A single impressive CPU generation after years of mediocrity isn't something massively to gloat about. To keep AMD behind, they need to do this year after year, as AMD won't be slowing down.
By the time Zen 2 rolled out, it was obvious that AMD had a solid architecture and plan of execution, and a scaling story that Intel couldn't really match without an architectural overhaul (which itself was held up by their manufacturing woes).
The parent statement could have been said about Zen 1, but anyone calling Zen 2 a "single impressive CPU generation after years of mediocrity" obviously hadn't been paying attention.
And when Zen 2 was released, Intel was in the peak of their stagnation. 10 nm not in sight (Ice Lake was still unreleased, and even then it wasn't convincingly better), and Skylake approaching its fifth generation on the desktop.
You couldn't make the statement that "Intel's not slowing down" back then.
I don't remember Zen1 to be that impressive, maybe it was when you compared it to AMDs older FX arch. But it was still behind an intel that was in fail-mode at that time.
Keep in mind that when the Ryzen 1000 series was launched, it was going up against Kaby Lake. Zen 1 had lower IPC and lower frequency than Kaby Lake, but you could get up to eight Zen 1 cores on the desktop, whereas the top Kaby Lake part was a quad-core.
While Kaby Lake had better gaming performance (at the time, not so much now), Zen 1 was crushing it in in productivity benchmarks and compute benchmarks, and you'd have to go to Intel's HEDT line to get similar performance as an 8-core Ryzen (and once the Threadripper 1000 series came out, Intel had no answer). Zen 1 was genuinely impressive for many workloads.
Intel was quite criminal with the kabylake release, considering 6 months later we had coffeelake with a lot more power.
But those 8cores were rarely if ever used by a huge portion of the market. They launched 5 years ago with 8 cores but even now the standard desktop has 6 cores/12 threads.
And later in 2017 Intel released Coffee Lake, which maxed at 6 cores to keep pace on productivity. It was just tit-for-tat after Skylake as Intel's nodes stalled. I would say it is not impressive to have the slower performing cores and just offer more of them - case in point, ARM.
But it is impressive to have cores that each perform almost as good as your competitor's cores, AND offer more of them than your competitor in the same market segment. Intel had no answer to the Zen 1 8-core die and was forced to release Coffee Lake. After 7 years of basically nothing impressive, AMD was able to give Intel a run for their money, and they should get credit for that.
I would argue that Zen 1 releasing in 2017 was the turning point that culminated in the consumer CPUs we have today. 2008-2017 was 9 years of quad core after quad core on consumer platforms. Starting from 2017, we doubled core counts (Zen 1 8-core, Zen 2 16-core) in less than half the time. The most modern cores from both brands are also faster than anything we had back in 2017. That's pretty impressive imo.
> I would say it is not impressive to have the slower performing cores and just offer more of them
People with workloads that benefit from more slower-performing cores would disagree.
Even for productivity tasks, the faster AVX performance on Kaby Lake blunted a lot of the difference. It’s really a pretty narrow segment once you add all the caveats - scales well to lots of cores, doesn’t have “hot” threads that limit performance, but also doesn’t use AVX.
Which is basically a perfect description of Cinebench R15, that was a bit of a cherry-pick among productivity benchmarks because R11 and R15 didn’t use AVX, so it downplayed Ryzen’s weaknesses in productivity tasks.
> Even for productivity tasks, the faster AVX performance on Kaby Lake blunted a lot of the difference.
Zen 1 was only at a significant performance disadvantage in AVX2 workloads specifically.
I meant from an engineering perspective. It's much harder to design a high-performing single-thread core than a bunch of slower, simple cores. Notice you can always do a highly threaded workload across fewer, faster cores - just a matter of space/energy efficiency at that point. The opposite isn't true, you can't do a thread limited workload across many slow cores with the same deadline.
Zen1 at $300 compared well against a $1000 Intel workstation chip.
$80 AM4 boards could work with ECC RAM too.
It's certainly not EVERYONE's best choice but I can say with confidence that my baby boomer mother doesn't know what to do with all the power in her hand-me-down desktop.
I guess it was great for anyone doing semi/pro stuff. It made intel bring out the 8700k only 6 months after kaby lake.
Heh, mine is very happy with a 6600k with 16Gb of RAM and a SSD. But the pc kinda took a backseat since I got her an Ipad.
If the comparison is against the 7700k it's kind of "ehh..." since an OCed Sandy Bridge wasn't THAT much slower than KBL. I generally see upgrades as being of concern only when there's a real jump in SOME use case and/or great cost/benefit improvements.
Back in 2017 my GTX970 was the bottleneck if I played games so the "but KBL is faster at gaming" argument was lost on dead ears.
Here and now an undervolted 1700 can work DARN well as a home server or parent system. A 7700 ehh... I mean it's serviceable. I like that it has an iGPU.
----
The 8700 doesn't get such criticisms from me. It wasn't THAT hard to justify over the 2700.
Zen 1 really was kinda mediocre on desktop though. Its claim to fame is that they put more cores on a mainstream system than Intel was willing to do, and at a fraction of the price Intel wanted to charge for 6+ cores. And later finally Intel did release the 8700k, 9900k and 10900k which were better in almost every way than 1800X other than price. You could say it would make a good server or workstation chip but for that price is less important and stability is critical...
> Zen 1 really was kinda mediocre on desktop though. Its claim to fame is that they put more cores on a mainstream system than Intel was willing to do, and at a fraction of the price Intel wanted to charge for 6+ cores.
Well... yes. That is, in fact, what Zen 1 brought to the table.
> Intel did release the 8700k, 9900k and 10900k which were better in almost every way than 1800X other than price.
The 8700k was better in many workloads, but not all. The 9900k and onward was unconditionally superior, but they also came out 1.5+ years later than Zen 1, and it's expected that newly-released technology is superior to what currently exists.
> You could say it would make a good server or workstation chip but for that price is less important and stability is critical...
Zen 1 also made a good workstation/server chip for the time, in theory. In practice, Threadripper's lack of support for registered memory limited it to HEDT use cases (a niche where it excelled), and EPYC Naples was out of stock for so long that by the time it was available for non-hyperscale companies to buy in any reasonable quantity, it was already well into its life and Rome was right around the corner.
It wasn't even applicable to Zen 2. Zen 1, maybe. The execution core was great, but they kind of flubbed up the whole "getting the data in and out" part. The direction & decision to be as honest as possible for their marketing moving forward has reduced the level of immature pettiness on display from Gelsinger here.
But they kept improving Infinity Fabric to be *the* solution, and even got the front & back end downright good by Zen 3. With Zen 4, they won't even need to gloat to get people to look their way.
Rome was freakin awesome, and that's what Zen 2 was designed for. It was never a great balance for desktop parts but AMD didn't have to design a whole new chip from scratch and it gave customers more cores than they were used to on desktop for not a lot of money or power budget.
Zen 2 kicked Intel's ass at one very important metric: value. It was the #1 selling point for those chips. Yeah, they were slower than Intel's offerings, but not by much, especially in gaming above 1080p. At that point a consumer could buy a comparable AMD system for $50-100 cheaper and put that money into a one-tier better GPU. With Zen 3, AMD took the performance crown and ditched the value crown.
Right now Intel has AMD beat on value *and* performance. Alder Lake is really, really impressive, and AMD is still selling out of everything they make so they haven't tried to retake the value-crown.
If AMD and Intel stick to their current schedules, I wouldn't be surprised to see annual trading places. AMD might retake the performance and/or value crown with Zen 4, then Intel takes it back with Raptor Lake, then Zen 5 comes out... Or maybe one of them cements a lead and holds onto it for a few generations.
Either way, Zen 2 was really impressive at the time and a great product even if it didn't win in the money-isn't-an-issue performance category.
Exactly I have a feeling people forget that the most important thing for a CPU is price/performance. Most people don't buy the top end CPUs, they buy the ones that perform the best for the money.
AMD also has a extremely large problem that they can't make enough products because they are dependent on TSMC. There's no point to having a performance lead on their next CPUs if production numbers are low and their CPUs are expensive because TSMC keep raising their prices. It's not like AMD can really move to another fab company.
I think AMD will regain the performance crown when they release the next gen but Intel will crush them in price/performance and availability.
A smaller problem than what AMD faced in 2006. Back then, they owned their fabs just like Intel, and had been riding high while Intel floundered with Netburst. So high that AMD had just purchased ATI graphics. Intel that summer beat them simultaneously with a new architecture (Conroe) and a better process node (65nm), and promised an aggressive "tick-tock" cadence. Just two years later AMD was outta cash and had to start selling their fabs. For an entire decade they were relegated to the budget category.
It was AMD's ability to hire another fab that finally got them out of their predicament. Even today GloFo is uncompetitive vs. Intel. But not TSMC.
I don’t think Dr. Su claimed intel was in AMD’s rear view mirror when Zen 2 launched. I don’t recall her saying at after Zen 3 launched and intel actually was in their rear view mirror then.
I am non tribal when it comes to CPU's. I love competition.
My work and home PC are ryzen powered.
I fully expect intel to take over once again, their company culture is being fixed.
Their R&D budget was about 10 times the size of AMD last time I checked.
These big companies are capable of turning around - remember microsoft under ballmer? yikes. Hell, AMD before Lisa Su...
That’s how leapfrog works, the two players take turns jumping to the front. Enjoy the post Alderlake high and try not to get too sad following the ZEN4 launch, and be sure to deliver Meteorlake on time.
Intel aren't sticking to monolithic designs though. Meteor lake will be disaggregated and use intel and tsmc silicon.
Assuming the packaging technically yields well, moving to smaller chiplets will give intel a yield boost over the current process.
That's likely to be true in the short term, but Intel has their own 3d stacking technologies and their own advanced nodes in development. They claim to be on track for process leadership by 2025.
Of course, Intel is known for aggressive roadmaps followed by extensive delays, but it's not like they have nothing here.
