Beh! in short words Intel have the best 7nm (or 7nm equivalent) desktop cpu, this is pretty evident. Same applies to Mobile parts obviously. AMD approach look like rudimentary and silicon hungry versus Intel big-little silicon. We'll see on finer nodes next year or so. Still i have the idea that Intel will never be anymore behind AMD like in past years.
Yup. Completely agree, Intel are finally competitive with what? A 2yr old AMD product, but at triple the power. Yet some of the posters on here are acting like Intel are saviors who have finally returned to save us all from our PC ills. They forget that Intel literally screwed us all for a decade with high prices, feature lock outs, core counts limited to 4, new motherboards required every year, anti competitive behavior, and anti consumer practices. Why anyone would want Intel to return to the dominant position that they used to occupy is beyond me.
Pretty delusional here -- AMD's whole plan with Bulldozer was to create vendor lock-in where you used an AMD GPU to accelerate floating point operations on an AMD CPU. Consumer-friendly to claim 4 cores are really 8? Thuban outperformed Piledriver until its instruction set finally was too limited years later. AMD just wanted a marketing point.
Also, how are you playing both narratives at once? Intel both wasn't willing to deliver more than 4 cores and has too high of power consumption in its parts with more than 4 cores? Which is it? Because it quite literally cannot be both.
OMG people are still going on about the shared FPU BS.
It HAD to be that way. The entire modular architecture was built around sharing L2 and FPU's. There was nothing inherently wrong with this approach, except nobody optimized for it because it had never been done, so people like you freaked out. If you wanted your precious FPU's for each integer unit, buy something else...
It did NOT have to be that way. AMD intentionally chose to share the fpu and cache creating a cpu that was abysmal in performance and efficiency, and deceptive in marketing. Thuban was a better design, so updating the instruction set would have made a better product than bulldozer.
I along with most people chose to buy something else (Sandybridge to Sky Lake). The lack of a competitive offering from AMD created the pseudo monopoly from Intel, and many people rightfully complained about the lack of innovation from Intel.
Also there is no optimizing for hardware that isn’t physically present. 4 fpus means 4 cpu cores when doing floating point tasks, which is highly consequential for gaming and web browsing.
There is no arguing for AMD’s construction equipment family. It sucked, just like Intel’s monopolistic dominance and Rocket Lake.
FYI, most instructions in day to day workloads are integer, not floating point. Your argument that Floating point is "highly consequential" for gaming and web browsing is false.
> most instructions in day to day workloads are integer, not floating point.
Sure. Compiling code, web browsers, most javascript, typical database queries... agreed.
> Your argument that Floating point is "highly consequential" for gaming
LOL, wut? Gaming is *so* dominated by floating point that GPUs have long relegated integer arithmetic performance to little more than their fp64 throughput!
Geometry, physics, AI, ...all floating point. Even a lot of sound processing has transitioned over to floating-point! I'm struggling to think of much heavy-lifting typical games do that's *not* floating point! I mean, games that are CPU-bound in the first place - not like retro games, where the CPU is basically a non-issue.
While games certainly do use floating-point to an extent where it matters, as a (small-time) gamedev myself, I'd certainly argue that games are primarily integer-dominated. The parts that don't run on the GPU are more concerned with managing discrete states, calculating branch conditions, managing GPU memory resources, allocating and initializing objects, just managing general data structures, and so on and so forth.
Again, I'm not denying that there are parts of games that are more FP-heavy, but looking at my own decompiled code, even in things like collision checking and whatnot, even in the FP-heavy leaf functions, the FP instructions are intermingled with a comparable amount of integer instructions just for, you know, load/store of FP data, address generation, array indexing, looping, &c. And the more you zoom out of those "math-heavy" leaf functions, the lesser the FP mix. FP performance definitely matters, but it's hardly all that matters, and I'd be highly surprised if the integer side isn't the critical path most of the time.
This is a bad way to judge performance. You should use profiling tools like VTune to know how much runtime is spent in the FP-heavy code, because that's what counts.
> I'd be highly surprised if the integer side isn't the critical path most of the time.
I'm sure it depends a lot on the type of game and the game engine being used.
Well, certainly, running objdump was just easier in order to type up a comment, but looking at a Linux perf recording of a typical run certainly also doesn't reveal a single FP-heavy function at the top of the heatmap.
> looking at a Linux perf recording of a typical run
You mean operf?
When profiling optimized code with any tool, you obviously want to keep in mind that inlining can cause some functions either to vanish or seem to have a lot less footprint than they actually do.
"Thuban was a better design, so updating the instruction set would have made a better product than bulldozer." False. Thuban hit a hard clock limit and it was never very competitive with Core.
