# Intel Says AMD EPYC Processors "Glued-together" in Official Slide Deck



## Raevenlord (Jul 12, 2017)

So, yes, Intel, I think the AMD engineers who have developed the Zen architecture from the ground-up would take issue with that. Especially when AMD's "Glued-together" dies actually wipe the proverbial floor with the blue company's chips in power-performance ratios, and deliver much better multi-threaded performance than Intel's offerings. Not bad for a "Glued-together" solution, I'd say. 

Our resident W1zzard had this to say regarding AMD's latest CPUs: "The SenseMi power-management system seems to be working well in idle, with the 8-core machine drawing the same amount of power as Intel's quad-core "Kaby Lake" machine." And "At stock speeds, the energy-efficiency of Ryzen is truly phenomenal. Prime95 loads all cores and threads on the chip, and the Ryzen ends up with as much power draw as the quad-core Intel i7-7700K. The high power draw result of the overclocked chip is due to the increased voltage needed to achieve stable operation." And let's not forget this: This is epic. We're assuming you've sifted through our game-test results before seeing this page, and so you'll find that the gaming power draw of the 8-core Ryzen makes Intel's quad-core i7-7700K look bad. Power draw is as much as 30W lesser! Ryzen is hands down the most energy-efficient performance CPU AMD ever made, and easily outclasses Intel's 14 nm "leadership." Good show."



 

 

 

 





 

On SMT implementation between AMD's SMT and Intel's HT, Intel is basically comparing a $2,200 8-core Xeon to AMD's usually $499 Ryzen 7 1800X. They are correct in terms of core parity there, at least, but I think it goes more against Intel's customer fleecing in core/price ratios than anything else. And it's certainly a coincidence that for Intel to achieve these SMT implementation scaling numbers, which paints them in good light, they had to down-clock the Ryzen 1800X to 2.2 GHz. So, yes. Even though independent review sites have put AMD's EPYC 7601 SMT-powered improvement in various workloads at a 24% average improvement, and Intel's Xeon 8176 falls short of that at 19.58% (even rounding AMD's score down and Intel's up, that's still how big the gap is.)



 

Here, Intel is comparing their server-grade processors with AMD's Ryzen, desktop processors gaming woes, which really, is one of the best examples of comparing apples to oranges that I've seen in a long time. So AMD's server platform will require optimizations as well because Ryzen did, for incomparably different workloads? History does inform the future, but not to the extent that Intel is putting it here to, certainly. Putting things in the same perspective, is Intel saying that their Xeon ecosystem sees gaming-specific optimizations?



 

 

Ah, the "Glued-together" dies. Let's forget how AMD's Zen cores actually look like they were architected from the get-go for modularity and scaling, which has allowed the company to keep die-sizes to a minimum and yields to a maximum. This means that from a same-sized wafer, AMD can make more Ryzen/EPYC processors (because yes, that's the beauty of it, they're almost interchangeable), and in all likelihood, have more of those full-fledged dies without any defects that affect yields. 

This is one of the reasons why AMD is able to offer an unlocked, true 8-core, 16-thread CPU in the Ryzen 7 1700 at less than Intel's 4-core, 8-thread i7 7700K (which consumes more power) - but also because AMD is democratizing access to cores while Intel maximized profits at the consumer's cost for almost a decade. And Infinity Fabric, which AMD also has implemented in their Vega architecture and will probably be used for the company's Zen-based APUs and next-gen Navi graphics architecture, is only glue. Intel would certainly like to be so lucky, since AMD's Infinity Fabric actually delivers more bandwidth than their UPI (Ultra Path Interconnect.)



 

Here, Intel are telling us how much better for the customer it is to be hard-locked to Intel's ecosystem for virtualization, since "VMs running on Intel Xeon processor compute pools can only live migrate to other Intel VM Pools". It's like they're saying "just imagine the amount of work you'll have to migrate these to AMD. Better remain with us."

*Update:* As some users pointed out, I used Ryzen 7 1800X power consumption figures as an example, instead of EPYC (those pictures are right here now.)



 

 

However, I consider that Intel themselves opened that door when they compared their Xeon, $2,200 offering with AMD's sub $499 Ryzen 7 1800X, which isn't a server CPU (and they down-clocked it to boot, let's not forget that.) That said, for comparison and fairness purposes, I'll just leave these here, courtesy of Anandtech, comparing dual Xeon systems (E5-2699 and the new Xeon 8176) with a dual EPYC 7601 system:

Performance in POV-Ray:



 

And maximum power consumption on the same application:



 

So essentially, AMD has 8 more cores, 16 more threads, delivers 16% more performance than Intel's e5-2699 system and 32% more performance than Intel's "non glued-together" Xeon 8176. AMD's chip does all that while consuming 23% less power than the Xeon e5-2699, and 28% less than the Xeon 8176. Not too shabby. I'll take my CPUs with this kind of glue any day.

Check the full press slides in the source. There's an interesting read there, even if there are those chuckle-worthy Intel comments that look like grappling at straws when real arguments are absent. But hey, that's this editor's interpretation. I reserve myself the right to be wrong, and to be slightly emotional at these underhanded tactics. It's just plain disrespectful for a company which stands on its engineers' shoulders to deride another's with no compelling argument.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 12, 2017)

Glued together like Core2Quad, right Intel?

Oh, and those glued together dies kicked Xeons ass in the price/performance and power.


----------



## ChosenName (Jul 12, 2017)

Engaging damage limitation mode regarding the power-draw of over-clocked Skylake-X?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/-intel-skylake-x-overclocking-thermal-issues,5117.html

.... or just worried that Threadripper will let AMD further eat into Intel's profits....?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 12, 2017)

Intel is doing a great job losing me as a customer. Even regardless of the performance they can offer for my purposes.

This is so much fail, it destroys my confidence completely. Somebody needs to go back to the drawing board.


----------



## vega22 (Jul 12, 2017)

ShurikN said:


> Glued together like Core2Quad, right Intel?
> 
> Oh, and those glued together dies kicked Xeons ass in the price/performance and power.



not to mention:

bloomfield?

lynfield?

smithfield?

presler?

fun times ahead if intel is already starting to throw mud :lol:


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 12, 2017)

This is actually quite disgraceful. Intel used to be very good at marketing, but this is just low. They should stick to what they used to be good at, highlighting their own advantages, now throw FUD around. 

It also makes Intel's marketing department look really scared, as if this is their best selling arguments, then they have nothing to counter with. Hopefully Intel's customers sees through this and makes them eat humble pie for it.


----------



## Camm (Jul 12, 2017)

Glued together? That's the point dipshits. It's why Amds highest core part is literally half the price (and more cores) than yours.

Sigh


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Jul 12, 2017)

This the most EPYC LoL from intel ads so far..

Desperate ?


----------



## IceScreamer (Jul 12, 2017)

Wow, these slides read like some rabid fanboy wrote/made them and then you realize they are coming from Intel no less. And I thought AMD's marketing team was bad.


----------



## AndyN33 (Jul 12, 2017)

Intel are also refering to EPYC as being desktop dies used for server, but as I understand it Ryzen is actually server dies used for desktop as the whole eco-system was created with the server market in mind.


----------



## Firedrops (Jul 12, 2017)

The irony when much of their own X299 cpus simply glue a Skylake/Kaby lake cpu to a 1151-to-2066 pins adapter.


----------



## hat (Jul 12, 2017)

Adults made this? WTF Intel


----------



## YoRkFiElD (Jul 12, 2017)

What is that BS about gaming power consumption of Ryzen??? Of course it has lower power consumption because of the limits of the Ryzen architecture it can't be properly utilized and provides sub par performance to an "only" 4 core chip...Actually Ryzen's single core performance is sh..t and a lot of applications still relies on lightly threaded performance where high single core performance is needed. Overclockability of Ryzen is mostly presented as 4 GHz as a matter of course, but that's not the case, lot of Ryzens are really rubbish binned and some can't even do 3.8 GHz.


----------



## HisDivineOrder (Jul 12, 2017)

They'd have been better off not saying anything.  It reeks of desperation in a time when I still don't feel the situation warrants it.

