AMD Ryzen

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Steve S, Feb 15, 2017.

  1. Steve S

    Steve S Pen Pro - Senior Member Super Moderator

    Messages:
    6,059
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    Trophy Points:
    331
    sonichedgehog360 and Marty like this.
  2. sonichedgehog360

    sonichedgehog360 Editor-in-Chief of TechAndTiny Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,158
    Trophy Points:
    181
    I do hope they release quad core chips with higher clocks because those benchmarks show a compelling performance advantage clock-for-core versus directly comparable Intel chips in that chart (see the Xeon E5-2687W v2). Versus the E5-2687W v2 which also has 8 cores and 16 threads, a similar clock rate (the very same 3.4 GHz base and Intel with a 4.0 GHz boost and AMD with a 3.8 GHz boost) yet a much higher power draw (150 W versus Ryzen's 90 W), the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X octa-core chip manages about a 3.5% performance lead in the benchmark. A quick check on the Intel ARK shows that the E5-2687W chip is an Ivy Bridge chip from 2013 which means the Ryzen 7 1700X has IPC performance either (a) minimally wedged between Ivy Bridge and Haswell (most likely) or (b) IPC performance at or maybe slightly above Haswell (less likely).

    In all likelihood if this benchmark is very accurate, Ryzen is just roughly 3% off from Haswell in clock-for-clock performance which itself is roughly 7.2% faster than Ivy Bridge (compare the Core i7-3770K and Core i7-4770K's single thread performance here). Taking this a step further with reference to Skylake and Broadwell, we could expect just an estimated 5%-15% percent clock-per-clock performance deficit (compare the Core i7-4700K to the Core i7-5775C and the Core i7-6700K here; do not compare the numbers directly to the prior benchmark since other factors between AnandTech and PC Perspective's test beds are causing a drop in the i7-4770K's numbers in this benchmark). This is quite the quantum leap and extraordinarily impressive and here is why.

    Before anyone goes "but AMD is still 5% to 15% behind Intel in performance clock-for-clock," consider the following. First, AMD has been dragging its feet and on its death bed, behind Intel 30% to 40% in clock-for-clock performance and performance-per-watt fractions less and so poor that liquid cooling was a minimum system requirement for their 250W top-of-the-line slow poke. Second, clocks are not end-all, be-all. Remember that AMD's Ryzen has an insanely low TDP of 90W versus a 150 W Ivy Bridge chip with basically the same clocks and the same core and thread count. It is a valid possibility that Ryzen, especially with its smaller die size, can handle higher clocks with a similar power draw versus Broadwell or even Skylake. In cases like this, IPC is less telling and performance-per-watt is gives a clearer look inside. It will be especially telling once we see how the performance-per-watt metrics and overclocking benchmarks compare across platforms. If Ryzen beats Skylake in performance-per-watt and attains much higher stable clocks, Intel could be seeing a very profit-stifling two-way processor war now: Intel versus the double-headed hydra ARM and AMD.

    Get ready for a lot of popcorn and fun-filled nights scrolling from the sidelines through endless pages of flame wars between fanboys on the AnandTech and Tom's Hardware forums again. We are going to party like it is 2003 only this time Intel cannot play the same monopolistic trump card and bribe manufacturers into nigh boycotting AMD (see here) to pull up from danger. In a strange twist of karma for the nightmare they gave AMD, Intel is now being attacked in a perfect storm simultaneously from the top down and the bottom up and they themselves are squarely to blame for the mess they got themselves into. First and foremost, Intel made the fatal mistake of being late to market with mobile where they are losing in low-end, ultra-low power applications by ignoring the once-in-a-lifetime offer to power the iPhone and selling off XScale in favor of being x86-centric. Noticing the rising mobile threat only a few years later (or too late), Intel then was cornered into desperately attempting to reengineer and prop up their ghastly slow netbook-aligned Atom product only to be ultimately struck down by ARM from all directions (Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung, Rockchip, etc., etc., etc.).