If you're going to blame AMD for Intel's abuse of their dominant position because AMD didn't compete, you kinda have to blame Intel for staving AMD of cash when they had better designs, leading to the abd decisions that resulted in Bulldozer...
i have seen comments from some that if intel didnt stagnate the market, and stick the mainstream with 4 cores, for all those years before zen was released, it would of put amd out of business.
You have 'seen' correctly. If Intel had kept innovating, AMD would not exist right now. They didn't, so AMD not only exists, but is stealing their breakfast and lunch money. Intel can only keep losing until they address the biggest elephant in the room: efficiency. Using 241W to beat a CPU that consumes half the power isn't efficient.
eek2121, sure we " could " say that now, but in the end, NO one knows 100% for sure. i have seen some very heated debates on this as well. one person even said, intel did this, just so it wouldnt put amd out of business. yea right, since when has intel ever done anything for the benefit of others.
Eh nonsense. AMD kept itself alive by pushing console APUs and even if Intel would’ve stayed ahead they could’ve made money with CPUs on desktop anyway.
> if intel didnt stagnate the market, and stick the mainstream with 4 cores, > for all those years before zen was released, it would of put amd out of business.
I really wanted the FTC to break up Intel, forcing it to spin out its fabs. The FTC has done things like this, in the past, but not recently. Judging by how competitive the CPU market became when TSMC caught up with Intel, I think the whole industry would've benefited.
If Intel were to spin out or off fabs they're different approaches, the fabs (as some financial analysts illogically proposed as financial analysis, more like shills for some institutional investment think seller houses like vultures) Intel would collapse under the weight of its own cost structure built around those fabs, a 30 year monopoly cost structure is difficult to fuel when chopped off from its multiple heads think Hydra. Removing the kilns from design production would devastate the design and manufacturing side simultaneously in relation to the on waiting competitors. The cause is Intel structural elephantiasis, having to sustain the costs of historically a monopoly structure before fully cost optimizing, pulling out the unnecessary costs, tied to that x2 to x3 processor production volume over annual computer 'real time demanded volume' to pay for Moore's Law. AND now 2.5 full node cycles across so said 5 nodes (its really 2.5) in 4 years its going to be interesting to watch from an enterprise cost : price / margin perspective.
Spinning out the fabs would be too great for Intel as an enterprise, less fabrication, and the Intel house of cards, the current structure on its maintenance cost weight, would collapse. The place would really have to be gutted, the variable cost of operations meaning people especially on the operations management side would have to be well cost back.
I'm for IFS and for Intel foundry on every attempt. Attempting to cost optimize overall enterprise structure reconfiguring for 'real time demand. Producing for real time demand verse producing for x2 to x3 MPU supply over computer demand meant by Intel to pay for Rocks CapEx doubling law while simultaneously holding channels financially tied up with Intel processor surplus production 'weight'.
Spinning out presumes sale. Spinning off does not necessarily presume sale of the fabs. One spin off option it to federate the various fabs, placing each on its own balance sheet and enabling more autonomy over what type of products each decides to produce which of course is what they're good at technically, economically and in terms of profitably. Under this federated model, none would walk away from Intel Conglomerate (think ARM Holdings) model on existing processor volume none would walk away from that volume at least for the near term.
Under a federated model and decision making is already that way currently, more or less, every fab now operates on it own balance sheet opening to up every manufacturing division, and where Intel already has design divisions, to its own R&D and innovation and the capital markets. Where every fab operates under a federated model but still combines financially with the parent entity, Intel Conglomerate, think ITT, to chose what customer, Intel or others the fab works, what the fab will produce which again is what they're good at technically, economically and financially.
This federated 'conglomerate' model makes greater sense as IFS itself under the current whole enterprise structure becomes successful. It's an option as the dynamics of monolithic processor volumes morph into systems in package.
> Intel would collapse under the weight of its own cost structure built around those fabs
It wouldn't have to be overnight, and obviously they'd have to rationalize some aspects of the business. However, it seems like the right thing to do, especially if there are activities they couldn't undertake without manufacturing in-house. That just screams either "inefficiency" or, more likely, "unfair advantage".
The one thing I don't accept is that "it has to be this way, because it always was". That's almost never a good reason not to change something.
"That just screams either "inefficiency" or, more likely, "unfair advantage".
I agree, both, there are many inefficiencies in enterprise and industry relations, and governance and oversight.
"Always was", the inefficiency is being addressed for a very long time! It's just the way things have worked out over 24 years to resolve Intel inefficiencies that are not effective under democratic capitalism caught in associate network conundrums. mb .
It literally can given that Intel only started adding more than 4 cores after Ryzen launched and then, subsequently, had to blow their power requirements out just to keep up... and you're reaching all the way back to 'dozer - a CPU designed long after AMD had relinquished leadership - to try to bat back the valid accusation that Intel have always abused their leadership position to rinse consumers.
