Question How in the world has AMD got the Ryzen 7600X and 7700X priced same when they are inferior even in P cores only compared to 13600K and 13700K

[Wolverine2349]

I mean the Ryzen 7700X is an 8 core CPU and Ryzen 7600X is a 6 core CPU. And the 7700X is $399 and 7600X is $299.

Intel has the Core i7 13700K priced at $399 and Core i5 13600K priced at $399. And those CPUs have better P cores being 8 and 6 core counterparts with slightly better IPC than Zen 4 and can clock as high or higher with similar power usage. And for those who do not like e-cores (I am one of them, but I love Intel P cores) can disable them and you get better 6 and 8 core CPUs form Intel Raptor Lake than AMD Ryzen. And for those who want e-cores you get then as well for the same price and better P cores of equal core counts.

SO what is AMD thinking and they still have not budged on the prices of the 7600X and 7700X. They are pricing the like their 6 and 8 Zen 4 cores are better than Intel's Raptor Cove cores of equal count even though they are not any better and in fact not as good?? Or is that debatable??

The Ryzen 7900X and 7950X prices make more sense as then you get more than 8 strong cores and AMD has those by the balls who want more than 8 cores and do nit want to go hybrid route. SO yeah 7900X and 7950X prices make sense.

But 7600X and 7700X are almost a ripoff unless you just have not have AMD as they do nothing better than 13600K and 13700K for exact same price and have slightly weaker P cores and no additional e-cores for those that like the e-core options (And for those that do not it is easy peasy to disable and you get the better 6 and 8 core chips for the same price)

Its puzzling to me AMD is behaving as if they are still superior in all ways like they were with Ryzen 5000 from November 2020 to November 2021 when Intel was of no competition on core count nor per core IPC performance which was only for 1 year. I mean AMD is still much smaller and was underdog for years and hard to believe they think they can act they are premium brand in the 6 and 8 core CPU segment when the 7600X and 7700X are worse than Intel counterparts even with the e-cores off.

Your thoughts

 

[Markfw]

I guess I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this.



And RL's wider core, more OoO resources etcetera have nothing to do with that either right?



I would think you would refrain from making these grand proclamations after how badly everyone missed the mark on Zen 4. According to all the hype, Zen 4 was going to pound Raptor Lake into the ground with close to 30% higher IPC compared to Zen 3. But now Zen 4 is already getting a price cut while RL prices were higher than Intel's MSRP due to demand.

I already said what I think about Zen 4 3D. I don't think it will have the same performance boost as Zen 3 3D as Zen 4's memory system is far superior to Zen 3's and won't benefit from the enhanced cache as much.

I see the 30% improvement of Zen 4 over Zen3. Specifically 5950x to 7950x. If the benchmarks you are seeing don't show that then thats your problem. Your continued trolling in this thread is proof.

Why is it that the majority here agree with me ? Maybe because I am right ? Go post in the Raptor lake thread and help those trying to keep their house from burning down.

Edit: and I have shown proof multiple times, but you keep giving excuses as to why they show that. If you want to prove something, join the DC people and run yours 24/7 for a few days. If you don't burn your house down or melt your computer.> Oh, updated proof ? 12700F with just p-cores running. Over 2 hours a task.5950x 1:40. 7950x ? 1:20. Oh, and the 12700F is running over 200 watts, for 8 cores, and the 5950x and the 7950x are running 142 watts for 16 core, both with SMP ON, so 16 vs 32 threads. In that universe is the alder lake even close ? and Raptor lake is only 15% faster (or so) and takes even more juice to run ?

 

[maddie]

Keep in mind that it's not like AMD sees the entire price you pay at retail... the retailer and the distributor takes a big chunk. Then you have the packaging, shipping, warranty, etc... it adds up. Not to mention the R&D in designing it in the first place.

Zen 3 is a lot cheaper because I assume that GloFo's prices are very low... at least compared to TSMC and their price hikes.