    Intel is only now coming to grips with reality that they are not the only game in town and their business in jeopardy. To further add insult to injury, their initial jump to 10 nanometers will only be for Cannonlake mobile parts while desktop parts (including Coffee Lake) will be 14 nanometer through the first half of 2018. Even their decades-long Wintel friendship is losing its value at Microsoft with the new Windows on ARM initiative and a fruitful WinQualcomm partnership springing up with seemingly greater precedence. And lastly, coming back to where this discussion all started, now Intel's high-power, high-performance segment is seeing a serious threat and AMD has the winds in its favor: they have a rallying stock and an exponential rise in customer satisfaction and unlike in 2003 with the Athlon 64-versus-Pentium 4 processor war, they now have to share with ARM just a small portion of the burden of putting pressure on Intel. As for me, I always like rooting for the little guy since it usually always means the consumer wins big league with the net result of huge strides in innovation and massive drops in price points across the board. Besides, my first serious gaming rig had an AMD Athlon 64 X2 and I am totally thrilled to see a return to AMD's glory days with them now Ryzen (see what I did there? ;) ) from the dead with blood in their eyes and a mean vengeance the likes of which makes a zombie apocalypse look like a mere slumber party.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
    RT545, kvoram and Marty like this.
  3. sonichedgehog360

    sonichedgehog360 Editor-in-Chief of TechAndTiny Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,158
    Trophy Points:
    181
    I wonder when we will get a Ryzen Core M competitor? I unsure AMD wants to go there just yet, but I am positive their integrated graphics would be a welcome improvement over the Intel integrated solutions.
     
  4. sonichedgehog360

    sonichedgehog360 Editor-in-Chief of TechAndTiny Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,158
    Trophy Points:
    181
    Never mind my lengthy essay. If you want to cut to the chase, let these leaked price and specification charts and performance metrics tell the entire story. #RipIntel

    Here you can see the 1700X's has a turbo clock just below the Intel E5 chip I used in a comparison above. This just adds fuel to the fire of the fanboy flame wars that are now ensuing as we speak.
    [​IMG]

    This chart with the 1700X shows the sheer prowess of Ryzen's multi-core performance core-for-core, performance-per-watt, and now within reach of mere mortals at a sane price point, the 1700X absolutely slays Skylake in multi-core performance. The i7-6900K is a 3.2 GHz, 8-core chip priced at a whopping $1049 whereas the Ryzen 3.4 GHz, also an 8-core chip is a mere $389. The Ryzen chip also draws only 95W while the competing 6- and 8-core Intel chips guzzle 140W. Let that sink in for a bit.

    [​IMG]

    I estimated a 5-15% deficit and here we are seeing Ryzen's single core performance is a mere 10% behind Intel Skylake. Remember though this 8-core Ryzen chip only draws 95W versus the 140W Skylake 6- and 8-core behemoths. Enthusiasts and gamers with decent cooling systems will likely be able to eek out loads more performance since Ryzen's performance-per-watt is far superior to Intel. Add in water cooling and you will be smoking fast. Liquid hydrogen and Intel will be crying to the poorhouse. From what signs are telling us here, second-generation Ryzen can only be a geek fest since AMD is only beginning to tap into Ryzen's potential. Some architectural optimization and out-of-the-box clock improvements next-generation should allow for the IPC gap to be closed easily.

    [​IMG]

    Ryzen's only other and very, very minor sticking point is floating point calculations. For most everyday tasks and everyday folks, this is a moot point. But if you are a workstation user with numerous hefty scientific calculations to perform, this could make you lean towards Intel if money is money no object. However, Ryzen's closest competitor, the Intel Core i7-6900K, will cost you dearly at nearly $700 more money and draw 50W more power for just 5% more out-of-the-box performance. However, Ryzen's superior performance-per-watt should net you far more overclocking potential so Intel still makes no sense here.

    [​IMG]

    In short, Intel is now high robbery and AMD is an absolute steal. With nearly 14 years since the first brutal duel between these desktop processor giants, welcome to the battlefield the next-generation AMD-versus-Intel Processor Wars 2.0. I always buy the best performing product per dollar and don't delve into brand loyalty. So now unless signs show otherwise, I immediately default to AMD in going forward. I bought a Core i7-6700K last year and this is seriously making me consider selling my current desktop rig before it loses its value. Enjoy the forthcoming juicy price war. This is going to be glorious!
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2017
    Marty likes this.
  5. Marty

    Marty Scribbler - Standard Member Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,152
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Trophy Points:
    181
    Please don't stop with your lengthy essays. It's why I love that these forums! :D

    There was a lot of clamour when Intel announced the $1000+ pricing of its high-end CPUs, but I thought the general consensus was that they were just milking the market, while they had the monopoly on performance.

