AMD RyZen CPU Architecture for 2017

Discussion in 'PC Industry' started by fellix, Oct 20, 2014.

Tags:
  1. Lightman

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    473
    Location:
    Torquay, UK
    pharma likes this.
  2. Sxotty

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    4,869
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    PA USA
    I really need to upgrade, but I also want to wait so I don't get accessed by some bug as has happened in the past on both sides. Resist I shall.
     
  3. Lefungus

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    119
    Maybe it'll be time for me to upgrade my computer.
    I wouldn't say no to 16 threads at reasonable price ^^
    This and maybe a Vega GPU to update my 660 Ti
     
  4. fuboi

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    45
    In another forum a reliable guy from a company buying only ~100k Intel CPUs per month said Intel doesn't care about them. They only care if you're buying millions of CPUs per month. Does Intel talk to "IT directors", even from a big company? They sell mostly CPUs to OEMs, not servers to IT directors. I call bullshit from some random IT guy thinking an "IT director" is somehow important in the scheme of things.

    Of course I fully expect Intel to go into full asshole mode.
     
  5. nutball

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    472
    Location:
    en.gb.uk
    Well way back when I was in HPC I was involved in procurement of a middle-to-the-bottom-half of the Top 500 facility. Fairly small fry in the grand scheme of things. This was back when AMD was competitive - that long ago. Anyway even although we weren't buying directly from Intel, and we were buying <1k CPUs, they cared enough to turn up to our meetings with bidding OEMs (those who were unable to offer Opteron) to stress the level of "pricing support" that we would be receiving from them.
     
    Alexko and pharma like this.
  6. xEx

    xEx
    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    398
    Surprised no1 shared this(specially kanter who post/used to here)

     
    Malo likes this.
  7. fuboi

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    45
    People look at that list, it's a halo product. People also look at the making of that list (% POWER, % AMD, % Intel, ditto GPUs). An IT director buying 500 desktops for Milwaukee ACME, Inc probably won't get the same *wink wink* treatment as you did.

    I'm convinced Intel will go aggressively about it's businesses. I was just dubious about that post in Reddit.
     
  8. xEx

    xEx
    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    398
    Haven't finish it but It will be interesting to see how people opinions are/will change from "it will prob be behind Intels" to " AMD prob have something big here" like this feeling of "too good to be true but I hope it is"
     
  9. ProspectorPete

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2017
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    137
    Before AMD64 or the Radeon 9700 people were skeptical as well, which I understand. I would be pretty skeptical also if I bought into companies which are going to lose the high end as well as the price /performance crown. Though it would not change my pc , it would still matter; it's psychological
     
  10. nutball

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    472
    Location:
    en.gb.uk
    Sure, I would tend to agree.

    What I was getting at is that Intel may well not care about what the small-fry IT Director thinks, but they may well care about their relationship with the small-fry IT Directors' OEM, whoever that might be. The OEMs can have a whole bunch of other quasi-random reasons for wanting to show that Intel has their backs covered, so to speak. Small-fry IT Director is simultaneously small-fry (ie. clueless) and a Director (ie. thinks he is God's gift to IT) and hence probably can't disentangle the dance going on between him and his OEM and that going on between his OEM and Intel.

    Lastly, if IT Director is willing to put the interests of a third-party company ahead of his own he should probably be sacked. I mean it's fine to support the under-dog with your own money, but not someone elses.
     
    fuboi and Ike Turner like this.
  11. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    16,042
    Likes Received:
    4,993
    How quickly people forget. AMD produced faster 386 and 486 CPUs than Intel did. They had basically the same IPC (Intel 486DX4 had a slight advantage with a larger cache, however), but they made higher clocked versions at a significantly cheaper price. The higher clocked (100 and 120 MHz) versions of the 486 were actually faster than the first Pentiums that Intel brought to market and quite significantly cheaper than Intel's 486DX/100. They later upgraded these to enhanced versions with some minor upgrades.

    The K5 and K6 were certainly disappointing, but the Athlon and Athlon XP were good products albeit lagging behind Intel slightly in some areas. People weren't all that skeptical of Athlon 64 potentially matching Intel's performance considering how well they had executed on the previous Athlon XP. But they were surprised when it didn't just match its performance but exceeded it. Added to that a consumer implementation of 64 bit memory addressing that Intel ended up having to adopt.

    The 9700 Pro, however, caught almost everyone by surprise. While ATI had been one of the largest 2D graphics chip manufacturers, their 3D efforts (much like another 2D graphics power house S3) were underwhelming and even when the hardware was decent (Radeon 7xxx and 8xxx series, not to be confused with the later HD 7xxx and HD 8xxx series) they were seriously undermined by really bad drivers.

    Regards,
    SB
     
    BRiT, ProspectorPete and Lightman like this.
  12. BRiT

    BRiT (╯°□°)╯
    Moderator Legend Alpha Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    12,375
    Likes Received:
    8,594
    Location:
    Cleveland
    You consider 21 years since the K5 release and nearly 26 years since the 386 as "quickly"?

    EDIT: #AltMaths
     
    #1132 BRiT, Feb 26, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2017
  13. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    16,042
    Likes Received:
    4,993
    At my age, 11 years seems to pass very quickly indeed. :D

    Regards,
    SB
     
  14. nutball

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    472
    Location:
    en.gb.uk
    K5 was released in 1996. That was 20 years ago.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K5
     
    digitalwanderer and BRiT like this.
  15. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    16,042
    Likes Received:
    4,993
    Until the launch of Athlon 64. Not until present day. :) Although that doesn't work either as that's only 7 years. OK, I have no idea what's going on now. :D

    Regards,
    SB
     
  16. BRiT

    BRiT (╯°□°)╯
    Moderator Legend Alpha Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    12,375
    Likes Received:
    8,594
    Location:
    Cleveland
    #AltMaths ... I somehow lost a decade.
     
    Malo likes this.
  17. nutball

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    472
    Location:
    en.gb.uk
    The 2000s were the Bush Minor decade. Best deleted from memory.
     
  18. itsmydamnation

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    395
    Location:
    Australia
    So has anyone seen an interface at looks remotely like the "GMI" interfaces before? I haven't? I have heard that there have been big improvements for PHY on organic sub strait but i dont remember where i read it.......


    [​IMG]
     
    Pixel likes this.
  19. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,215
    Likes Received:
    1,735
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    I don't know exactly how long it's been since when, but this whole discussion makes me feel both old and fortunate at the same time. Old because I remember arguing on forums since the Pentium first came out, and fortunate because it really has been pretty much an eye-blink later and suddenly I'm living in a Star Trek like future from when I first played pong as a kid.

    BTW- Great description of the 9700 Pro SilentB, it really was what I consider to be the first really modern graphics card as it could deliver AA with playable performance. I remember it blowing my mind, fantabulous!
     
    Alexko likes this.
  20. sebbbi

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    5,288
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    The original Athlon (K7) was clearly leading Intel Pentium 3. Intel was desperate enough to clock their P3 design too high (1.13 GHz) and had to recall the processor. AMDs 1.0 GHz and 1.1 GHz Athlons were beating P3 and Intel tried to combat with increasing clocks too high. Toms Hardware was the one to report the problems. See here: http://windowsitpro.com/windows-server/cpu-embarrassment-intel-recalls-pentium-iii-113ghz

    The revised Thunderbird Athlon (K8) clocked up to 1.4 GHz. I had 1.4 GHz model and most of my friends had it. It was very popular CPU among gamers. Pentium 4 needed ~300 MHz higher clocks to reach the same performance. Thunderbird kept AMD very close to Pentium 4 performance for a long time and it was much more power efficient and didn't require expensive RDRAM. People kept their Thunderbirds for many years.

    Athlon 64 X2 was also regarded better than competing Intel products. Intel tried to fight with higher clocked single code P4 with hyperthreading and the lackluster Pentium D. Result was that AMD got the lead in CPU retail shipments in 2005. I upgraded my Thunderbird to Athlon X2. It was again the best choice for gamers. The first games using dual core were just shipped. Gains weren't dramatic, but Windows use also got smoother from two cores (background activity didn't block UI). Athlon X2 was also used by businesses. IIRC Athlon X2 was the most used CPU at RedLynx at that time.

    AMD was leading Intel last time 12 years ago. Better performance, lower power consumption, more retail sales.

    Intel Core 2 Quad was a huge jump. AMD now had both lower IPC and lower clocks. AMD had the first true quad core (C2Q was two duals clued together under heat spreader), but it couldn't compete against the better Intel architecture. I bought a Core 2 Quad (my first Intel CPU since Pentium MMX 233 MHz) and pretty much every gamer out there bought Core 2 Quad or the higher clocked Core 2 Duo (it was still beating quad in many games). This is when AMD started to shift their resources to Bulldozer research while Intel kept releasing a success after success (Nehalem, Sandy, Haswell, Skylake). We all know how well that ended up. Now AMD has recovered.

    It is interesting to see how things pan out. It seems that 8-core will finally become mainstream. AMD has cost-efficient 8-cores in the market and Intel is dropping their 8-core prices. Finally we are going above 4 cores in common gaming PCs. It took way too long :)
     
    #1140 sebbbi, Feb 27, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
    Silent_Buddha, BRiT, fuboi and 2 others like this.
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...