steve360May 27 will be a painful day for Intel.

notbWanna bet? :)

Zen 2 launch is not as important as the original Zen in 2017. AMD got a revenue boost, but it wasn't exactly the "end of Intel" that some on this forum foreseen. :)
This is just an upgrade. I don't understand why hype is so strong.

Vayra86Come on AMD, we want a demo with TR on a water chiller at 5 Ghz. Just for giggles

Vayra86Because we are going to see AMD CPUs surpass or truly come side-by-side on performance. No longer can anyone maintain 'the Intel option is still somewhat better' without lying. Its a mindshare thing mostly, and that will become a push in sales as well.

Vayra86Because we are going to see AMD CPUs surpass or truly come side-by-side on performance. No longer can anyone maintain 'the Intel option is still somewhat better' without lying. Its a mindshare thing mostly, and that will become a push in sales as well.

notbNo, it won't.

All we hear is more cores (up to 2x) and higher clocks (+10%, right?). I haven't heard about any serious improvement other than raw performance.

Also, the biggest issue with Zen performance was not single-core potential (and obviously not number of cores), but latencies stemming form IF.
It's unknown at this point if the chiplet design helps in any way (or maybe makes it even worse).

If AMD wanted to have a successful product, they should have spent money on marketing and ecosystem. More cores is not enough.

B-RealZen+ fixed (or at least made better) the frequency issues. Why shouldn't it be even better on Zen2?

The single core performance is expected around 15%. With the best GPU (2080Ti), Intel has about 15% advantage in games in FHD. So if it delivers, it will be on par with the fastest Intel CPU, or nearer than anytime. And the blue eyed ones will lose the only remaining trump card. Not to speak about possible further price reduction for AMD.

steve360May 27 will be a painful day for Intel.

HwGeek"... May 27 ..." It's all about 7:).

notbSo Zen 2 will still be 10-15% behind in single-core than the competing Intel stuff.
Other that that it'll be once again a balance of other features.
On AMD side you'll have a performance potential (another 2-4 cores), that you'll most likely never use.
On Intel side you'll have features (IGP, better virtualization and better ecosystem), that you'll most likely also never use.
Intel will be more expensive. AMD will be harder to buy.
Business as usual.

MelvisHow do you know that? I think your incorrect here as the IPC of both AMD and Intel are pretty much the same the only advantage Intel has over AMD is clock speeds. Did you know that Zen 2 will most likely surpass Intel in IPC?

Incorrect again, Intel hasnt got a better eco system and never has! AMD with its backwards and forward compatible AM4 platform is way better in this regard.
Intel has ALWAYS been more expensive and this makes it easier to buy AMD.

Do I have to continually correct you in these threads? its getting tiring repeating myself honestly.

notbWhy would anyone care about this?
What do you want from your CPU? To perform or to have good IPC?
Intel spent R&D money and made architectural choices to have high clocks.
AMD spent R&D money and made architectural choices to have high core count.

These are 2 different approaches to performance, with 2 different outcomes. I prefer the more universal Intel approach.
Also, unlike AMD, Intel can actually offer a combination of both - albeit at a very high price point.

By "ecosystem" I obviously meant products other than the CPU. Intel makes many things.

No. You can read (and learn) something once in a while, not just write. :)