Even on fumes, they can coast to victory for a while... especially long enough to get to a point where they deliver obviously superior products.

Or, I don't know, they can just drop pricing.  I suppose if they're desperate, that's probably the reason.  Some executive's bonus is on the line if they have to drop pricing by even 5% more...


----------



## john_ (Jul 12, 2017)

The fact that AMD got back in Intel's slides is a huge win for AMD.


----------



## idx (Jul 12, 2017)

The reason intel is using such retarded slides, is basically because it is not targeted at people like you and me.

Think about the target of this whole presentation( people who are making decisions and signing contracts). With an awareness level close to "no clue" about whole AMD/intel thing, when intel tells them "glued-together"  believe me that will have some psychological effects on them.

This is rather really dirty and dangerous marketing from Intel.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 12, 2017)

All I can see is Intel being butthurt that AMD created an architecture where they can just stitch together bunch of cheap ass cores and go against Intel's offerings.

Also that BS about eco system. hey Intel, how about you stop purposely nerfing anything that isn't "GenuineIntel" when compiling binaries with your stupid compiler?


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 12, 2017)

Did someone show the Kaby Lake X cpus to whoever made that slide?


----------



## john_ (Jul 12, 2017)

idx said:


> The reason intel is using such retarded slides, is basically because it is not targeted at people like you and me.
> 
> Think about the target of this whole presentation( people who are making decisions and signing contracts). With an awareness level close to "no clue" about whole AMD/intel thing, when intel tells them "glued-together"  believe me that will have some psychological effects on them.
> 
> This is rather really dirty and dangerous marketing from Intel.


I think most people behind systems using Xeon processors, hopefully Epyc also in the near future, know much more than us about processors and stuff. Much much more.


----------



## Basard (Jul 12, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> Did someone show the Kaby Lake X cpus to whoever made that slide?


LOL... Reminds me of the old Overdrive sockets.


----------



## Athlonite (Jul 12, 2017)

Just another nail for your coffin Intel reminds me of the old I'm a PC I'm a Mac ads


----------



## chaosmassive (Jul 12, 2017)

actually I don't really care on what magic behind the 'glued CPU' is
if it has perf/cost better on 'glued together' than your CPU, then I'll take it rather than your gigantic piece of silicon which 
consume more power, pricier, with subtle difference of performance

oh, and you start to leveraging your ecosystem, when you start to lose competitive advantage in ACTUAL product ?


----------



## Manu_PT (Jul 12, 2017)

Holy... Intel is so desperate. This is so unprofessional to have such a thing on the sliders, dude... no words LOL

Now, I reckon AMD isn´t all that great like some guys here say. I mean, for 144hz e-sports gaming, z270 platform and 7700k completly rapes any AMD Ryzen offer right now; but Intel is showing signs of concern and this is totally unaceptable.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 12, 2017)

The Intel fanboi's are making a mad dash to come up with something explainable to offset this humiliation by AMD. The even poorer excuses by Intel trying to come up with a rushed marketing plan that works needs even more help since they are doing more damage than good, something AMD is quite familiar with doing.


----------



## jigar2speed (Jul 12, 2017)

Pretty sure someone at Intel was just desperate. This is just starting, AMD has not come out with their Version 2 Ryzen.

Also, you know you`re doing the right thing when competition trash talks you instead of showing performance numbers


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 12, 2017)

jigar2speed said:


> Pretty sure someone at Intel was just desperate. This is just starting, AMD has not come out with their Version 2 Ryzen.


its "Ryzen PRO"


----------



## jigar2speed (Jul 12, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> its "Ryzen PRO"



More like Thread Ripper


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 12, 2017)

What next Intel.... RGB heat spreaders and racing stripes ....this is almost too bad to be true like Intel doing it on purpose.  Maybe in there is an angle in the long game I'm not seeing.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 12, 2017)

jigar2speed said:


> More like Thread Ripper


You should know what version means here, AMDs Ryzen version 2 is the PRO market. Threadripper is another socket, considered another tier.  Version 3 could be considered the APU chips later this year.


----------



## FrustratedGarrett (Jul 12, 2017)

AMD themselves underestimated Ryzen and thought it was only about 40% faster than Bulldozer, core-to-core. That's why they released 2-CCX chips first. The truth of the matter is, Ryzen is a huge success for AMD. Jim Keller and his team did an excellent job. It's a shame Jim and most of his team have left AMD.

I don't think AMD will be able to remain competitive in the long run. Look at what happened to their graphics products after they let their Canadian graphics IP team leave, back in 2012, and moved their graphics design operations to China: GCN after 5 years is still pretty much the same, with a few improvements here and there.
Nvidia's Pascal chips hold a big advantage over GCN both in terms of performance/power and performance/die size.


----------



## S@LEM! (Jul 12, 2017)

here we go again Intel PR


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 12, 2017)

FrustratedGarrett said:


> AMD themselves underestimated Ryzen and thought it was only about 40% faster than Bulldozer, core-to-core. That's why they released 2-CCX chips first. The truth of the matter is, Ryzen is a huge success for AMD. Jim Keller and his team did an excellent job. It's a shame Jim and most of his team have left AMD.
> 
> I don't think AMD will be able to remain competitive in the long run. Look at what happened to their graphics products after they let their Canadian graphics IP team leave, back in 2012, and moved their graphics design operations to China: GCN after 5 years is still pretty much the same, with a few improvements here and there.
> Nvidia's today holds a massive advantage over GCN both in terms of performance/power and performance/die size.


 define "long run".  If its what I think you mean, not only will AMD remain competitive, it will push Intel to reconsider their strategy and maybe we will see another price war. It hard to say at this point, who will claim "the lead", I dont care one way or the other, but maybe the result will be that we some real far fetched innovation beyond anything we seen so far.


----------



## Mirkoskji (Jul 12, 2017)




----------



## bug (Jul 12, 2017)

@Raevenlord You really had to illustrate a comment about Epyc with Ryzen benchmarks?

To everybody else, go read Anandtech's review. While Intel worded this disingenuously (to put it mildly), there are drawbacks to AMD's approach which show when looking at enterprise CPUs. They're still well worth their money, as that review concludes.

And as noted at Arstechnica, since Intel keeps segmenting their offer by features, it can be safely assumed they're not currently feeling that much heat from Epyc.


----------



## Octopuss (Jul 12, 2017)

Someone explain the glue thing to me, because I don't see anything like that mentioned in the post.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 12, 2017)

bug said:


> @Raevenlord You really had to illustrate a comment about Epyc with Ryzen benchmarks?
> 
> To everybody else, go read Anandtech's review. While Intel worded this disingenuously (to put it mildly), there are drawbacks to AMD's approach which show when looking at enterprise CPUs. They're still well worth their money, as that review concludes.
> 
> And as noted at Arstechnica, since Intel keeps segmenting their offer by features, it can be safely assumed they're not currently feeling that much heat from Epyc.


Ahhhh, light in a very dark room... 

Should name this a 'Zen' thread for AMD users now...


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 12, 2017)

Octopuss said:


> Someone explain the glue thing to me, because I don't see anything like that mentioned in the post.



I guess you didn't read the slides then?


----------



## LogitechFan (Jul 12, 2017)

all the butthurt amd girls above tho  Happy just to see amd back on intel slides? I thought you know better?!

And by the way, by the way.... it IS glued together, like it or not


----------



## OneCool (Jul 12, 2017)

Now the glue is being disruptive!!


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 12, 2017)

bug said:


> 1p
> 
> And as noted at Arstechnica, since Intel keeps segmenting their offer by features, it can be safely assumed they're not currently feeling that much heat from Epyc.


If they didn't feel the heat, they wouldn't have made those slides.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 12, 2017)

Hold on to your 7700K mates ! The Xeons are taking over for gaming ! Intel says so , along with "premium VR" and "12K gaming". God bless.

Damn these slides remind me of the 90's. Using red crosses on competing products , wish they could include the buzzing sound as well. Marketing is rock bottom at Intel apparently. They got to take some of them billions and put them in there.

This must be a joke right ?