Very interesting statements and should temper some simplistic assumptions for those arguing Intel's (and US) costs are automatically lower. This firms up a lot of internal speculation I've been having.

Taiwan's TSMC to bring its most advanced chip manufacturing to Arizona | CNN Business

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company plans to open a second plant in Arizona, and bring its most advanced manufacturing technology to the new factory, the founder of the Taiwanese chip giant said Monday.

edition.cnn.com

“Chips are very important products,” TSMC’s founder Morris Chang said Monday at a press briefing in Taipei. “It seems that people are only starting to realize this recently, and as a result, lots of people out there are envious of Taiwan’s chip manufacturing.”
.......................................................................................................
At APEC, Chang discussed the semiconductor industry with Vice President Kamala Harris and also met with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Harris welcomed TSMC’s investment in Arizona, he said.
.......................................................................................................
“I not only believe, but know for a fact that the cost of manufacturing chips in the US will be at least 55% higher than in Taiwan,” Chang had said at a press meeting on Saturday on the sidelines of APEC."

 

[lobz]

I mean the Ryzen 7700X is an 8 core CPU and Ryzen 7600X is a 6 core CPU. And the 7700X is $399 and 7600X is $299.

Intel has the Core i7 13700K priced at $399 and Core i5 13600K priced at $399. And those CPUs have better P cores being 8 and 6 core counterparts with slightly better IPC than Zen 4 and can clock as high or higher with similar power usage. And for those who do not like e-cores (I am one of them, but I love Intel P cores) can disable them and you get better 6 and 8 core CPUs form Intel Raptor Lake than AMD Ryzen. And for those who want e-cores you get then as well for the same price and better P cores of equal core counts.

SO what is AMD thinking and they still have not budged on the prices of the 7600X and 7700X. They are pricing the like their 6 and 8 Zen 4 cores are better than Intel's Raptor Cove cores of equal count even though they are not any better and in fact not as good?? Or is that debatable??

The Ryzen 7900X and 7950X prices make more sense as then you get more than 8 strong cores and AMD has those by the balls who want more than 8 cores and do nit want to go hybrid route. SO yeah 7900X and 7950X prices make sense.

But 7600X and 7700X are almost a ripoff unless you just have not have AMD as they do nothing better than 13600K and 13700K for exact same price and have slightly weaker P cores and no additional e-cores for those that like the e-core options (And for those that do not it is easy peasy to disable and you get the better 6 and 8 core chips for the same price)

Its puzzling to me AMD is behaving as if they are still superior in all ways like they were with Ryzen 5000 from November 2020 to November 2021 when Intel was of no competition on core count nor per core IPC performance which was only for 1 year. I mean AMD is still much smaller and was underdog for years and hard to believe they think they can act they are premium brand in the 6 and 8 core CPU segment when the 7600X and 7700X are worse than Intel counterparts even with the e-cores off.

Your thoughts

Gotta love these new accounts.
wccftech comment section is running out of space these past 6 months or what?

 

[lobz]

And they used DDR5 4800 for both AL and RL, which is my point. The IPC test for MT is really a comparison between AL and RL and not RL and Zen 4, as Zen 4 was configured with faster DDR5 5200.

Also, RL's stock memory speed is supposed to be DDR5 5600.



But RL is crippled due to using DDR5 4800 rather than 5600. Multithreaded apps scale with memory bandwidth, unlike single threaded apps.

Also, RL is ahead of the pack in the single threaded tests. And in the gaming IPC test, RL has a 10% lead over Zen 4, and a whopping 23% lead over Zen 3 when locked to 4.4ghz and using below stock DDR5 5200.

That Zen 3 5800x3D though is a gaming beast I have to say.



Again, this is against the 12900K with DDR4. You can't make a valid comparison in MT apps when you restrict AL to using DDR4.

The 7zip scores would have gone up significantly just from using DDR5 due to the bandwidth increase.

At least you're keeping the fun alive here in this thread, even long after OP got a concussion after running headfirst into a couple of walls with full speed. I really like your resolve!