And CUDA isn't vendor lock-in? GPU compute is a great idea -- and that's not just my opinion. AMD failed to deliver in a big way when it came to getting CPU/ GPU sharing compute capabilities off of the ground. They're still working on it (CDNA...). But it's unlikely at this point to be available to us -- which is what I dislike.
> AMD failed to deliver in a big way when it came to getting > CPU/ GPU sharing compute capabilities off of the ground.
Yeah, HSA really fizzled and even the original APU & fusion concept as some kind of synergistic processing unit went sideways.
Then, AMD got distracted by AI and became consumed by chasing Nvidia in that market and HPC. The consumer platform has been largely neglected by them, since.
> Fusion culminated into APUs and is one of the biggest successes of AMD ever,
What I mean is that "Fusion" turned out to be a marketing thing. The idea of using iGPUs as a compute accelerator didn't really go anywhere.
AMD jumped from backing OpenCL to HSA, thinking that would spur industry adoption, but it fizzled even worse than OpenCL (which has continued plodding along, in spite of loss of interest/support).
Microsoft is even discontinuing C++ AMP.
> please talk and comment less, you’re a huge wannabe.
Please troll less. News comments were fine without you. I have yet to see you add anything of value. Mostly, you just seem to antagonize people, which is the very definition of trolling.
It's hard not to agree. These Intel 12th-gen products are a 2022 product and should be compared with a 2022 alternative. Besides they're somewhat of a paper launch, anyway. AMD has a lot of headroom to turbo boost solo core, add more cores, increase thermal headroom, add faster memory..... without having to do major overhaul on Zen3 architecture. They have somewhat rested on their laurels with Zen3, but I suspect that Zen4 is going to be a very distinct uplift. The way the companies stack is:
2017 Zen1 vs Intel 7th-gen 2018 Zen+ vs Intel 8th-gen 2019 Zen2 vs Intel 9th-gen 2020 Zen3 vs Intel 10th-gen 2021 Zen3. vs Intel 11th-gen 2022 Zen4 vs Intel 12th-gen
PS: both AMD Zen2 and Intel 10th-gen are significantly slower in single-core, multi-thread, and use much more energy than Apple M1 chips. Things look a bit more even with Zen3 and Intel 11th-gen. But the Apple M2 chips will likely "humiliate" the likes of Intel 12th-gen and AMD Zen4. But then again this is comparing Apple's to Windows, so a moot point.
Just not how it works. I would understand if AMD and Intel were releasing CPUs in the same month, but Zen 4 H2 2022, and Alder Lake is Q4 2021... Besides, Raptor Lake and Zen 4 will be launching within weeks of each other. That's the competition. It was AMD's choice not to release a new architecture in 2021.
@kwohit "It was AMD's choice not to release a new architecture in 2021." Gets down to production economic efficiency. Acceleration can be devastating when AMD channels, as Intel channels have demonstrated, still have tons of prior generations of product, 'accumulated capital values' to sell off and required to finance new procurements. Matisse was a surplus run that finally sold off on the last half of 2021. Leaves Vermeer and Cezanne to move out where Rembrandt is the mainstay throughout 2022 where AMD will finally make a mobile statement before entering 11.1.22 launch that is Zen 4 peak production so there should be a lot of availability. OEMS are supplied q3. AMD production structure this year is a two-tower suspension bridge with unilateral arch from tower abutment 1 to tower abutment 2. The deck is Rembrandt, Tower 1 is V5x refresh + TR5K required to pull up gross margin q2ish (a price support) Tower 2 is Rafael. Arch is Epyc and commercial GPU accelerators. Generally, AMD sales manages its production tails, run end slack, much better than Intel and Matisse was an anomaly but well timed in terms of AMD holding channels financially. New channel allocation is based on sales out so as any one channel seller sells off, OEM or otherwise, that earns reallocation access. mb
Not only that, but it actually takes time to design new chips. I think AMD simply didn't have an option to release Zen4 in 2021. Given all the demands on their engineering resources, it would've been too much. And even though their financials are healthy, it takes time to ramp up capacity (even if the job market is more conducive than it has been)!
> AMD production structure this year is a two-tower suspension bridge > with unilateral arch from tower abutment 1 to tower abutment 2. > The deck is Rembrandt, Tower 1 is V5x refresh + TR5K > required to pull up gross margin q2ish (a price support) Tower 2 is Rafael. > Arch is Epyc and commercial GPU accelerators.
@mode_13th, thank you. An SA comments entering 2022 it's there somewhere in comment string. So tune in to Seeking Alpha.
Lots of knowledgeable individuals participating in academy on SA on AMD, Intel Nvidia topics I cover and Dhierin Bechai on Boeing, incredible! I did the marginal cost analysis of Boeing per unit of production as a compliment in DB comment string must have been 24 months ago our conferring on the topic here's his latest.