----------



## Raevenlord (Jul 12, 2017)

bug said:


> @Raevenlord You really had to illustrate a comment about Epyc with Ryzen benchmarks?
> 
> To everybody else, go read Anandtech's review. While Intel worded this disingenuously (to put it mildly), there are drawbacks to AMD's approach which show when looking at enterprise CPUs. They're still well worth their money, as that review concludes.
> 
> And as noted at Arstechnica, since Intel keeps segmenting their offer by features, it can be safely assumed they're not currently feeling that much heat from Epyc.



Intel opened that door when they themselves offered the comparison with the R7 1800X in their slides, comparing a Xeon with a Ryzen.

However, if you read that Anandtech article, you know that server and Epyc-wise, it's kind of the same:









AMD does that with 8 more cores in total. So I don't think that was uncalled for.

Bug: updated the story with those AMD EPYC power consumption figures versus Intel's offerings, and I'd say that EPYC's power/performance ratio is much better than the Ryzen example I originally gave. Bad for Intel. So as you see, I wasn't obfuscating anything =) But the added info does make the story better, so thanks for calling my attention to that.


----------



## silentbogo (Jul 12, 2017)

Lol.
This move actually reminds me of similar campaign strategies AMD pulled in its worst days. Next thing you know - Intel will start each of their tech presentations and demos with a lengthy list of achievements and innovation they brought into the world over the past half-a-century, and how unfair the market is 

Now, imagine what's going to follow with Kaby Lake G release, which expected to arrive on the market soon, featuring a catchy "mix and match" heterogenous design.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2017)

jigar2speed said:


> Pretty sure someone at Intel was just desperate. This is just starting, AMD has not come out with their Version 2 Ryzen.
> 
> Also, you know you`re doing the right thing when competition trash talks you instead of showing performance numbers



The new "scalable architecture" is tanking. IPC has decreased for the stuff their fanboys cry about like gaming. It's below broadwell IPC, apparently lol


----------



## _JP_ (Jul 12, 2017)

bug said:


> And as noted at Arstechnica, since Intel keeps segmenting their offer by features, it can be safely assumed they're not currently feeling that much heat from Epyc.


That or denial...


LogitechFan said:


> And by the way, by the way.... it IS glued together, like it or not


And the question is: What is a UPI?
Intel's IMC better deliver, otherwise its proposition will fall flat on its face.


----------



## Mattfucj (Jul 12, 2017)

Holy crap Intel, ugly.  You already lost my money this year (I do dozens of builds) keep it up and you'll lose me for life.


----------



## Raevenlord (Jul 12, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Ahhhh, light in a very dark room...
> 
> Should name this a 'Zen' thread for AMD users now...



EarthDog, updated the story, I suppose you'll like it better this way =)

Though as you see, there was no obfuscation there. Those figures actually make Intel look worse.


----------



## dozenfury (Jul 12, 2017)

A larger takeaway for me is that it's a good sign that AMD is being mentioned as a competitor.  For years Intel has basically just completely ignored them as irrelevant in slides and marketing.  I still have some doubts about Ryzen and Threadripper performance, and 30w nowadays isn't much to a datacenter (disk frames are the real power hogs).  But being in the ballpark again is a big plus.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 12, 2017)




----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 12, 2017)

dozenfury said:


> A larger takeaway for me is that it's a good sign that AMD is being mentioned as a competitor.  For years Intel has basically just completely ignored them as irrelevant in slides and marketing.  I still have some doubts about Ryzen and Threadripper performance, and 30w nowadays isn't much to a datacenter (disk frames are the real power hogs).  But being in the ballpark again is a big plus.



Its also a good selling point if it holds up on release. Data center with chip counts in the hundreds or thousands looking to spend millions on a upgrade, AMD looks good if they can throw a cherry on top with "Well you also save tens of thousands or kWh in power use each month too."


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 12, 2017)

Something else that I noticed :






"Repurposed desktop product for server" ? 

Isn't it the other way around ? Zen architecture was clearly designed to be multipurpose with an emphasis on the server side of things. And isn't the new line of Xeons using the same architecture as the desktop Skylake-X ? Haven't they done supposedly the same thing in this case ?

I keep wondering if they do not care or that they really have no idea what to do. They are a business after all.


----------



## Hood (Jul 12, 2017)

The tortoise almost catches up to the hare, so the hare makes a mad scrambling dash for the finish line, finishing first, but just barely.  Rethinks strategy for the next race.  Decides to fight dirty...


----------



## efikkan (Jul 12, 2017)

It seems like 2017 is going to be the year TPU reach their lowest level of journalistic standards ever.

Sure, Intel publishes some PR BS with their new products, with some edge cases and false comparisons to shed the best possible light on the products. So what? AMD and Nvidia does the exact same thing. I'm still waiting for Vega to give us that 4× performance per watt they promised…


----------



## jahramika (Jul 12, 2017)

AndyN33 said:


> Intel are also refering to EPYC as being desktop dies used for server, but as I understand it Ryzen is actually server dies used for desktop as the whole eco-system was created with the server market in mind.



That is the funny part because it looks like they could have made a few design concept changes and made Zen better for gaming but they did not goal was to make the best core for servers first!


----------



## jigar2speed (Jul 12, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> You should know what version means here, AMDs Ryzen version 2 is the PRO market. Threadripper is another socket, considered another tier.  Version 3 could be considered the APU chips later this year.


Come on man, never go full literal, take life lightly a bit.


----------



## jahramika (Jul 12, 2017)

john_ said:


> The fact that AMD got back in Intel's slides is a huge win for AMD.



They did it all on a process nod


jigar2speed said:


> Come on man, never go full literal, take life lightly a bit.



I do going 4 wheeling in the mountains all next week!


----------



## HD64G (Jul 12, 2017)

"Dear" Intel, I can clearly see you are a bit bitter atm. Wait for Ryzen APUs (mobile and desktop ones), Threadripper and EPYC. THEN you will have a really GREAT time...


----------



## jahramika (Jul 12, 2017)

HD64G said:


> "Dear" Intel, I can clearly see you are a bit bitter atm. Wait for Ryzen APUs (mobile and desktop ones), Threadripper and EPYC. Then you will have a really good time...



YA I am wondering how Thread Ripper will do and even more the new APU connected with Infinity Fabric CPU/GPU cores performance.


----------



## refillable (Jul 12, 2017)

Epyc damage control right there Intel, huehuehue.


----------



## bug (Jul 12, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Something else that I noticed :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Intel's own architectures have been built to scale down into mobile space (think laptops/ultrabooks, not smartphones) for a number of years now and Nvidia's Pascal is pretty much reused as it is for both desktop and mobile. So I'm not even sure why a scalable architecture is a bad thing all of a sudden.
Sure, it will probably never be as effective as a specialized architecture, but all things considered, it helps lower the cost into mortal realms.


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 12, 2017)

Hood said:


> The tortoise almost catches up to the hare, so the hare makes a mad scrambling dash for the finish line, finishing first, but just barely.  Rethinks strategy for the next race.  Decides to fight dirty...


Huffing & puffing right till the finish line, though in reality the race will last a lot longer, not to mention the hare is suffering from *heatstroke* atm 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/-intel-skylake-x-overclocking-thermal-issues,5117.html


----------



## Fx (Jul 12, 2017)

efikkan said:


> It seems like 2017 is going to be the year TPU reach their lowest level of journalistic standards ever.
> 
> Sure, Intel publishes some PR BS with their new products, with some edge cases and false comparisons to shed the best possible light on the products. So what? AMD and Nvidia does the exact same thing. I'm still waiting for Vega to give us that 4× performance per watt they promised…



You missed the point bud...

Intel haven't had to do this in a *very* long time. The very fact that they are is very big news regardless of the full context.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 12, 2017)

bug said:


> Intel's own architectures have been built to scale down into mobile space (think laptops/ultrabooks, not smartphones) for a number of years now and Nvidia's Pascal is pretty much reused as it is for both desktop and mobile. So I'm not even sure why a scalable architecture is a bad thing all of a sudden.
> Sure, it will probably never be as effective as a specialized architecture, but all things considered, it helps lower the cost into mortal realms.