 

[The red spirit]

As to Intel, they are in AMD's old spot. Forced to sell at razor thin margins and compete on value. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

That isn't a bad thing at all, you get comparable chip for less. Frankly, ever since AMD launched Ryzen, their margins became astronomical and prices are dumb. Their octacores now are more than 2 times expensive, maybe even 3 times. Big margins aren't good for consumers.

 

[Thibsie]

Yeah, everybody moan about AMD prices and margin but never moan about Intel's or Nvidia's.

Maybe AMD shouldn't have brought Ryzen to the market: we'd still be with quad cores at stupid prices and AMD would still sell CPUs for nothing.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Yeah, everybody moan about AMD prices and margin but never moan about Intel's or Nvidia's.

Maybe AMD shouldn't have brought Ryzen to the market: we'd still be with quad cores at stupid prices and AMD would still sell CPUs for nothing.

Damn straight. When Intel or Nvidia jack up prices, it's AMD's fault for not keeping them in check. When AMD is in the same position, and charges similar premiums, they are anti-consumer. There is nothing AMD can do that the haters won't spin as bad.

 

[Abwx]

The IPC test between ADL and Zen 4 had more variety in terms of applications compared to the IPC test between RL and ADL. Raptor Lake has a much faster L3 cache for instance and more L2 cache that would have affected the compression test if they had done it.



I know that CB and Povray are not RAM dependent, I'm talking about the other tests that they used for the Zen 4 vs ADL test, ie 7zip, Agisoft Photoscan Pro, DigiCortex Simulation, Handbrake.

Increased memory bandwidth would definitely have affected 7zip I know for a fact. I don't know why the hell they used DDR4 with the 12900K in that comparison. It was a complete oversight.

To put things in perspective a CPU running at 3.6GHz with DDR5 4800 is as much bottlenecked as the same CPU at 5.2GHz with DDR5 6900.

By using 3.6GHz to measure IPC they definitly remove RAM limitation because there s way more RAM bandwith per CPU clock cycle than at stock settings, so 7 ZIP and such wouldnt see a significant improvement with higher RAM frequency and that low CPU frequency.

What can be deducted from these tests is that RL is non significantly better in FP since it has better perf/clock only in CB and even more slightly in POV Ray, with ties in Blender/Corona.

On the INT front Zen 4 is significantly better, at least with the softs used by Computerbase, and as said RL has an advantage in games for some reasons.

 

[In2Photos]

That isn't a bad thing at all, you get comparable chip for less. Frankly, ever since AMD launched Ryzen, their margins became astronomical and prices are dumb. Their octacores now are more than 2 times expensive, maybe even 3 times. Big margins aren't good for consumers.

This post would like you to check your math.

Since this is the first purchase for AM5, let me dig up my first AM4 build pricing for comparison:

Ryzen 1800X - $499.99 vs $339
ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Hero - $254.99 vs $349.99
G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 16GB Kit - $183.99 vs $129.99

2017 dollars = $939
In 2022 equivalent dollars (+21.58%): $1141

Versus my AM5 component cost: $819

Comparatively speaking, only the motherboard is a significant increase in unit cost thanks to the deflationary effect of technological advancement and economies of scale. Though to be fair PCIe 5.0 GPU + m.2 and double chipset would definitely add to the BoM.

The point of the illustration above is that other than motherboard cost, I'm paying much less of an early adopter tax this time around versus 2017. And we've doubled(+) the core count at the high end for equivalent money.

 

[The red spirit]

This post would like you to check your math.

Extremely overpriced RAM and way overkill motherboard, also why 1800X? It sucked in games and 1700 was just way better value.

 

[Sable]

Extremely overpriced RAM and way overkill motherboard, also why 1800X? It sucked in games and 1700 was just way better value.

What have RAM and motherboard got to do with:

"their octacores now are more than 2 times expensive, maybe even 3 times. Big margins aren't good for consumers. "

1700X was $399 on release, so was 7700X.

