I'm stupid so stay with me here but I have a question.
What exactly is stopping AMD from having great single thread (i.e gaming) performance like Intel has? These two are the only people in the CPU market right? They must have similar technology and advancements right? So what's holding AMD back? Is Intel holding on to some secret that AMD can't figure out?
I hope you understand what I'm trying to ask
Process technology. AMD has comparable IPC to Intel, they are only lacking in clockspeed. AMD is using a power efficient process, while Intel is using a more mature high performance process. Do you want and efficient multicore CPU, or a single core housefire?
Because of mores law.
Lack of economic incentive. Desktop is dying. All the money is to be made in servers where perf/Watt is king. The fact that they can bin their low perf/Watt chips and sell them to soiyim who might care about a 1% fps boost is an afterthought in both companies.
Clocks and worse memory controller. They've been improving a lot so next years 7nm Zen2 might be breddy ebin.
It has to do with how the newer (FX+) AMD chips are made compared to intel's. Instead of having say 4 physical cores as was the case with Phenom II now you got two physical cores with for lack a better term, 2 "fake" cores. or 4 real cores w/4 fake cores (FX 8 series)
FX was 8 integer cores, with each 2 core set sharing FPU resources. The problem was the front end loader couldn't feed cores fast enough. It was indeed an 8 core CPU, no fake cores like hyperthreading.
To give real world example: I installed FX 8300 in system that originally had a Phenmom II x4 955.
All hardware was left the same other than CPU swap. The FX 8300 had 4 more cores and a 100 Mhz per core clock advantage so the FPS results in older single core games should've been almost the same (FX 8300 @ 3.30Ghz vs Phenom II x955 @ 3.20 Ghz)
The results? Single core games ran piss poor on FX chip. Instead of flying with smooth game play you had jerky, studding play. FPS was jerky to. Put Phenom II back in, all things (games) ran smooth as babies ass. No issues, no trouble, FPS was rock solid stable.
However, load up a multicore game and it fucking flew. Battlefield 3 ran like a dream on FX.
>playing singleplayer games in 2011+
The Zen architecture has nothing to do with FX CPUs. It's a brand new thing of it's own, done from scratch.
As for OPs, question, Zen is still a new architecture while Intel is using tried and tested architectures based on Haswell/14nm for the past 5? years now. It's a much more mature process that has had the time to be tuned, has much better memory timings, all the juice. Coffee Lake CPUs reaching 5.2GHz are basically hitting the limit of what's possible on 14nm, and there's very little Intel can do to improve performance besides adding more cores. That is to be expected anyway, since Coffee Lake is like the 4th or 5th iteration of their 14nm process. In comparison, Zen is only in its second iteration, meaning it has a lot to be improved on. And those improvements will be even more noticeable when it moves to a newer, smaller process node.
But if you play older single core games (such as UT, NOLF series,etc) then your fucked on newer AMD chips. (dunno about intel). The only way to get the best of everything (games and productivity) is to bag and hold on to a Phenom II x4 or x6 cpu. Really all I do that pushes all cores to the max is Video encoding. That's it. So upgrading is not really a big deal for me.
Nothing, they are just lacking clockspeed which intel has an advantage in due to re-hashing the same arch over and over again
Short answer is money and r&d
Previously amd was running off a crap design and was using an inferrior silicon process. These two factors gave intel a huge lead.
Now tsmc (foundry that makes the chips) has caught up to intel, and will likely overtake them. Moreover, Amd is no longer on a total crap design for logic and their binning plan makes there chips very cost effective.
So, whats making them slower? Caching, memory controller and the interposer. The Caching policy on Ryzen is less aggressive(which has negative impacted intel due to spectre). The memory controller is inferior. Memory controllers are one of the most intesive parts cpu, it runs at full tilt all the time, so having a bad mem controller is brutal. Lastly is the interposer, this connects the chiplets that make the multicore cpu. It is inherrently slower than monolithic chips like intel, the trade off being that ryzen chips are cheaper by big margin.
You need to realize that there is also VIA and Hygon Dhyanas which are copies of AMD EPYC.
>playing games in 2011+
Why? There's nothing worth playing.
LOLWUT. Nigger you must be joking. I've literally loaded up ye olde UT, with the S3TC textures, recently and have had zero issues on my Ryzen 1700 and Radeon 290X.
Clockspeed
I believe it is just clockspeeds. Intel is using a matured 8 years arch while AMD is on its second year. Things only get better overtime and ryzen 2 is closing the gap in some cases.
256/512bit AVX would make a difference although you need to worry about house fire.
Intel is ignoring security for "muh single thread". See Meltdown and Spectre.
From a business standpoint, it made far more sense to lean toward business use cases. AMD was in dire need of cash and B2B sales are high margin. They came up with a processor that scales easily into servers but is still usable on the desktop. Once they push the frequency further, Intel won't have an advantage.