I was being sarcastic , of course all of them should strive for scalability. But these slides prove that they are stuck with an old design mentality and are too stunborn to admit that AMD is undercutting them big time with little compromise ( or glue ).

They should be carful though because this thorn that AMD is might get stuck in their side because of the glue.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2017)

You know it wasn't that long ago when amd called the c2q a glued together chip while bragging about phenom I. A chip that really had no room to brag. Some of the points Intel has made are correct and I would still like to see a heavy io test on the epyc chips. Load the pcie and memory controller like you would using a gpu to render on a 2p. I want to see how infinity fabric (amds glue) works under load tonsee if it falters like the fsb did for Intel.


----------



## wurschti (Jul 12, 2017)

ShurikN said:


> Glued together like Core2Quad, right Intel?
> 
> Oh, and those glued together dies kicked Xeons ass in the price/performance and power.



Nope, like Pentium D. Oh wait, that wasn't even glued together... Maybe taped lol


----------



## bug (Jul 12, 2017)

cdawall said:


> You know it wasn't that long ago when amd called the c2q a glued together chip while bragging about phenom I. A chip that really had no room to brag. Some of the points Intel has made are correct and I would still like to see a heavy io test on the epyc chips. Load the pcie and memory controller like you would using a gpu to render on a 2p. I want to see how infinity fabric (amds glue) works under load tonsee if it falters like the fsb did for Intel.


http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/17

But read the whole review, one page does not paint the whole picture. Hell, the whole review doesn't paint the whole picture, because, as noted, the CPUs were available for a short time, but it's more than enough to give an idea about each contestant's strengths ans weaknesses.


----------



## Siman00 (Jul 12, 2017)

YoRkFiElD said:


> What is that BS about gaming power consumption of Ryzen??? Of course it has lower power consumption because of the limits of the Ryzen architecture it can't be properly utilized and provides sub par performance to an "only" 4 core chip...Actually Ryzen's single core performance is sh..t and a lot of applications still relies on lightly threaded performance where high single core performance is needed. Overclockability of Ryzen is mostly presented as 4 GHz as a matter of course, but that's not the case, lot of Ryzens are really rubbish binned and some can't even do 3.8 GHz.



Have to agree with this I have gotten a 1700 to 4.2, but with some eye watering voltages. They do say to keep them lower so Im at the max AMD recommends with ryzen cpus, 1.35 so im at 1.35@4.0. My 1800x and 1700x have 0 problems clocking higher though at 1.35 both can hit 4.2. But I do find the spot with ryzen is 4.0 like stated even down to the 1600. They dont like to clock but for the price and the thread count Im not complaining one bit. I have a hadron air EVGA build with a 7700k and a 1080ti I swapped the 1080ti over into my 1700 build since Im still waiting on GPUs... The FPS counter stated I was getting lower overall FPS, I wasn't surprised. But the thing that caught me off guard was the gaming experience seamed smoother overall. I noticed less dips as well. Curiosity made me try my old 5960X build with the same GPU and it felt just like the 7700k.

The only thing I can think that is happening is the IO speed and/or latency of AMD's PCIe buss controller/interconnect is far better than that of Intel. I wish someone could test this. I thought the extra cores helped AMD with background tasks and what not but the 5960X has the same core count. Given though its intel's now last gen CPU architecture.


----------



## NicklasAPJ (Jul 12, 2017)

None of them are better, When AMD not are doing this,, Intel are. This will nerver end.

Just bring out Good CPUS and im happy.


----------



## sergionography (Jul 12, 2017)

Lmao isn't everyone including intel and nvidia already talking about how mcm(multi chip modules) is the way of the future? Lol this will look bad when intel comes up with their own comparable glue technology a couple years down the road lol


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 12, 2017)

Taking everything technical out of this discussion, from a marketing (internal) point of view there is a fundamental truth to the comments here.
In marketing, you never deride the competition unless you believe they are a threat. It's that simple. Or, if you're the underdog, trying to prove your worth. Industry leaders do not NEED to prove their worth.  So whether or not Intel's point is valid isn't that relevant. It's that they feel the need to 'reassure' their base that Intel is still superior.


----------



## idx (Jul 12, 2017)

john_ said:


> I think most people behind systems using Xeon processors, hopefully Epyc also in the near future, know much more than us about processors and stuff. Much much more.



Oh... you will be surprised.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2017)

bug said:


> http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/17
> 
> But read the whole review, one page does not paint the whole picture. Hell, the whole review doesn't paint the whole picture, because, as noted, the CPUs were available for a short time, but it's more than enough to give an idea about each contestant's strengths ans weaknesses.



I did read that whole review. Note the clockspeeds


----------



## Basard (Jul 12, 2017)

LogitechFan said:


> all the butthurt amd girls above tho  Happy just to see amd back on intel slides? I thought you know better?!
> 
> And by the way, by the way.... it IS glued together, like it or not



Ya, but it's probably SUPERglue


----------



## Konceptz (Jul 12, 2017)

Intel is acting like a jealous @ss b**ch LMAO, hilarious.


----------



## Franzen4Real (Jul 12, 2017)

Intel is probably upset that they didn't patent "gluing" a heat spreader and CPU core together and now see this as a lost lawsuit opportunity.


----------



## seinthebear (Jul 12, 2017)

YoRkFiElD said:


> What is that BS about gaming power consumption of Ryzen??? Of course it has lower power consumption because of the limits of the Ryzen architecture it can't be properly utilized and provides sub par performance to an "only" 4 core chip...Actually Ryzen's single core performance is sh..t and a lot of applications still relies on lightly threaded performance where high single core performance is needed. Overclockability of Ryzen is mostly presented as 4 GHz as a matter of course, but that's not the case, lot of Ryzens are really rubbish binned and some can't even do 3.8 GHz.



Are you sure about that bud? https://i.imgur.com/ESluXlW.png


----------



## 5DVX0130 (Jul 12, 2017)

Meh, nothing new from Intel.
It’s been a while since they stooped so low though, but then again, it's been a while since AMD was relevant.

Luckily this time around, nobody is eating the deliciously creamy BS, that Intel is trying to shovel on everyone’s racks. AMD has already so many partners for EPYC it’s no wonder Intel is shitting itself.


----------



## hathoward (Jul 12, 2017)

john_ said:


> I think most people behind systems using Xeon processors, hopefully Epyc also in the near future, know much more than us about processors and stuff. Much much more.



You would be surprised. Most senior leadership roles are filled by those who scaled middle management hell. By the time they are making executive decisions on this type of shit their only hope is listening to their direct reports. Who as well probably don't look at most data behind power point presentations. So yes, this type of tactic is very effective against uninformed leaders (most of them all are).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 12, 2017)

Intel used MCM then, so what. This is part of reason I haven't used intel since p4 days, childish bs.

They are just trying to stirrup FUD


----------



## phanbuey (Jul 12, 2017)

hathoward said:


> You would be surprised. Most senior leadership roles are filled by those who scaled middle management hell. By the time they are making executive decisions on this type of shit their only hope is listening to their direct reports. Who as well probably don't look at most data behind power point presentations. So yes, this type of tactic is very effective against uninformed leaders (most of them all are).



Exactly.  Nobody ever got fired for buying intel...

That being said, alot of those types of CIOs are turning to the cloud companies or contractors like DELL proserv to avoid the cost and headache of running everything in house/ making decisions for themselves, and those are usually pretty nimble (first to adopt SSD's, regular replacement cycles etc.)


----------



## Konceptz (Jul 12, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Taking everything technical out of this discussion, from a marketing (internal) point of view there is a fundamental truth to the comments here.
> In marketing, you never deride the competition unless you believe they are a threat. It's that simple. Or, if you're the underdog, trying to prove your worth. Industry leaders do not NEED to prove their worth.  So whether or not Intel's point is valid isn't that relevant. It's that they feel the need to 'reassure' their base that Intel is still superior.


BINGO!


----------



## The Stein (Jul 12, 2017)

Hey, that sounds like the Pentium D!

Or the Core2 Quad series.

Doesn't help Intel is talking deal even though throughout this year they've made an asston of terrible decisions.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 12, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Taking everything technical out of this discussion, from a marketing (internal) point of view there is a fundamental truth to the comments here.
> In marketing, you never deride the competition unless you believe they are a threat. It's that simple. Or, if you're the underdog, trying to prove your worth. Industry leaders do not NEED to prove their worth.  So whether or not Intel's point is valid isn't that relevant. It's that they feel the need to 'reassure' their base that Intel is still superior.


They wouldn't need to reassure their base if they didn't consider what AMD has been doing to be a threat though. Intel is just downplaying it and it's not going to destroy Intel but, Intel is in this position where they have the most to lose. The question is, how much? This is preemptive damage control.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 12, 2017)

On die mesh is better for low latency. Intel is right about that and they are playing with that because it is the only advantage they have now. There are many applications in which EPYC can provide great performance, even better than Intel, for half the price. But latency critical real time cloud backend tasks run best on the Skylake-EP, there is no denying that. 

There is room for both AMD and Intel in the data center of tomorrow. Depends, what you want to do.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 12, 2017)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> But latency critical real time cloud backend tasks run best on the Skylake-EP, there is no denying that.



Or you could code in a smart way and avoid that , not much of an advantage after all. As I understand there should be more or less the same latency core-to-core to any of the CCX modules from any of the 4 dies. Therefore whatever method you find for reducing latency should be scalable.


----------



## Jordan M Eilbert (Jul 12, 2017)

Glued together?  So much unlike the lid of the i9 CPUs then with their massive thermal leak due to your choice to cheap out on crappy thermal compound between core and lid?


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 12, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Or you could code in a smart way and avoid that , not much of an advantage after all.


There are things that are really really hard to code better, and very sensitive to hardware latency. Minimum time to serve a web client from data base for example is one of them.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/18

That is one example of such an oddball latency critical use cases.

Always, when you need to go outside of the die in MCM, you will get latency disadvantage.


----------



## natr0n (Jul 12, 2017)

Intel needs a laxative. They are so full of shit.


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 12, 2017)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> There are things that are really really hard to code better, and very sensitive to hardware latency. Minimum time to serve a web client from data base for example is one of them.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/18
> 
> ...


You do realize that this is the *worst case scenario* for AMD, like the torture tests for i9 showing how bad thermals can get?





> As expected, the EPYC 7601 can not deliver high database performance out of the box. *A small database that can be mostly cached in the L3-cache is the worst case scenario for EPYC*. That said, there are quite a few tuning opportunities on EPYC. According to AMD, *if you enable Memory Interleaving, performance should rise a bit* (+10-15%?). Unfortunately, a few days before our deadline our connection to the BMC failed, so we could not try it out. In a later article, we will go deeper into specific tuning for both platforms and test additional database systems.
> 
> Typically when high response times were reported, this indicated low single threaded performance. However for EPYC this is not the case. *We tested with a database that is quite a bit larger than the 8 MB L3-cache*, and the high response time is probably a result of the L3-cache latency.


----------



## Jism (Jul 12, 2017)

Mweh. AMD was the first with the X2 processor that would actually put 2 dies together. Intel follows up with a CPU that glues 2 dies together simular as Epyc / Ryzen is or was.

The main goal was to cut / save costs from AMD, put more smaller cores together, link them with a high bandwidth bus and they succeeded. Now intel is whining about a glued design that actually does a pretty good job in COMPETING for a much better price.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 12, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> You do realize that this is the *worst case scenario* for AMD, like the torture tests for i9 showing how bad thermals can get?


Your quote says "*We tested with a database that is quite a bit larger than the 8 MB L3-cache*, and the high response time is probably a result of the L3-cache latency."
This is not the worst case scenario, unless you claim most data bases are smaller than that. 

EPYC is not best for all use cases, nor do AMD claim so. Get over it.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 12, 2017)

The salty tears from intel are so satisfying. I wonder how many are going to quit after getting yelled at by execs for failing the company LOL. It must be getting pretty hostile over there.


----------



## Bansaku (Jul 12, 2017)

The last time I upgraded with Intel was back in 2012, like the vast majority of us. Sorry Intel, AMD is leading the charge this round! Say what you will about glued together CPUs; They are kicking your ass!!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 12, 2017)

Why focus on the bullshit of a pr piece.

The details were far more comedy worthy with other sites focusing on the stuff that matters , like

 Intel's new 28C/56T CPU costs $8719, uses 670W of power Intel's new beast of a CPU uses up to 670W, which is insanity

Thats tweaktowns take on it 

Be very interesting this battle as id imagine Amds Epyc won't get anywhere near that power use.

Or cost.

And its especially laughable when intel are stating customers have to stay with Intel for Vm support.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Why focus on the bullshit of a pr piece.
> 
> The details were far more comedy worthy with other sites focusing on the stuff that matters , like
> 
> ...



THE WHOLE SYSTEM USES 670W NOT THE CPU. God bless read the reviews. Tweaktown and their clickbait misinformation at ads needs to fix its garbage. They are worse than CNN.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 12, 2017)

cdawall said:


> THE WHOLE SYSTEM USES 670W NOT THE CPU. God bless read the reviews. Tweaktown and their clickbait misinformation at ads needs to fix its garbage. They are worse than CNN.


I do hope you're right , and believe so , I was so taken back by it i couldn't think through the nonsense.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 12, 2017)

cdawall said:


> THE WHOLE SYSTEM USES 670W NOT THE CPU.



That's still a lot.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> I do hope you're right , and believe so , I was so taken back by it i couldn't think through the nonsense.



I am I actually read the original toms hardware review that was stolen from.



Vya Domus said:


> That's still a lot.



That isn't a lot for a server...


----------



## justimber (Jul 13, 2017)

Intel does really know how to use glue to call AMD for using it. lol


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Jul 13, 2017)

this guy, has really good opinion.. deleted for some reason, but somebody already ss it..


overall, as a customer can not more really happy how great the competition today.


But, seriously.. "glued" ? , so ridicoulus.. can intel proofing it ?


----------



## Melvis (Jul 13, 2017)

Be interesting to see if AMD responds to this.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2017)

Rahmat Sofyan said:


> this guy, has really good opinion.. deleted for some reason, but somebody already ss it..
> 
> 
> overall, as a customer can not more really happy how great the competition today.
> ...



AMD did the same thing after calling intel's cores fake as well...Same genre as real men have their own fabs quip from AMD.


----------



## Mattfucj (Jul 13, 2017)

...


----------



## Dave65 (Jul 13, 2017)

YoRkFiElD said:


> What is that BS about gaming power consumption of Ryzen??? Of course it has lower power consumption because of the limits of the Ryzen architecture it can't be properly utilized and provides sub par performance to an "only" 4 core chip...Actually Ryzen's single core performance is sh..t and a lot of applications still relies on lightly threaded performance where high single core performance is needed. Overclockability of Ryzen is mostly presented as 4 GHz as a matter of course, but that's not the case, lot of Ryzens are really rubbish binned and some can't even do 3.8 GHz.



Damn dude, are you really that desperate, I am surprised you didn't write under that bullshit you just spouted that say's:
This is a payed advertisement for Intel!


----------



## NGreediaOrAMSlow (Jul 13, 2017)

Intel found AMD secret

Infinity Fabric = Gorilla Super Glue

Actually who cares what they use as long it works.  And for the looks and reviews is working more than fine.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jul 13, 2017)

Intel are probably kicking themselves now after releasing that knee jerk slide deck.


----------



## Mattfucj (Jul 13, 2017)

plus at least with AMD its connected on one die, to get 32 cores on a intel server you would need 2 physical sockets. that's not even as good as 'glue'

FYI ryzen's power consumption really is as good as they say, I went from a 4770K to a 8 core ryzen (4ghz) and my performance doubled in most things I do, which is about on track since a zen core is extremely close to a haswell core, but the beyond amazing thing is my power draw is the same, actually a bit lower, Haswell was 115watts, zen is 118watts, total system draw (checked on ups) when maxed out on haswell 320w  total system draw with ryzen 320w, but I'm rendering 2.2x as fast!!  I'm a beliber.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2017)

Dave65 said:


> Damn dude, are you really that desperate, I am surprised you didn't write under that bullshit you just spouted that say's:
> This is a payed advertisement for Intel!



I mean he isn't wrong. Ryzen is clocked lower than the quad core Intel offerings, the amd power management tools when only 4 cores are operating under load are quite good. I mean it makes perfect sense for it to not only perform worse, but use less power while doing so


----------



## laszlo (Jul 13, 2017)

all i can say ..... AMD what kind of glue are you using because seems good; can i have from it?


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Jul 13, 2017)

cdawall said:


> AMD did the same thing after calling intel's cores fake as well...Same genre as real men have their own fabs quip from AMD.



Which cores ?


Any source sir ?


AFAIK AMD being sued for the fake bulldozer cores in the past by their own investors...


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2017)

Rahmat Sofyan said:


> Which cores ?
> 
> 
> Any source sir ?
> ...



Absolutely, some of you so easily forget Jerry Sanders.



			
				Jerry Sanders said:
			
		

> The two first took on Intel's marketing, particularly on its material that said that the slowest Nehalem Xeon chip was faster than the fastest Opteron chip, saying that Intel's statements weren't backed by real figures. The two also alleged that Intel's server platform was too expensive and delivered lesser value in a ailing state of the economy. Perhaps the most audacious statement from AMD since the somewhat famous "only real men have fabs" statement by Jerry Sanders III, came from this interview, where AMD responded to a question on HyperThreading saying that "real men use real cores". "We’ve got real cores across our products. HyperThreading is basically designed to act like a core except that it only gives 10 to 15 percent performance bump for real applications workload." they said. Is AMD making a real point, or fighting fire...erm marketing with marketing? Find out in this interview.



https://www.techpowerup.com/92485/real-men-use-real-cores-amd

Source is none other than TPU.


----------



## ratirt (Jul 13, 2017)

Intel is losing it's COOL if you know what I mean


----------



## notb (Jul 13, 2017)

Reading a text like this, I always miss the times when we had magazines instead of web pages. You know... journalists most of the time had education, background, good taste and... genteelness.

This text is so aggresive and coarse, that if one of us wrote it on the TPU forum, it could be easily moderated.
Yet, there it is - in the news section of a renowned PC website. Why is this happening?


----------



## Caelestis (Jul 13, 2017)

It gets better and better with Intel. Their 12k marketing was already over the top but this is getting ridiculous.....


----------



## ratirt (Jul 13, 2017)

notb said:


> Reading a text like this, I always miss the times when we had magazines instead of web pages. You know... journalists most of the time had education, background, good taste and... genteelness.
> 
> This text is so aggresive and coarse, that if one of us wrote it on the TPU forum, it could be easily moderated.
> Yet, there it is - in the news section of a renowned PC website. Why is this happening?


Magazines are still there available for you to read. Not sure what you are after here then.


Caelestis said:


> It gets better and better with Intel. Their 12k marketing was already over the top but this is getting ridiculous.....


12k is now 3x4k nice


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 13, 2017)

notb said:


> Reading a text like this, I always miss the times when we had magazines instead of web pages. You know... journalists most of the time had education, background, good taste and... genteelness.
> 
> This text is so aggresive and coarse, that if one of us wrote it on the TPU forum, it could be easily moderated.
> Yet, there it is - in the news section of a renowned PC website. Why is this happening?



So we can get the popcorn out and enjoy this.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 13, 2017)

Rahmat Sofyan said:


> AFAIK AMD being sued for the fake bulldozer cores in the past by their own investors...


It was a class action and the lawsuit was dropped.


----------



## psyph3r (Jul 13, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> its "Ryzen PRO"


 That's not even version 2, that's just better quality processors with extra security features. Ryzen 2 and 3 are set for consecutive launches year to year.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Jul 13, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Absolutely, some of you so easily forget Jerry Sanders.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





cdawall said:


> Absolutely, some of you so easily forget Jerry Sanders.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmm, ok..
But nothing wrong with his statements I guess, HT indeed not a true core, CMMIIW.. where is the problem?

But when intel said EPYC was "glued", how come ?



Aquinus said:


> It was a class action and the lawsuit was dropped.



Yup, rogerthat ..


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2017)

Rahmat Sofyan said:


> Hmmm, ok..
> But nothing wrong with his statements I guess, HT indeed not a true core, CMMIIW.. where is the problem?
> 
> But when intel said EPYC was "glued", how come ?
> ...



They made an entire marketing campaign about that as well. Phenom was labelled the first heterogeneous quad core and c2q was called glued together by amd. None of this is new. Amd is far from innocent in marketing land.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Jul 13, 2017)

cdawall said:


> They made an entire marketing campaign about that as well. Phenom was labelled the first heterogeneous quad core and c2q was called glued together by amd. None of this is new. Amd is far from innocent in marketing land.



Affirmative


----------



## Patriot (Jul 13, 2017)

Mattfucj said:


> plus at least with AMD its connected on one die, to get 32 cores on a intel server you would need 2 physical sockets. that's not even as good as 'glue'



Aye, and if you look at Anand's review .... Are you using the gold 5xxx glue with 2 inter socket links or the Gold 6xx glue with 3 links? 






The artificial segmentation is disgusting.


----------



## wiyosaya (Jul 13, 2017)

I am not sticking up for Intel, but there was a time when AMD was doing something similar with the fact that their processors had real hardware cores instead of hyperthreads.

At the time, it was AMD trying to fight chipzilla.

For Intel to engage in similar tactics at this time implies that they are worried about the possibility that the competition will seriously butcher their cash cow - the enterprise/server/hpc market which Intel has been able to dominate for many years.


----------



## notb (Jul 13, 2017)

Patriot said:


> The artificial segmentation is disgusting.


What's wrong with it?


----------



## Patriot (Jul 13, 2017)

notb said:


> What's wrong with it?


Limiting memory support for lower core counts.   Killing off pcie lanes on lower core count.  
Killing off "QPI" links on even 5xxx gold chips, killing off 1FMA AVX and limiting memory speed.
Not every workload requires 28 cores, but forcing you to buy 13k chip when a 2k one is best for your workload if they didn't artificially castrate it.
They are milking the industry.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/7
Check out the pricing structure.   
If you want more ram, you pay for that, if you want higher ram speed you pay for that, if you want more interconnects, you pay for that.

Then you have AMD's....
If you want more cores, you pay for that.   Top chip is 4k at 32c/64t.
Only want a single socket board, well we will sell you a 32c/64t chip for that too at half the price.  But it still has 128 pcie lanes, 8 channels of ram at full frequency and all the features enabled through the whole line.
Use it as you see fit.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 13, 2017)

Weird.. its like they are a for profit business...


----------



## thesmokingman (Jul 13, 2017)

cdawall said:


> They made an entire marketing campaign about that as well. Phenom was labelled the first heterogeneous quad core and c2q was called glued together by amd. None of this is new. Amd is far from innocent in marketing land.



You guys are trying too hard. That was nearly a decade ago and Sanders is dead. The point isn't that they are slinging mud, it's that they are worried and they should be. They have been fleecing the flock, monetizing every aspect that they can and now AMD is back and back doing straight up business. They're like T-Mobile, selling you what you want for a fair price, no tricks, no dongles, no BS.


----------



## trparky (Jul 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Weird.. its like they are a for profit business...


And I have no problem with making profit, that's not the problem here! The problem is the kinds of obscene profits that Wall Street has been demanding for so long, the kinds of profits that are just not sustainable. Wall Street has been demanding quarter-after-quarter double-digit growth numbers for the last ten years, that kind of growth is simply not sustainable if you were to ask any economics professor.

There's making profit and then there's straight up raping your customers. Intel is doing the latter.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> You guys are trying too hard. That was nearly a decade ago and Sanders is dead. The point isn't that they are slinging mud, it's that they are worried and they should be. They have been fleecing the flock, monetizing every aspect that they can and now AMD is back and back doing straight up business. They're like T-Mobile, selling you what you want for a fair price, no tricks, no dongles, no BS.



