GHz still > everything? Wait for RYZEN?

[SkateZilla]

You pretty much made my point by that sentence. AMD has been behind for a lot longer that 3-4 years.

 

Seriously, if they produced something worthwhile I would buy it in a heartbeat but my experience with their GPUs makes me want to run away, rapidly.

 

I do have to admit that I have never used an AMD CPU. After the 486 my next chip was a Celeron 300A, which could be overclocked to amazing levels.

 

I would not care who made it if I could get a chip that could be OC'd by 50% more than it originally clocked at.

 

AMD was within a marginal 10% IPC up till Intel Introduced the CoreI Series and AMD went with the CMT Design (Bulldozer).

 

Intel has 500x the R&D Budget, They Own the x86 License, and They Have every x86 Compiler in their Pocket, and Intel has also been found guilty of Illegal and damaging Practices that Resulted in AMD Losses.

 

Intel used this Method in the late 90s, and early 2000's when the Pentium IIIs could no longer keep up with AMD, and the PentiumIV were a joke, Intel Used Anti-Trust Busness Practices to block AMD from getting business contracts for 6 years, while Intel Cancelled further Pentium 4 Development and Developed the base Architecture for the Core Series which would evolved into the iSeries.

 

And that's not even counting Intel's last Minute Decision to Terminate License Agreements w/ AMD, ViA, CyRix, IDT and Rise, Leaving them with Processor Designs but no Chipsets to Run them, Enter the "Socket 7 Extension and Socket A" Days where cheap chipsets from VIA Plagued AMD K6-III's and Early Athlon Chips.

 

The Different Here is AMD, Bit the Bullet, and Scrapped the CMT Design and started over, without having to proceed in illegal business practices to block Intel.

 

Instead they boosted Marketshare by signing deals w/ Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and select OEM Partners that needed a All In One CPU (AMD APUs), that could do both CPU work and Graphics work (Consoles), with a small package and TDP (Again APU's were perfect for consoles).

 

the 1.5 Billion Intel is paying to AMD didnt just come out of thin air, they were found guilty. and Found guilty in all 5 appeals, they strung it out in court for almost a decade, while steadily increasing their prices on their chips.

 

Part of the Reason the CMT Architecture was a failure was the CEO and Chief Architect's decisions to take designs from Phenom and Phenom II and Essentially copy/paste them into the design for the CMT Architecture.

These Decisions were made to cut costs development time, as a result of the Intel's Practices.

Edited December 22, 2016 by SkateZilla

[BitMaster]

Well,

 

since then..I have serviced DOZENS of AMD driven systems, PC's and Laptops...

 

NONE convinced me to go back to AMD...N E V E R...so inferior they are

[Hadwell]

GHz has never been > than IPC... a 5GHz AMD CPU (non ryzen) is way slower than a 4.5GHz I7...

 

how much a cpu can get done in 1 clock cycle is more important than how many clock cycles per second...

 

I will wait for some benchmarks on ryzen, and if it's good, I'll try one, but I'm currently waiting for the 7700K i7...

 

real life hard facts are more important than fanboyism, so anyone who says AMD is even remotely close to intel in IPC at the moment ignores the majority of benchmarks, and real hard facts, only looks at the few and far between benchmarks that make AMD look close...

Edited December 22, 2016 by Hadwell

[BitMaster]

The newest Article on guru3d.com is very biased.

 

An engineering sample that falls short in gaming to a 6700k ( then also to 4970k ) that costs same or most likely more is a free meal for Intel.

 

Intel will lower prices by 10-20% and many questions about AMD or Intel wont arise at all.

 

Intel will make a better TIM and turbo away...leaving them in dust.

 

 

I am afraid, it wont be as sweet and competitive in pricing as we all wished.

It just aint powerfull enough yet to beat them at a lower price.

 

For the same or similar money, most wont take chances but build on proven ground.

 

The few that love AMD and will buy it regardless wont pull the cart, seriously MHO.

 

Maybe, with version 2 of Ryzen and more games using more/many cores this could change over time, say 2-5 years...another long thirsty walk to salvation.

[remon]

That was an earlier sample. Not final clock speeds.

[SkateZilla]

it was a 1st run engineering sample, like 900Mhz per core slower than estimated retail clocks.

[Thermal]

I think everyone should take a deep breath and wait for real Ryzen's to ship.

 

The really important thing to note, in this forum, is how DCS scales with CPU cores.

 

Will you be better off with i7-6700k @ 4.2Ghz (4 cores) or i7-6900k @3.8Ghz (8 cores, at 4 times the price).

 

(You can substitute the appropriate Ryzen chips in the above if you like, the concept remains the same).

 

Right now if you want the highest single core performance you get a quad-core - and 95% of games work best in this scenario. A few games scale better across more than 4 cores, but then they get hit with the lower turbo frequencies.

[BitMaster]

Did they say 900mhz slower ?

 

I must have missed that part..

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk