The big reveal!

~Darkseeker~

Fully Optimized
Messages
2,494
Location
Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom

~Darkseeker~

Fully Optimized
Messages
2,494
Location
Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom
The official AMD video shows the 12 core (1920X) out-ranking an i9-7900X in a Cinebench R15 benchmark test. That's the lesser of the two chips as well, the other being the 16 core which in a multi-threaded test would surely score even better!

Essentially, AMD's $799 chip is making Intel's $1000 chip look bad. Love it, finally some competition to drive down prices!
 

Smart_Guy

Fully Optimized
Messages
4,514
Location
Saudi Arabia
Not sure if making more cores is a good move, specially if tests are on synthetic benchmarks. If I remember correctly, in real life applications less core Intels outperformed more core AMD's, at least before Ryzen. I think AMD should consider the architectures more for now. I remember the huge difference Intel made when they made the cache memory shared in Core 2 Duo after the disappointment on Pentium D instead of just adding more and more cores to the latter's architecture.

But I'm a gamer most of all. As far as I know, less cores (reasonably) is typically better for games and their development (at least before Ryzen).
 

~Darkseeker~

Fully Optimized
Messages
2,494
Location
Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom
While it is true that Intel tends to beat AMD on single-core performance and IPC, most people who would buy a higher end CPU usually have some reason to - almost all productivity workloads really love more threads and most games these days are doing well at using multiple cores.

AMD are playing a cores game, but they've also set a focus on some less gamery stuff like EPYC (Ryzen's server older brother) and Threadripper which is going to be for your video editors and content producers etc. Nobody should ever buy a Threadripper CPU for gaming :p

Hardware Unboxed did a huge video comparing a Ryzen 5 (~$200) to the 7800X ($500?) and the difference in performance is hardly even worth mentioning most of the time, some games that are evidently not very well optomised for multi-core work better on Intel, but in general its very level. This to me suggests that we're entering into a period of time now when you can just pick up a $200 CPU and game and not think twice about it.
 

Smart_Guy

Fully Optimized
Messages
4,514
Location
Saudi Arabia
If the price difference is ~$300 USD for a marginal unworthy difference in performance, then that's really good news!

We consumers long for such competition to get better prices and performance and it means we are the first winners before those firms (depending on views). Go for it, AMD. bring back he old days of Athlon vs the awful late Pentiums (but please reconsider your naming approach :p).
 

~Darkseeker~

Fully Optimized
Messages
2,494
Location
Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom
That's one thing I will say on nomenclature.. God only knows why they gave their SERVER CPUs a really Gamery name like 'EPYC'. If it stood for something I guess I could let it slide... but as far as I know it doesn't and people just refer to it as EPYC and pronounce it as 'EPIC'.

I think they've been spending too much time around gamers!

In case you're interested, here's that comparison video:-

https://youtu.be/UfNMn7RWgLw
 

Smart_Guy

Fully Optimized
Messages
4,514
Location
Saudi Arabia
Well, as long as the names are nice on the ears ;)

Thanks for the video. I'll watch it when I get back home. No Youtube here at work.
 
Top