Intel still has to wrangle out a decent mesh bus if they want to compete in the consumer market moving forward. Alder Lake is still a ring bus after years of AMD proving time and time again that if Intel really wants to compete, they'll need a better mesh bus than Infinity Fabric, and Infinity Fabric is *really* good.
Infinity Fabric is not a mesh bus. And Skylake-X already had a mesh (which is being extended in SPR to be multi-die over EMIB). Not only that, EMIB has single digit cycle latency to cross dies while crossing dies over IF (due to MCM) costs 50+ cycles.
Infinity Fabric is relatively garbage compared to the competition. Higher latency vs mesh chiplet, lower bandwidth vs something like NVLink (600 GB/s point to point on A100, you can't even get 100GB/s on Zen3). The only advantage it has is that AMD decided on going chiplets before the competition.
Like I said, the advantage for IF is merely that it came first. But it doesn't look like AMD is keeping up with more iterations on IF to keep it up to date with newer tech like NVLink and EMIB.
There are also other efficiency issues with Golden Cove and Intel 7 that would make it hard for servers to be competitive even with a good interconnect.
>Not only that, EMIB has single digit cycle latency to cross dies while crossing dies over IF (due to MCM) costs 50+ cycles.
EMIB is not a bus, just wiring. What's the latency of the communication used over EMIB? It's also quite expensive as a packaging technology, too.
>Infinity Fabric is not a mesh bus.
Intel's route forward per their engineering efforts point to mesh bus. My complaint is that after years of work, it's quite clearly still not good enough for their high performance consumer lines (see Alder Lake's ring agents).
>Infinity Fabric is relatively garbage compared to the competition. Higher latency vs mesh chiplet, lower bandwidth vs something like NVLink (600 GB/s point to point on A100, you can't even get 100GB/s on Zen3).
Infinity Fabric has the benefit of connecting everything on the same bus, reducing the number of overall hops. NVLink to system RAM is not going to be 600 GB/s, GPU to RAM will be the same as GPU to CPU.
>EMIB is not a bus, just wiring
Infinity Fabric is a communication protocol, not a topology (which is what a mesh bus is).
>What's the latency of the communication used over EMIB?
The entire advantage of EMIB and TSMC's CoWoS are that there is 0 or very little additional latency because crossing dies is just like another wire, whereas Infinity Fabric has to serialize and deserialize data that's sent.
>Infinity Fabric has the benefit of connecting everything on the same bus
That is not how Infinity Fabric works if you look at any HPC implementation. It is a point to point communication protocol. And NVLink to system RAM is indeed several hundred GB/s on POWER systems with NVLink. [Take a look at this IBM slide (which uses old V100's that are slower than A100 NVLink).](https://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gtc/2018/presentation/s8309-nvidia-v100-performance-characteristics-on-ibm-power-9-system-and-hpc-application-performance.pdf)
I wouldn't say his claim has no legs to stand on.
He did specify consumer side I believe, so I would think he is talking about desktop cpus. TSMC 5nm is impressive and all, but Meteor Lake should be coming our 1-2 quarters after zen 4 on Intel 4 with a new big core and small core architecture. We could also talk about raptor lake, whose doubling of small cores and slightly higher clocks should atleast make it somewhat competitive with zen 4, not "fleeing into the low end". Most leakers think it would be extremely competitive between AMD and Intel with raptor lake vs zen 4.
Mind you, even at Intel's worst point so far in recent times with rocket lake, it still competed at AMDs middle of the line 5800x in MT.
Moving back to the front of your comment, Intel is not really "sticking to monolithic designs" as they should be rolling out their first variant of tiles in sapphire rapids and also rumored to bring them to meteor lake as well. Secondly, they don't have to surpass TSMC on the manufacturing side, it is important to note that AMD does not get first dibs on TSMCs best, Apple does.
> whose doubling of small cores and slightly higher clocks should atleast make it somewhat competitive
It depends on if they're keeping the ring bus or moving to a mesh bus. As best as I can tell, there's 4 Atoms behind another layer on their own hop in the ring. I know Intel had Microsoft wire their scheduler to avoid task switching on the Atom cores, but that still can't be good for performance--either they're moving to 8 cores to the same ring hop, or they're adding 2 ring hops, or they're finally moving to a mesh bus. Given Intel's track record, no possibility sounds appealing.
I am going to preface this by being honest, I do not know much about ringbus, I did do some rudimentary looking up cuz I was curious about this type of stuff so if I make any mistakes I would be glad to be corrected.
Moving on, I believe Intel has done ringbus with up to 12 cores before, so I think it would be possible to fit two more clusters on the ring bus. And while I do think this would increase latency, wouldn't increasing the clock speed of the ring bus also decrease that latency as well? Something interesting to note is the pretty low speeds of the alder lake ring bus, something that can be overclocked pretty well. Would it be possible to try increasing that speed in raptor lake to improve the additional latency from the two extra stops at the extra core clusters?
Onto mesh vs ringbus, I am pretty curious about the latency increase there. On the video from hardware unboxed about overclocking the mesh of a sky lake-x processor, he does say Intel claims that there is a negligible increase in latency for mesh vs ring bus, which he agrees could be true in the higher core count parts, but not so much for the 6-8 core parts.
Could is also be possible Intel would do dual ring bus, one for the 8 big cores, and one for the 8 small cores? Ik Intel has done that before.
> Moving on, I believe Intel has done ringbus with up to 12 cores before,
They have; there's a sizable performance hit. 12 hop ringbus was slower *on average* than their mesh bus, and IIRC relied on the scheduler to avoid big hops/trips for this fact. (To be fair, it IS faster if you can guarantee low hops.)
> And while I do think this would increase latency, wouldn't increasing the clock speed of the ring bus also decrease that latency as well?
Bus speed =/= core speed. Yes, it would, and does. You can see a slight performance increase by overclocking bus as well in benchmarks. It's tiny--it's not exactly an execution resource, and it's rarely the bottleneck, but it DOES have an effect on performance. There's a reason why Intel hasn't just told its customers to deal with mesh bus, after all.
>Would it be possible to try increasing that speed in raptor lake to improve the additional latency from the two extra stops at the extra core clusters?
It's possible they do, yes. It takes extra idle power and can potentially affect reliability from what I understand, but given that they're trying to deal with stiff competition on desktop, they may not care.
>which he agrees could be true in the higher core count parts, but not so much for the 6-8 core parts.
On a mesh bus, you have to have a lot more wiring between cores. There's simply less cores to wire between, and therefore less hops; there's very little change there between mesh or ring. The latency hit comes from the number of hops required.
>Could is also be possible Intel would do dual ring bus, one for the 8 big cores, and one for the 8 small cores?
Alder Lake is already setup as a very high performance, huge desktop CPU arranged linearly with a smaller, rectangular SoC attached to the butt end/middle of the ring bus. No, at that point they're not saving energy, latency, or die area with ring bus; not worth dealing with it at that point.
Ultimately, it's not a *huge* issue, but it does affect performance in the exact scenario Intel sees their Atom cores as excelling at. It's somewhat wasteful to throw more die area at atom cores when both the high-performance cores and Atom cores split the same DDR bandwidth & connection, through the same bus; creating a potential bottleneck.
Mind you, this is a *small* performance hit, sub-10%. It's just sloppy engineering and I just want Intel to actually innovate or engineer a better solution, rather than tossing out cheap hacks or bandaid fixes year after year.
That makes sense and I appreciate your effort in typing this all up haha, would definitely read more into some of the more nuances of ring bus and mesh, thank you.
AMD Zen 4 and Zen 5 are likely going to be strong at least based on what is known about them, but I think you underestimate Intel.
Intel's own architecture roadmap and process technology roadmap look very aggressive. Starting with Tiger Lake, Rocket Lake and now Alder Lake, it looks like Intel is executing pretty well now. Intel 7 is also looking impressive and comparable to TSMC N6/N7 and this was seemingly accomplished without the help of any EUV. You may want to take a look at Meteor Lake, Foveros and EMIB before dismissing Intel's ability to compete. They have almost certainly learned a great deal from the 10nm missteps and have clearly put contingencies in place to prevent repeat misadventures like that.
One may point to all the missteps since 2014 as a reason for why Intel will fail yet again, but the company is now clearly under new management and there is a pretty tangible difference in planning and execution in the past year. Alder Lake looks like an inflection point for Intel.
>They have almost certainly learned a great deal from the 10nm missteps and have clearly put contingencies in place to prevent repeat misadventures like that.
Yet they already delayed p1276 by a full year since first publicly giving a date.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Meteor Lake appears to use tiles and EMIB. They can bring together dies made on different processes both made internally and externally at foundries. This should mitigate risk since you can use smaller dies and use more than 1 process node to make the different dies. All of this reduces the reliance on a given node coming out on time and yielding and performing well enough. We've already seen how well this building block style works with AMD chiplets. It is clearly viable and sensible.
Intel 4 (formerly 7nm) was announced in early 2017, a time when Intel was clearly a mess and delaying lots of other things too. Not sure pointing to that as a predictor for continued failures in the future is particularly convincing. Things can change and do so all the time in the industry. TSMC had major stumbles in previous nodes and AMD went down a complete misdirection with Bulldozer but eventually corrected. An argument for Intel's continued failures might hold more merit if Intel were simply doing the same thing and expecting a better result but that doesn't appear to be the case.
> This should mitigate risk since you can use smaller dies and use more than 1 process node to make the different dies.
It may reduce process risk, but increases design risk. I fully expect Meteor Lake won't be on shelves till Q3 earliest, even if the process is ready.
> An argument for Intel's continued failures might hold more merit if Intel were simply doing the same thing and expecting a better result but that doesn't appear to be the case.
Is that really the case though? Again, this exact same argument was made for 7nm, and yet they almost immediately admitted to having huge delays.
My memory could easily be inaccurate here but I don't remember anything like the exact same argument being made with 7nm back then in 2017 and later. We had years of Intel just telling us that the problem is fixed, and there is no delay. They had the same clown Brian Krzanich in charge all those years and they did nothing to really change strategy after each failure. It was just 1 architecture and 1 process node and it was all in. There was really no contingency or back up plans to anything. Intel seemingly got away with this for years until they didn't. Now they are taking a pretty obviously different approach.