"analyzing a problem that's directly meaningful to me, in my work." Sure.
We are all engineers when resolving technical challenges; creation, innovation and improvement over the learning curve of difficult solutions even if those solutions were difficult because the tools were nil, nascent or required invention themselves. "Geek out on data analysis", everyone likes a puzzle? Dependent how fast the puzzle gives up its secrets?
Engineering as a cross profession, cross practice challenge, the various sciences, everyone can and gets to be an engineer in their "meaningful work"
On Seeking Alpha, their can be banter but look for the engineer and technician authors / analysts.
I have a 5900x/5800x machines at home so I'm definitely no Intel guy, but AMD's Vermeer launch was much more "paper" than Intel's. Intel has been doing a superb job of getting/keeping alder lake in stock after launch while the whole 5XXX stack was very hard to get for over a year. I hate how everyone is so dependent on TSMC for everything.
" I hate how everyone is so dependent on TSMC for everything"
There r leading node customer oligarchies, quasi monopolies operating with(in) TSM too, but that presents a risky topic and I have my hands full with Intel. mb
All are aware how AMD got back into the market in 2017 midway through the period of time Intel was stuck (sabotaged) at 14/12 nm for six years; October 2014 through summer 2021, and yes, every next gen minor incremental quad frequency improvement and the premium, economic is the term, priced Extreme quad hexa octa multicores and their Xeon E5 commercial components.
I will not address how Intel was sabotaged in this monopoly note.
Intel's techniques of monopolization are not well understood, the reason why.
First to monopolize the channel financially on production volume in a first in first out procurement system in relation inventory holdings. Where once channel's ability to procure financially reaches its maximum capital threshold, others become locked out or second in line. Not to say through this period of time AMD did not suffer some second-class products.
The way Intel monopolized channels is very simple associated surplus production volume. Fill the channel with surplus production and few others fit. AMD from time to time and since 2017 beats this technique, not on supply, but on product good enough to pull through organically. Note while Intel product can pull through organically on nature demanders, the vast majority of Intel product is pushed onto end buyers by channels relying on financial field effects that drag product down channels like a baton in a relay race; think magnetics, associated primarily with the now defunct Intel Inside rebated fee 'attractor' that is not 'cooperative advertising' cost to the processor as INTC 10K falsely certified for 28 years. Intel Inside is processor ales contact related payments to end sales outlets; OEM direct, PC pub direct, Web direct, Broadcast direct (Shopping Channel), retail direct for their end sales out reports back to Intel. End sellers were paid $8.32 per processor in box or chassis, for 28 years, across 4,623,837,562 processors.
Channel's total take from Intel = $41,567,500,000. However that sum represents only half of channel's total Intel Inside take. Intel inside is a two part tied value charge.
Intel PC OEMs contractually (1993 until 2008) were required to match Intel's $8.32 payment per processor for end sales out of distribution chain reporting to Intel. After 2008 Intel stockholders picked up the cost of both charges; $16.64 in total. How this worked is that Intel would take the OEMs' half at the processor sale and place that half of the charge, debit it into any one specific OEMs 'rebated fee' account pool. At the end sale, Intel would pay the inventory out reporter not only the OEMs contribution for any specific brand manufacturer's system sale but Intel would match that sum out of Intel's own funds paid by stockholders. In this circular system of payments the OEMs regulating triggering charge is pushed down the distribution sales chain puling any one processor or processor in system like a magnetic 'baton' in a relay race passed from one whole sale operator to another broker/reseller all the way to the end seller. And then Intel would pay that end seller both the regulating OEM trigger crediting out of any OEMs 'rebated fee' pool of debit accruals and than Intel would also match that contribution out of Intel's pocket. How many OEMs participated in this closed loop structure, seven to eleven that's it. Seven to eleven Intel primary dealers who purchase every single processor Intel produces (other than tray sales) to monopolize the total annual fund of Intel Inside payments from Intel, That act effectively ties OEMs financially to end sales outs.
OEMs are also Intel's primary processor resellers. They broker off to secondary integration channels what they can't immediately sell in a computer in real time with a twist. The twist is they do not pass their Intel Inside credits to the secondary CPU customer in a broker resale. This artificially weights any 1st tier OEMs pool gluing them financially 'tied' to end sales outlets (PC Week, PC MAG, PCW, Computer Shopper, Shopping Channel, Newegg, Frys, Best Buy, MicroCenter etc) Ar tied to any OEMs Intel Inside 'rebated fee pools procuring majority of all Intel's processor production volume in any period.