Not really 2 times more expensive is it?

 

[IEC]

Two points:

1) For the time period (March 2017), that was not overpriced RAM. DDR4 memory was significantly more expensive in 2017 than it is now. My DDR5 purchase is literally twice as much memory (in GB) for comparable cost for midrange memory vs 2017. And still cheaper than 32GB of CL14 Samsung B-die DDR4 today.

2) I purchased at launch so it wasn't clear Ryzen 1700 was the better value initially. In fact, I was one of the early trailblazers on the forum who demonstrated that the Ryzen 1700 was best value for money and successfully overclocked my Ryzen 1700 to 4GHz. On a B350 mATX board no less.

I suspect a 7700 non-X and B650 non-E boards will play a similar role for AM5. But you'll have to wait for the early adopter tax period to expire.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The following sums up where this thread is at -

 

[Wolverine2349]

Bottom line is Intel Raptor Cove cores are better than AMD Zen 4 cores overall. How much better, not a lot but definitely better with slightly better IPC or almost equal and can clock all core higher all the time though more power consumption though easier to cool per watt due to less dense node compared to TSMC 5nm.

Though AMD has more than 8 strong cores where Intel stops at 8 and has those e-waste cores. AMD is the better choice for more than 8 cores so you do not have to deal with the hybrid gimmick arch. Intel is better choice for 6 or 8 cores as you disable e-waste cores and have a very strong 6 and 8 core CPU.

Though AMD does have a socket and platform with much more longevity where as LGA 1700 is a dead end. At same time Intel platform is more mature and refined as Raptor Lake is so stable with P cores as it took Alder Lake and made it better on same socket. Where AM5 is totally new with DDR5 even though Zen 3 to 4 was a refinement and big refresh with higher clocks and more L2 cache.

 

[The red spirit]

What have RAM and motherboard got to do with:

"their octacores now are more than 2 times expensive, maybe even 3 times. Big margins aren't good for consumers. "

1700X was $399 on release, so was 7700X.

Not really 2 times more expensive is it?

Maybe because you mentioned RAM and board for no reason?

Anyway, FX 8000 series were top end chips, their price was 160 USD. Then Ryzen 1700X went up to 399 USD. FX was decent, becasue for very little money, you got more cores than most software used, but with Zen 1 it wasn't cheap anymore and those cores still sucked in comparison, but at least there were chips like 1600, which offered more threads per dollar, so all was decent. And then AMD didn't ever improve and you got less cores, less threads per dollar to the point where 5600X cost literally twice more than 10400F, yet it was only 20% faster. Meanwhile octa cores became "premium", which is -redacted- and 5800X sold for 399 USD, then 5800X3D sold for 449 USD and now it seems that AMD can't "rob" us any more and left price at 399 for 7700X. The product itself doesn't cost more than 30 USD to produce and I won't believe that it costs 160 USD per chip to engineer it, market it and etc. The margins are insane and there's no value in AMD anymore. Not that Intel isn't "robbing" us, but at least their older 10700F was 298 USD, then 12600KF was 269 USD with their six core chips going as low as 140 USD. IMO there's nearly zero competition anymore and boath brands overprice their junk as much as they can get away with. But still my sentiment that less profit margin is good for us remains.

Profanity is not allowed in the tech forums.

Daveybrat
AT Moderator

 

[Wolverine2349]

Maybe because you mentioned RAM and board for no reason?