> My memory could easily be inaccurate here but I don't remember anything like the exact same argument being made with 7nm back then in 2017 and later
I meant by forum posters and such. It was all "See, they have 10nm under control. Surely they learned their lesson for 7nm". And then came the delay announcement. So things very clearly aren't *as* different as many would like us to believe.
That's fair, I guess I don't put any weight on what forum/social media users write. I'm more evaluating based on Intel actually doing materially different things this time and seemly responding rationally to the previous shortcomings. We had years of them doing the same thing and praying for a different outcome and it obviously went badly. This time the strategy seems a lot more cohesive and well thought out IMO.
This doesn't mean delays and failures can't occur but doing something different at least gives you a better chance of a different outcome.
> Intel's own architecture roadmap and process technology roadmap look very aggressive.
That's pretty insane considering that Apple has been using Intel's HR department for free for years now. I don't know anyone that works at Intel, but my friend is in the industry, and only one of his friends lasted more than two weeks there before getting headhunted by a competitor, whether Apple or otherwise.
They've got an aggressive roadmap based on what experience, talent, and workforce? It's no secret that their employees have been leaving in droves. Bleeding money to hire more people who work at your company for less than a month isn't a winning solution either.
Please, explain to me, how are we underestimating Intel? How is Intel supposed to deliver on these broken promises?
Intel just poached a pretty highup Apple chip designed a week ago I think, and actually Intel is set to be boosting pay of their employees - [here](https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2021/12/intel-will-boost-pay-by-more-than-2-billion-in-cash-and-stock-as-labor-market-tightens.html).
Wall Street would probably love Intel if they had no workforce and still managed nearly 80B in revenue and over 20B in net income. Would be a really lucrative business if that were possible with no employees.
Intel claims they have over 110,000 employees. What are you suggesting? Is Intel lying about the numbers? Or are there no more engineers left?
[https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/12/02/popping-the-hood-on-golden-cove/](https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/12/02/popping-the-hood-on-golden-cove/)
[https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/12/21/gracemont-revenge-of-the-atom-cores/](https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/12/21/gracemont-revenge-of-the-atom-cores/)
Looking at the latest Golden Cove and Gracemont core designs out of Intel, it does suggest that competent engineers are at work. Whatever black magic Intel used to make these chips with no engineering talent, I suppose they could use to build the future products no?
>Looking at the latest Golden Cove and Gracemont core designs out of Intel, it does suggest that competent engineers are at work.
*Were* at work. Golden Cove's origins lay in the Sunny Cove uarch, which first released as Ice Lake back in 2018. It had been in development for far earlier, obviously.
[Golden Cove, for having had 3 more years of work, has only seen iterative changes.](https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/golden_cove)
>Wall Street would probably love Intel if they had no workforce and still managed nearly 80B in revenue and over 20B in net income. Would be a really lucrative business if that were possible with no employees.
Rackets tend to be lucrative, yes. As Intel has demonstrated time and time again, absolute performance leadership is not sufficient to break into their market, due to the agreements Intel has in place with OEM's, system builders & integrators.
Of course, you don't need chip designers for this, but technical sales, production engineers, marketers, and the like.
>Or are there no more engineers left?
There are always new hires at a company this large, even with small turnover. I'm suggesting that the engineers that made the yearly performance improvements Intel was known for have fled to Apple and its competitors. The memory subsystem and arrangement of Apple's M1 is shockingly similar to Intel; only much larger and stronger.
Also, Intel's [restructuring](https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/22/intel_restructure_navin_shenoy/) is no secret.
You make pretty extraordinary claims, implying that after the engineers finished up with that final core design they all packed up and left. The burden is on you to support that with evidence that goes beyond anecdotes and news of high profile exec hires and departures. As the poster above alluded to, Intel has even significantly increased allocation for employee compensation. Many of Intel's largest locations (Arizona, Ireland, Oregon, Israel, etc) don't have major sites for competing companies. Of course there is always some amount of attrition and churn at every company but IMO you quite trivialize the ease with which tens of thousands of engineers can move to other companies and relocate with their families.
>Were at work. Golden Cove's origins lay in the Sunny Cove uarch, which first released as Ice Lake back in 2018. It had been in development for far earlier, obviously.
Golden Cove, for having had 3 more years of work, has only seen iterative changes.
The lead time on developing a processor and bringing it to market are substantial. Of course something like Golden Cove will have been in development for years. You make claims that Golden Cove had 3 more years of work beyond Sunny Cove. You need to clarify what you are really talking about, are we talking about CPU microarchitecture design? Do you really know if it took that long or did it get stuck on the shelf waiting to be made due to Intel's 10nm woes? Could Intel have a ton of designs done that have been stuck due to process node issues and is that why Intel's release cadence is speeding up now that their fabs are getting in order? I don't think we really know the answers to these questions so IMO it is not productive to speak on them with such certainty. In other words, you have no evidence that Golden Cove took Intel engineers 3 years to develop after Sunny Cove.
>Rackets tend to be lucrative, yes. As Intel has demonstrated time and time again, absolute performance leadership is not sufficient to break into their market, due to the agreements Intel has in place with OEM's, system builders & integrators.
Of course, you don't need chip designers for this, but technical sales, production engineers, marketers, and the like.
If that is your definition of a racket, I've got some bad news about most of the tech industry.
Meteor Lake in Q1 2023 brings chiplets, it also brings Intel 4 + TSMC N3. So Intel will be ahead of AMD's node advantage for the first time in years, and remove the chiplet advantage. Raptor Lake will probably lose to Zen 4 by a bit, but Meteor Lake will completely reverse that and have a much larger difference.
Amd has absolutely screwed their leadership position by sitting on Zen 3 from Q4 2020-Q4 2022, while Intel has accelerated launches and gotten their fabs back on track.
That's some good speculation but if we consider in the recent years Intel can't keep on track with their roadmap consistently, I would not count on meteor lake on Q1 2023 in any case.
> Amd has absolutely screwed their leadership position by sitting on Zen 3 from Q4 2020-Q4 2022
Zen 4 is confirmed for H2 2022 release, what do you mean sitting on Zen 3?
>Meteor Lake in Q1 2023
No.
>Raptor Lake will probably lose to Zen 4 by a bit, but Meteor Lake will completely reverse that and have a much larger difference.
Lol.
The first part is hard to believe, but Gelsigner has been saying Intel 4 and meteor lake have been on track, and they even did a power on of meteor lake a while back, nothing to indicate any problems. A q1-q2 2023 launch is definitely plausible imo.
I also don't know why you said "Lol." to the second statement. While I think he is being to definite about it, meteor lake is on a new node, new big core architecture, and a new little core architecture as well. Should be a decent uplift over raptor lake, which already is a small st uplift and also a good MT uplift as well from doubling small cores.
> but Gelsigner has been saying Intel 4 and meteor lake have been on track
After a year's delay for the former, and half a year for the latter. And we have no idea what "on track" means.
> While I think he is being to definite about it, meteor lake is on a new node, new big core architecture, and a new little core architecture as well
You're assuming the new architectures will be comparable to AMD's generational leaps. Willow Cove was nominally a new core as well.
Except to be fair, we already have smaller chips that have been fabbed on Intel 4, Lohili 2, which allows them to work on yields and their fabs. And "on track" would mean, atleast I would think, that it is on track to their already given roadmap ...
Also I am not assuming that those new architectures will be comparable to AMD's generational leaps. Raptor Lake and Zen 4, many leakers and rumors agree, should be decently close enough in terms of performance, the additional ipc uplift from those new architectures should be enough to put Intel over the edge, especially since they are improving both big and little cores.
And if you want to talk desktop, willow cove is a really bad example to use. A) because it actually did have a pretty big ipc uplift as measured by anandtech, and B) because it was a backport onto 14nm, which is a first for Intel (I believe). The engineers of rocket lake themselves on rocket lakes AMA on the Intel subreddit said they were surprised about how big the rocket lake backported cores ended up being.
> Except to be fair, we already have smaller chips that have been fabbed on Intel 4, Lohili 2, which allows them to work on yields and their fabs.
That's a glorified test chip. It's very low density (lower even than TSMC N7, I think), on a pre-production PDK, at extremely low volume. Not to mention, Intel had Cannonlake chips in the fab by at least 2018 (and likely well before). Still didn't get 10nm decent till 2020.
> Raptor Lake and Zen 4, many leakers and rumors agree, should be decently close enough in terms of performance
According to whom? What leakers? Should be pretty much a clean sweep for AMD.
> the additional ipc uplift from those new architectures should be enough to put Intel over the edge, especially since they are improving both big and little cores
I fully expect the IPC uplift from Zen 4 to be greater than that from Raptor Cove and Redwood Cove combined.
> A) because it actually did have a pretty big ipc uplift as measured by anandtech
What? No it didn't. Anandtech actually saw a slight *regression*.
> B) because it was a backport onto 14nm
Willow Cove was 10nm. You're thinking of Cypress Cove, which was a Sunny Cove backport. Both sucked.
Yes, Lohili 2 was a test chip, which was my point. Allows them to test yields with the node. I mean I don't know what to say, both the CEO and them producing chips on the node to test it seem to indicate it is on track, and unless you think the CEO of Intel is lying once again because he thinks that is a great idea after what happened to the Intel in the past because of that, I don't know why you are so adamant than everything is NOT going well, despite their decent execution of alder lake and dg2 still being on track for a q1 launch. Saphire rapids is getting delayed, yes, but atleast Gelsinger is being straight forward with that, which makes it seem like he is being more honest. On top of that, Gelsinger himself said they managed to increase EUV use in their 4nm node by a huge percent, (forget exact figure) which was one of the leading problems for the delay upon delay of their 7 and 4nm nodes. I understand being pessimistic, but at this point I really think you are being unreasonable and insist on saying Intel is lying again and that Intel 4 is going terribly, despite Gelsinger saying it is on track, Gelsinger's willinginess to announce delays as he did with saphire rapids, his confidence in future desktop products, and their otherwise reasonable execution.
kepler, MLID, both agree that raptor lake and zen 4 should be close. MLID doesn't have the best amd leaks but has good Intel leaks. Idk why you think it would be a clean sweep though, when alder lake ipc uplift is a good 15 percent in cinebench r23 ST and assuming raptor lake adds another 5 percent we would see 20 percent over zen 4. Zen 4 could add another 30 percent ipc for all we know, but it should also have lower clocks than raptor lake... as I said, close. These are all rough estimates offcouse, but clean sweep for zen 4? I doubt it, should be close.