Ryzen is a complete redesign. The 8 core parts are actually 8 cores and 16 threads.
Most users (e.g. normies) don't have any use for more than 6ish threads. Only a power user is consistently using 8+ threads to any effect. Intel's arch lends itself well to that. AMD's lends itself well to the power user who can actually benefit from the extra threads.
Clock speed limitations of the mobile-focused 14nm FinFET process which as I recall was made to operate at around 3GHz or something. It's why next year's Zen 2 launch is so exciting, as the 7nm process it will be built on is designed for 5GHz operation.
Primarily the difference has been process technology. Until this year Intel had the most advanced silicon fabs on the planet and had held that position for at least the last decade. This has given them advantages in clock speed and power usage. AMD also spent several years going down the CMT rabbit hole with the FX series which put them behind on microarch R&D. Clock for clock Ryzen 2 is basically even with Skylake, with a few architecural improvements Ryzen 3 on 7nm should surpass Intel's single core performance.
Where the fuck have you been for the last three years?
Zen is fundamentally better than Intel's architecture. It's only slightly behind in IPC in its first generation, with a bunch of low hanging optimisations left to make.
Also, the 14nm process it was manufactured on was made for low power, not for high clocks. The 7nm process that Zen v2 will be manufactured on is designed for significantly higher clocks.
North Korea.
They kind of do. Theres only a 8% difference in gaming benchmarks
They're CPUs, both works just as good as they are build in, technical aspects and differences aside, we just choose what our wallets can handle
1. There will always be bribery and unfair practices from intel. There will always be blizzard and small time companies who use intel compiler to build games.
2. AMD has great gaming performance regardless.
Imagine amd cutting corners like that and making a heterogeneous chips with 2 non-secure for muh games + 6 secure cores for everything else.
What does this picture even try to convey? Do Americans really think jews were burned?
AMD has great single thread performance. Intel's just slightly better.
The gap might be closed when Zen 2 comes out with the 7nm high performance node. 14nm (current Ryzen) was a power efficient node not capable of high clocks.
So its impossible for me to have a sub-65 watt 6 core 7nm chip thats also 4 ghz? even anywhere above 3 will do.
>But if you play older single core games (such as UT, NOLF series,etc) then your fucked
What the fuck are you talking about?
Those games are from 1999! Top CPU performance back then was orders of magnitude slower than today's!
>worried_merchant.jpg
>Its in all your history books, it must have happened
I doubt higher clocks will improve zen's performance. Apparently the reason behind amd's SMT showing better results than intel's HT is because only with SMT zen core can be fully utilized. with single thread per zen core it's actually idling. So unless they improve cache and decoders not much will change.
What do you mean, there's already a 65 W 8 core 14 nm cpu above 3 GHz.
>still living in FX era
Get in time, gramp.
>But if you play older single core games (such as UT, NOLF series,etc) then your fucked on newer AMD chips.
The Ryzen chips are only ~3% behind Intel in IPC
My new Ryzen run older games better than my old phenom II X4. Stop your bullshit.
So basically Intel's achitecture has struck a wall while AMD's is still growing?
Yep, thats the difference between an arch that's been iterated and tweaked for the last 20 years (P6 to whatever the fuck Lake version we're on now) to one that was designed and built from the ground up for the modern age (Zen).
It doesn't help intel's 10nm node is utter dogshit.
AMD is a much smaller company with a smaller footprint. The market is essentially oligopolistic with few players, with these two in the consumer/enthusiast space, whereas IBM, ARM, IDT, NEC etc have specialist niche business applications.
AMD follows a second mover advantage giving them a cost benefit, allowing for lower cost solutions over Intel. Intel will always have the higher clock speeds at the expense of requiring differing silicone wafers and needing different mobo's every time. AMD has an efficient process of using the same wafers allowing for more cores at the disadvantage of lower clock speeds.
AMD already has great single-thread performance.
We're talking less than 10% difference at 150+ fps on the latest games, when comparing a six core +5.1Ghz Intel CPU to an AMD 6 core or 8 core 4.5Ghz CPU.
When the differences in framerates are in the single digits most of the time how can people continue to say that only Intel has "great" single core performance? They're comparable for 99% of tasks, and in the case of you having a 165hz monitor and a GTX 1080Ti is when you can see any difference, which ranges between 5 and 20 fps.
150 vs 170fps woop dee doo
>inb4 placebo retards who say they can feel a difference between 150 and 170fps
Because that is being saved for Zen 2 and 7 nm.
Could they have done it sooner?
Sure but their chips would be power hog house fires just like Intel and they would be just duplicating what the other guy is doing already. Not a good business plan.
AMD wins in the productivity department especially with Epyc and video editing/anything that really makes use of more Cores.