Anyway, FX 8000 series were top end chips, their price was 160 USD. Then Ryzen 1700X went up to 399 USD. FX was decent, becasue for very little money, you got more cores than most software used, but with Zen 1 it wasn't cheap anymore and those cores still sucked in comparison, but at least there were chips like 1600, which offered more threads per dollar, so all was decent. And then AMD didn't ever improve and you got less cores, less threads per dollar to the point where 5600X cost literally twice more than 10400F, yet it was only 20% faster. Meanwhile octa cores became "premium", which is bullshit and 5800X sold for 399 USD, then 5800X3D sold for 449 USD and now it seems that AMD can't "rob" us any more and left price at 399 for 7700X. The product itself doesn't cost more than 30 USD to produce and I won't believe that it costs 160 USD per chip to engineer it, market it and etc. The margins are insane and there's no value in AMD anymore. Not that Intel isn't "robbing" us, but at least their older 10700F was 298 USD, then 12600KF was 269 USD with their six core chips going as low as 140 USD. IMO there's nearly zero competition anymore and boath brands overprice their junk as much as they can get away with. But still my sentiment that less profit margin is good for us remains.

Come on I would not compare original Ryzen to AMD FX series. The original Ryzen had a right to a big price jump. Yes original Zen cores were still far worse than Intel cores of same gen, but the gap was not near as big as it was with AMD FX.

I mean AMD FX cores were so embarrassing bad and less than half IPC at same clock speed than Intel counterparts at the time. The original Zen was like 20% slower at same clock speed than Intel Skylake derivatives where as AMD FX was at least 50-60% slower.

AMD finally had something that was a value option and you got 8 copres for only slightly more or same price as 4 core Intel. And the IPC deficit was only 20% as opposed to more than 50% with FX.

There is finally competition which is a good thing even though Intel P core count at same clock speed this gen is still slightly ahead and not even Zen 1 gap.

Even if Zen 1 was not all that great as it still got stomped by Intel. it was a testament to how bad AMD FX chips were.

 

[Markfw]

Even if Zen 1 was not all that great as it still got stomped by Intel. it was a testament to how bad AMD FX chips were.

How old were you in 2017 ? Zen 1 easily beat Intel. Why do you think they have been taking market share EVEN BY INTELs OWN ADMISSION since 2017.

And posters here have provided proof that Raptor Lake is not ahead in p-cores, but you are ignoring anything you don't like and living in your fantasy world. And even when dapunisher posts that this thread is dead, as you have had everything you said proven wrong by a myriad of posters, you continue on and ignore everyone.

This thread is not dead, just now has become fantasyland.

 

[Kaluan]

Well this did not age well, 7700X and 13600K are almost the same price now. 7950X and 13900K also cost almost the same now.

13900K is 23% more expensive in my country. 😂

 

[The red spirit]

Come on I would not compare original Ryzen to AMD FX series. The original Ryzen had a right to a big price jump. Yes original Zen cores were still far worse than Intel cores of same gen, but the gap was not near as big as it was with AMD FX.

From engineering POV, Bulldozer arch was complete clean sheet design, absolutely nothing was kept from K10, meanwhile Zen 1 was more like very big Excavator redesign. Chips probably cost the same to manufacture too, so by all means FX chips should have been more expensive than Zen ones. So I don't see much reason why Zen should have been times more expensive.

I mean AMD FX cores were so embarrassing bad and less than half IPC at same clock speed than Intel counterparts at the time. The original Zen was like 20% slower at same clock speed than Intel Skylake derivatives where as AMD FX was at least 50-60% slower.

Nonsense, gap was more like 30% if you don't normalize clock speeds. Not to mention that you couldn't buy even i5 for FX 8350s budget. Sounds like AMD had strong selling point. Not to mention that you could overclock them (and they clocked really well) to bridge the gap. Meanwhile Zen chips were neither cheap and neither they did clock well, not to mention a huge bug/glitch galore that buyers had to deal with. It was an awful release IMO. AMD became a really viable alternative with Zen 2 aka Ryzen 3000 series, but even then Intel was still often beating them in gaming and some other workloads. But at that point AMD's hexa cores or octa cores were nowhere near affordable and Intel successfully undercut them. AMD only managed a definitive win with Zen 3, basically when AM4 socket became EOL. But again, Intel managed to deliver 10100F and 10400F, to which AMD had nothing similarly cheap or performant, so that win was only for higher end chips only. Now, AMD failed to overtake Intel at high end and so far didn't promise any budget chips, meanwhile Intel has affordable 12400F or 12100F, which first of all exist and their value is adequate.

There is finally competition which is a good thing even though Intel P core count at same clock speed this gen is still slightly ahead and not even Zen 1 gap.

Not really all that much. Comet lake is basically Skylake and we only got 2 gens (now 3) from Intel since then. Skylake by itself wasn't a big upgrade from Ivy Bridge or Haswell. Compared to how much faster GPUs, SSDs improved, CPUs are still in slow improvement stage. Despite competition, prices haven't really decreased much. I think that AMD in FX era was competitive, but today it's just riding on their good reputation (to layman) alone, because Zen 4 isn't any better than Raptor lake and prices are higher, so basically redundant CPU line with no moat in market. The only good thing is that they aren't going backwards, but that's just bare minimum that they must achieve.

Even if Zen 1 was not all that great as it still got stomped by Intel. it was a testament to how bad AMD FX chips were.

Not really. 'Dozer cores actually improved quite a lot over time, despite staying on old lithography and even cache cuts. Still got like 10-30% faster and managed to improve perf/watt by at least 30%. Not bad for same litho. Shame that no FX derivative wasn't ported to 14 nm. The gap between that and Zen 1 would have been minimal.

 

[Kaluan]

How old were you in 2017 ? Zen 1 easily beat Intel. Why do you think they have been taking market share EVEN BY INTELs OWN ADMISSION since 2017.

And posters here have provided proof that Raptor Lake is not ahead in p-cores, but you are ignoring anything you don't like and living in your fantasy world. And even when dapunisher posts that this thread is dead, as you have had everything you said proven wrong by a myriad of posters, you continue on and ignore everyone.

This thread is not dead, just now has become fantasyland.

Don't care to speculate or bring age into this. But I bet they were the same kind of joker back then that constantly brought up lower gaming performance on Ryzen 1000 versus 7th/8th gen when someone pointed out Intel got demolished in productivity... while they're conveniently keeping silent about things like these now:




(mind you, a cost/frame 12-game average set of games that favour Intel and faster RAM for Intel too)

I see the 30% improvement of Zen 4 over Zen3. Specifically 5950x to 7950x. If the benchmarks you are seeing don't show that then thats your problem. Your continued trolling in this thread is proof.

Why is it that the majority here agree with me ? Maybe because I am right ? Go post in the Raptor lake thread and help those trying to keep their house from burning down.

Edit: and I have shown proof multiple times, but you keep giving excuses as to why they show that. If you want to prove something, join the DC people and run yours 24/7 for a few days. If you don't burn your house down or melt your computer.> Oh, updated proof ? 12700F with just p-cores running. Over 2 hours a task.5950x 1:40. 7950x ? 1:20. Oh, and the 12700F is running over 200 watts, for 8 cores, and the 5950x and the 7950x are running 142 watts for 16 core, both with SMP ON, so 16 vs 32 threads. In that universe is the alder lake even close ? and Raptor lake is only 15% faster (or so) and takes even more juice to run ?

View attachment 71648

Bruh, what part of "If Intel is faster, it can only attests to Intel's engineering excellence and superior chipmaking skillzz; If AMD is faster, then it must be an outlier/bias/anomalous!" don't you understand?

 

[Wolverine2349]

How old were you in 2017 ? Zen 1 easily beat Intel. Why do you think they have been taking market share EVEN BY INTELs OWN ADMISSION since 2017.

And posters here have provided proof that Raptor Lake is not ahead in p-cores, but you are ignoring anything you don't like and living in your fantasy world. And even when dapunisher posts that this thread is dead, as you have had everything you said proven wrong by a myriad of posters, you continue on and ignore everyone.

This thread is not dead, just now has become fantasyland.

I am 38 years old

Zen 1 easily beat Intel what??? Maybe in value for dollar but Zen 1 CPUs beating the Intel Broadwell-E. No not even close. Much better price per dollar yes, but overall performance Intel was still on top.

Now on non-HEDT platform, Intel still was at 4 cores while AMD had 8 so AMD did beat Intel in core count and stomped in multi threaded performance as those 8 cores were only 20% slower IPC and there were double core count and had Threadripper HEDT which went to 16 cores.

Bit at same core count and clocks Intel was still ahead of Zen 1 by quite a lot actually.

AMD caught uoo and was very close with Zen 2 and traded blows, though Intel could clock higher and had a slight edge at equal core counts. But now AMD was ahead of Intel on mainstream as they went up to 16 cores.


Then AMD absolutely spanked Intel in everything with Zen 3 with superior IPC to Skylake and much higher core counts Intel had no where to go. Intel cannot even get 8 cores on a good node. Though they get Tiger Lake which had near Zen 3 IPC but stuck at 4 cores.

Then Intel has to backport Rocket Lake to 14nm which cripples it when it otherwise would have had near Zen 3 IPC with better clocks.

Then Intel finally solves their 10nm woes and comes up with Golden Cove on Alder Lake which brought a 19% uplift over what Rocket Lake on desktop should have been and Intel was back on top at least in equal core count equal clock speed again by like 16 to 17%. Though they still were stuck at 8 good cores and used e-cores to get better multi threaded performance so they could compete with the AMD 12 and 16 core counterparts.

Then AMD comes out with Zen 4 which narrows IPC gap with Golden Cove though maybe 2-3% still behind and Intel has Raptor Cove which brings little IPC improvement. So Intel still has slight IPC lead overall, but not much. And they clock higher. But its close.

But AMD has more than 8 strong cores so if you wan that AMD is the way to go.

Which means competition and both have pros and cons with Zen 4 vs Raptor Cove. And competition means great things for the consumer.

 

[Markfw]

I am 38 years old

Zen 1 easily beat Intel what??? Maybe in value for dollar but Zen 1 CPUs beating the Intel Broadwell-E. No not even close. Much better price per dollar yes, but overall performance Intel was still on top.

Now on non-HEDT platform, Intel still was at 4 cores while AMD had 8 so AMD did beat Intel in core count and stomped in multi threaded performance as those 8 cores were only 20% slower IPC and there were double core count and had Threadripper HEDT which went to 16 cores.

Bit at same core count and clocks Intel was still ahead of Zen 1 by quite a lot actually.

AMD caught uoo and was very close with Zen 2 and traded blows, though Intel could clock higher and had a slight edge at equal core counts. But now AMD was ahead of Intel on mainstream as they went up to 16 cores.


Then AMD absolutely spanked Intel in everything with Zen 3 with superior IPC to Skylake and much higher core counts Intel had no where to go. Intel cannot even get 8 cores on a good node. Though they get Tiger Lake which had near Zen 3 IPC but stuck at 4 cores.

Then Intel has to backport Rocket Lake to 14nm which cripples it when it otherwise would have had near Zen 3 IPC with better clocks.

Then Intel finally solves their 10nm woes and comes up with Golden Cove on Alder Lake which brought a 19% uplift over what Rocket Lake on desktop should have been and Intel was back on top at least in equal core count equal clock speed again by like 16 to 17%. Though they still were stuck at 8 good cores and used e-cores to get better multi threaded performance so they could compete with the AMD 12 and 16 core counterparts.

Then AMD comes out with Zen 4 which narrows IPC gap with Golden Cove though maybe 2-3% still behind and Intel has Raptor Cove which brings little IPC improvement. So Intel still has slight IPC lead overall, but not much. And they clock higher. But its close.

But AMD has more than 8 strong cores so if you wan that AMD is the way to go.

Which means competition and both have pros and cons with Zen 4 vs Raptor Cove. And competition means great things for the consumer.

YOu are all over the place. First you say that broadwell-e (an hedt part) beat Zen 1 (a non-hedt part) then you say AMD wins with threadripper (an hedt part that easily beat broadwell-e).

