Intel's Pat Gelsinger Exclaims "Intel is Back" AMD is "Over"

[rchon24]

It was just a matter of time - AMD did well condering all.

HOWEVER without Intel being stuck at 14nm _and_ AMD using TSMC 7nm - AMD would never have been able to do what they did. Ryzen 1000 and 2000 on GloFo was nothing special at all however it delivered an alternative to Intel which even the most hardcore AMD fanboys had joined, because FX CPUs were pretty much garbage.

With 3000 series Ryzen became decent, with 5000 series they become good. This is mostly because of going from GloFo 12nm (which is far worse than Intel 14nm in every aspect) to TSMC 7nm.

AMD have beaten Intel and even Nvidia before but Intel and Nvidia always came back and took the crown. Which resulted in AMD lowering prices and went back to the drawing board. Just look how AMD priced 5000 series compared to 1000/2000 and somewhat 3000 series. AMD started milking just like Intel did for ~10 years. AMD left NON-X models and generally priced all the chips way higher than before.

I own 2 Ryzen machines (htpc + nas/server) and 1 Intel (gaming rig) so you can stop the fanboy BS. I even own two consoles, so I actually have 4 AMD chips in my home... However I also have 3 intel laptops So I guess it's 50/50

truth. I was very happy when Zen3 came out on top. Now we need Alder Lake to beat zen3 and zen4 to beat Alder Lake. Hopefully when the chip supply catches up to demand we’ll get better performance AND better pricing as amd and intel start to compete.

 

[HenrySomeone]

Zen4 probably will beat Alder Lake in most things (not so sure about single thread though), but all indications are, it won't be up against it, but its successor. Apple gobbling up all of the TSMC's latest and greatest nodes really threw a wrench into AMD plans.

 

[xenocide]

This posted graph of power is not just the cpu it is the WHOLE SYSTEM .
Even says it at top of chart under techpowerup heading.
My Ryzen 5600x does not run at 126w not even maxed out at pbo mb limits. It topped out at 121w. I dont bother with pbo I leave it at default which is 76W .

The test systems at TPU are baselined around matching hardware--analogous motherboards, same drives, same RAM, etc. The whole system measurements might vary within a handful of watts, but you're not going to see massive swings from a different motherboard.

 

[Waldorf]

truly sad for a company with multiple times the budget of the next competitor,
to say the are "back" (should have never "lost" the spot)..

reminds me a bit of cars in the 70s.
e.g. having US having Firebird +7L V8, yet unable to outperform a 1.6L 4cyl VW GTI.

 

[londiste]

truly sad for a company with multiple times the budget of the next competitor,

TSMC has 26-27B USD capital expenditure in 2021, I believe there were news of increasing that to 30B USD.
Intel's capital expenditure in 2021 is 18-19B USD.

I know this is not on topic but:

reminds me a bit of cars in the 70s.
e.g. having US having Firebird +7L V8, yet unable to outperform a 1.6L 4cyl VW GTI.

70s?
In first half of 70s Firebird topped out with 7.5l V8 rated to ~270kW and over 650 Nm of torque...
Golf Mk1 GTI started in mid-70s with 1.4l R4 producing 81kW and 150 Nm.
Even with the size and weight difference, that is a lot to overcome.

When it comes to size and weight - Golf Mk1 was over a meter shorter than Gen2 Firebird - 3.7/3.9 m vs 5 m - and ~20 cm narrower - 1.61/1.64 m vs 1.86 m. Curb weight was 810 kg vs 1700kg.

 

[HenrySomeone]

He probably means the late 70s when large engines in particular were struck quite badly with the new emission regulations, but yeah, I still can't see the Golf doing better anywhere but in tight corners.

 

[GURU7OF9]

truly sad for a company with multiple times the budget of the next competitor,
to say the are "back" (should have never "lost" the spot)..

reminds me a bit of cars in the 70s.
e.g. having US having Firebird +7L V8, yet unable to outperform a 1.6L 4cyl VW GTI.

You are dead right, but they never admit it until after they think they have something better than their main competitor ie Alderlake. This was exactly the same when Athlon was superior in every way until core was released.

I think it will be faster than Zen 3 over all but not by a whole lot , certainly not as much as they are making out.
Roll on Nov 5th.
Yeah I know its the 4th, but where I live it won't be until the 5th !
Show me some unbiased reviews!

The test systems at TPU are baselined around matching hardware--analogous motherboards, same drives, same RAM, etc. The whole system measurements might vary within a handful of watts, but you're not going to see massive swings from a different

Not saying TPU have tested unfairly, infact nothing to do with it. Im saying that the chart used is not cpu power only, it is whole system power. Which was a reply to high power usage on 12900k of 330w compared to Ryzen 5900x 115w. He is referring to Ryzen quoted figures on chart are 183w which is way higher than other persons quote of 115w, but 183 w refers to whole system where as 105w is for cpu only. Ryzen figure is wrong anyway as it should be 105 w.
Chart lists Ryzen at 183w stock which makes sense for approx 130-140w cpu + mb with ram ssd etc plugged in .
CBR20 multi is not that intensive anyway!

