AMD: Unlike Intel Alder Lake, Zen didn't need opting for hybrid big.LITTLE desig...
source link: https://www.neowin.net/news/amd-unlike-intel-alder-lake-zen-didn039t-need-opting-for-hybrid-biglittle-design--yet/
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
15 Comments - Add comment
Ok, AMD, can you explain why your 5990x 16/32 core cpu is losing to Intel's 8+4/20 configuration?
Why are your 16 performance cores slower than Intel's 8 performance + 4 efficiency cores?
Ok, AMD, can you explain why your 5990x 16/32 core cpu is losing to Intel's 8+4/20 configuration?
Why are your 16 performance cores slower than Intel's 8 performance + 4 efficiency cores?
wait you aren't supposed to ask that.
Ok, AMD, can you explain why your 5990x 16/32 core cpu is losing to Intel's 8+4/20 configuration?
Why are your 16 performance cores slower than Intel's 8 performance + 4 efficiency cores?
I assume you mean the 5950X.
1) It's 2 years older than Intel 12th gen
2) It has a lower TDP - 105W vs intel's 125W (and 190W peak)
3) Intel has DDR5 support
This is how it's supposed to be anyway, new products are supposed to be better than existing stuff. Especially if they're 2 years newer, eat more power and support a new memory standard...
I assume you mean the 5950X.
1) It's 2 years older than Intel 12th gen
2) It has a lower TDP - 105W vs intel's 125W (and 190W peak)
3) Intel has DDR5 supportThis is how it's supposed to be anyway, new products are supposed to be better than existing stuff. Especially if they're 2 years newer, eat more power and support a new memory standard...
Still it highlights the fact that Intel's cores (while using more power) are better.
Intel's 13th gen (Raptor Lake) is supposed to launch at the same time with Zen 4 Ryzens - if AMD loses again -> it's pretty much game over for AMD's recovery period.
Ok, AMD, can you explain why your 5990x 16/32 core cpu is losing to Intel's 8+4/20 configuration?
Why are your 16 performance cores slower than Intel's 8 performance + 4 efficiency cores?
Yeah AMD whys your old stuff worse than Intel's latest and greatest.
Are you being serious right now mate? Time to hop off Intel's shlong
Yeah AMD whys your old stuff worse than Intel's latest and greatest.
Are you being serious right now mate? Time to hop off Intel's shlong
That's the best AMD can currently produce.
Still it highlights the fact that Intel's cores (while using more power) are better.
Intel's 13th gen (Raptor Lake) is supposed to launch at the same time with Zen 4 Ryzens - if AMD loses again -> it's pretty much game over for AMD's recovery period.
You don't sound like you understand hardware at all, having to blow out 70% more power for around a 10% performance win doesn't highlight that the cores are better at all. If they were better they'd win at the same power. All it shows is that they're inefficient.
You don't sound like you understand hardware at all, having to blow out 70% more power for around a 10% performance win doesn't highlight that the cores are better at all. If they were better they'd win at the same power. All it shows is that they're inefficient.
Power usage is important on laptops (while the performance is usually not that important). On workstations / desktops power usage is not important, only performance.
Power usage is important on laptops (while the performance is usually not that important). On workstations / desktops power usage is not important, only performance.
Somewhat true, but power and performance are linked.
Power = Heat != Performance
It is true that the 12900K out performs the 5950X, but it requires a substantial water cooler to do so for more than a few seconds, where as the 5950X is fine on a good air cooler. On the same <$80 cooler, the 5950X will win in long running tasks because it doesn't thermal throttle nearly as bad.
Having said all that, if you are buying either of these CPUs, then a $200+ AIO cooler probably isn't out of the question. Just something to consider.
Yeah AMD whys your old stuff worse than Intel's latest and greatest.
Are you being serious right now mate? Time to hop off Intel's shlong
They are both each company's respective best offerings. If you want to look at the technical differences between them to understand why they perform differently, that is fine. If you want to claim that it isn't a fair comparison, that isn't honest.
I have seen comments like this about 12th gen for the last 6 months. People basically saying its inappropriate to give Intel the 'win' until Zen 4 is out for a proper comparison. However...that is a self defeating argument, by the time Zen 4 is out, 12th gen will be nearly a year old...at that point you would have to use the same logic to say AMD has the unfair age advantage.
Ok, AMD, can you explain why your 5990x 16/32 core cpu is losing to Intel's 8+4/20 configuration?
Why are your 16 performance cores slower than Intel's 8 performance + 4 efficiency cores?
Because there is 1 whole year between them...? Alder Lake was released November 2021, Ryzen 5000 was released in November 2020... A lot can happen in whole year time...
Ok, AMD, can you explain why your 5990x 16/32 core cpu is losing to Intel's 8+4/20 configuration?
Why are your 16 performance cores slower than Intel's 8 performance + 4 efficiency cores?
My 5950x runs Cinebench r23 faster than Intel 12900k. I score 29xxx. Even being 2 years old 5950x pretty much runs as fast as 12900k, wins in some and loses in some benchmarks. AMD is on money on this one. Zen 4 is not even out. The thing is that my 5950x completes Cinebench R23 run at 54C and 12900k reaching 90C with enormous amount of power. There is nothing efficient about 12900k.
Ok, AMD, can you explain why your 5990x 16/32 core cpu is losing to Intel's 8+4/20 configuration?
Why are your 16 performance cores slower than Intel's 8 performance + 4 efficiency cores?
I think the article just explained this rather well. Might want to reread it.
Intel is doing this hybrid approach because of the growing success of ARM more than anything else.
if AMD tells you that they don't need hybrid (big,small) then you can 100% assume they miss calculated the market & have no answer to Intel hybrid that will bump to 24cores for 13th gen.
Intel demo on 13th gen 13900k was impressive, minimizing your work application sends the workload on the 16 e cores only. Leaving the 8 p cores 100% free for your foreground / game apps.
That's pretty neat & very useful for desktop users.
It's not like AMD approach is that good with high core counts. You'll end up with one good ccd and one garbage ccd.
my 3900x, first ccd 4.6 boost, second ccd 4.2 mostly. If the second ccd becomes really active it will also drag the first ccd freq down ! Not to mention AVX.
What purpose is there for (non-hybrid -big/small) 12cores if 6 are complete trash for performance ?
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK