Intel

How do we make them win again?

Attached: AyyMD.jpg (1200x675, 127K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=um-1fAVU1OQ
phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-zen2-spectre&num=1
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

When they realize that is not an acceptable response to EPYC 2nd gen

Attached: 1565321519608.png (728x1060, 533K)

They can't. They are out of time unless they have a baller ARM chip hidden away somewhere. At best they could buy NV or AMD to prolong their suffering in a world which will abandon x86 soon or become some ghetto version of IBM.

They're pretty much finished.

Get woke go broke.

Nuke management and get someone who actually knows about CPU design to be the new CEO.

finally, a based amd ad

Win? Will be hard. They need to work on staying relevant though. They certainly can, they "just" need to figure out a good new architecture (seems they have it already) and manufacturing process (a bigger problem, as the new architecture is designed with it in mind but it still has shit yields and probably lower clocks compared to 14nm).
If they can't figure out the latter, they can always have some other fab manufacture their shit, but that would be admitting to a major defeat.

>but that would be admitting to a major defeat.
And while it'd be horrible from PR side, it'd be nothing compared to the panic from the shareholders. They would be better off having their own inferior fabs.

>400w TDP

Attached: house-fire.jpg (620x349, 35K)

just use a noctua cooler

Just apply chiller bro

>56c112t for 400w and insanely expensive due to monolithic architecture
>meanwhile the AMD EPYC 7742 is 64c128t to the tune of 225w 256MB L3 cache, shit loads of PCIe 4.0 based lanes for 50% the cost due to AMD's new scaling architecture

Intel is going to have to learn how to get prices down or start straight up sucking dick to keep contracts. Their chips are less efficient, more expensive, with less features, more security holes, AND use a shit load of power compared to their competition.

Attached: EPYC-7742.png (1221x755, 53K)

Do companies reall care about performance per dollar? I would expect performance per watt to be more important.

Just buy Intel for games bro

Attached: Ryzen-3900X-3700X-review-Hitman-2.png (1800x1200, 79K)

I'd imagine they care about both when they're buying hundreds or thousands chips

You can't.
Any performance advantage Intel has is from their swiss-cheese internal security.
It's either-or: either they have faster, but pozzed, chips (like they do now - but by only the barest of margins) - or they have slow, but secure, chips.
I don't see how they can dig themselves out of this - but I'm not a CPU designer.

>Any performance advantage Intel has is from their swiss-cheese internal security.
That's bullshit thought, the new arch used on 10nm (mobile only so far though) has both better IPC and fixed security problems of previous archs.

And also tops out at 1.something gigahertz, IIRC.

Once again, it's only low power mobile chips so far. But that doesn't change the fact they do have a new both faster and more secure (at least in same sense as AMD - that is no holes found YET) arch.

>it's only low power mobile chips so far
Yeah, because it literally burns down if you try to run it faster.
It's like saying a moped is a racing car, if it could only do 400km/h.
It can't, so it isn't. QED.

>*blocks MAD's path*

Attached: 220px-Thunderbolt_3_interface_USB-C_ports.jpg (220x186, 12K)

Nice source there inside your ass

If you're going to try to pretend that reality doesn't exist, is probably more your speed.

Show us your 5GHz Ice Lake mister-I-want-sources.
Go on.

AMD fails to reach even advertised clocks:
>clocks don't matter!
Intel has a new better and safer arch that just clocks lower
>Show us your 5GHz Ice Lake

>the 486 is the best processor there will ever be
>if you can make it run at 1THz
This is what you sound like, user.

Attached: 1426390486933.gif (280x210, 1.41M)

Jesus Christ. Make room:
>*NEW* Clock speed doesn't matter!

>even MUH NIGGAHURTZ is down
So Intel have literally nothing left?

Attached: 144542457257.gif .gif (273x259, 1.02M)

Attached: BadBloodEssentiallySmaller.gif (600x335, 1.43M)

Why does AMD finally beating Intel warm my heart so much?

Quite Literally Intel's Bulldozer moment right here.

It got merged into USB4, retard.

NOOOOOAGGHHHHHHHH

Attached: 1542027477262.png (807x745, 205K)

And icelake doesn't seem to help

Pretty hard to find when you stifle training and post-grad education programs. There's only so many experienced people like Keller to go around.

Pride goeth before the fall, Intcels. Now everyone can enjoy state-of-the-art computing at lower costs and you won’t be able to mock “poor people” for buying affordable CPUs anymore. This is cosmic justice.

>state-of-the-art
yeah, like a chipset fan: a problem resolved on 65nm years ago.
The only competition AMD has shown is cranking up the temps, lying about benchmarks, and trying to resolve lawsuits.
To get within 1% of the 9900 for gaming, i fully expect their next motherboard series to slap a mini fan over their i/o ports just to keep it under 100C.

Intel admitted it is 2yrs behind AMD on the 7nm process and literally has no answer to the new gen AMD chips.

>400 Intel-Watts TDP
>BGA shit, only sold with mobos made by Intel
>server OEMs don't even want to touch it
>still gets beaten by 64-core Rome at 225W
JUST

This is some quality cope.
Pop over to , since you obviously need the company.

The Epyc 64 (sixty-four) core CPU has a lower TDP than a 32 (thirty-two) core Xeon. And people think intel isn't dead yet.

Attached: intel.png (506x455, 14K)

what gpu where they using because at 1080 that seems pretty disappointing across the board. Im not overly interested in hitman, is it just piss poor optimization or is something going on?