    Now that they have competition, they'll drop the pricing (but only just) to reach equilibrium with AMD, while they prep the launch of KabyLake X (supposedly in Q2).

    So we'll have a short 3 months of good ol' fashioned competition, before the nets declare Intel once again king of the hill, reaping the price premiums of the high-end market segments.

    What I'd like to see is someone challenge Intel in the server market. A low-cost, efficient Xeon competitor from AMD? Now that would get Intel shaking its pants.
     
    sonichedgehog360 likes this.
  6. sonichedgehog360

    sonichedgehog360 Editor-in-Chief of TechAndTiny Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,158
    Trophy Points:
    181
    Roger that. AMD already has just the response in mind and the codename for that product is Naples, an up to 32-core, 64-thread mean-and-lean server processor that draws just 180 W of power and supports to 128 PCIe 3.0 lanes that is sure to present a mean bargain for enterprise and workstation users. Of course, you can always bet there will be "that" smarty pants hardcore gamer or modding enthusiast who will buy one of these and throw it in their rig just for the sake of having the best of the best for bragging rights. To show just how out of touch and unprepared their competitor is, Intel's just days ago announced a 24-core, 48-thread processor which they priced at an outrageous sum of $9000. With Naples and Ryzen just at the doorstep, a product release with pricing like this shows how either hasty or out of touch or both Intel is with the market situation they have found themselves in. Once Naples is out of the gate, you can naturally expect Intel's days of dragging their feet and charging a mint like this will be put to rest for a good long while. Remember, their desktop processor line (Cannonlake is mobile only; Coffee Lake is the desktop side release and is 14-nanometer only) will not be ready for 10-nanometer until 2H 2018 at the earliest and knowing Intel is usually overly optimistic with these projections, it could be Q4 2018 or even Q1 2019 before Intel gets their 10-nanometer production completely down pat and ready for prime time.
     
    Marty likes this.
  7. Kumabjorn

    Kumabjorn ***** is back Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,468
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Not being familiar with the inner workings of the pc market, I might be threading water here. But if the price difference for the CPUs are $700 from factory, shouldn't that translate to a $1500 price difference for consumers?

    Twitter is to communications as haiku is to literature.
     
  8. Marty

    Marty Scribbler - Standard Member Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,152
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Trophy Points:
    181
    Holy, I was so blindsided by all the Ryzen and Vega news I totally missed Naples. It's supposedly coming in Q2!

    Man if AMD delivers on all three fronts, they could single-handed take back the market in 2017!

    Man 100% markup?! What are you, Apple? :p

    Actually, according to this article by Tom's back in 2012, for vertically-integrated OEMs like Apple and Samsung ~100% markup depends on the device (and excludes manufacturing costs).

    But I imagine the markup on mobile devices is far higher than PCs, so depending on volume, I think a high-end PC wouldn't exceed 50% (unless it's a gaming rig), probably averaging around 30%. But, that's just my guesses...
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
    sonichedgehog360 likes this.
  9. cutterline

    cutterline Scribbler - Standard Member

    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    41
    After like 5-6 years (since Bulldozer), several years of market leading without proper competition(not sure for how long maybe since i-core nehalem?), and shy IPC improvement over the years, they bound to have something up their sleeve. If Intel let AMD do that easily, then Intel will surely lose their 1st place in market share next year. Or maybe we'll see a huge price cut in Intel's processors.

    I'm more interested on how Ryzen fares at mobile counterpart. Those laptop and tablets price can go down a lot and also those APU with HBM. It's too bad we'll have to wait until 2H to see this one.
     
  10. Marty

    Marty Scribbler - Standard Member Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,152
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Trophy Points:
    181
    What's interesting in those 5-6 years, is the choices AMD's competitors seem to have made:

    Much like how Intel withdrew from the mobile market, Nvidia decided to stop from supplying ARM processors the third parties. They also ceded the console GPU market to AMD, and stopped supplying Apple MacBook Pro GPUs.

    Essentially it seems like the "established players" always gravitate to the high-end market segment where they can extract large margins, leaving low-end / low-volume market as scraps for the underdog. :p

    Does Intel really have something big planned? Or is this just the "standard business playbook" for the top-dog of a particular component market?
     

Share This Page