Games on PC are generally optimised for Intel (including compiler probably).One can hope Ryzen 2 will be faster, as the current Ryzens dont even compete with Intels 6 core cpu's. DF reports performance problems with Ryzen setups, Intel doing much better in general.
Games on PC are generally optimised for Intel (including compiler probably).
In a closed environment like a console that will not be the case.
Even current Zen would be fine performance wise in a console, it would compete favourably with an intel pc.
One can hope Ryzen 2 will be faster, as the current Ryzens dont even compete with Intels 6 core cpu's. DF reports performance problems with Ryzen setups, Intel doing much better in general.
its just a bad attempt at a troll.
Compare Intel processors from 2013 with Jaguar based setups. Then see how the minimum specifications of games on PC - which are generally below console settings and frame rates - are far beyond those of consoles on the CPU side.
Now look at how close Ryzen 2 is to Intel, when compared to Jaguar and its Intel contemporaries. Then think about Ryzen 3's IPC improvements and power requirements.
Next gen consoles will perform just fine compared to the 35~45 W lower end / lower bin components they would be up against on a similarly BOMed PC.
False accusations like this dont seem to get moderated. This tells me where the limits are on this forum.
Why would it be? You can defend yourself or ignore it. FWIW, I didn't think you were trolling. I think you're failing to properly evaluate Ryzen as part of a package with an AMD-sourced GPU, though. The whole can be more than the sum of its parts when those parts work together well.
Intel doing much better in general
I think mine and your definition of much is different.
In the pc space amd cpu/gpus are still not competing, this isnt good for prices. If this doesnt matter for the consoles thats only good.
I agree for GPU side of things but price for performance on the CPU side they very competitive.
Meanwhile, here's some sales data from one of the largest german retailers. Damn those uncompetitive AMD CPUsPrice for performance isn't a technical metric. Intel prices their CPUs that way because they can, not because they have to. A CPU that clocks higher, can perform more IPC, and does all this at a lower TDP is objectively better.
Price for performance isn't a technical metric. Intel prices their CPUs that way because they can, not because they have to. A CPU that clocks higher, can perform more IPC, and does all this at a lower TDP is objectively better.
Meanwhile, here's some sales data from one of the largest german retailers. Damn those uncompetitive AMD CPUs
Not necessarily, cost of manufacturing should be taken into account. If that higher clocking, higher IPC and lower tdp chip cost twice as much to manufacture as the competition, you better not hope that said competition is less than 15% behind in performance*.
*I'm not saying that is the case for Intel or AMD, just an example.
“We believe we’ll have 10-nanometer shipping by holiday of 2019,” Renduchintala said. “And if anything I feel more confident about that this quarter than I did a quarter ago.”
That rollout, however, is expected to weigh on gross margins in the fourth quarter and into 2019 “by roughly a few points,” said Intel Chief Financial Officer Bob Swan, who is serving as interim chief executive.
“That’s a function of the progress we’re making on 10-nanometer,” Swan said, noting that the adjusted 65.9% gross margin reported for the third quarter was “artificially high.”
Price for performance isn't a technical metric. Intel prices their CPUs that way because they can, not because they have to. A CPU that clocks higher, can perform more IPC, and does all this at a lower TDP is objectively better.
You do realize that Intel TDP has these days probably less to do with the actual consumption than AMD TDP does? And that motherboard manufacturers in general don't give rats ass about the "limitations" of boost time etc and in certain BIOSes even put all cores working at max single core boost clock - by default?Price for performance isn't a technical metric. Intel prices their CPUs that way because they can, not because they have to. A CPU that clocks higher, can perform more IPC, and does all this at a lower TDP is objectively better.
You do realize that Intel TDP has these days probably less to do with the actual consumption than AMD TDP does? And that motherboard manufacturers in general don't give rats ass about the "limitations" of boost time etc and in certain BIOSes even put all cores working at max single core boost clock - by default?
Also gaming is just one workload, Intel isn't on top of everything (and not even all games necessarily)
Price for performance isn't a technical metric. Intel prices their CPUs that way because they can, not because they have to. A CPU that clocks higher, can perform more IPC, and does all this at a lower TDP is objectively better.
It is this i meant when i started about ryzen vs i7, i9 or whatever. In most gaming benchmarks, analysis or reviews the ryzens seem to be unable to feed that 2080Ti enough, while not even high-end intels seem to have no problem. I didnt really think off the fact that in a console environment this matters less, because devs can optimize and code the metal etc, but that doesnt mean that if AMD would be equal in their CPU tech that there would be even more performance to be had in a console.
Its the same thing for the GPU's, amd promises much but havent seen it happen yet (wasnt Vega supposed to beat the 1080?). This aint good as Intel can keep their prices higher, same for Nvidia.