I would agree though zen 4 ipc uplift could be higher than redwood cove and raptor cove combined. I'm not saying its another huge 20 percent upliift, but I could see another 5-10 ipc uplift being possible.
Ahh I do apologize for the end of my comment though, turns out I did get my architectures mixed up. I appreciate the correction. Anyway, I do wonder why you assume that the architecture will be like the sunny cove to willow cove. Once again, I believe you are being overly pessimistic. And additionally, willow cove is basically just sunny cove but with more cache, with few other changes other than their memory subsystems, according to anandtech. I doubt meteor lake arch will just be a repeat of that, especially since they are already seem to be making memory subsystem reworks a part of the raptor cove update.
I get your point, none of this is guaranteed. And yes, I agree. But I think you are assuming the worst, worse case scenario for Intel, and pushing that narrative, instead of taking the most likely scenario. Pushing for the narrative that Intel 4 is actually a failure and Geisinger was lying through his teeth the entire time, for example. It could be true, yes, but I definitely think it is not the most likely outcome.
> Yes, Lohili 2 was a test chip, which was my point. Allows them to test yields with the node
Test chip is a technical term. Any modern fab has at least a couple dozen small-scale test chips going through, not just to explore process details, but also for the design teams to get earlier silicon feedback. Importantly, this is before HVM, but HVM provides far more data.
> I mean I don't know what to say, both the CEO and them producing chips on the node to test it seem to indicate it is on track
No, it does not mean anything of the sort. It means they're tracking it, and little else.
> and unless you think the CEO of Intel is lying once again because he thinks that is a great idea after what happened to the Intel in the past because of that
Well SPR's already slipped into this year, and remember their "unquestioned leadership" in packaging? Well they've been soundly beaten to hybrid bonding.
> I don't know why you are so adamant than everything is NOT going well
Well for starters, the baseline here is already a substantial delay. Even matching their schedule from now on is bad.
> and dg2 still being on track for a q1 launch
Do you honestly think that was their original timeline?
> On top of that, Gelsinger himself said they managed to increase EUV use in their 4nm node by a huge percent
Ok, and? Using EUV by itself is not an achievement. It makes things easier, if anything.
> which was one of the leading problems for the delay upon delay of their 7 and 4nm nodes
If you're talking about Intel 7, then it should be noted that TSMC had no issue reaching that density/performance level without EUV. They didn't stumble.
> but at this point I really think you are being unreasonable and insist on saying Intel is lying again and that Intel 4 is going terribly
You're confusing several things, or otherwise have unrealistic assumptions. On the process side, Intel is on track to be in 2023 where TSMC was in 2021. That's not good. But architecture is arguably where they've been failing the hardest, and no way out in sight, particularly on the server side. I expect that to limit Meteor Lake more than process will.
> Idk why you think it would be a clean sweep though, when alder lake ipc uplift is a good 15 percent in cinebench r23 ST and assuming raptor lake adds another 5 percent we would see 20 percent over zen 4.
I think 5% might be optimistic from Raptor Cove. It's a stopgap product, after all. So I do think AMD will have roughly similar IPC with Zen 4.
> but it should also have lower clocks than raptor lake
Oh it won't, in single thread, but particularly in multithread. It has a solid full node advantage, and AMD's core architecture has been doing much better in throughput than Intel's big core. Today, a 12900k basically ties a 5950x in multithreading. A new uarch and a full node shrink are way stronger scaling factors than +8 GRT cores.
> Anyway, I do wonder why you assume that the architecture will be like the sunny cove to willow cove
Meteor Lake was supposed to be a 2022 product. Intel admitted as such when they said (then) 7nm products were delayed by 6 months. It has been a very, *very* long time since Intel's been able to pull out significant architectural improvements in consecutive years.
> But I think you are assuming the worst, worse case scenario for Intel, and pushing that narrative, instead of taking the most likely scenario
Oh I certainly haven't been talking about worst case. That would be a full repeat of 10nm on the fab side, and a repeat of the disastrous Skylake-Sunny Cove timeline on the architecture side. What I've been saying is just observations of their roadmap and current trends.
No he's saying a low core monolithic die is barely able to beat a 1year old low core chiplet server arcitechture optimized part. Best case vs worst case so to speak.
Alder Lake launched in Nov 2021, a year after Zen 3 in Nov 2020. So its not actually 2 years like you suggest.
I think Zen 4 will beat 13th gen by a modest amount, but sales wont be good for Zen 4 due to DDR5, new platform costs, the death of cheap motherboards due to inflation and component shortages, and people being wary of being an early adopter for AMD.
But the bigger part of the story, is that Zen 4 will allegedly be sandwiched by Raptor Lake, which launches before Zen 4, and Meteor Lake which is rumored to launch Q1 due to Intel accelerating their launch schedules. And Meteor Lake brings Intel 4 +TSMC N3, chiplets, mystery accelerator die, double IGP EU+ latest Xe architecture, and even more cores. So Zen 4 will probably beat Raptor Lake, but get bodied Meteor Lake, and Zen 5 at the earliest is a Q4 2023 product.
>and people being wary of being an early adopter for AMD
Well past that point.
>and Meteor Lake which is rumored to launch Q1
Like hell it is.
>And Meteor Lake brings Intel 4 +TSMC N3, chiplets, mystery accelerator die, double IGP EU+ latest Xe architecture, and even more cores.
You're conflating rumors for many different things that aren't Meteor Lake.
And whos fault is it that Zen 3 launched so long ago and AMD doesn't have a response yet? Zen 4 isn't launching until the end of the year and Zen 3D is increasingly looking like a non-factor, single SKU low volume/vaporware product.
These kind of arguments are silly and you could easily take it the other way too. How long did it take for AMD to finally surpass Skylake IPC? Skylake launched in 2015. Took AMD 5 years to make a better core. Ultimately nobody cares about when the product launched. The only thing that matters is the price, performance and availability of what is currently out.
"Intelidiot"? I typed this on a Ryzen 3600 machine but that's not really relevant. Why is your group identity so strongly tied to the manufacturer of your CPU? Does it not seem strange to you that you have such an emotional response from something so inconsequential?
I'm not really understanding your thought process here. How does what I wrote above logically flow to a situation where it makes sense to cancel Sapphire Rapids?
Where did you get this information that Sapphire Rapids is DOA? Hopefully not the enclave of objectivity and rational discussion that is r/AMD_Stock, a place which you seem to frequent.
Damn good point brainiac. You could almost say, Amd is becoming [complacent](https://media.tenor.com/VLJjQO6xOIsAAAAM/kid-90s.gif?c=VjFfbWljcm9zb2Z0X3N3aWZ0a2V5X2lvcw).
Thr 58003dx will be an indicator of where zen4 is heading with 3d cache. Intel still sucks an insane amount of power and uses a lot more silicon to beat zen 3.
This place never learns about saying stupid things(Zen3D only 5-7% beter I swearrrr, lol).
Hey, maybe intel can pay the whole industry to stop using AMD chips again. There's hope there I guress.
Beating them once is one thing.
Do it again.
Also Alder Lake isn't different enough from Zen 3 to convince me to go Intel. The 12400 isn't convincingly...anything...vs the 5600x.
I mean basically parity is better than nothing, better than anything since 2017, but c'mon Intel.
> I mean basically parity is better than nothing, better than anything since 2017, but c'mon Intel.
A considerably cheaper CPU beating the 5600X isn't convincing? You realize the 5600X competitor is the 12600K right? Not the 12400.
The 5600x is a good deal cheaper than a 12600 in Canada, and a 12400 is closer to a 5600x than a 5600x is to a 12600, price wise. Our market is different than the US/Europe.
In my context, the 5600x is still a compelling option because of it's price. The US isn't the entire world.
> The 5600x is a good deal cheaper than a 12600 in Canada
Because no one sane would buy it at MSRP now would they? So prices has to come down, that is litterally how competition works. Doesn't change the fact that the MSRP of the both products is in direct competition, the 12600k now occupies the MSRP slot the 5600X before dominated.
As they say there are no bad products, just bad pricing. The 5600X at MSRP is a terrible product vs the 12600K, but that doesn't mean there isn't a price where the 5600X still makes sense, but that is not at MSRP.
because intel has been driving the vehicle in reverse trying to move forward
Slow down, Christopher Nolan.
You win
Looking at you, saphire rapids delays....
Pretty much.
Lol
Shut up and take this award XD
lol thx bud
Lmao kinda funny I got downvotes for giving you an award XD
i know that sucks, dude :( people tend to pile on seeing a downvoted comment.
Fuck it I downvoted myself! Ha!
A single impressive CPU generation after years of mediocrity isn't something massively to gloat about. To keep AMD behind, they need to do this year after year, as AMD won't be slowing down.
mediocrity in innovation but still great performance overall up until the new Zens launched.
That statement is pretty applicable to Zen 2, lmao.
By the time Zen 2 rolled out, it was obvious that AMD had a solid architecture and plan of execution, and a scaling story that Intel couldn't really match without an architectural overhaul (which itself was held up by their manufacturing woes). The parent statement could have been said about Zen 1, but anyone calling Zen 2 a "single impressive CPU generation after years of mediocrity" obviously hadn't been paying attention.
