High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD • Hacker News Board

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#21

Post by thethirdone » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:41 AM UTC

MattSteelblade wrote: post #16

thethirdone wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intel's strategy of limiting the PCI throughput to hold GPU manufactures back is over, and these AMD cpu's are going to be paired super well with AMD, which is really making Intel look sad soon. Boat loads of major players have been irked by Intel holding back PCI throughput, AMD let it rip, and "thread ripped" too! In what way does the increase in PCI lanes stop holding gpu manufacturers back? To the best of my kn…

The vast majority of Intel's lineup--at least for the last few years--is only 16 lanes.

I get that, but given that GPUs currently can't use (for physical connector) / don't benefit from more than 16 lanes. Unless you are using multiple GPUs or another PCI device, you would not benefit from more than 16 lanes. How does that hold GPU manufacturers back?

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#22

Post by cmrx64 » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:44 AM UTC

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #6

Why aren't Intel Xeon E7 processors considered in these benchmarks? Clearly they are "high-end" and carry a $5k+ price tag to show for it.

they are user-contributed.

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#23

Post by prodikl » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 4:55 AM UTC

rgbrenner wrote: post #2

1 user reported the score: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+Threadrip... Edit: just noticed the title was changed. Originally it said something about Ryzen beating Intel's processors.

yeah i was gonna say. give it a week or a month to even out and so we can get more samples before we crown anyone king

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#24

Post by siberianbear » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 5:12 AM UTC

thethirdone wrote: post #21

MattSteelblade wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of Intel's lineup--at least for the last few years--is only 16 lanes.

I get that, but given that GPUs currently can't use (for physical connector) / don't benefit from more than 16 lanes. Unless you are using multiple GPUs or another PCI device, you would not benefit from more than 16 lanes. How does that hold GPU manufacturers back?

Some parallel computing problems are best solved by one CPU and a lot of GPUs. In some of these problems, inter-GPU communication is important. If you have each GPU using a single PCI lane, then the compute power can be bound by iner-GPU communication bandwidth.

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#25

Post by cjbprime » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 5:16 AM UTC

rocky1138 wrote: post #10

The top CPU is almost 4 times faster than my CPU (i5 6600K). Is it just down to the GHz and number of cores? Besides those two elements, what makes this processor so much faster?

It does seem to reward number of cores. The old AMD 2012 FX CPUs with 6/8 cores that run slowly are listed as some of the best CPU/$ deals, despite their poor single-core performance making them useless for e.g. gaming.

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#26

Post by ComputerGuru » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 5:16 AM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #14

rocky1138 wrote: post #10

The top CPU is almost 4 times faster than my CPU (i5 6600K). Is it just down to the GHz and number of cores? Besides those two elements, what makes this processor so much faster?

That, and they literally pack multiple dies into a single "package." https://www.extremetech.com/computing/253416-amd-explains-th...

Those really are not why a 2017 CPU is faster than a 2012 CPU. It's much more pipeline architecture than anything else.

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#27

Post by posguy » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 5:19 AM UTC

axaxs wrote: post #19

posguy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The timeline looks about right, SA says he moved back to AMD in 2012[1], so figure 4 years to design a new core and get a few test runs in, then a year to ramp enough so you can sell said chip. That being said, I think it has more to do with an overall culture change, the technical talent to build a good core has been at AMD this whole time. Jim Keller said as much back in 2014[2], and there is nothing special about…

Well...I don't know the entire history, but only my memory...which admittedly is never an accurate source. At that time, it was stated Jim Keller was brought back to AMD specifically to work on something which became codenamed 'Zen', since AMD was getting pounded in their previous ventures(Bulldozer et al). I was excited then, then forgot, and then Ryzen was born.

Yea, he definitely came in at an interesting time, right as Lisa Su came to the fore, locking down the PS4 and Xbox One. Following this Lisa pared back the product lines so they weren't spreading their engineering talent thin, which AMD badly needed to do.

Remember that ARM Seattle core AMD announced in 2012[1], to be launched in 2014? Here we are in 2017, and its finally just becoming available in significant quantities...

Diversions like that were what was keeping AMD from putting enough engineers on the task of building a solid CPU core.

1 - https://semiaccurate.com/2012/10/30/amd-announces-an-arm64-s...

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#28

Post by loeg » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 5:23 AM UTC

rocky1138 wrote: post #10

The top CPU is almost 4 times faster than my CPU (i5 6600K). Is it just down to the GHz and number of cores? Besides those two elements, what makes this processor so much faster?

It's a highly clocked 16 core (x2 = 32 SMT thread) part with good caches, decent IPC, and ok cache coherency fabric.

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#29

Post by kbenson » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 5:28 AM UTC

thethirdone wrote: post #21

MattSteelblade wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of Intel's lineup--at least for the last few years--is only 16 lanes.

I get that, but given that GPUs currently can't use (for physical connector) / don't benefit from more than 16 lanes. Unless you are using multiple GPUs or another PCI device, you would not benefit from more than 16 lanes. How does that hold GPU manufacturers back?

That sounds suspiciously like a chicken and egg problem. If the dominant CPU could only use 16 lanes, it makes sense to not put too much effort into supporting more if they can't be used effectively (other than being able to point at Intel as the problem and thus piss Intel off).

Re: High End CPUs – Intel vs. AMD

#30

Post by dis-sys » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 5:43 AM UTC

thethirdone wrote: post #21

MattSteelblade wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of Intel's lineup--at least for the last few years--is only 16 lanes.

I get that, but given that GPUs currently can't use (for physical connector) / don't benefit from more than 16 lanes. Unless you are using multiple GPUs or another PCI device, you would not benefit from more than 16 lanes. How does that hold GPU manufacturers back?

16 lanes is required unless you are ready to give up 20% gaming performance on latest games. see the side by side comparison below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=8KOTiee5RqA

on top of that, many people want to stream their game video when they play their games on full speed, then a couple NVMe SSDs eat those lanes as well.