Then you get real, or close. Zen+ and Zen 2 were close in IPC, but had more cores.

Zen 3 wiped Intel across the board.

Alderlake was ahead of Zen 3 for p-cores in IPC, but overall took more power, and it was up to the task as to which was better, but Intel always took more power and ran hotter.

Zen 4 is much like Zen 3 to Alderlake, in that its close in IPC to Raptorlake, but it only has 8 p-cores, so loses anything that uses more than 8 p-cores a lot. But it takes more power to do to. A 13900k and a Zen 4 both at 142 watt constrained by the bios, Zen 4 wins. The only way Raptorlake can win in anything is with more power.

As far as cooling, you are wrong. Zen 4 is easier to cool, since in any config it uses less power. 230 vs 350 or more for max. At the lower power levels, and level that is equal as I said, Zen 4 wins.

And of course while talking about how well Intel is doing, not a word about server, in which Intel is not even in the ballpark in any respect. Sapphire Rapids vs Genoa is not quite official yet, so no real benchmarks, but everyone here that I know, agrees (even Intel) that in the server world AMD is unquestionably ahead.

 

[Thunder 57]

Shame that no FX derivative wasn't ported to 14 nm. The gap between that and Zen 1 would have been minimal.

Haha that's a good one. I can think of a poster or two here that would agree with you though.

 

[Wolverine2349]

YOu are all over the place. First you say that broadwell-e (an hedt part) beat Zen 1 (a non-hedt part) then you say AMD wins with threadripper (an hedt part that easily beat broadwell-e).

Then you get real, or close. Zen+ and Zen 2 were close in IPC, but had more cores.

Zen 3 wiped Intel across the board.

Alderlake was ahead of Zen 3 for p-cores in IPC, but overall took more power, and it was up to the task as to which was better, but Intel always took more power and ran hotter.

Zen 4 is much like Zen 3 to Alderlake, in that its close in IPC to Raptorlake, but it only has 8 p-cores, so loses anything that uses more than 8 p-cores a lot. But it takes more power to do to. A 13900k and a Zen 4 both at 142 watt constrained by the bios, Zen 4 wins. The only way Raptorlake can win in anything is with more power.

As far as cooling, you are wrong. Zen 4 is easier to cool, since in any config it uses less power. 230 vs 350 or more for max. At the lower power levels, and level that is equal as I said, Zen 4 wins.

And of course while talking about how well Intel is doing, not a word about server, in which Intel is not even in the ballpark in any respect. Sapphire Rapids vs Genoa is not quite official yet, so no real benchmarks, but everyone here that I know, agrees (even Intel) that in the server world AMD is unquestionably ahead.

I agree Intel is doing well with 8 P cores. But they stink beyond that. They are struggling server space because they cannot scale more good core counts than 8. AMD cores are only slightly worse clock normalized and can scale to lots more which matters for server space.

I wish Intel could make more than 8 P cores rather than those e-crap cores. I love the P cores and Intel is the best purchase for 8 cores or less.

But need more than 8 cores it is AMD all the way or you are going to deal with much weaker cores and the gimmick hybrid arch and AMD's good cores are not that much behind Intel's as you mentioned.

But I love Intel P cores. They are insanely fast and you can manually overclock them at a static frequency easily unlike AMD's which do not manually overclock well due to TSMC process node and instead need gimmicks like PBO which is not all core speed all the time.

 

[The red spirit]

Haha that's a good one. I can think of a poster or two here that would agree with you though.

But for real, I had Excavator chip and they had better performance at 65 watts than Piledriver at 95 watts. And that was just one iteration of "polishing the t**d". Gotta say it was actually good. BTW it was Athlon X4 845 vs X4 870K. 845 was better. Not to mention that Excavator seemingly had way too high voltage and I could set it at -0.3V and it worked just fine. Also Athlon 845 didn't have any L3 cache. So die shrink with L3 cache addition would have been interesting to see.