trparkyThat's the thing, I don't think AMD Ryzen's issue is IPC. People have said and even AMD has confirmed that Ryzen's IPC is about what Haswell's IPC numbers were which really isn't all that bad. The key difference is that most Intel chips today are clocked higher. And as you, @bug have said, clock rate multiplied by IPC equals what I refer to as IPS or Instructions Per Second. The higher the IPS the faster the chip is perceived to be to the end user.

To increase the perceived performance of the chip you can do one of three things...
1. Increase IPC while keeping the clock rate the same.
2. Increase the clock rate while keeping IPC the same.
3. Increase both.

If AMD can improve upon both Ryzen's IPC and the clock rate it will dramatically increase the perceived performance of the processor. I figure that until Ryzen is fab'ed on the 7nm process node that Global Foundries was talking about a couple of days ago higher clock rates on Ryzen won't be possible.

trparkyNo doubt but there would be less of a gap knowing Intel's recent "lets throw them a bone" strategy.

trparkyI'm referring to Intel's recent miniscule performance increases that they've been giving us over the last couple of years. 5% here, 7% there. That's what Intel's been giving us lately.

Now maybe with AMD back in the game Intel will actually put out something decent but I'm not holding my breath.

trparkyLike we used to see, huge improvements like in the 15 to 20% improvements; leaps and bounds.

FluffmeisterIf that is the case then great, interesting to see where pricing falls then.

SteevoAMD is also getting 99.9% yield on Ryzen dies, compared to 70%ish percent Intel is getting, making each die 30% relatively cheaper.

SteevoAMD is also getting 99.9% yield on Ryzen dies, compared to 70%ish percent Intel is getting, making each die 30% relatively cheaper.

EarthDogthey were just past 80% in mid may which is a great yield.
www.google.com/search?q=ryzen+die+yields&oq=ryzen+die+yields&aqs=chrome..69i57.8214j0j4&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8


99.9% also seems incredibly unrealistic for these complex dies anyway...

trparkyNewer and better instruction sets should help improve performance. We've seen several new instruction sets that improve upon the current architecture by including CPU instructions that reduces the work required to reach the end result. For instance, before the various forms of the SSE instruction set a program may be required to execute four or even as many as six individual operations whereas with SSE one operation can do the same job. The unfortunate part about this is that many programs are compiled for the lowest common denominator in the sense that they are compiled so as it allow it to run on just about any old processor. Yes, this increases your market share because you can then run that program on just about anything but that holds back programs in terms of being able to really use what modern processors can do.

An example of this is Firefox, it's compiled to be able to run on just about anything including an old Pentium 4 whereas Waterfox (which is based upon the same source code that Firefox is compiled from) uses all of the tricks that modern processors can do thus improve performance by making it so that it requires less CPU cycles to do the job.

Backwards compatibility is holding us back. At some point the industry has to say "Fuck it" and leave the old shit behind.

Steevowww.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_is_reportedly_able_to_use_99_9_of_ryzen_cpu_dies/1

That is what I thought, but apparently the lower power light used during production on the mask is getting better yields as it has a cleaner result than Intel which seem to have issues with edge deterioration from higher power or intensity light damaging the mask or resist layer.