On the weight of the OEM originating rebated fee pools, Intel Inside attractor driving processors down channels like a magnet becomes self perpetuating so long as Intel processor volumes increase every cycle, think every next quarter. FTC Docket 9341 in 2010 eliminated the roll over effect to one year, or one generation of product, because Intel Inside funds earned on last Intel gen were being relied as an OEM spring board to launch every next Intel generation of processors from Intel Inside debit accruals earned and banked into 'weighted pools' from the prior generation of processor procurements.
Now who really pays that total of $16.64 in channel cartel administrative costs for every Intel Inside branded processor in box or computer? This channel (exclusive dealing) 'toll way' charge is passed to the end buyer who pays that cost of Intel Inside in the processor and/or computer purchase offsetting the cost of the OEM triggering (or regulating) charge and the cost of the Intel matching 'kick back' charge; rebated fee, brand fee reward, 'tied charge back registered metering' cost of channel cartel administration of Intel inventory sales out reports to Intel.
Think administrative fee, the cost of metering sales and reporting the result to Intel is how inventory is tracked in the channel all the way back to the factory' flow metering, registered metering.
Now here's the second twist, why Intel produces volumes of product in excess of real time demand? Intel does this to sustain the funding of Moore's doubling of transistor axiom every 18 to 24 months pursuant Rocks axiom that notes a doubling of cost every next lithography node. So how does Intel generate a doubling of CapEx requirement every two years. Intel sells x2 to x3 the processor volumes required over real time end market computer demand, surplus production, in anyone lithography cycle is relied to raise the continuous CapEx requirement. And Intel offs every processor produced, x2 to x3 the volume over real time PC demand, sold through seven to eleven OEMs you know who they are, every cycle, who then resell what they do not need as overage (reducing their original procurement cost) to others not to get stuck with any rotting tomato's.
Now recall the first twist, Intel Inside debits to be credited into future time are attached to everyone of those processors originally purchased by seven to eleven Intel primary Computer OEMs who are also in the business of Intel microprocessor broker dealer. First tier OEM dealers do not pass the Intel Inside debit for payment, store redemption coupon is a way to think about it, on their broker resale. Seven to eleven Intel primary dealers hold 100% of the originating Intel Inside values and this ties them to end sales outlets. End Sales outlets, ZD, IDG, VNU, Big Retail all know exactly which Intel OEMs maintain the largest pools of Intel Inside debits which they want to have credited to them is why DELL wins a disproportionate number of PC magazine and other media PC sales preview outlet Editor's Choice Awards.
No end seller left Intel Inside on the table. Intel Inside paid sales, for registering metering 'brand fee reward payments' sold through first, as sellers competed to clear anyone Intel primary Computer OEMs waiting pools of credits, all other processors sold through last.
FTC Docket 9341 secures Intel discontinuation of Intel Inside entering 2019, in violation of Docket 9341 consent order. The result is achieved verse Intel legal stubbornness selling Intel on the cost optimization benefit of getting rid of Intel Inside all those fund drop to the bottom line.
Intel Inside no longer presents an Intel unnecessary avoidable cost to end buyers.
Intel is currently being monitored for reconfiguring from producing for supply to producing for real time demand, that if IFS is to be successful, Intel must achieve. It is not known how Intel will pay for Rock's doubling of costs every node sans the previous surplus production technique, however, cost optimization and continuing to close financial leaks and eliminating waste is key. Intel has demonstrated a move to demand based production at Tiger Octa mobile, Alder Lake and Ice Lake.
Currently there is a $19,805,500,000 offer on the table for Intel Board approval pursuant Intel Inside consumer discriminatory price fix recovery and I expect Board approval before end of year.
Proof of purchase will be for purchases from 2008 through 2018, sales receipt, property tag, proof of OS license.
Not being a financial guy, I'm just a bit lost here. Please clarify. I will try to explain what I don't understand.
Intel gives a rebate for using their CPUs in designs, but only if the OEMs sell them? Then the retailers also get a rebate on the sale of the product?
Intel doubles production of CPUs every year. How do they get rid of them all? If that was working, why did they switch to demand based production for Ice and Alder Lake?
ballsystemlord, wow, you actually read all of that ? i started to, but the more i read, the more it sounded like it was all just made up babble. i have asked him to post sources for his " info " but never does, just posts a link to his OWN site, which, also has NO links to sources. some of his posts, sound like he was drunk when he typed them.
I'm not really sure what to make of it. I treat it mostly as noise, unless/until someone who seems to know their stuff can either challenge or vouch for it.
My biggest concern is that these posts are really just a sophisticated form of stock price manipulation, but that's not a claim I'm ready to make. I feels pretty unpleasant when the news comments are used to further someone's agenda, so I hope that's not what this is about.
considering what his posts contain most of the time, and the fact the only link he posts, is to his own page, to me, thats exactly what it is, nothing more. he is trying to promote himself, and how he puts " Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing " at the end, kind of proves that.
which is why most of the time, i just skip over his posts. its just spam and bs.
@mode_13th Think of it as industry and business news most media won't touch for fear of retaliation. Over 30 years denials of access to Intel, to Intel processors, industry boycott, individual blacklist, Intel and agents targeting competitors to destroy economically.
Since 1991 there are only three x86 original survivors; me, AMD and Nvidia. I make no money from this task cultivating awareness and understating of primarily the open commerce issues. Nor am I a fan of many Intel invented realities.
I am not paid in my auditor monitor role. The assignment only pays when Intel Inside price fix is recovered on my USDOJ contract that pays a percentage of the Intel Inside federal procurement price fix over charge only. Why I represent 27 States as well, and could collect bounties from States on their Intel Inside citizen specific recoveries, I have waived States bounty on our constituent pact to successfully recover Intel Inside for return to all end buyers. A cartel sales administration cost for registered metering reports to Intel. Think of it as a clandestine tax, illegally robbed at Sherman Act 15 USC 1 by an Intel contracted combine at15 USC 2 intent on conduct to monopolize, Intel false certifications and sales contracts specific Intel Inside requirement prove the case. Then at 18 USC 1962c which is the State AG claim routing processors sold in box and integrated into computers across State lines for what is essentially a clandestine consumer toll way charge. In this example it's called a route fee charge. That charge is again the cost of metering Intel processor sales flow paid by the end buyer in Intel processor price. In the 18 USC 1962c example for exclusive dealing that crosses state lines. Mail fraud is a related example when relied to ship OEM direct PC purchases to the buyer and that OEM cashes in on the Intel Inside route charge cost to the end buyer paid by Intel. mb
@Qasar, I've mentioned I am the source. I am the data scientist, the production economist on raw data, the industrial management scientist, general systems technician just like any other analyst who assesses raw data to determine a greater result. I do all my own data collection for the most part it's primary research. I have no secondary source to point too, unless for example the data is from annual or quarterly 10K/Q. My work is mostly from raw data. I am the source of that data's interpretation. I've mentioned much of the data is eBay seller data; unduplicated offers, which is what AMD, Intel and Nvidia rely in house to do the exact same job I do but in my case for the Federal Trade Commission; production economics and supply chain management. But with a twist, that is posting the data and my analysis publicly for government transparency specific FTC v Intel 15 USC 5 Docket 9341. I am a federal attorney enlisted, in an academic role I recommend to no one, Docket 9341 consent order auditor monitor; AMD, Intel, Nvidia, VIA and also includes Arm in relation x86 specifically. mb
" @Qasar, I've mentioned I am the source " ahh, so in other words, you pull these number and info out of your butt, and it is completely made up. got it. with out legitimate sources, and links to those sources, all of your posts are just fluff, and BS... good thing i skip over most of your posts then.
@Qasar, maybe I should put u to work on this as virtual resource to "see this is not fluff", how much time do u have [?], see my SA comment and blog post string and let me know what u r interested in, totally a citizen assignment of course. mb
sorry mike, but your posts are fluff, once you post sources to where you get your info from, then they might not be. but till then, they look like they are made up with random info, and posting your own site as a source, is not a source.
Quasar, fluff? then is Jon Peddie Research a source, Mercury Research, IDC, Gartner, Canalysis none can show their data or work. I'm the only one who shows my data and proof of work.
My data is from ebay, seller offers, I do the same job people ldo inside AMD, Intel and Nvidia keeping track of channel supply volume that can be directly applied to micro production economic assessment and is used by AMD, Intel, Nvidia primarily for channel sales management.
If my site is not a source then, from your perspective, neither is JPR, Mercury, IDC, Gartner, Canalysis, Micro Design Resources, published of Microprocessor Report, not a source?
mykebrazone, "then is Jon Peddie Research a source, Mercury Research, IDC, Gartner, Canalysis none can show their data or work. I'm the only one who shows my data and proof of work. My data is from ebay, seller offers, I do the same job people ldo inside AMD, Intel and Nvidia keeping track of channel supply volume that can be directly applied to micro production economic assessment and is used by AMD, Intel, Nvidia primarily for channel sales management. " then post a link to those sources, so any one else can click the link and see that data for them self.
"I'm the only one who shows my data and proof of work. " um no you dont, at least not on here, and with out sources that show that same data, that we can also compare to, for all we know, you are making it up.
"If my site is not a source then " no its not, why ? because, as i said above, you have no link to the original info that you are compiling your " info " from. sure you say you are getting if from Jon Peddie Research a source, Mercury Research, IDC, etc, but with out links to the SAME info, you could be making it up.
"from your perspective, neither is JPR, Mercury, IDC, Gartner, Canalysis, Micro Design Resources, published of Microprocessor Report, not a source? " they are sources, but YOU dont link to those sources here, OR on your site, so again, it looks like you are making it all up,. aka fluff
look, sorry if i insulted you and your are hurt, but the bottom line is this, so far, your posts come across as made up fluff, ONLY because you dont also include links to that SAME data, so others can compare, or come to the same conclusions. you include numbers, and other data, that also can't be confirmed or verified, that is the point i am trying to make, just like a reporter reporting on the news, if the reporter cant confirm or verify if the info is correct, and still goes on air, and reports it, and it is wrong, how would that reporter look ?
" Sorry to joust with you. Please define source? " if you dont know what " post a link for your sources is, then i cant help you, and you should find another line of work.
@Qusar, the supply wave forms I post on SA, from ebay channel offers, highly checked to remove duplication, is the data.
That data provides a foundation for micro production analytics, total revenue total cost modeling which backs out cost from revenue to get to marginal and hard cost. The data is also good for device yield, frequency and power plots.
The primary tool I rely was promoted by Intel parallel Xeon Tanner, I joke it came loaded, who trained the financial analyst community how to use that tool 1996 through 2001 which on Intel input from a transmission system called supply signal cipher, could be relied to calculate Intel revenue and margin up to eight quarters into future time. The transmission system was finally shut down through Docket 9341 remedial press on its SEC violation in 2016, And eBay data began to replace it is early as 2012. This industrial management tool for channel supply management and production economic assessment is now primarily based on eBay offer data.
The tool in the industry analyst community was first administered by Jim McGregor of Trias when he was at Microprocessor Report. Kevin Krewell may also have attempted use of the tool set which are date base and spreadsheets formulas.
I inherited the base MDR 1996 to 2000 data directly obtained from Intel, given to me by Linley Gwennap, when MDR decided too no longer to do this specific Total Revenue Total Cost analysis on the SEC violation back in the late 1990s. I have added to that Intel/MDR originating data 22 years of data, and recently just released some to a You Tube CS / quasi economist goes under the name of TechLens to see if he would do anything productive with it.
Like I said go to Seeking Alpha, see the data in (supply) wave forms, and if something strikes you as interesting let me know and I'll offer you an assignment where you can hold some of the data.
what ever mykebrazone, all you posted was blah blah blah blah blah, lots of text that looks more like you typed it out to just confuse people, that comes across as you are dunk. and, SURPRISE NO direct links to your sources, data OR info where you came up with this BS. not going to your webpage, so you can get more page hits any more, the times i have, there have been no links to your sources, as usual, again just more fluff and what looks and sounds like made up crap, no thanks
Participating in Intel Inside is an Intel primary OEM contractual requirement.
Intel Inside was discontinued entering 2019. I am the original relator witness source of Intel Inside relied as price fix including to Federal Trade Commission, the California and New York Departments of Justice from 1991 through 1998 employed by Cyrix, ARM, NexGen, AMD and IDT Centaur.
In 1997 Intel hired me to consult on my in-field antitrust observations across North America and that consultancy went poorly, I was thrown under the bus lead by Dr. Andy Grove, his corporate detectives and legal fixers a curse I still am in court over today. There is not an Intel CEO I have not confronted as a federal and states witness. I was enlisted by FTC attorneys in May 1998 and continue today as FTC v intel Docket 9341 consent order monitor. I am contracted by USDOJ to recover Intel Inside price fix for the federal government and retained by Congress "for the people" to do same at Constitution 9th amendment. In this capacity I'm the expert for 82 plaintiff actions.
Charlie Demerjian from Semi Accurate has said an Intel Inside like system of 'brand fee rewards' which is my term, still exists associated with the Evo mobile marketing program and I am unsure on discontinuation of the overall Intel Inside program entering 2019.
Q; "Intel gives a rebate for using their CPUs in designs, but only if the OEMs sell them? Then the retailers also get a rebate on the sale of the product?"
A; All processors leaving Intel are charged with the Intel Inside cost of this brand fee reward monopolized by first tier OEMs.. All Intel Inside payments end up at the end buyer sales outlet whether that is an OEM selling direct through a PC media site, in which case the OEM pockets its own Intel Inside 'rebated fee accruals plus the Intel match makes the OEM some extra cash. And if not an OEM direct sale, through the reseller channel, the OEM regulating one half and the Intel matching one half of this two value tie cost : charge are both paid by Intel to the end seller. First half from OEM's existing pool of rebate debits from Intel processor purchases that debit to OEM accrual averages around 4.6% of the processor purchase price from intel; passed on to the end buyer in CPU and CPU in PC cost to administer sale out inventory reporting to Intel. Where thereafter Intel issues a credit from the OEM accrual to issue a payment to the end seller that Intel matches credited as a cost of Intel marketing. For most of Intel Inside's 28 years that money went primarily to OEM direct sellers, to PC media, broadcast media or PC retail sellers. Intel Inside paid for a large portion of the operating costs of PC tech press 1993 through 2005. Name the hard copy computer magazine or computer web publisher review site and Intel Inside was a major source of revenue if not the majority of revenue from all sources Intel + first tier OEMs.