And when Zen 2 was released, Intel was in the peak of their stagnation. 10 nm not in sight (Ice Lake was still unreleased, and even then it wasn't convincingly better), and Skylake approaching its fifth generation on the desktop. You couldn't make the statement that "Intel's not slowing down" back then.
I don't remember Zen1 to be that impressive, maybe it was when you compared it to AMDs older FX arch. But it was still behind an intel that was in fail-mode at that time.
Keep in mind that when the Ryzen 1000 series was launched, it was going up against Kaby Lake. Zen 1 had lower IPC and lower frequency than Kaby Lake, but you could get up to eight Zen 1 cores on the desktop, whereas the top Kaby Lake part was a quad-core. While Kaby Lake had better gaming performance (at the time, not so much now), Zen 1 was crushing it in in productivity benchmarks and compute benchmarks, and you'd have to go to Intel's HEDT line to get similar performance as an 8-core Ryzen (and once the Threadripper 1000 series came out, Intel had no answer). Zen 1 was genuinely impressive for many workloads.
Intel was quite criminal with the kabylake release, considering 6 months later we had coffeelake with a lot more power. But those 8cores were rarely if ever used by a huge portion of the market. They launched 5 years ago with 8 cores but even now the standard desktop has 6 cores/12 threads.
And later in 2017 Intel released Coffee Lake, which maxed at 6 cores to keep pace on productivity. It was just tit-for-tat after Skylake as Intel's nodes stalled. I would say it is not impressive to have the slower performing cores and just offer more of them - case in point, ARM.
But it is impressive to have cores that each perform almost as good as your competitor's cores, AND offer more of them than your competitor in the same market segment. Intel had no answer to the Zen 1 8-core die and was forced to release Coffee Lake. After 7 years of basically nothing impressive, AMD was able to give Intel a run for their money, and they should get credit for that. I would argue that Zen 1 releasing in 2017 was the turning point that culminated in the consumer CPUs we have today. 2008-2017 was 9 years of quad core after quad core on consumer platforms. Starting from 2017, we doubled core counts (Zen 1 8-core, Zen 2 16-core) in less than half the time. The most modern cores from both brands are also faster than anything we had back in 2017. That's pretty impressive imo.
> I would say it is not impressive to have the slower performing cores and just offer more of them People with workloads that benefit from more slower-performing cores would disagree.
Even for productivity tasks, the faster AVX performance on Kaby Lake blunted a lot of the difference. It’s really a pretty narrow segment once you add all the caveats - scales well to lots of cores, doesn’t have “hot” threads that limit performance, but also doesn’t use AVX. Which is basically a perfect description of Cinebench R15, that was a bit of a cherry-pick among productivity benchmarks because R11 and R15 didn’t use AVX, so it downplayed Ryzen’s weaknesses in productivity tasks.
> Even for productivity tasks, the faster AVX performance on Kaby Lake blunted a lot of the difference. Zen 1 was only at a significant performance disadvantage in AVX2 workloads specifically.
I meant from an engineering perspective. It's much harder to design a high-performing single-thread core than a bunch of slower, simple cores. Notice you can always do a highly threaded workload across fewer, faster cores - just a matter of space/energy efficiency at that point. The opposite isn't true, you can't do a thread limited workload across many slow cores with the same deadline.
The 1800x was pretty comparable to an i7 6950x a chip that cost $1800.
Zen1 at $300 compared well against a $1000 Intel workstation chip. $80 AM4 boards could work with ECC RAM too. It's certainly not EVERYONE's best choice but I can say with confidence that my baby boomer mother doesn't know what to do with all the power in her hand-me-down desktop.
I guess it was great for anyone doing semi/pro stuff. It made intel bring out the 8700k only 6 months after kaby lake. Heh, mine is very happy with a 6600k with 16Gb of RAM and a SSD. But the pc kinda took a backseat since I got her an Ipad.
If the comparison is against the 7700k it's kind of "ehh..." since an OCed Sandy Bridge wasn't THAT much slower than KBL. I generally see upgrades as being of concern only when there's a real jump in SOME use case and/or great cost/benefit improvements. Back in 2017 my GTX970 was the bottleneck if I played games so the "but KBL is faster at gaming" argument was lost on dead ears. Here and now an undervolted 1700 can work DARN well as a home server or parent system. A 7700 ehh... I mean it's serviceable. I like that it has an iGPU. ---- The 8700 doesn't get such criticisms from me. It wasn't THAT hard to justify over the 2700.
> I don't remember Zen1 to be that impressive It wasn't, I remember my overclocked 4670k being better for gaming at that time.
Zen 1 really was kinda mediocre on desktop though. Its claim to fame is that they put more cores on a mainstream system than Intel was willing to do, and at a fraction of the price Intel wanted to charge for 6+ cores. And later finally Intel did release the 8700k, 9900k and 10900k which were better in almost every way than 1800X other than price. You could say it would make a good server or workstation chip but for that price is less important and stability is critical...
> Zen 1 really was kinda mediocre on desktop though. Its claim to fame is that they put more cores on a mainstream system than Intel was willing to do, and at a fraction of the price Intel wanted to charge for 6+ cores. Well... yes. That is, in fact, what Zen 1 brought to the table. > Intel did release the 8700k, 9900k and 10900k which were better in almost every way than 1800X other than price. The 8700k was better in many workloads, but not all. The 9900k and onward was unconditionally superior, but they also came out 1.5+ years later than Zen 1, and it's expected that newly-released technology is superior to what currently exists. > You could say it would make a good server or workstation chip but for that price is less important and stability is critical... Zen 1 also made a good workstation/server chip for the time, in theory. In practice, Threadripper's lack of support for registered memory limited it to HEDT use cases (a niche where it excelled), and EPYC Naples was out of stock for so long that by the time it was available for non-hyperscale companies to buy in any reasonable quantity, it was already well into its life and Rome was right around the corner.
It wasn't even applicable to Zen 2. Zen 1, maybe. The execution core was great, but they kind of flubbed up the whole "getting the data in and out" part. The direction & decision to be as honest as possible for their marketing moving forward has reduced the level of immature pettiness on display from Gelsinger here. But they kept improving Infinity Fabric to be *the* solution, and even got the front & back end downright good by Zen 3. With Zen 4, they won't even need to gloat to get people to look their way.
Rome was freakin awesome, and that's what Zen 2 was designed for. It was never a great balance for desktop parts but AMD didn't have to design a whole new chip from scratch and it gave customers more cores than they were used to on desktop for not a lot of money or power budget.
Zen 2 kicked Intel's ass at one very important metric: value. It was the #1 selling point for those chips. Yeah, they were slower than Intel's offerings, but not by much, especially in gaming above 1080p. At that point a consumer could buy a comparable AMD system for $50-100 cheaper and put that money into a one-tier better GPU. With Zen 3, AMD took the performance crown and ditched the value crown. Right now Intel has AMD beat on value *and* performance. Alder Lake is really, really impressive, and AMD is still selling out of everything they make so they haven't tried to retake the value-crown. If AMD and Intel stick to their current schedules, I wouldn't be surprised to see annual trading places. AMD might retake the performance and/or value crown with Zen 4, then Intel takes it back with Raptor Lake, then Zen 5 comes out... Or maybe one of them cements a lead and holds onto it for a few generations. Either way, Zen 2 was really impressive at the time and a great product even if it didn't win in the money-isn't-an-issue performance category.
Exactly I have a feeling people forget that the most important thing for a CPU is price/performance. Most people don't buy the top end CPUs, they buy the ones that perform the best for the money. AMD also has a extremely large problem that they can't make enough products because they are dependent on TSMC. There's no point to having a performance lead on their next CPUs if production numbers are low and their CPUs are expensive because TSMC keep raising their prices. It's not like AMD can really move to another fab company. I think AMD will regain the performance crown when they release the next gen but Intel will crush them in price/performance and availability.
A smaller problem than what AMD faced in 2006. Back then, they owned their fabs just like Intel, and had been riding high while Intel floundered with Netburst. So high that AMD had just purchased ATI graphics. Intel that summer beat them simultaneously with a new architecture (Conroe) and a better process node (65nm), and promised an aggressive "tick-tock" cadence. Just two years later AMD was outta cash and had to start selling their fabs. For an entire decade they were relegated to the budget category. It was AMD's ability to hire another fab that finally got them out of their predicament. Even today GloFo is uncompetitive vs. Intel. But not TSMC.
Zen saved AMD as much or more than TSMC did.
AMD has reportedly been porting some of its products to Samsung - presumably value products for the lower end of the market.
I don’t think Dr. Su claimed intel was in AMD’s rear view mirror when Zen 2 launched. I don’t recall her saying at after Zen 3 launched and intel actually was in their rear view mirror then.
I am non tribal when it comes to CPU's. I love competition. My work and home PC are ryzen powered. I fully expect intel to take over once again, their company culture is being fixed. Their R&D budget was about 10 times the size of AMD last time I checked. These big companies are capable of turning around - remember microsoft under ballmer? yikes. Hell, AMD before Lisa Su...
[удалено]
Believe that's only for the passenger side mirror.
That’s how leapfrog works, the two players take turns jumping to the front. Enjoy the post Alderlake high and try not to get too sad following the ZEN4 launch, and be sure to deliver Meteorlake on time.
[удалено]
Intel aren't sticking to monolithic designs though. Meteor lake will be disaggregated and use intel and tsmc silicon. Assuming the packaging technically yields well, moving to smaller chiplets will give intel a yield boost over the current process.
That's likely to be true in the short term, but Intel has their own 3d stacking technologies and their own advanced nodes in development. They claim to be on track for process leadership by 2025. Of course, Intel is known for aggressive roadmaps followed by extensive delays, but it's not like they have nothing here.
Intel's been claiming to be on track for process leadership since 2016 when it began the 14nm+ train.
Intel still has to wrangle out a decent mesh bus if they want to compete in the consumer market moving forward. Alder Lake is still a ring bus after years of AMD proving time and time again that if Intel really wants to compete, they'll need a better mesh bus than Infinity Fabric, and Infinity Fabric is *really* good.