 

[Waldorf]

@londiste
we dont buy tsmc chips in retail box, its intel and amd. so i was referring to those 2..



and yeah, i meant mid/late, not early 70s.
and sorry, but for me "racing" involves turns, straight line is just reaction/acceleration test, so yes, no chance the golf loses
even if i just looking at numbers, 2.5x the hp compared to the golf, yet not even 30% faster. not really something special (with enough brute force you can make a truck go 400mph)
and even more recent: 2014 ford mustang with a 5L V8, yet no independent rear suspension. ok.
not saying i wont own/drive a US classic/muscle car, but more for the sound/smell than anything else.

so to me like with intel:
multiple times more money for EVERYTHING (vs amd), yet their stuff isnt even 2x faster...

 

[RandallFlagg]

@londiste
we dont buy tsmc chips in retail box, its intel and amd. so i was referring to those 2..



and yeah, i meant mid/late, not early 70s.
and sorry, but for me "racing" involves turns, straight line is just reaction/acceleration test, so yes, no chance the golf loses
even if i just looking at numbers, 2.5x the hp compared to the golf, yet not even 30% faster. not really something special (with enough brute force you can make a truck go 400mph)
and even more recent: 2014 ford mustang with a 5L V8, yet no independent rear suspension. ok.
not saying i wont own/drive a US classic/muscle car, but more for the sound/smell than anything else.

so to me like with intel:
multiple times more money for EVERYTHING (vs amd), yet their stuff isnt even 2x faster...

You might as well be comparing the R&D of Dell to that of Qualcomm. Bluntly, it is a stupid comparison.

AMD is not a chip fab company, it is a chip design company, and so is Intel.
TSMC is not a chip design company, it is a fab company, and so is intel.

The reality is that Intel has had far, far, far too little capital investment over the past 5-7 years. It's much smaller than TSMC's capital invest. It's going to take at least two more years for Intel to catch up to TSMC on their top process node. However, AMD is not privy to TSMCs latest node - Apple gets that.

So with AL, we are about to see what happens when there is node parity between Intel and AMD. The main reason Zen 4 may have an advantage would be the TSMC N5 node it will be on which is about 70% more dense than Intel 7. However, there are big indications that AMDs N5 volume may be limited - because TSMC N3, which Apple would normally use in 2022, is delayed until 2023. Hence, Zen 4 will likely have to share TSMCs N5 volume in 2022.

If that delay happens - which TSMC has said it will - then by 2023 you'll have Intel Meteor Lake on 200MT/mm2 Intel 5 node vs Zen 4 or maybe Zen 4.5 on 170MT/mm2 TSMC N3. I think I know how that is going to work out.

 

[Waldorf]

Your giving the best example of what i posted: "... far too little investment.."
why? they have multiple time the funds of amd....

 

[RandallFlagg]

Your giving the best example of what i posted: "... far too little investment.."
why? they have multiple time the funds of amd....

But not the funds of TSMC, who is also very much state subsidized (along with all chip related business in Taiwan - see video). TSMC is planning to invest $100B over the next 3 years and is spending 25-30B this year.

AMD is not who Intel has to worry about, that's low depth thinking.

Intel's CPU architectures are just fine, look at Tiger Lake and Alder Lake. Heck look at Rocket Lake on 1/3 the density, competing against Zen 3. Those chip designs have been sitting around waiting for their nodes to catch up.

AMD was just in the right place, at the right time, to take advantage of TSMCs node advantage.

 

[lola46]

lol

 

[HenrySomeone]

Ah yes, because we all run Prime95 for at least a couple hours every day! In the winter time I like to add Furmark for good measure too, saves on heating!

 

[Valantar]

Ah yes, because we all run Prime95 for at least a couple hours every day! In the winter time I like to add Furmark for good measure too, saves on heating!

Hey, that's all I use my PC for too!

On a more serious note, the efficiency of these CPUs is hardly impressive, but they do decently on absolute performance as well. Still, something drastic has to happen with Intel CPUs pretty soon, this isn't a tenable path forward.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Ah yes, because we all run Prime95 for at least a couple hours every day! In the winter time I like to add Furmark for good measure too, saves on heating!

you would be surprised how many do (utilize they're full pc 24/7)these days, though we don't all bake-out with Furmark the GPU bench, you can see what I do and it's not running ddurrmark, what the f##k.

OVER, not over. ..

you did well Pat but nahhh.