AMD can easily close that gap over the next few years.[/QUOTE] The Ryzen 3s are really going to stick it to intel, because they'll undercut the R5s which already undercut i5s. i3s won't be able to compete at all.

[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;52466074]The Ryzen 3s are really going to stick it to intel, because they'll undercut the R5s which already undercut i5s. i3s won't be able to compete at all.[/QUOTE] The Pentium G4560 is extremely powerful for how cheap it is, though, will be interesting to see if the R3's are really going to be able to beat it in terms of price/performance

[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 has (and is continuing to) improved. Notably, the initial performance gaps reported were caused by lower ram speeds. Because as it turns out, [url=https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/]the northbridge is locked to 1:2 of the memory controller.[/url]. With each BIOS update, more and more boards are able to properly maintain memory clocks that reach further and further beyond the Ryzen chip's 2400MHz limit, with [url=http://www.legitreviews.com/ddr4-memory-scaling-amd-am4-platform-best-memory-kit-amd-ryzen-cpus_192259/4]performance improvements scaling mostly-linearly until 3200MHz[/url]. [url=https://imgur.com/a/sbwqK]Not just in Deus Ex, either[/url].

[QUOTE=AugustBurnsRed;52466074]The Ryzen 3s are really going to stick it to intel, because they'll undercut the R5s which already undercut i5s. i3s won't be able to compete at all.[/QUOTE] i3s can't compete in Intel's own line up, that Pentium G4560 makes i3s redundant, so much so that rumour is that internist axing it

Some rumors have surfaced stating that the R3 1200 will cost around 100USD. I'm very excited to see some benchmarks of it in that case, perhaps it'll actually be able to completely blow the Pentium out of the water as well. The problem is still OEMs, though, so far I haven't seen a single prebuilt PC from the bigger brands with Ryzen in them. I guess that may also have to do with the fact that a lot of those use custom motherboards, though

[QUOTE=Rixxz2;52467610]Some rumors have surfaced stating that the R3 1200 will cost around 100USD. I'm very excited to see some benchmarks of it in that case, perhaps it'll actually be able to completely blow the Pentium out of the water as well.[/QUOTE] If that rumor is true then I'll probably build myself a PC too out of new parts instead of buying second hand older intel chips for the same price. [editline]14th July 2017[/editline] Atm I have no need for anything better than this i5 2450m + HD 3000, but Ryzen really peaked my interest.

[QUOTE=ichiman94;52467645]If that rumor is true then I'll probably build myself a PC too out of new parts instead of buying second hand older intel chips for the same price. [editline]14th July 2017[/editline] Atm I have no need for anything better than this i5 2450m + HD 3000, but Ryzen really peaked my interest.[/QUOTE] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1571357[/url]

[QUOTE=gman003-main;52465238]To be fair, Intel has some chips that AMD isn't even trying to compete with. A fair list would have a couple "N/A" entries under AMD for quad/octa-socket systems, the ultra-low-cost Xeons (for shit that needs ECC for reliability but doesn't need much CPU power), and whatever it is the Omni-Path chips are actually used for. Granted, you could double AMD's product list and still not match Intel's grenade of product fragmentation, but it's slightly better than this image makes it look.[/QUOTE] Specifically for ecc+low power, current desktop ryzen can already fill that role. However they are also launching the Ryzen pro for specifically that purpose.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;52470956]Specifically for ecc+low power, current desktop ryzen can already fill that role. However they are also launching the Ryzen pro for specifically that purpose.[/QUOTE] Yep, which are features Intel stripped out of their low end this gen. I'm excited for r3 freenas boxes since you can't do an i3 one anymore.

[QUOTE=Rixxz2;52467610]Some rumors have surfaced stating that the R3 1200 will cost around 100USD. I'm very excited to see some benchmarks of it in that case, perhaps it'll actually be able to completely blow the Pentium out of the water as well. The problem is still OEMs, though, so far I haven't seen a single prebuilt PC from the bigger brands with Ryzen in them. I guess that may also have to do with the fact that a lot of those use custom motherboards, though[/QUOTE] Over here? I've seen fuckin loads. Especially at bestbuy.