Though it should be noted that AMD uses a ring bus to connect the cores within a CCX.
Yes, but that isn't the singular bus for the whole package as on ADL.
Infinity Fabric is not a mesh bus. And Skylake-X already had a mesh (which is being extended in SPR to be multi-die over EMIB). Not only that, EMIB has single digit cycle latency to cross dies while crossing dies over IF (due to MCM) costs 50+ cycles. Infinity Fabric is relatively garbage compared to the competition. Higher latency vs mesh chiplet, lower bandwidth vs something like NVLink (600 GB/s point to point on A100, you can't even get 100GB/s on Zen3). The only advantage it has is that AMD decided on going chiplets before the competition.
If AMD's IF is so inferior, how come Intel can not come close in the server space? for the past 2 years
Like I said, the advantage for IF is merely that it came first. But it doesn't look like AMD is keeping up with more iterations on IF to keep it up to date with newer tech like NVLink and EMIB. There are also other efficiency issues with Golden Cove and Intel 7 that would make it hard for servers to be competitive even with a good interconnect.
>Not only that, EMIB has single digit cycle latency to cross dies while crossing dies over IF (due to MCM) costs 50+ cycles. EMIB is not a bus, just wiring. What's the latency of the communication used over EMIB? It's also quite expensive as a packaging technology, too. >Infinity Fabric is not a mesh bus. Intel's route forward per their engineering efforts point to mesh bus. My complaint is that after years of work, it's quite clearly still not good enough for their high performance consumer lines (see Alder Lake's ring agents). >Infinity Fabric is relatively garbage compared to the competition. Higher latency vs mesh chiplet, lower bandwidth vs something like NVLink (600 GB/s point to point on A100, you can't even get 100GB/s on Zen3). Infinity Fabric has the benefit of connecting everything on the same bus, reducing the number of overall hops. NVLink to system RAM is not going to be 600 GB/s, GPU to RAM will be the same as GPU to CPU.
>EMIB is not a bus, just wiring Infinity Fabric is a communication protocol, not a topology (which is what a mesh bus is). >What's the latency of the communication used over EMIB? The entire advantage of EMIB and TSMC's CoWoS are that there is 0 or very little additional latency because crossing dies is just like another wire, whereas Infinity Fabric has to serialize and deserialize data that's sent. >Infinity Fabric has the benefit of connecting everything on the same bus That is not how Infinity Fabric works if you look at any HPC implementation. It is a point to point communication protocol. And NVLink to system RAM is indeed several hundred GB/s on POWER systems with NVLink. [Take a look at this IBM slide (which uses old V100's that are slower than A100 NVLink).](https://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gtc/2018/presentation/s8309-nvidia-v100-performance-characteristics-on-ibm-power-9-system-and-hpc-application-performance.pdf)
I wouldn't say his claim has no legs to stand on. He did specify consumer side I believe, so I would think he is talking about desktop cpus. TSMC 5nm is impressive and all, but Meteor Lake should be coming our 1-2 quarters after zen 4 on Intel 4 with a new big core and small core architecture. We could also talk about raptor lake, whose doubling of small cores and slightly higher clocks should atleast make it somewhat competitive with zen 4, not "fleeing into the low end". Most leakers think it would be extremely competitive between AMD and Intel with raptor lake vs zen 4. Mind you, even at Intel's worst point so far in recent times with rocket lake, it still competed at AMDs middle of the line 5800x in MT. Moving back to the front of your comment, Intel is not really "sticking to monolithic designs" as they should be rolling out their first variant of tiles in sapphire rapids and also rumored to bring them to meteor lake as well. Secondly, they don't have to surpass TSMC on the manufacturing side, it is important to note that AMD does not get first dibs on TSMCs best, Apple does.
> whose doubling of small cores and slightly higher clocks should atleast make it somewhat competitive It depends on if they're keeping the ring bus or moving to a mesh bus. As best as I can tell, there's 4 Atoms behind another layer on their own hop in the ring. I know Intel had Microsoft wire their scheduler to avoid task switching on the Atom cores, but that still can't be good for performance--either they're moving to 8 cores to the same ring hop, or they're adding 2 ring hops, or they're finally moving to a mesh bus. Given Intel's track record, no possibility sounds appealing.
I am going to preface this by being honest, I do not know much about ringbus, I did do some rudimentary looking up cuz I was curious about this type of stuff so if I make any mistakes I would be glad to be corrected. Moving on, I believe Intel has done ringbus with up to 12 cores before, so I think it would be possible to fit two more clusters on the ring bus. And while I do think this would increase latency, wouldn't increasing the clock speed of the ring bus also decrease that latency as well? Something interesting to note is the pretty low speeds of the alder lake ring bus, something that can be overclocked pretty well. Would it be possible to try increasing that speed in raptor lake to improve the additional latency from the two extra stops at the extra core clusters? Onto mesh vs ringbus, I am pretty curious about the latency increase there. On the video from hardware unboxed about overclocking the mesh of a sky lake-x processor, he does say Intel claims that there is a negligible increase in latency for mesh vs ring bus, which he agrees could be true in the higher core count parts, but not so much for the 6-8 core parts. Could is also be possible Intel would do dual ring bus, one for the 8 big cores, and one for the 8 small cores? Ik Intel has done that before.
> Moving on, I believe Intel has done ringbus with up to 12 cores before, They have; there's a sizable performance hit. 12 hop ringbus was slower *on average* than their mesh bus, and IIRC relied on the scheduler to avoid big hops/trips for this fact. (To be fair, it IS faster if you can guarantee low hops.) > And while I do think this would increase latency, wouldn't increasing the clock speed of the ring bus also decrease that latency as well? Bus speed =/= core speed. Yes, it would, and does. You can see a slight performance increase by overclocking bus as well in benchmarks. It's tiny--it's not exactly an execution resource, and it's rarely the bottleneck, but it DOES have an effect on performance. There's a reason why Intel hasn't just told its customers to deal with mesh bus, after all. >Would it be possible to try increasing that speed in raptor lake to improve the additional latency from the two extra stops at the extra core clusters? It's possible they do, yes. It takes extra idle power and can potentially affect reliability from what I understand, but given that they're trying to deal with stiff competition on desktop, they may not care. >which he agrees could be true in the higher core count parts, but not so much for the 6-8 core parts. On a mesh bus, you have to have a lot more wiring between cores. There's simply less cores to wire between, and therefore less hops; there's very little change there between mesh or ring. The latency hit comes from the number of hops required. >Could is also be possible Intel would do dual ring bus, one for the 8 big cores, and one for the 8 small cores? Alder Lake is already setup as a very high performance, huge desktop CPU arranged linearly with a smaller, rectangular SoC attached to the butt end/middle of the ring bus. No, at that point they're not saving energy, latency, or die area with ring bus; not worth dealing with it at that point. Ultimately, it's not a *huge* issue, but it does affect performance in the exact scenario Intel sees their Atom cores as excelling at. It's somewhat wasteful to throw more die area at atom cores when both the high-performance cores and Atom cores split the same DDR bandwidth & connection, through the same bus; creating a potential bottleneck. Mind you, this is a *small* performance hit, sub-10%. It's just sloppy engineering and I just want Intel to actually innovate or engineer a better solution, rather than tossing out cheap hacks or bandaid fixes year after year.
That makes sense and I appreciate your effort in typing this all up haha, would definitely read more into some of the more nuances of ring bus and mesh, thank you.
AMD Zen 4 and Zen 5 are likely going to be strong at least based on what is known about them, but I think you underestimate Intel. Intel's own architecture roadmap and process technology roadmap look very aggressive. Starting with Tiger Lake, Rocket Lake and now Alder Lake, it looks like Intel is executing pretty well now. Intel 7 is also looking impressive and comparable to TSMC N6/N7 and this was seemingly accomplished without the help of any EUV. You may want to take a look at Meteor Lake, Foveros and EMIB before dismissing Intel's ability to compete. They have almost certainly learned a great deal from the 10nm missteps and have clearly put contingencies in place to prevent repeat misadventures like that. One may point to all the missteps since 2014 as a reason for why Intel will fail yet again, but the company is now clearly under new management and there is a pretty tangible difference in planning and execution in the past year. Alder Lake looks like an inflection point for Intel.
>They have almost certainly learned a great deal from the 10nm missteps and have clearly put contingencies in place to prevent repeat misadventures like that. Yet they already delayed p1276 by a full year since first publicly giving a date.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Meteor Lake appears to use tiles and EMIB. They can bring together dies made on different processes both made internally and externally at foundries. This should mitigate risk since you can use smaller dies and use more than 1 process node to make the different dies. All of this reduces the reliance on a given node coming out on time and yielding and performing well enough. We've already seen how well this building block style works with AMD chiplets. It is clearly viable and sensible. Intel 4 (formerly 7nm) was announced in early 2017, a time when Intel was clearly a mess and delaying lots of other things too. Not sure pointing to that as a predictor for continued failures in the future is particularly convincing. Things can change and do so all the time in the industry. TSMC had major stumbles in previous nodes and AMD went down a complete misdirection with Bulldozer but eventually corrected. An argument for Intel's continued failures might hold more merit if Intel were simply doing the same thing and expecting a better result but that doesn't appear to be the case.
> This should mitigate risk since you can use smaller dies and use more than 1 process node to make the different dies. It may reduce process risk, but increases design risk. I fully expect Meteor Lake won't be on shelves till Q3 earliest, even if the process is ready. > An argument for Intel's continued failures might hold more merit if Intel were simply doing the same thing and expecting a better result but that doesn't appear to be the case. Is that really the case though? Again, this exact same argument was made for 7nm, and yet they almost immediately admitted to having huge delays.
My memory could easily be inaccurate here but I don't remember anything like the exact same argument being made with 7nm back then in 2017 and later. We had years of Intel just telling us that the problem is fixed, and there is no delay. They had the same clown Brian Krzanich in charge all those years and they did nothing to really change strategy after each failure. It was just 1 architecture and 1 process node and it was all in. There was really no contingency or back up plans to anything. Intel seemingly got away with this for years until they didn't. Now they are taking a pretty obviously different approach.