The only reason it's not as good with MUH GAYMES is because clock speed directly affects FPS. This has always been the case. Therfore an 8700k super meme jewtel penis chip running at 5.1 jiggahertz will always have better FPS in games than a ryzen running at lower speed with twice as many Cores.
Also single core performance is a fucking dead end. The productivity and enterprise world is already relying on and requiring the need for larger and larger core clusters. The only thing that still relies on single core performance is gaming because game devs are fucking retarded asshats and it often takes them ten fucking years to actually optimize for use of a new technology. Right now it's taking less than that but it's still long as fuck. It will be at least 4 year at the earliest before games really start making use of multicore and multithread processing. By then we will be under 7 nm and the per core performance and speed will be insanely high regardless of what company you are buying from simply because of the die size alone.
2%*
Intel were stupid to say that Epyc is desctop chips glued together.
That is the opposite of truth. AMD Ryzen is a component of EPYC, which is an absolutely groundbreaking server CPU due to it's incredible power efficiency.
AMD dont have great single thread power because they didn't try to achieve it. Zen archiitecture is all about scalability and the real deal about it is EPYC and Ripper which Intel cant rival.
As for Ryzen it's OK too it HANDLES games and is great for productivity what the fuck more do you want? Nobody actually cares about 160 FPS in CSGO and they didn't even aim to accomplish that.
>160 FPS in CSG
it's more like 355 fps instead of 365
Nobody uses CSGO to benchmark games. It's a 2012 release that laptops run at 100+ fps.
It's like the first thing Intel did to damage control the Ryzen release. Literally started benching CSGO at 720FPS.
>Because that is being saved for Zen 2 and 7 nm.
>Could they have done it sooner?
>Sure but their chips would be power hog house fires just like Intel and they would be just duplicating what the other guy is doing already. Not a good business plan.
You are delusional beyond redemption if you believe this is why AMD isn't releasing better products sooner. Intel processors perform better and consume less power so you're also full of shit.
Is this what it takes to buy into AMD crap? Literally not know what you are talking about?
yes
To be honest I'd send flat-earthers to jail too.
>t. Yehuda
intel is vertically integrated - they are a foundry themselves. they both design the cpu and build it.
AMD uses another company to build their cpus.
traditionally, intel has had the better chip making process - their chips can clock faster.
t. flat-earther
Zen is currently on a process build for low power parts. 7nm is high performance, so Zen2 is going to be a beast simply because they will finaly be able to match Intel's clockspeed.
>What exactly is stopping AMD from having great single thread (i.e gaming) performance like Intel has
clock to clock amd is ahead no questions asked
on 128bit OPs amd is ahead by some light years
in avx 256+ amd struggles because it simulates it since literally no one uses it
the problem is that most people dont understand that amd sold a chip that is a godzilla cucked so hard so that there would be a competition
and let me explain what i mean
typically each core can run 2 threads (smt and ht tech)and in an ideal case each thread gets half of the resources
the problem is ryzen cores have such a high throughtout because of the massive caches that in order to choke a lets say 2700x you will need to run 82 threads on the 8 cores
amd can give a theoritical maximum of 10 threads per core and still not even be close to bottleneck that thing
samefagging
hence why the rumor of amd giving a 4 and even a 6 way smt on the ryzen 2 (7nm) will be the death of intel
They aren't directy competing with Intel because they would fucking lose. Intel has a bajillion times the R&D money. Offering a different approach that is better in some situations is how they survive.
>intel has a bajillion times the r&d
yeah we can all see that on their 10nm great design process
oh wait
But they have the almost the same single core performance as Intel with Zen. FX is the one with shit single core.
The only thing holding amd back is the latency on infinity fabric and zen 2 is supposedly going to rectify that, so I'd say amd will be at least equal if not surpassing intel in single core this time next year. Since zen is much easier and cheaper to manufacture, I would assume intel is going to have a harsh few years ahead of them.
Not with the amount of shills they have shitting on AMD. Some people are so brainwashed, they'll never see AMD as equal or superior to Intel.
Intel shoves it R&D money in it's foundries. Foundries that fucked up with 10nm, so intel is fucked because they have been basically simply been modifying the same architecture sinds sandy bridge on trusting on their superior foundries to stay ahead. CPU R&D money went to chasing the phone and tablet market (a big failure) and sjw crap.
>The Ryzen chips are only ~3% behind Intel in IPC
you mean better, AMD cpus would lead in everything if they were clocked at 5 ghz
singlecore house fire, thanks.
amd's lacklustre performance levels of their chips couldn't keep a coffee warm.
> be you
> knowing this little about anything you're talking about
>What exactly is stopping AMD from having great single thread (i.e gaming) performance like Intel has?
AMD doesn't cheat on its designs.
This makes me rock hard.
Nothing. Intel is working with a 20 Year old architecture that they have had a ton of time to refine. AMD is working with a new architecture that they are only beginning to refine. Things are going to get very good, very fast.