Trying to hard it was the same shit from the other side. They arent immune and they sling just as much shut.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 13, 2017)

trparky said:


> And I have no problem with making profit, that's not the problem here! The problem is the kinds of obscene profits that Wall Street has been demanding for so long, the kinds of profits that are just not sustainable. Wall Street has been demanding quarter-after-quarter double-digit growth numbers for the last ten years, that kind of growth is simply not sustainable if you were to ask any economics professor.
> 
> There's making profit and then there's straight up raping your customers. Intel is doing the latter.


OK.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jul 13, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Trying to hard it was the same shit from the other side. They arent immune and they sling just as much shut.



Deflect much? Testy too!


----------



## Denroth (Jul 13, 2017)

Intel continues its incorrect practices to sell its products ..

It's totally confusing, just look at the x299 platform and these slides to figure it out.


THx AMD


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> Deflect much? Testy too!



I mean if you want amd is back to its old games telling people what they want. Most people just want a fast 4c\8t something AMD still cannot deliver. Intel sells a couple of them and even tried to offer a higher tdp better clocking version and is getting shit on for it.

AMD took the same old MOAR COARS approach as of old. Luckily this time they included better ipc, properly working SMT, and actually quite good power consumption at stock.

If you want tmobil comparison I guess that's fair. You get a value product. Alas you get what you pay for AMD right now works with a handful of ram kits and not at full dimm loads, has a lacking motherboard selection, and still AMD hasn't brought out apus. Just like tmobil with their shoddy service.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jul 13, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I mean if you want amd is back to its old games telling people what they want. Most people just want a fast 4c\8t something AMD still cannot deliver. Intel sells a couple of them and even tried to offer a higher tdp better clocking version and is getting shit on for it.
> 
> AMD took the same old MOAR COARS approach as of old. Luckily this time they included better ipc, properly working SMT, and actually quite good power consumption at stock.
> 
> If you want tmobil comparison I guess that's fair. You get a value product. Alas you get what you pay for AMD right now works with a handful of ram kits and not at full dimm loads, has a lacking motherboard selection, and still AMD hasn't brought out apus. Just like tmobil with their shoddy service.



Man, still trying so hard.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 13, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> Man, still trying so hard.


What do you want Intel to do, commend amd in their efforts? These are for profit corporations. They will sling mud, lie, cheat and steal their way to stay in business. Both have a history as long as their existence of this.


----------



## notb (Jul 13, 2017)

Patriot said:


> Limiting memory support for lower core counts.   Killing off pcie lanes on lower core count.
> Killing off "QPI" links on even 5xxx gold chips, killing off 1FMA AVX and limiting memory speed.
> Not every workload requires 28 cores, but forcing you to buy 13k chip when a 2k one is best for your workload if they didn't artificially castrate it.
> They are milking the industry.


They're releasing a wide range of products and have to differ them. Thanks to this there is a choice of CPUs between $1000 and $5000. If they went for small set of variants with more features activated, prices would start at $2000, maybe more.
You don't want people to be able to buy a server CPU for less money?


> http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/7
> Check out the pricing structure.
> If you want more ram, you pay for that, if you want higher ram speed you pay for that, if you want more interconnects, you pay for that.


And this is a huge shock, because you haven't seen anything like this before, ever!
When you go to a car dealer and you ask for 100 HP more or leather seats, they'll give it for free.



> Then you have AMD's....
> If you want more cores, you pay for that.   Top chip is 4k at 32c/64t.
> Only want a single socket board, well we will sell you a 32c/64t chip for that too at half the price.  But it still has 128 pcie lanes, 8 channels of ram at full frequency and all the features enabled through the whole line.
> Use it as you see fit.


So differentiating price by disabling cores or limiting frequency is OK, but doing it by cutting features is not acceptable for you, right?
Why is that?


----------



## Patriot (Jul 13, 2017)

notb said:


> And this is a huge shock, because you haven't seen anything like this before, ever!
> When you go to a car dealer and you ask for 100 HP more or leather seats, they'll give it for free.



Because someone uses dirty practices others should too?
Just because others do it doesn't make it right.



notb said:


> So differentiating price by disabling cores or limiting frequency is OK, but doing it by cutting features is not acceptable for you, right?
> Why is that?



It is TDP and salvage die/binning based segmentation.   One is artificial, the other is making the best of the dies you have.
Also... Useful for server workloads that are licensed by core count.   
You don't pay for cores you don't need and you still have the full 2TB of memory per chip.
At the full frequency on the $400 part.


----------



## wiyosaya (Jul 13, 2017)

Patriot said:


> Limiting memory support for lower core counts.   Killing off pcie lanes on lower core count.
> Killing off "QPI" links on even 5xxx gold chips, killing off 1FMA AVX and limiting memory speed.
> Not every workload requires 28 cores, but forcing you to buy 13k chip when a 2k one is best for your workload if they didn't artificially castrate it.
> They are milking the industry.
> ...


Absolutely! I find crippling silicon just as annoying as it sounds like you do. However, with AMD back to serious proc competition with Intel, perhaps we will see less of this - at least I certainly hope so. Best case scenario, to me at least, is that crippling silicon will fade away.

I suppose, though, that Intel is trying to get rid of the failures from production, but it sounds like AMD is trying to end that practice, too.


----------



## notb (Jul 14, 2017)

Patriot said:


> Because someone uses dirty practices others should too?
> Just because others do it doesn't make it right.


Did you just call asking a premium for more powerful engine a dirty practice?
Am I really seeing this?


----------



## Patriot (Jul 14, 2017)

notb said:


> Did you just call asking a premium for more powerful engine a dirty practice?
> Am I really seeing this?



Bundling things, you used leather seats and a more powerful engine.
Your broken analogy not mine.

bundling things you need with things you don't to force you up a level.
Vs simple die salvage /tdp binning 

Frankly I am astonished you think it's ok and that you can't seem to grasp the difference between crippling a die for artificial segmentation and salvaging dies.


----------



## notb (Jul 14, 2017)

Patriot said:


> Bundling things, you used leather seats and a more powerful engine.
> Your broken analogy not mine.


I used the operator OR not AND.
I didn't mean bundling, but you're right - it's a common practice in car industry (and many others).
But calling this a dirty practice is really a misunderstanding.
You're criticizing something you should be grateful for.
Car manufacturers offer large customization to cover a wide range of needs and budgets. This is actually a great thing for the customers and a pretty big problem for the manufacturer.
Still, they have to make a profit, so they impose some limits.

You'd rather have a limited choice or none whatsoever? 
Keep in mind that a narrow customization always results in a higher entry price.
AMD EPYC offering is very simple and straightforward. Intel has few times more CPUs with multiple choices possible.
So for example, you can get a version of a CPU that can utilize 768GB or 1.5TB of RAM and there is a significant price difference. If there was just a single variant, it would have to be priced somewhere in the middle. I like this choice.


----------



## agello24 (Jul 14, 2017)

ShurikN said:


> Glued together like Core2Quad, right Intel?
> 
> Oh, and those glued together dies kicked Xeons ass in the price/performance and power.



I did not think anyone remembered that. it  was the core duo 1 family. they glued.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 14, 2017)

The results are in and the only thing hurting AMD now is L3 cache latency still, but most high performance compute workloads written today benefit from EPYC architecture, and even further from things that either require massive memory bandwidth, or cores, or that can sit in the caches. Power consumption is in line with Intel, slightly better in some workloads or a little worse in others. 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/22

Intel is acting like a 3 year old in the middle of a tantrum.


----------



## Patriot (Jul 14, 2017)

notb said:


> You'd rather have a limited choice or none whatsoever?
> Keep in mind that a narrow customization always results in a higher entry price.
> AMD EPYC offering is very simple and straightforward. Intel has few times more CPUs with multiple choices possible.
> So for example, you can get a version of a CPU that can utilize 768GB or 1.5TB of RAM and there is a significant price difference. If there was just a single variant, it would have to be priced somewhere in the middle. I like this choice.



Or you can pay half and have a faster chip that supports 2TB of ram.   I like this choice.
Or you can pay $400 and have a chip that supports 2TB of ram.  I like this choice.

If there was a single variant.... you would still pay whatever intel charged you because you don't see the big picture.