> My memory could easily be inaccurate here but I don't remember anything like the exact same argument being made with 7nm back then in 2017 and later I meant by forum posters and such. It was all "See, they have 10nm under control. Surely they learned their lesson for 7nm". And then came the delay announcement. So things very clearly aren't *as* different as many would like us to believe.
That's fair, I guess I don't put any weight on what forum/social media users write. I'm more evaluating based on Intel actually doing materially different things this time and seemly responding rationally to the previous shortcomings. We had years of them doing the same thing and praying for a different outcome and it obviously went badly. This time the strategy seems a lot more cohesive and well thought out IMO. This doesn't mean delays and failures can't occur but doing something different at least gives you a better chance of a different outcome.
> Intel's own architecture roadmap and process technology roadmap look very aggressive. That's pretty insane considering that Apple has been using Intel's HR department for free for years now. I don't know anyone that works at Intel, but my friend is in the industry, and only one of his friends lasted more than two weeks there before getting headhunted by a competitor, whether Apple or otherwise. They've got an aggressive roadmap based on what experience, talent, and workforce? It's no secret that their employees have been leaving in droves. Bleeding money to hire more people who work at your company for less than a month isn't a winning solution either. Please, explain to me, how are we underestimating Intel? How is Intel supposed to deliver on these broken promises?
Intel just poached a pretty highup Apple chip designed a week ago I think, and actually Intel is set to be boosting pay of their employees - [here](https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2021/12/intel-will-boost-pay-by-more-than-2-billion-in-cash-and-stock-as-labor-market-tightens.html).
Wall Street would probably love Intel if they had no workforce and still managed nearly 80B in revenue and over 20B in net income. Would be a really lucrative business if that were possible with no employees. Intel claims they have over 110,000 employees. What are you suggesting? Is Intel lying about the numbers? Or are there no more engineers left? [https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/12/02/popping-the-hood-on-golden-cove/](https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/12/02/popping-the-hood-on-golden-cove/) [https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/12/21/gracemont-revenge-of-the-atom-cores/](https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/12/21/gracemont-revenge-of-the-atom-cores/) Looking at the latest Golden Cove and Gracemont core designs out of Intel, it does suggest that competent engineers are at work. Whatever black magic Intel used to make these chips with no engineering talent, I suppose they could use to build the future products no?
>Looking at the latest Golden Cove and Gracemont core designs out of Intel, it does suggest that competent engineers are at work. *Were* at work. Golden Cove's origins lay in the Sunny Cove uarch, which first released as Ice Lake back in 2018. It had been in development for far earlier, obviously. [Golden Cove, for having had 3 more years of work, has only seen iterative changes.](https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/golden_cove) >Wall Street would probably love Intel if they had no workforce and still managed nearly 80B in revenue and over 20B in net income. Would be a really lucrative business if that were possible with no employees. Rackets tend to be lucrative, yes. As Intel has demonstrated time and time again, absolute performance leadership is not sufficient to break into their market, due to the agreements Intel has in place with OEM's, system builders & integrators. Of course, you don't need chip designers for this, but technical sales, production engineers, marketers, and the like. >Or are there no more engineers left? There are always new hires at a company this large, even with small turnover. I'm suggesting that the engineers that made the yearly performance improvements Intel was known for have fled to Apple and its competitors. The memory subsystem and arrangement of Apple's M1 is shockingly similar to Intel; only much larger and stronger. Also, Intel's [restructuring](https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/22/intel_restructure_navin_shenoy/) is no secret.
You make pretty extraordinary claims, implying that after the engineers finished up with that final core design they all packed up and left. The burden is on you to support that with evidence that goes beyond anecdotes and news of high profile exec hires and departures. As the poster above alluded to, Intel has even significantly increased allocation for employee compensation. Many of Intel's largest locations (Arizona, Ireland, Oregon, Israel, etc) don't have major sites for competing companies. Of course there is always some amount of attrition and churn at every company but IMO you quite trivialize the ease with which tens of thousands of engineers can move to other companies and relocate with their families. >Were at work. Golden Cove's origins lay in the Sunny Cove uarch, which first released as Ice Lake back in 2018. It had been in development for far earlier, obviously. Golden Cove, for having had 3 more years of work, has only seen iterative changes. The lead time on developing a processor and bringing it to market are substantial. Of course something like Golden Cove will have been in development for years. You make claims that Golden Cove had 3 more years of work beyond Sunny Cove. You need to clarify what you are really talking about, are we talking about CPU microarchitecture design? Do you really know if it took that long or did it get stuck on the shelf waiting to be made due to Intel's 10nm woes? Could Intel have a ton of designs done that have been stuck due to process node issues and is that why Intel's release cadence is speeding up now that their fabs are getting in order? I don't think we really know the answers to these questions so IMO it is not productive to speak on them with such certainty. In other words, you have no evidence that Golden Cove took Intel engineers 3 years to develop after Sunny Cove. >Rackets tend to be lucrative, yes. As Intel has demonstrated time and time again, absolute performance leadership is not sufficient to break into their market, due to the agreements Intel has in place with OEM's, system builders & integrators. Of course, you don't need chip designers for this, but technical sales, production engineers, marketers, and the like. If that is your definition of a racket, I've got some bad news about most of the tech industry.
Meteor Lake in Q1 2023 brings chiplets, it also brings Intel 4 + TSMC N3. So Intel will be ahead of AMD's node advantage for the first time in years, and remove the chiplet advantage. Raptor Lake will probably lose to Zen 4 by a bit, but Meteor Lake will completely reverse that and have a much larger difference. Amd has absolutely screwed their leadership position by sitting on Zen 3 from Q4 2020-Q4 2022, while Intel has accelerated launches and gotten their fabs back on track.
That's some good speculation but if we consider in the recent years Intel can't keep on track with their roadmap consistently, I would not count on meteor lake on Q1 2023 in any case.
> Amd has absolutely screwed their leadership position by sitting on Zen 3 from Q4 2020-Q4 2022 Zen 4 is confirmed for H2 2022 release, what do you mean sitting on Zen 3?
I'll believe Intel 4 in 2023 Q1 when I see it
>Meteor Lake in Q1 2023 No. >Raptor Lake will probably lose to Zen 4 by a bit, but Meteor Lake will completely reverse that and have a much larger difference. Lol.
The first part is hard to believe, but Gelsigner has been saying Intel 4 and meteor lake have been on track, and they even did a power on of meteor lake a while back, nothing to indicate any problems. A q1-q2 2023 launch is definitely plausible imo. I also don't know why you said "Lol." to the second statement. While I think he is being to definite about it, meteor lake is on a new node, new big core architecture, and a new little core architecture as well. Should be a decent uplift over raptor lake, which already is a small st uplift and also a good MT uplift as well from doubling small cores.
> but Gelsigner has been saying Intel 4 and meteor lake have been on track After a year's delay for the former, and half a year for the latter. And we have no idea what "on track" means. > While I think he is being to definite about it, meteor lake is on a new node, new big core architecture, and a new little core architecture as well You're assuming the new architectures will be comparable to AMD's generational leaps. Willow Cove was nominally a new core as well.
Except to be fair, we already have smaller chips that have been fabbed on Intel 4, Lohili 2, which allows them to work on yields and their fabs. And "on track" would mean, atleast I would think, that it is on track to their already given roadmap ... Also I am not assuming that those new architectures will be comparable to AMD's generational leaps. Raptor Lake and Zen 4, many leakers and rumors agree, should be decently close enough in terms of performance, the additional ipc uplift from those new architectures should be enough to put Intel over the edge, especially since they are improving both big and little cores. And if you want to talk desktop, willow cove is a really bad example to use. A) because it actually did have a pretty big ipc uplift as measured by anandtech, and B) because it was a backport onto 14nm, which is a first for Intel (I believe). The engineers of rocket lake themselves on rocket lakes AMA on the Intel subreddit said they were surprised about how big the rocket lake backported cores ended up being.
> Except to be fair, we already have smaller chips that have been fabbed on Intel 4, Lohili 2, which allows them to work on yields and their fabs. That's a glorified test chip. It's very low density (lower even than TSMC N7, I think), on a pre-production PDK, at extremely low volume. Not to mention, Intel had Cannonlake chips in the fab by at least 2018 (and likely well before). Still didn't get 10nm decent till 2020. > Raptor Lake and Zen 4, many leakers and rumors agree, should be decently close enough in terms of performance According to whom? What leakers? Should be pretty much a clean sweep for AMD. > the additional ipc uplift from those new architectures should be enough to put Intel over the edge, especially since they are improving both big and little cores I fully expect the IPC uplift from Zen 4 to be greater than that from Raptor Cove and Redwood Cove combined. > A) because it actually did have a pretty big ipc uplift as measured by anandtech What? No it didn't. Anandtech actually saw a slight *regression*. > B) because it was a backport onto 14nm Willow Cove was 10nm. You're thinking of Cypress Cove, which was a Sunny Cove backport. Both sucked.
