
AMD's new Zen-based $499 CPU beats Intel's $999 CPU - HugoDaniel
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/55126/amds-new-zen-based-499-cpu-beats-intels-999/index.html
======
AYBABTME
How does it "beat" Intel, with just frequency and cache size numbers? Seems
like marketing material and nothing, yet, to see here.

~~~
static_noise
It will probably beat intel in the performance/price ratio when not
considering the cost of electrical power.

That low difference (<10%) between turbo and sustained clock speed is a bit
troubling, though. It indicates that these processors are not limited by the
TDP but by the transistor speed. Combined with the high TDP, this means that
AMD is still much behind intel in their manufacturing process.

~~~
nottorp
We should all hope they come up with something that's competitive. Even 80% of
the performance for 50% of the price would be good enough. And this is because
the last 3-4 Intel CPU generations have been simply not worth upgrading to. If
some real competition from AMD shows up, things will change.

~~~
static_noise
AMD seems to have lost their way back when they merged with ATI and integrated
their GPUs into the processors. I remember that in a restructuring they
switched from hand-optimizing hotspots in the CPUs to a more abstract approach
using design software that worked well in GPUs.

After that decision they fell behind in performance and efficiency. I don't
know if that was the root cause but it stayed in my memory as one pivotal
point.

It would be interesting to read an insider story on how that decision played
out in the meantime.

~~~
ksec
It depends what you mean by lost their way. But ATI has nothing to do with it.
Bulldozer was a failure, it was a perfect storm of Intel's best execution
since the Pentium 4 Ghz problem and AMD's worst execution. When Intel took a
misstep, it cost them 20% of market shares. When AMD took a misstep, it nearly
killed them. You could argue without ATI, AMD would properly be dead by now.
And AMD CPU was literally uncompetitive even with price reduction for the past
5 years. And they totally miss the boat with the desktop to laptop transition.
While Intel, after hitting the Powerwall with Pentium 4 and fortunate enough
to have had a team working on a architecture specially for laptop, the
original Pentium M, pick up speed in that direction.

But like others have pointed out, I believe it is a operational, internal
struggle, and basically a leadership problem.

~~~
user5994461
> And AMD CPU was literally uncompetitive even with price reduction for the
> past 5 years.

I don't know about that.

The Intel core are very good processors but the entry price for the smallest
one is over $100.

I can remember some cheaper product lines from Intel but they weren't that
great. AMD had decent CPU for the cheap laptops and computers. Dunno how much
volume and margin there is to be done on that segment.

------
ksec
Sandy Bridge-Ivy Bridge > Haswell-Broadwell > Skylake-KabyLake

That is now 5 - 6 years without much performance improvement. You will need to
use those newer instructions (AVX2). So basically we have been getting the
same CPU performance at a lower power usage, and at a similar price point.

From SandyBridge to Kaby Lake, there is may be maximum 15% IPC difference. So
all AMD will need to do, is to catch up to Haswell or Broadwell, i.e Catch up
to performance of Intel's CPU 4 years ago, and offer 20%-50% discount price.

The higher end, Server, high margin CPU that intel currently enjoys are
exactly where AMD needs to hit. Theoretically, those who need high end CPU for
gaming will also need a high end GPU. But knowing AMD it is hard for me to
imagine how two unit within the same company could cooperate.

------
DeepYogurt
Considering the chip isn't out yet this story should be taken with a grain of
salt.

------
superkuh
Anyone have a link to the story that doesn't send you to a nag page if you
have javascript turned off?

~~~
wingless
[https://archive.fo/xgqlz](https://archive.fo/xgqlz)

------
MichaelBurge
Keep in mind the author isn't exactly a hardware engineer:

> Working in IT retail for 10 years gave him great experience with high-end,
> custom-built PCs.

So treat the article with a slightly smaller grain of salt as you would a
salesperson at your local Best Buy pushing AMD chips.

------
smegel
I hope AMD make a comeback. It is all I have ever owned (currently running a
Phenom x6), but was contemplating going to Intel.

That being said, it sounds like these are AMD benchmarks so be wary...

~~~
static_noise
My Phenom II X4 940 on the desktop machine is still going strong. I couldn't
yet justify replacing it because it just isn't that bad yet. I think I'll put
off replacing that rig for another year.

Some desktop AMD processors support ECC memory which would need a Xeon and
more expensive mainboards from intel for replacement. This tunes up the price
quite a bit when switching. That ECC support was the deciding factor back
then.

~~~
baq
With rowhammer reality this should actually be a deal breaker for the
conscious...

------
hatsunearu
Let me channel the /r/AMD sentiment here:

Wait for benchmarks!

Don't let hype take over.

------
curt15
I remember Amd's K10 series being hyped to high heaven before release
(something like 40% faster than Intel's competitors) only to be a major
letdown.

------
znpy
What about power consumption ?

------
elcct
I was hoping for $999 cpu but twice as fast as example Intel cpu...

~~~
CyberDildonics
They have 16 and 32 core count processors planned. These should be faster for
programs with good concurrency although one detail that has gone under the
radar is that Zen has half the SIMD performance of Intel AVX chips (it should
take 256 bit SIMD instructions but doesn't execute them all at once). Still,
this is unlikely to make a difference in the vast majority of software out
there.

~~~
user5994461
They already have > 20 cores for servers (> 40 with HT).

It is pointless for consumers. Well, except for squeezing a few dollars from
the enthusiast who only want THE best, a profitable niche.

~~~
elcct
Why is it pointless? There is never too many cpus

~~~
user5994461
Most user applications cannot fully utilize 40 cores.

~~~
elcct
But users run many applications at the same time.

~~~
user5994461
Not 40 of them ^^

~~~
elcct
Well, I just started my laptop and I have 179 processes and 2381 threads
running ^^

~~~
user5994461
Which all together hardly use 3% of a single core.

