The Threadripper CPUs have been updated to the 3rd Generation and we're seeing how the 24 core, 48 thread TR 3960X performs.
AMD Threadripper 3960X Review
Last edited:
AMD 3rd Generation Ryzen Threadripper TR 3960X Review
- Thread starter tinytomlogan
- Start date
The Threadripper CPUs have been updated to the 3rd Generation and we're seeing how the 24 core, 48 thread TR 3960X performs.
AMD Threadripper 3960X Review
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
It's absurd how CPUs are now at the stage where many programs and workloads can't leverage the potential fully. Obviously games are a big one, but it seems other programs and tasks may need to catch up. Intel is so far behind. It's amazing how a company so much bigger can fall so far behind.
Well, go back some years and AMD dominated the CPU market while Intel were stuck sucking their thumbs. Then Sandy Bridge came along and boom. flipped control!
Intel could have stayed ahead from the get go. Their issue is greed, how they tried to milk the consumer and business segment with minuscule increases in performance and (in my eyes) major price increases. Couple that with immature short handed tactics, like their demo of the 28core CPU at 5ghz on all cores, being WATERCOOLED, or the CPU vulnerabilities. Their image is very hurt. Consumer might not care much for spectre, but enterprise and business units will.
AMD were working hard towards Zen, but of course, when you are stuck in the RnD phase with nothing to compete with, Intel got complacent. Zen exploded on the scene and put a serious dent in dominance.
By the way TTL,
Is there any way to present the numerical values on your graphs a little clearer? For me its not very easy on the eyes to extrapolate. Could it be embedded in the bars themselves perhaps?
Last edited:
Intel are behind because they havn't really released a new product for years, not from complacency but because they were too aggressive with 10nm and their expectations of EUV development, and have been stuck waiting for physicists to catch up. If Intel had actually been complacent and not set such crazy targets for 10nm they wouldn't be in this mess strangely.
Last edited:
Avet
Active member
They didn't release a new product in years because they didn't have to. If AMD was there to compete at this level in the past decade Intel would be on 5nm chips today, not struggling to make 10nm. They just chose to bask in mountains of gold and countless virgins like Dragons because they could sell you tweaked Sandy Bridge processors year after year since 3rd January 2011 until 25th November 2019. Would you trade gold and virgins for a fringe research in EUV that you don't even need??? Cmon...
Now we have a proper hype. Like back in the days when one month's cover in local "PC World" magazine was "Nvidia releases 9800 GX2 the fastest GPU on the planet." Next month the cover says "ATI dethrones Nvida with 4870 X2 the new GPU daddy." Now that AMD is back in the game... We will see a new technology revolution. I am loving it.
Last edited:
Sorry but no, that's just not how the world works, lets check some facts.
- Work on 10nm began in the mid-2000's while AMD was competitive with Intel, long before Sandy Bridge
- Intel spent the last 8 years spending billions more on CPU research and development than any other tech company in the world anyway, as they always did.
- Intel has been unequivocally losing the real CPU war for the last decade in mobile, they have been decimated in a market they threw billions at during the start of the decade, and 10nm was supposed to save them in this much larger fight; They never had a chance to rest on laurels.
- Intel has invested more time and money into their 10nm node than any company in history has ever spent on any other lithographic process.
- We have had half a decade of leaks detailing 10nm's problematic development and showing that Intel has been throwing as many engineers as they can at it.
- Had Intel been on target for 10nm(And not watered it down when management finally realised it wouldn't work a few years ago) they would currently have a node equivalent to TSMC's upcoming 5nm, and could have released an architecture with a >25% higher IPC than Skylake.
- Public companies are controlled by shareholders, if investors got any hint Intel wasn't pushing to be the best, the harm to Intel's financials would have been grave and far beyond any (non-existent) savings.
This is a case of near criminal mismanagement in a company where the engineers are clearly too detached from the financials and direction as a whole, a company or organisation growing too large and then collapsing under its own inefficiency is hardly a novel concept.
Last edited:
SPS
Moderator
That's why I mentioned picking UE4 as a good test as it takes a long time, easily accessible and widely used by developers and compile times are a big concern.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Would be cool to try UE4, Unity, maybe GameMaker Studio if it has an open source test.
I'd be interested as well.
I'd be interested as well.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Was the core increase in Coffee Lake dependent on their 14nm++ architecture or could they have done it with Skylake after 14nm was refined and yields were improved, or even with 14nm+ with Kaby Lake? IPC wasn't necessarily what Intel were lacking in, at least in my eyes. The issues were more down to core/thread count. They were still providing 4c/4t processors at the same price as they were years earlier (same goes for the i7's). Their 14nm++ architecture did allow Intel to increase power by around 25% at the same TDP, but it still seems highly suspicious that as soon as Zen is released, Intel go into overdrive and start adding cores and hyperthreading and cutting prices and boosting clock speeds. And then Coffee Lake got refreshed using the same process node, adding 50% more cores and 50% more LLC.
Iirc 14nm++ is the one where they took a step back and made the node larger again to improve thermals and yields? From the sounds of it before 14nm++ yields were grim, so I don't think it's too surprising they stuck to 4c/8t for so long while pushing node development so heavily, presumably it wouldn't have been very economical for them to attempt more than 4c on 14nm before then(Stuff like this is always possible you might just get shocking yields).
Coffee Lake had to have already been in the pipeline by the time Zen1 was first revealed though, 6c models had to have taped out long before Zen1 revealed with how close they were together, but Intel probably knew an attempted AMD overcut was likely on the cards when it came to core count and pre-empted it a tiny bit.
Coffee Lake had to have already been in the pipeline by the time Zen1 was first revealed though, 6c models had to have taped out long before Zen1 revealed with how close they were together, but Intel probably knew an attempted AMD overcut was likely on the cards when it came to core count and pre-empted it a tiny bit.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
If that's true, a lot of what people (incl myself) are saying is not entirely fair. We know obviously that Intel can't just conjure up a 6c/12t or 8c/16t CPU out of thin air just because Zen is released and isn't Bulldozer all over again, but a lot of people don't realise (again, I'm incl myself here) that Intel might not have been able to produce anything more than what they were doing. The word everyone says is, Intel were deliberately holding things back. But if they NEEDED 10nm to rid them of their 14nm woes, and 10nm didn't work, they needed to wait until the 14nm process improved enough to actually be able to safely manufacture higher core count processors. Which means we should give Intel some slack. Obviously their plans for lithography haven't played out and the CEO got axed as a result, but it's less maniacal and more just... a mistake.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Disagree. They are a multi-billion-dollar company who before Zen and their internal issues had by far the most advanced microprocessor engineering talent on Earth. It wasn't even close, they were 18-24 months ahead of everyone.
They screwed up. It was no mistake I promise that. They don't just not think ahead and choose a 4core/8T max at 14nm, that makes little sense. Their 7nm team were having fewer issues but they put so much money into 10nm they can't just not make money off of it. It was bad manaement and far overzealous engineers probably being cocky... They should have cancelled it and poured money into 7nm or focused on retooling for 14nm EUV processes once it became available. Basically anything but sit around and wait for nothing to happen.
Last edited:
Similar threads