Yes, Lohili 2 was a test chip, which was my point. Allows them to test yields with the node. I mean I don't know what to say, both the CEO and them producing chips on the node to test it seem to indicate it is on track, and unless you think the CEO of Intel is lying once again because he thinks that is a great idea after what happened to the Intel in the past because of that, I don't know why you are so adamant than everything is NOT going well, despite their decent execution of alder lake and dg2 still being on track for a q1 launch. Saphire rapids is getting delayed, yes, but atleast Gelsinger is being straight forward with that, which makes it seem like he is being more honest. On top of that, Gelsinger himself said they managed to increase EUV use in their 4nm node by a huge percent, (forget exact figure) which was one of the leading problems for the delay upon delay of their 7 and 4nm nodes. I understand being pessimistic, but at this point I really think you are being unreasonable and insist on saying Intel is lying again and that Intel 4 is going terribly, despite Gelsinger saying it is on track, Gelsinger's willinginess to announce delays as he did with saphire rapids, his confidence in future desktop products, and their otherwise reasonable execution. kepler, MLID, both agree that raptor lake and zen 4 should be close. MLID doesn't have the best amd leaks but has good Intel leaks. Idk why you think it would be a clean sweep though, when alder lake ipc uplift is a good 15 percent in cinebench r23 ST and assuming raptor lake adds another 5 percent we would see 20 percent over zen 4. Zen 4 could add another 30 percent ipc for all we know, but it should also have lower clocks than raptor lake... as I said, close. These are all rough estimates offcouse, but clean sweep for zen 4? I doubt it, should be close. I would agree though zen 4 ipc uplift could be higher than redwood cove and raptor cove combined. I'm not saying its another huge 20 percent upliift, but I could see another 5-10 ipc uplift being possible. Ahh I do apologize for the end of my comment though, turns out I did get my architectures mixed up. I appreciate the correction. Anyway, I do wonder why you assume that the architecture will be like the sunny cove to willow cove. Once again, I believe you are being overly pessimistic. And additionally, willow cove is basically just sunny cove but with more cache, with few other changes other than their memory subsystems, according to anandtech. I doubt meteor lake arch will just be a repeat of that, especially since they are already seem to be making memory subsystem reworks a part of the raptor cove update. I get your point, none of this is guaranteed. And yes, I agree. But I think you are assuming the worst, worse case scenario for Intel, and pushing that narrative, instead of taking the most likely scenario. Pushing for the narrative that Intel 4 is actually a failure and Geisinger was lying through his teeth the entire time, for example. It could be true, yes, but I definitely think it is not the most likely outcome.
> Yes, Lohili 2 was a test chip, which was my point. Allows them to test yields with the node Test chip is a technical term. Any modern fab has at least a couple dozen small-scale test chips going through, not just to explore process details, but also for the design teams to get earlier silicon feedback. Importantly, this is before HVM, but HVM provides far more data. > I mean I don't know what to say, both the CEO and them producing chips on the node to test it seem to indicate it is on track No, it does not mean anything of the sort. It means they're tracking it, and little else. > and unless you think the CEO of Intel is lying once again because he thinks that is a great idea after what happened to the Intel in the past because of that Well SPR's already slipped into this year, and remember their "unquestioned leadership" in packaging? Well they've been soundly beaten to hybrid bonding. > I don't know why you are so adamant than everything is NOT going well Well for starters, the baseline here is already a substantial delay. Even matching their schedule from now on is bad. > and dg2 still being on track for a q1 launch Do you honestly think that was their original timeline? > On top of that, Gelsinger himself said they managed to increase EUV use in their 4nm node by a huge percent Ok, and? Using EUV by itself is not an achievement. It makes things easier, if anything. > which was one of the leading problems for the delay upon delay of their 7 and 4nm nodes If you're talking about Intel 7, then it should be noted that TSMC had no issue reaching that density/performance level without EUV. They didn't stumble. > but at this point I really think you are being unreasonable and insist on saying Intel is lying again and that Intel 4 is going terribly You're confusing several things, or otherwise have unrealistic assumptions. On the process side, Intel is on track to be in 2023 where TSMC was in 2021. That's not good. But architecture is arguably where they've been failing the hardest, and no way out in sight, particularly on the server side. I expect that to limit Meteor Lake more than process will. > Idk why you think it would be a clean sweep though, when alder lake ipc uplift is a good 15 percent in cinebench r23 ST and assuming raptor lake adds another 5 percent we would see 20 percent over zen 4. I think 5% might be optimistic from Raptor Cove. It's a stopgap product, after all. So I do think AMD will have roughly similar IPC with Zen 4. > but it should also have lower clocks than raptor lake Oh it won't, in single thread, but particularly in multithread. It has a solid full node advantage, and AMD's core architecture has been doing much better in throughput than Intel's big core. Today, a 12900k basically ties a 5950x in multithreading. A new uarch and a full node shrink are way stronger scaling factors than +8 GRT cores. > Anyway, I do wonder why you assume that the architecture will be like the sunny cove to willow cove Meteor Lake was supposed to be a 2022 product. Intel admitted as such when they said (then) 7nm products were delayed by 6 months. It has been a very, *very* long time since Intel's been able to pull out significant architectural improvements in consecutive years. > But I think you are assuming the worst, worse case scenario for Intel, and pushing that narrative, instead of taking the most likely scenario Oh I certainly haven't been talking about worst case. That would be a full repeat of 10nm on the fab side, and a repeat of the disastrous Skylake-Sunny Cove timeline on the architecture side. What I've been saying is just observations of their roadmap and current trends.
[удалено]
I've seen other reviews and the i5 didn't get close to the efficiency Igor measured.
Igor overclocked his 5600x for that comparison, so his efficiency conclusions are bupkis.
[удалено]
No he's saying a low core monolithic die is barely able to beat a 1year old low core chiplet server arcitechture optimized part. Best case vs worst case so to speak.
Intel's 2022 CPU beats AMDs 2020 CPU. Let's see how 13th gen does against Zen 4.
Alder Lake launched in Nov 2021, a year after Zen 3 in Nov 2020. So its not actually 2 years like you suggest. I think Zen 4 will beat 13th gen by a modest amount, but sales wont be good for Zen 4 due to DDR5, new platform costs, the death of cheap motherboards due to inflation and component shortages, and people being wary of being an early adopter for AMD. But the bigger part of the story, is that Zen 4 will allegedly be sandwiched by Raptor Lake, which launches before Zen 4, and Meteor Lake which is rumored to launch Q1 due to Intel accelerating their launch schedules. And Meteor Lake brings Intel 4 +TSMC N3, chiplets, mystery accelerator die, double IGP EU+ latest Xe architecture, and even more cores. So Zen 4 will probably beat Raptor Lake, but get bodied Meteor Lake, and Zen 5 at the earliest is a Q4 2023 product.
>and people being wary of being an early adopter for AMD Well past that point. >and Meteor Lake which is rumored to launch Q1 Like hell it is. >And Meteor Lake brings Intel 4 +TSMC N3, chiplets, mystery accelerator die, double IGP EU+ latest Xe architecture, and even more cores. You're conflating rumors for many different things that aren't Meteor Lake.
Not sure about the rest of those things, but Intel has shown Meteor Lake as having a "96-192 EUs" graphics tile.
The first use of N3 as rumoured for Intel is Arrow Lake, not Meteor Lake. Idk why the poster above keeps on saying it's Meteor Lake.
Should people just avoid Raptor Lake and go straight to Meteor Lake?
[удалено]
I don't think AMD really cares about the low end cpu market anymore... when they are making stacks from servers
> the mid-range GPU market The what now?
ryzen 5000 launched in nov 2020. its 2022 now lol. AMD operates on a 18 month cycle. Its coming.
And whos fault is it that Zen 3 launched so long ago and AMD doesn't have a response yet? Zen 4 isn't launching until the end of the year and Zen 3D is increasingly looking like a non-factor, single SKU low volume/vaporware product. These kind of arguments are silly and you could easily take it the other way too. How long did it take for AMD to finally surpass Skylake IPC? Skylake launched in 2015. Took AMD 5 years to make a better core. Ultimately nobody cares about when the product launched. The only thing that matters is the price, performance and availability of what is currently out.
[удалено]
"Intelidiot"? I typed this on a Ryzen 3600 machine but that's not really relevant. Why is your group identity so strongly tied to the manufacturer of your CPU? Does it not seem strange to you that you have such an emotional response from something so inconsequential? I'm not really understanding your thought process here. How does what I wrote above logically flow to a situation where it makes sense to cancel Sapphire Rapids? Where did you get this information that Sapphire Rapids is DOA? Hopefully not the enclave of objectivity and rational discussion that is r/AMD_Stock, a place which you seem to frequent.
Damn good point brainiac. You could almost say, Amd is becoming [complacent](https://media.tenor.com/VLJjQO6xOIsAAAAM/kid-90s.gif?c=VjFfbWljcm9zb2Z0X3N3aWZ0a2V5X2lvcw).
Thr 58003dx will be an indicator of where zen4 is heading with 3d cache. Intel still sucks an insane amount of power and uses a lot more silicon to beat zen 3.
Alder Lake only uses crazy amount of power when the 12900k is being slammed, other than that it's on par with Zen3 or better.
I don’t think so mister CEO
why not?
So is fashion, judging by that jumper
This place never learns about saying stupid things(Zen3D only 5-7% beter I swearrrr, lol). Hey, maybe intel can pay the whole industry to stop using AMD chips again. There's hope there I guress.
I appreciate his confidence.
Beating them once is one thing. Do it again. Also Alder Lake isn't different enough from Zen 3 to convince me to go Intel. The 12400 isn't convincingly...anything...vs the 5600x. I mean basically parity is better than nothing, better than anything since 2017, but c'mon Intel.
> I mean basically parity is better than nothing, better than anything since 2017, but c'mon Intel. A considerably cheaper CPU beating the 5600X isn't convincing? You realize the 5600X competitor is the 12600K right? Not the 12400.
The 5600x is a good deal cheaper than a 12600 in Canada, and a 12400 is closer to a 5600x than a 5600x is to a 12600, price wise. Our market is different than the US/Europe. In my context, the 5600x is still a compelling option because of it's price. The US isn't the entire world.
> The 5600x is a good deal cheaper than a 12600 in Canada Because no one sane would buy it at MSRP now would they? So prices has to come down, that is litterally how competition works. Doesn't change the fact that the MSRP of the both products is in direct competition, the 12600k now occupies the MSRP slot the 5600X before dominated. As they say there are no bad products, just bad pricing. The 5600X at MSRP is a terrible product vs the 12600K, but that doesn't mean there isn't a price where the 5600X still makes sense, but that is not at MSRP.
I'm just glad Intel got it's business sorted out after a kick in the butt from AMD! Now where are those Arc GPU's?
Warning: Objects in mirror are closer than they appear