-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Intel Sunny Cove CPU Architecture offers massive 18% IPC improvement. Highest IPC for a CPU architecture ever.
- Thread starter Leonidas
- Start date
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
keep in mind this is an 18% IPC over Skylake which came out 4 years ago. Compared to 8th or 9th gen CPUs it's not as impressive. This image is from the article OP linked but somehow conveniently enough left it out of the post:
Also, for now the only CPUs are for low powered 4/8 CPUs. No word of desktop CPUs at 95W or with 8 or more cores.
Also, for now the only CPUs are for low powered 4/8 CPUs. No word of desktop CPUs at 95W or with 8 or more cores.
Last edited:
Leonidas
Member
8th and 9th Gen are derived from Skylake and the IPC gains in the past 4 years has been negligible.
Leonidas
Member
Bigger than Excavator to Zen?
Last edited:
KlickKlack
Banned
oh.. Intel in panic mode
wordslaughter
Banned
These are just laptop chips right?
AFAIK there will be no 10nm dektop chips until 2022 at the earliest. Ouch!
AFAIK there will be no 10nm dektop chips until 2022 at the earliest. Ouch!
Tesseract
Banned
i don't understand the intel hate, still the best processors on the planet for the whole of almost a decade, sorry the recent performance gains aren't perfect
bunch of ungratefuls, enjoy your conflict minerals
amd should be commended for finally getting on the ball after an absolutely pathetic run, i'm glad the r&d paid off
bunch of ungratefuls, enjoy your conflict minerals
amd should be commended for finally getting on the ball after an absolutely pathetic run, i'm glad the r&d paid off
Last edited:
thelastword
Banned
Knew this was a Leonidas joint.......18% IPC? Where are the benches? On Sunnycove with 3733Mhz LPDDR4 no less, whilst Ryzen mobile was tested with 2400Mhz memory........At this point, any Intel chip with HT on is a huge security risk, they say they've mitigated it at the hardware level in sunnycove, but Intel has said everything was all peachy before......In Intel I trust...
metareferential
Member
The narrative in this kind of threads is always the same: nvidia and intel bad, amd good.
I only care about performance and price, because as much as I love my pc, it's just a mean to a greater end (browsing gaf, of course!).
I only care about performance and price, because as much as I love my pc, it's just a mean to a greater end (browsing gaf, of course!).
V2Tommy
Member
Same here. I only care about performance and cost doesn't factor into it, so it's always Intel and Nvidia for me. IPC is the most important thing for a fast-feeling computer, so AMD better keep trying.
llien
Member
Overpriced, strongarmed competitor into ashes misusing dominant market position (Compaq refused to take AMD CPUs given for free), still in monopolist position on the market, despite competitor having great products at great price.
Whoever wants to have good things needs to realize that we need AMD to recover on all fronts to have healthy competition in the future. "Jim Keller unexpectedly rolled out this wonderful chip" won't work in the future (oh, and he's a VP at Intel now).
It is much more curious where the underdog hate comes from.
AMD just beat higher clocked Intel CPUs.
What is your current config?
How is up to 30% perf hit "overblown"?
Has limited effect on gamers would be a fair statement.
Last edited:
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
People shit on Intel because of how badly they stagnated CPU growth. If not for AMD, we would likely STILL be seeing 4-core/8-thread CPUs as the mainstream processors. Maybe, 6 and 8 core CPUs would be on there, but they would carry a much much much more significant price tag than they do now.
wordslaughter
Banned
Is it really overblown? I don't think so.
Last time I checked with all the "mitigations" in place it reduces intel CPU performance by 16% ( and that's BEFORE turning HT off ).
That right there is enough to take your i7 you bought in 2017 and basically turn it into an i7 from 2015 or even 2014. And once HT is off it basically turns it into an i5.
That's the price of yearly 5% improvement.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
If performance is what matters, then you definitely need to keep an eye on how the 3800X and 3900X performs.
Leonidas
Member
AMD suggested they are close to 9900K in gaming performance. Safe to say Intel still has the gaming performance crown.
Last edited:
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
You said that in the other thread and I checked and didn't see that stated anywhere from AMD.
Leonidas
Member
Their onstage demo was pretty telling, but I guess we'll have to wait till 7/7 for the truth on 3800x/3900x gaming performance.
Tesseract
Banned
eh, that's not really true in most test cases, very few users will see such degradation
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
I see. You're referring to the fact that the 3700X was being compared directly to the 9700K. In otherwords, you're assuming. That's what I thought.
Here is an alternative possibility: AMD is marketing the 3700X as a direct competitor to the 9700K and if they compared the 3700X to the 9900K, it would potentially make the 3800X seem useless. Given how close the specs between the 3700X and 3800X are, I am struggling to see any reason to get a 3800X.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
And you know this because.............the poster responded with benchmarks and data.
You respond with: "it won't matter"
Leonidas
Member
Their onstage demo was 9900K vs. 3800x in a PUBG "benchmark" that AMD created. And AMD didn't even provide numbers.
AMD didn't say they were faster so I can only assume Intel still has the gaming crown.
Last edited:
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
That's an interesting comment, considering your entire thread is all about benchmarks that Intel created.
Leonidas
Member
What are you talking about? Intel didn't create the benchmarks.
AMD literally created the "benchmark" run of PUBG and stated as such during the presentation. It consisted of running in an empty environment.
TeamGhobad
Banned
ok 3% more than zen2 from zen1. its impressive but not earth shattering.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
An environment that was less likely to have GPU interference and a benchmark that would get gamers attention.
