AMD's takedown of Intel.

[Worlds fastest turtle]

Cool to see.

Sadly the 9000 series from AMD are barely any improvement over the 7000 series.

Reverse Intel?

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Escrito originalmente por Bored.:

Sadly the 9000 series from AMD are barely any improvement over the 7000 series.

Not entirely true as there is simply a Win11 performance related bug right now. Not sure if that was fixed or not. If not then it most likely be fixed in next months Windows Updates.

[Illusion of Progress]

AMD hasn't really taken down Intel, and even if they did, no, it wouldn't be cool to see. I mean, it might cool for a moment insofar as watching the once underdog usurp the bigger one, but then you realize that, yes, they just trade places. We don't want a CPU market that resembles the GPU market where nVidia has a near monopoly.

And it's not like once AMD surpasses Intel (or comes close enough, as they accomplished since Zen 2) that they're going to suddenly take Intel's spot. They're going to have to maintain that to gain market share. People don't buy new PCs every generation (especially as of late where they keep them for a decade or so in some cases) so most of those older Intel PCs will stick around and count for a lot of that market share for a while yet, and decades of relations and trust usually don't erode overnight, so while the DIY market has largely moved to preferring AMD as of late, Intel has the market share lead due to established past sales and OEM sales, so they still lead in volume in the consumer space overall.

Intel still technically has the performance edge outside of AMD's X3D CPUs in gaming (though AMD is usually close enough to call them almost even, with having the gaming edge, and is more efficient, so they still compete well). That lackluster uplift with Zen 5 is not a good thing though, but Intel's single threaded numbers of Arrow Lake seem to be a somewhat tame uplift too (though those are early numbers coming from the rumor mill, so...), and losing Hyper-threading means it loses multi-threaded performance in place of that. In other words, this may have afforded AMD some breathing room here.

We should be hoping for continued tough competition from both sides, which we've had the last few generations. At best, this latest disaster would have humbled some of those with an outdated mid-2010s mindset of the "it just works" and "AMD doesn't work" nonsense, but... seems some are still slow. We're pretty much reliving the K7/K8 (Athlon, XP, and 64) vs late Coppermine (Pentium III) and Netburst (Pentium 4) days in many ways.

[r.linder]

AMD didn't beat Intel, Intel screwed themselves over multiple times.

1. For years they held back on core count and didn't even match AMD's core count properly until 2020. 8th gen was held back, 9th gen cut HT for most SKUs and the i9 didn't have more than 8 core options on LGA1151. LGA1200 properly matched most of AM4 in core count but only months later, Zen3 released which tipped the scales further for AMD.

2. Zen2 easily beat 8th gen and matched 9th gen but offered more cores in the enthusiast tier, and the 3600 was making a noticeable dent in Intel's market share and became one of the most popular CPUs prior to Zen3. Zen3 completely stomped LGA1200 in price/performance value and continues to dominate, the only reason why LGA1200 did as well as it did was because of the chip shortage, Intel had enough to stock to keep selling processors whereas AMD had limited supplies from TSMC which kept their prices higher than Intel for the first year.

3. Threadripper became more attractive for HEDT users and Intel never actually made a proper successor to the 10980XE until the current i9s, which are now untrustworthy due to manufacturing defects with 13th gen and microcode issues with 13th and 14th gen.

4. Rocket Lake was largely disappointing because the i9 reduced from 10 cores to 8 cores, power consumption and heat got worse, and performance wasn't much better, Zen3 still dominated.

5. Alder Lake introduced a hybrid CPU concept that was rather controversial because Intel's "Efficiency" cores or E-cores use an inferior architecture and ran much slower than the P-cores which made them useful really only for processing lighter things in the background which also mandated a new task scheduler to properly schedule cores for specific loads, and it was met with performance issues with some games. AVX-512 support also had to be disabled, something that Intel had over AMD for a long time until Ryzen and Threadripper.

6. Raptor Lake was more interesting but VIA oxidation issues began in manufacturing after some time and Intel didn't respond in the best way possible, opting to delay the inevitable rather than trying to do what was right for their customers.

7. Raptor Lake and Raptor Lake Refresh plagued with a microcode bug that causes much higher voltages than intended, and higher clocks under heavy loads when it's not supposed to, resulting in degradation over time, with no actual remedy beyond completely gimping the CPU's performance because the problem lies in Intel's own microcode.

8. 5800X3D completely destroyed the 12900K, and the 7800X3D dominates the 14900K. KS variants were pointless flops that didn't make a real difference over the standard variants.

[_I_]

amd and intel have always been trading places

and no its not good to lose one for good
when cyrix was lost, amd and intel were all that was left to make cpus and much less competition

nvidia makes some mobile cpus, which helps, but not the desktop or console markets

[Tonepoet]

There were Power P.C. processors, which were a joint venture between Motorola, I.B.M. and Apple. Most y'all have probably used power P.C. processors too. It's hard to imagine many of us would've never touched a bondai blue iMac, Gamecube, Wii, Xbox 360, playstation 3 or Wii U. Most of us probably never touched a Pippin though. There are also A.R.M. based processors.

Intel and A.M.D. only matter for 8084 lineage processors, which is what most people use because of the back catalogue of compatible legacy software, but that might not prop them up forever. 64 bit Windows dropped software support for 16 bit software. Apple dropped support for their classic O.S. software. D.O.S. software is largely abandoned too.

Apple was on Intel and decided to ditch it for A.R.M. Apple has a pretty large amount of sway on the way the rest of the hardware market goes, and we're kind of in a situation where just as many people are using A.R.M. on their mobile devices.

It may just so come to pass that Snapdragon snaps up enough customers with their Rosetta translation layer to persuade people to make the switchover. I mean, I kind of doubt it, but I also doubted that C.R.Ts. would disappear from the market virtually overnight too, they were so ubiquitous.