>in a world which will abandon x86 soon
Such as

>spend 300k on a server rack
>spend another 100k on rack liquid cooling
lol

Why do you want them to win? Competition is good and maybe they can finally pull their head out of their ass and be innovative again

>By entering GPU market, this will allow them to have key technologies that they can use on CPU design.
>Move die production to GloFo.
>Move away from x86 (while maintaining compatibility) making an alliance with IBM and push the POWER CPU line.

Attached: Intel-Xe.jpg (1268x664, 142K)

>blower
intel just can't stop themselves from creating housefires

>Xe
More pozzed housefires, yay.

>literally Xer with LGBT lights
LMAO if they keep going at it they'll become a shadow of what they used to be like IBM

>By entering GPU market
again ? they already failed horribly making discrete GPUs a while ago

>failed horribly
not to be that guy but there's a reason why they failed, it's because their gpu was way ahead of it's time in terms of architecture
youtube.com/watch?v=um-1fAVU1OQ

i don't know who's worse, arm shills or amd shills
says the nervously shaking man for the 500th time
that's because amd designed zen for the data center, not the consumer market. evidence of this, and by saying this will cause massive autistic raging by Jow Forums because Jow Forums hates gaming but loves jerking off to cartoon porn with their 12 core processors, by zen's regression in gaming performance. intel designed for the consumer market in mind because they had zero competition in data center and know data center will keep buying their shit regardless. since you know, they had no where else to go.

i've said this before, and will say it again:
>zen2 is a wonderful workstation architecture. that was the primary purpose amd designed it for. amd knows where the money is and that money is in the data center. intel has stagnated hard and data center are looking to replace aging xeon servers with something fresh. and will buy hundreds of new processors at 5 figures a piece. server rooms. cloud infrastructure. internet infrastructure. it quite literately scales well for that environment. its why a lower clocked, equal thread count, 3700x and 3800x are within the same ballpark (marginal back and forth swings) of performance as a 9900k operating at an all core clock of 4.7ghz in those type of workloads but use less power and clocked lower. but they, and the 3900x, outright lose to the 9900k in gaming because they where not designed for gaming in mind. they were designed for workstation type environments in mind. they were designed for epyc.

>I really don't understand why it is so difficult for the community to understand what is going on with Ryzen and gaming performance. The reason is simple. You have all seen the AMD diagrams that show the Infinity Fabric. They clearly show interconnects between each chiplet and the IO die and list it at 32 bytes/cycle. You know that with the 3000 series of chips, the Infinity Fabric tops out at roughly 1800mhz. Doing the maths: 32 bytes x 1800mhz =~57GB/s The theoretical maximum limit of dual channel 3600 MTs RAM is ~57GB. With latency overheads, you can test that at about 51GB/s in Aida64.

All that is great if you run cinebench, blender, handbrake etc. The CPU gets all the data the ram can supply. The processed output of the CPU ends up in the L3 cache where it is output to the monitor, storage or a memory address. When you run a game, firestrike or timespy, the CPU has to process the instructions that are passed to the GPU. A 2080ti at Max fps needs about 15GB/s of instructions, textures etc to render it's many frames per second. The GPU obtains these instructions from mostly the L3 cache (game cache). If the GPU is taking 15GB/s from the 57GB total bandwidth, that only leaves a Max theoretical bandwidth of 42GB/s before the latency overheads available for the cores to obtain data to process for the next instructions that it has to pass to the GPU.

>Reduce memory bandwidth starves the CPU and the number of instructions to render frames is reduced. Intel doesn't have the same limitations. On a 9th gen CPU the cache multiplier determine the ringbus bandwidth. The ring also transfers data at 32 bytes/cycle but the cache is clocked at around 4200mhz. That calculates to a Max theoretical bandwidth of ~144GB/s. The bandwidth of the L3 caches on both Intel and AMD are roughly the same. And clocks cache at CPU frequency and Intel uses the cache multiplier. (Ever wonder why AMD chips don't overclock to 5GHz? It because the cache won't run that fast withing the power and temp envelope of the Ryzen chip)

>The Intel dual channel 3600 ram still tops out at about at the same 50ish GB/s and the Gpu and the GPU still wants it's 15GB/s but it can run over a pipe that can carry 144GB/s. The CPU keeps getting data from ram at the maximum the ram can supply it and as a result, the CPU can process more instructions for the GPU.

intel is fine in the consumer market. thanks to amd inability to hit higher clocks, intel still stays relevant. the only thing hurting them is lack of thread count. if they gave their 9600k and 9700k smt then there would be near zero reason to buy amd unless you're autistic and believe the mitigation that also affect amd reduces performance down to core 2 quad levels. intel just needs to stop being a jew with thread and core count. phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-zen2-spectre&num=1
>AMD Zen 2 processors feature hardware-based mitigations for Spectre V2 and Spectre V4 SSBD while remaining immune to the likes of Meltdown and Zombieload. Here are some benchmarks looking at toggling the CPU speculative execution mitigations across various Intel and AMD processors.

data center intel is really fucked. they're gonna have to suck hard dick to keep contracts going. to the point of giving xeons away for near free.

>Ever wonder why AMD chips don't overclock to 5GHz? It because the cache won't run that fast withing the power and temp envelope of the Ryzen chi
huh so that explains why. always thought it was a failure of process manufacturing. its actually architecture. but i don't blame amd if their goal was data center first then it makes sense. you don't need 5ghz in the data center. let alone 4ghz.

>5 figures a piece
do you mean $100,000 per cpu or for new servers as a whole? that makes sense for a large rackmount worth but not per cpu.

Literally just buy intel buy intel buy intel buy intel dont buy amd or amd stocks buy intel buy intel
ty

Attached: 40648089_236091440585078_7778301539144482498_n.jpg (1080x1080, 997K)

Underrated

Attached: 1482580422087.jpg (705x592, 67K)