Real talk time:
Despite how it may seem, I have nothing against Intel and want them to be successful. Given how long we have waited for Ice Lake and all the delays of 10nm, a reasonable IPC improvement was expected and if Intel is to be believed Ice Lake will be a nice system. The issues are that we still have no idea when these will get released to the mainstream (early 2020 is the estimate) and what Intel will charge. While it is expected they will outperform AMD's soon to be released Zen 2, by the time Intels 10nm CPUs get released, Zen 2+ using a refined 7nm will likely be around the corner.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Makariel
Member
Same here, hence AMD CPU, nVidia GPU
(along with SSDs from Samsung and Intel)
metareferential
Member
Same here, hence AMD CPU, nVidia GPU
Makes sense; I'm (still) on a 7700k because I got it with a killer deal before first gen Ryzen launch.
But I could see myself going for a Ryzen 3 / new nvidia gpu further down the line. My Titan X pascal still is more than enough.
Last edited:
TeamGhobad
Banned
Last edited:
alabtrosMyster
Banned
Oops, typical Intel! Why not pick an even earlier CPU generation and claim 200% IPC gain! .. maybe they wanted to make a bigger claim than Lisa Su's 15% IPC gain for the Ryzen 3000 series over the 2000 series...
LordOfChaos
Member
Soo, is this 18% with their massive loss in IPC with mitigations in previous architectures?
"If looking at the geometric mean for the tests run today, the Intel systems all saw about 16% lower performance out-of-the-box now with these default mitigations and obviously even lower if disabling Hyper Threading for maximum security. The two AMD systems tested saw a 3% performance hit with the default mitigations. While there are minor differences between the systems to consider, the mitigation impact is enough to draw the Core i7 8700K much closer to the Ryzen 7 2700X and the Core i9 7980XE to the Threadripper 2990WX."
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?p...Gh2t9ubYV4WIMVWo3s_fLCY2d6pq_HwNCBa63iTUZdUTY
"If looking at the geometric mean for the tests run today, the Intel systems all saw about 16% lower performance out-of-the-box now with these default mitigations and obviously even lower if disabling Hyper Threading for maximum security. The two AMD systems tested saw a 3% performance hit with the default mitigations. While there are minor differences between the systems to consider, the mitigation impact is enough to draw the Core i7 8700K much closer to the Ryzen 7 2700X and the Core i9 7980XE to the Threadripper 2990WX."
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?p...Gh2t9ubYV4WIMVWo3s_fLCY2d6pq_HwNCBa63iTUZdUTY
Last edited:
LordOfChaos
Member
The IPC has remained nearly the same since Skylake, it's only the clock speeds and turbo boosts that have given performance gains since. So 18% over Skylake should mean close to 18% over every 14nm architecture.
Your image shows single threaded performance, that's not Instructions Per Clock, Whiskey Lake clocked significantly higher but the IPC makes Ice Lake come slightly ahead.
What's not clear is if they were including the 16% IPC hit previous gens took from speculative execution mitigations.
Our data warehouse saw a steep decline in throughput with mitigations applied, CPU use spiked, power use spiked, but what do I know lol. Programmers would be more impacted by the decline than your average Office user...
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It is the same on all sides, and always has been since the dawn of these 3 (4 prior) companies.
Pagusas
Elden Member
I’m confused why everyone keeps calling AMD the sudden champ when they are benching their new processors against Intel’s already released 1 year old chips? Would it be more appropriate to compare the 10th gen Intel’s vs the new AMD chips when they are both out? Right now it feels like another “ohhh AMD releases a 1080ti competitor!!!....2 years later”.
Last edited:
LordOfChaos
Member
It's only for laptops for now because it can't seem to clock as high as 14nm+++. You'll note Whisky Lake wasn't far behind in single threaded performance in their charts, despite the 18% higher IPC here, because Whisky Lake clocked higher, even in laptops.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
When the performance difference is (potentially we dont know until we get unbiased benchmarks) negligible and the price is considerably cheaper AMD is the undisputed better value.
However, I don't see anyone claiming that AMD is faster.
Last edited:
Leonidas
Member
It's not considerably cheaper though.
9700K is $70-$80 more than 3700x.
9900K is $85-$95 more than 3800x.
9700K could end up exceeding 3800x gaming performance at the same price.
The fawning over 3000 series is strange to me...
Last edited:
LordOfChaos
Member
It's not like AMD claims they are better in terms of performance, in the one benchmark they gave they claim equivalent per thread performance. Cost of goods sold for Intel's 6C CFL-S (150mm^2) and 8C CFL-R (175mm^2) 14nm dies are certainly lower than AMD's 122mm^2 + 80mm^2 chip so if Intel wants to be price competitive with that they certainly can be.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Those aren't small numbers. That's actually a decent chunk of change. Not to mention the potentially cheaper cost of X570 motherboards, although to be fair the X570s are not expected to be cheap like the B450 or X470s were. But if you need a cheap option the B450 and X470 likely got you covered.
That inflates those numbers up to potentially $100+ savings per CPU.
Your minimizing of the 3000 is even stranger. It seems like you have an agenda to push that it's against AMD or have a vendetta against people who are excited for the CPUs. It's going to be a great set of CPUs. Maybe not as awesome as the early leaks suggested, but it's definitely going to be a game changer for the CPU market. Every Intel (and nvidia) fanboy should want a disruptive AMD. That forces nvidia and Intel to be better.
Last edited:
thelastword
Banned
There is, the 3800x will overclock higher than the 3700x because of its higher TDP..... The 3700x looks like what will go into the PS5 by all indications, unless PS5 gets a 7nm+ chip of course.