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

AMD hasn't really taken down Intel, and even if they did, no, it wouldn't be cool to see.

I'm not sure if this is right, but I read the post with a hint of irony myself.

[Dutchgamer1982]

I'd say it is a massive increase.... it is all about performance per watt..
raw performance gain is irrelevant.

that can be more performance at same wattage or equal performance at lower wattage
these new 9000 cpu's perform 15% faster with 40% less powerdraw.. that IS a massive gain.

much better than doubling the powerdraw and performance both.. for than the gain would be zero. (which is why in my book between the 2xxx series gpus of nvidea and the 4xxx series only 10% actual gain has been had in 2 generations)

[bidulless]

hello
something i've read this morning
https://www.neowin.net/news/amd-microsoft-prepping-windows-11-24h2-performance-patch-for-ryzen-9000-7000-5000-cpus/

[C1REX]

Escrito originalmente por Dutchgamer1982:

these new 9000 cpu's perform 15% faster with 40% less powerdraw.. that IS a massive gain.

15% faster in very few benchmarks.
40% less power draw comparing to 7600x and 7700x but almost no difference when comparing to 7600 non x and 7700 non x.

It’s really nothing special at the moment.
7800x3D remains the best and most power efficient gaming CPU.

[Guydodge]

everyone needs to get a grip and understand it makes no difference what so ever what
either company does or doesnt do.if they screw it up or sky rocket to the top.its not
like we have any other choice.they know this so your wasting allot of your time thinking
either one is hurting or really cares.i think that should be obvious as to the last few releases
by both parties the 14000 series and the 9000 there was no improvements to really speak
of.they are both at the end of there cycles and giving meaningless upgrades,

they lead you to believe oh great i can save 5 dollars on my electric bill or i get 5 more fps
blah blah blah..we are just cattle being lead to the slaughter.because int the end they
have a monopoly and either you buy or you go without.the same goes for GPUs.

[A&A]

Both companies have the necessary technology to make the best processor. it remains only for them to decide when to do it.

[_I_]

when amd was dead after fx before they finished development of ryzen, intel did basically nothing to make cpus any faster or add more cores

basically 4th to 6th gen were about the same, 2-4 cores some with ht

[Mad Scientist]

Escrito originalmente por _I_:

when amd was dead after fx before they finished development of ryzen, intel did basically nothing to make cpus any faster or add more cores

basically 4th to 6th gen were about the same, 2-4 cores some with ht

Easy to dethrone someone especially with a massive overhaul to ones products when the other gets too comfortable with being the king.

Personally enjoyed seeing AMDs rise with Ryzen & Threadripper, they used to be a complete joke in the FX days, and there were many jokes about the FX series for individuals working in IT when people would complain of performance, temperature, or bottleneck. Because it was almost always an FX-8350 or FX-6300.

[_I_]

yea, amd has always pushed intel to putting more cores on cpus
with the early phenom/athlon 2-4 core cpus

even amd was first to put out the 64bit cpu
then intel scrambled to make the p4 and core 64bit cpus

fx even with its poor core performance, low ipc, poor smt did do fairly well with heavily threaded tasks

the only saving factor of fx with high clocks
they had similar core performance to the pii x4-6 just because fx was clocked higher

i remember one of the oc groups did a fx9 down to one core/thread to hit 8ghz, but its single core performance wasnt any better than a 2nd gen intel i series

[Dutchgamer1982]

Escrito originalmente por _I_:

when amd was dead after fx before they finished development of ryzen, intel did basically nothing to make cpus any faster or add more cores

basically 4th to 6th gen were about the same, 2-4 cores some with ht

my 1350 euro x99 5960x and 1600 euro 6950x (8 and 10 core and 40 and 48 lanes respectively).. and double that number of processes when i3 all still had 2 cores, 2 processes i5 2 cores 2 cores 4 processes and i7 mainstream (it was before processes like mine were rebrandeded i9) 4 cores 4 processes

amd meanwhile did have 8 core, 16 process cpu's with those fx chils but they did draw twice the power and were even with 8 cores in performance below even the weakest i3.. amd was dead.

whe ryzen surprissed everybody all of the sudden all those extra cores and lanes started to be added to the regulair 400-600 euro mainstream line i7s in recordtime...
showed indeed out how much intel had been holding out...

amd's lead is however not as big as intels back than.. intel back than basicly had won performance and performance per wat in ALL product classes.. with amd's best weaker than their weakest chip of 2 generations ago..

intel is struggling.. they basicly now have the fx crappy chips (same issue to much tdp, running to hot, and try to win with more cores and processes not performance)
->
but intel is only 10-15% behind.. their best is performing like only JUST behind amd's best.. less than 1 generation of performance difference..
and performance per watt.. thats further behind for single core loads.. but for multicore tasks they still have their lead)

and even in the era intel went "lazy" they may held out on the leaps they could have given us..
but they did roughly add 40% performance gain at same voltage per generation.

for me both the situation in 2016 and today is the world went wrong...

as I remember the 2000s as how things between amd and intel should be :

performance wise they should be very very close to one another...
amd should offer you more bang for you buck (offering you chips at 70% the price intel offers chips with similair performance)
intel should hold the performance crown.. both in per tdp, stability (office work) and performance per watt..
those leads need however to be marginal.. like 4-7% performance and 8-15% performance per watt lead.. with most of intels advantage being in the runs more stabile (much less crashes)


leading to a nice share for both.
-> home users on a budget go amd
-> high end gamers go either way
-> compagnies who care more bout stability and the energybill go intel.

I'd like that situation to be restored..

[_I_]

i meant for mainstream desktop use
not server/hedt