AMD wins again! Source: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_e nd_cpus.html

File: 1495358050273.png (495KB, 1070x601px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1070x601px

>>61845294
DELET

ANODA SHOA

File: 1502055755975.png (343KB, 672x794px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 672x794px

>>61845294
I CAN'T TAKE THIS ANYMOOOOORE

File: ayy.jpg (235KB, 716x544px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 716x544px

>>61845294
what a bright future

File: 1496608156512.png (6KB, 350x314px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 350x314px

>>61845717
NOOOOOOOOOOOO

And it will get worse when intel switches to 10nm and everyone else goes to 7nm.
But intel will survive and come up with something much better now.

All the shelved projects because "the goyim will never compete" are being dusted off, and the race is back.

>>61845717
What site is this?

>>61845796
>All the shelved projects
You don't understand at all, intel didn't have any shelved projects. R&D costs money and if you don't need it since you don't have competition, you don't fund it.

>>61845798
amdshills.com

>>61845798
userbenchmark.com

>>61845796
>intel will come up with something better
They have their SGX extensions. I'm not sure consumers will like it. It's not worth giving up your freedom to do basic things like prevent cheating in video games. But companies certainly will.
AMD has their own versions I forget the name of but they're just not as robust. Far more open but I don't think it'll prevent cheating as cleanly.
And everyone knows the high end PC buyers nowadays is gamers.
Maybe we will actually see some advances in features now.

>>61845806
People still have ideas, and intel is not stupid enough to throw ideas away.
I bet they have some sort of "project golem" shelved somewhere.

>>61845835
The time lag between idea and product in x86_64 land is roughly 5-10 years. Unless they were actively developing products, it's not going to be here this decade.

>>61845845
Well then, they better have some "zombie project" that they can shove the money up or...
Last time, they had the jew cores.

Just wait until pressure forces HP, Dell, Applel to start incorporating Ryzen/Ripper procs in their high end workstation - as well as low end consumer desktops.

Competition is a great thing!!!

>>61845901
There was never any pressure not to, it's just that AMD's inferior products and worse marketing in the past led to less companies going with their products and less people going with AMD powered PCs.

AMD won't begin to truly win until two things happen, specifically
>Zen2 must provide more-than-marginable IPC, perf/W, and clockspeed improvements
>AMD must fix their inferior GPU designs to gain superior market share in the laptop market
Not much marketing use to have your little 4 core chips powering a higher margin Nvidia GPU

>>61845862
"Presenting, INTEL NETBLASTER! an evolution of the netburst design! 60 stage pipeline! 15Ghz! Quadruple data rate FPU! A neural network solution for the branch predictor completely original by intel and never done by anyone, specially AMD before! EMT64 support!"

>>61845963

Asus, Toshiba, Dell, HP have always used value-tier AMD processors. Meanwhile, PlayStation and Xbox's will likely benefit from Zen as well in the future.
It is exciting to see the inevitability of those companies above using HIGH END AMD processors in the near future.

I get slightly erect when I think of Apple having useful iMac / Mac Mini / Mac Pros without Intel's minuscule incremental 12th generation rebranding of the same old shit at high prices.

>>61845294
Why do you create 10+ threads per day about Intel vs AMD?

Gaymers BTFO
>>>/pcbg/

>>61846000

Blue Man Group Certified

>>61845901
HP and Dell are doing it already - but only in selected few systems that will be released soon.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/208772/20170531/computex-2017-amd-ryzen-desktop-pc-from-acer-asus-dell-hp-and-lenovo-unwrapped.htm

http://pilot.search.dell.com/ryzen

Apple is using Radeon GPUs but will probably not switch its processors.

>>61845796
all intel did was to cut back cut costs and maximize their revenue this is what all the companies without competition do
this is what ati did back in 4xxx era

>>61846064
Yes, but only a completely imbecile company would not expect some sort of spanish inquisition and have a backup R&D in case.

>>61845835
yeah but intel is just intel
amd had the pussy killer and ibm behind them who knows what kind of black magic they have now

File: 1475729596797.jpg (26KB, 300x295px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x295px

>>61846064

>>61846086
their backup was the 10nm refresh of the sandy bridge cause up untill the last day of zen launch everyone was confident that amd had only 40% increase on ipc not 52% as they said this literally caught them off guard

plus their true next gen uarch isnt due till 2020-22

>>61846104
Well, welcome to the ride of hell.

>>61845717
>fucking 7350K is the best value
>R5 1600, the actual best value CPU all the way down in 16th
>1600x a better value
What the hell

>>61846149
userbench my anon userbench..
1950x shouldnt even be in the first place according to their own metric system

>>61846104
Yeah Su and Keller really pulled a rabbit out of a hat for Zen.

Apparently the neural network branch predictor started out as a joke, as in "this can't possibly work", but they actually tried it and it owned.

File: Love-AMD_400x400.jpg (8KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 400x400px

>>61845294

I'm really excited where AMD is going here. Maybe they won't win #1 in performance in every category, but that's not really important. It's more important to be able to bring more performance per dollar, and AMD is fucking killing it. Intel can't even keep up with their Xeon line against AMD's enthusiast and workstation grade CPUs, and the there's still the AMD Epyc server line!

I know my next upgrade will be a 1900X threadripper and Vega 64 (or w/e is highest at the time). I'm planning to move away from Shilldows as my workstation OS and move over to Debian.

>>61846496
One thing I like from AMD is that unlike Intel they don't throttle down the CPU when they run hot.

Seriously - using a Pentium E5200 was proving to be like riding a snail while an AMD Athlon II X4 620 will run multiple applications smoother. (which is an plus, considering I use both Firefox and Sony Vegas, both which are known to use the CPU and RAM like crazy)

>>61846533
>they don't throttle down the CPU when they run hot.
They do though...

>>61845963
> it's just that dirty and illegal tricks in the past led to less companies going with their products and less people going with AMD powered PCs.
fixed

>>61845294
>Source: My ass
Kys

>>61846533
AMD does do thermal throttling. It's just Ryzen's design means that they don't need to do it as much as intel does with large numbers of cores since it's more power efficient.

>>61845796
Intel 10nm is more like 9.5nm and others 7nm is more like 7.8nm, IIRC.
Still some difference there, but almost half the difference of 10 vs 7.

Ryzen on 7nm is more so going to BTFO out of Intel there because they should clock to 4.5Ghz+ while the IPC is very close, die area to performance is higher, yields will probably still be much higher, and Intel won't have an actual new arch until like 2021.

>>61846593
Hahahaha! NO U!

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

>>61846617
Also the IPC on the Ryzen part can be increased as well.
Not counting actual work, Ryzen will keep improving the IPC "automatically" due the way AMD solved the branch prediction issues, that is via neural network.
The smart they make the NN in the chip, the better the chip will perform, and it will be mostly a question of just giving the network more inputs, making it bigger and feeding it more software to train on.

>>61846593
nice post faggot

>>61846593
Dumb poo in joo

>>61845810
Actually it's more biased towards Intel, Bettynho

>>61845796
> everyone else
AMD, ftfy

>>61845294
Pissmark is still trash.

>>61850311
>only when Intel is not winning

>>61845294
Reminder that Vega is worthless piece of shit garbage and AMD can't make a proper chip at all.

>>61850760
Kill yourself, faggot.

>>61850468
Trashmark is still massively Intel biased even when you compare similar CPUs. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2966&cmp[]=2794