----------



## notb (Jul 14, 2017)

Patriot said:


> Or you can pay half and have a faster chip that supports 2TB of ram.   I like this choice.
> Or you can pay $400 and have a chip that supports 2TB of ram.  I like this choice.


It's still way to early to compare EPYC and Xeon this way.
And here we're not talking about this, but about the massive amoung of Xeon variants, aren't we?

Because the way I see it, Intel's pricing on this Xeon lineup shows their fairly confident about the performance, features or robustness of the platform.
We're seeing this in other segments. 7700K and R7 1700 are meant for gaming and they perform similarly in gaming. The price is similar and they both sell pretty well.
It seems to be the same with TR. Again, CPUs match pretty well in price vs performance in productivity tasks, but not in cores (since the single-core potential is significantly different). As we're used to by now, AMD is 10-20% cheaper in most cases.

Now we jump to the server segment and bang: Xeons are twice as expensive as correspponding EPYCs - at least when matched based on cores and early leaked performance (the difference in clocks is not very significant).
I assume Intel wants to keep the profits they are used to, so for me this looks like a bad sign for EPYC. There has to be some task this platform isn't very good at - something that would make Intel feel fairly safe. I don't think AVX-512 advantage is enough.


----------



## Frick (Jul 14, 2017)

notb said:


> I used the operator OR not AND.
> I didn't mean bundling, but you're right - it's a common practice in car industry (and many others).
> But calling this a dirty practice is really a misunderstanding.
> You're criticizing something you should be grateful for.
> ...



Choice is good, but Intel really is a clusterhug of choices right now. Market segmentation is good, but Intel is taking it a bit far currently IMO.


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 14, 2017)

Intel had a long time to rest on their laurels. They rode the success train forever, and suddenly they have some competition to deal with. 
I think that it's great for consumers.


----------



## jaggerwild (Jul 14, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I mean if you want amd is back to its old games telling people what they want. Most people just want a fast 4c\8t something AMD still cannot deliver. Intel sells a couple of them and even tried to offer a higher tdp better clocking version and is getting shit on for it.
> 
> AMD took the same old MOAR COARS approach as of old. Luckily this time they included better ipc, properly working SMT, and actually quite good power consumption at stock.
> 
> If you want tmobil comparison I guess that's fair. You get a value product. Alas you get what you pay for AMD right now works with a handful of ram kits and not at full dimm loads, has a lacking motherboard selection, and still AMD hasn't brought out apus. Just like tmobil with their shoddy service.



Don't forget no IGPU.


----------



## Vlada011 (Jul 15, 2017)

Intel will remember 2017 and 2018 FOREVER.
I recommend people to wait with build but somehow they hurry up to be early adopters.
There is chance to buy i9-7900X for i7-7820X price after Threadripper show up. 
If they decide to buy Intel after Threadripper performance beat their processors with 8-10 and 12 cores.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 15, 2017)

notb said:


> So differentiating price by disabling cores or limiting frequency is OK, but doing it by cutting features is not acceptable for you, right?
> Why is that?



Well there is a fine line to walk here. When you offer premium cars at premium price that look worse than the budget series because you're not buying into overpriced 'options', the end result is you are offering incomplete products at a way too steep price.

This is about what you offer in the basic package at the price you ask for it, and whether it comes across as a good deal or a straight up rip-off where every basic thing is monetized in front of your eyes.

It is very easy to see what is an artificial limitation just to create price differentiation, and what is a realistic limitation because the silicon simply becomes more expensive to make. L3 cache, cores, that's realistic. Instruction sets? That's borderline criminal.


----------



## magpiesvk (Jul 15, 2017)

YoRkFiElD said:


> What is that BS about gaming power consumption of Ryzen??? Of course it has lower power consumption because of the limits of the Ryzen architecture it can't be properly utilized and provides sub par performance to an "only" 4 core chip...Actually Ryzen's single core performance is sh..t and a lot of applications still relies on lightly threaded performance where high single core performance is needed. Overclockability of Ryzen is mostly presented as 4 GHz as a matter of course, but that's not the case, lot of Ryzens are really rubbish binned and some can't even do 3.8 GHz.



BS is what you write here. SP performance of Ryzen is same as Broadwell and about 10percent lower than Skylake. And i dont know where do you get that 3.8 GHz bullshit i have a 3 ryzen systems and all do 3.8GHz no problem. Slight voltage raise is all they need, one even does it at stock voltage. And about gaming benchmarks lets say ryzen is 15 percent slower in games while having 10 percent lower IPC and up to 15 percent lower clocks. IS that bad ? And also this as you say shitty SP performance lower clocks and bad utilization. Only create a 15 percent performance defficit in Single threaded applications than well done AMD.


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 15, 2017)

Doesn't it all come down to the consumer and what we'll buy for our dollar?

Yeah, Intel is trying to convince people that AMD's products are shit, but those of us who use them at home (I mean my 1700X system) are liking how they perform. Benchmark comparisons don't always paint the full picture for home usage. They remain an indicator at best.
Big Blue has shown us in the past that they can get pretty aggressive against the competition that they face.
Anti-Trust issues have cost them a lot of money before. (we all know that they have deep pockets for such expenses)

Seeing them trying to kneecap AMD's Threadripper product is just business as usual for them.
Looking at the negative reviews concerning their X299 platform's VRM heat issues, and CPU power usage stifling decent overclocks makes me thing that they're throwing rocks from inside a glass house.
I'm reading about these issues all over the web tech world.

Make no mistake, I love my three Intel boxes X99, Z120, and Z97. They were as good as I could afford at the time and I'm not disappointed with any of them.
I took my time and waited for reviews and secondary reviews on them all before I bought. They were superior to AMD at the time.

But now, it's not so true anymore. (and if it is, it's not by such a wide margin anymore)
I really like seeing AMD kick it up. I hope that they gain more market share too.

EDIT: I just tested my Ryzen 1700X system against my X99 i7-6850K Box.
The Ryzen outperformed the Intel in some of the tests, but the screen I'm using with it will only go to 1600x1200 resolution. Passmark took points off of my score for that.

Here are a few pics of the results. The first pic is the Ryzen, and the second is the X99.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 16, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> Doesn't it all come down to the consumer and what we'll buy for our dollar?
> 
> Yeah, Intel is trying to convince people that AMD's products are shit, but those of us who use them at home (I mean my 1700X system) are liking how they perform. Benchmark comparisons don't always paint the full picture for home usage. They remain an indicator at best.
> Big Blue has shown us in the past that they can get pretty aggressive against the competition that they face.
> ...



Just for perspective this is my 5960X.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 16, 2017)

Passmark.

Giggles.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 16, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Passmark.
> 
> Giggles.



Agreed I have actually never used it before, but was curious how it compared lol


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 16, 2017)

I usually stay with the Benchmark tests that most of us use, but I wanted to try it out.


That 5960X is a beast, but way out of my budget.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Jul 16, 2017)

blah blah blah sure ryzen's are good chips but switching from a 4.69ghz@1.3v( conservative) unless free ... well it could be down to each and everyone's case/preference, I game on sc2, chronos matters[ clocks]


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 16, 2017)

Time Spy


----------



## Hängyord (Aug 11, 2017)

YoRkFiElD said:


> What is that BS about gaming power consumption of Ryzen??? Of course it has lower power consumption because of the limits of the Ryzen architecture it can't be properly utilized and provides sub par performance to an "only" 4 core chip...Actually Ryzen's single core performance is sh..t and a lot of applications still relies on lightly threaded performance where high single core performance is needed. Overclockability of Ryzen is mostly presented as 4 GHz as a matter of course, but that's not the case, lot of Ryzens are really rubbish binned and some can't even do 3.8 GHz.



wow... Intel fanbaby detected!


----------



## RealNeil (Aug 11, 2017)

The reviews are out, and Threadripper seems to be a real sweet-spot for a lot of people.

I think that if Intel ~or~ AMD want loyalty, they should buy dogs.
That said,....I really like both my X99s, my Ryzen, and the new i9-7900X that I  just traded some video cards for.
These are the best of times to be a consumer!


----------