Q; "Intel doubles production of CPUs every year. How do they get rid of them all?
A; Intel sells to first tier OEMS in sales packages that are a bundle of Xeon, Core desktop, Core mobile, Atom and can include their associated control hubs, NIC and non volatile memory and way back when included the Intel mainboard and could include kit DRAM. No doubt Arc GPU will be sold to OEMs in CPU + GPU kit bundle.
Q; "Intel doubles production of CPUs every year."
A; No, Intel produces aiming to sell twice or better the real time computer demand. Means to earn at least x2 revenue over organic revenue in any period. Includes surplus processor production greater than real time (immediate) computer demand that 1st Tier OEMs resell (processors they bought for resale to lower their own purchase cost, don't need, don't want or cant sell quickly in a computer) are resold to brokers, second tier integrators, who attach to associated mainboard that may be sold well into the future even after any one generation of processors are EOL'd
A; Good question on the double processor every year question so I did the math. Over 29 years 1993 through 2021 Intel annual processor volume if you believe the commercial analyst; Canalysi, Gartner, IDC annual volume statements, and I do not they severely understate Xeon, Intel total annual volume grows on average 9% per year. Revenue growth on average same period also 9%.
On commercial analysts Intel total processor volume 1993 through 2021 = 5.539,406,562 units. However, that's annual desktop and mobile volume that misses Xeon. For example between 2017 and 2019 Intel sold approximately 1,511,873,730 units of v2/3/4 that are produced simultaneously through that two year period dependent what platform generation the customer had standardized on. Xeon Skylake and Cascade Lakes are another 400M units produced. IDC so said 20 M annual servers is disinformation to conceal the actual Xeon production volume. Specific Skylake and Cascade Lakes, 400,000,000 processors over the full run / 18 processors per rack = 22.2 M racks of servers.
Q; "How do they get rid of them all?"
A; Intel gives them away, what first tier OEMs don't want or won't buy. No OEM pays for most of i5, all for i3/P&C/Atom. They're thrown in as sales close incentive. For the first tier also includes large amounts of Xeon thrown into first tier OEM sale's packages at, and can be below, Intel cost dependent how fast Intel wants to move overage out of Intel and into sales channels. Eventually seeding the market like this comes back to Intel, and AMD now too, and even ARM, funding the channel with processors bundled into sales packages is a method of capital creation for a cost to Intel but free to channels. Intel calls it social welfare value. OEMs and upper echelon of channel earn on system sales incorporating Intel 'surplus' processors secured for little or nothing. And then that margin eventually comes back to Intel on new channel procurements. Grows the total available market on this method of industry capital creation.
Now the unnecessary social welfare value (raising cost) which may be the subject of Intel's 30% cost optimization on AMD cleaning up this costly practice in 2021. That is the amount of revenue supplied in 'free' product and in this example sacrificed to hold the first-tier customer account; contract after sales contract. The amount of bundle deal thrown into every customer purchase.
Recall AMD complaining in EUCC 37.990 about Intel giving the last 10% of processors in any sales contract away? Essentially free although Intel cost : price averages them within any one contract. Currently, Intel may even provide Ice for free if the buyer guarantees a Sapphire rapids procurement in this 'contract tie' example. AMD can do this into future contract tying too, but I'm not aware of anything directly and its primarily associated when one generation of product is sub standard moving to the next generation. Intel sales calls sub standard "kibble" and "dog food" just good enough product like Xeon Skylake; does the job, keeps business humming along and available in volume. Rest assured AMD is not beyond the same sales techniques as Intel when product is equally matched. However, on rising production costs both appeal much more focused on optimizing 'unnecessary avoidable costs" out of their business, marketing and sales structure.
Q; "If that was working, why did they switch to demand based production for Ice and Alder Lake?
A; Surplus has a manufacturing cost. Eliminating overage, not producing surplus, returns that cost to the bottom line.
A; Specific Ice, a run end product customers are waiting for Sapphire Rapids so why overproduce Ice? Surplus delivers a cost add whether to Intel or channels caught holding surplus, then having to discount including bundle deals, the channel bundles too; good gets thrown in with not so good and that's becomes a prerequisite of the volume sales procurement; take it or leave it. Or, take want you want at a much higher price leaving the surplus resale opportunity off the table. The question with surplus traditionally is can I wrap the cost of a PC around it those 'free sales reward' processors, often end run product, and still make my target margin in return,
Here's the federal and States academic orientation on Intel Inside I represent 27 known States AG;
Or, take want you want at a much higher price leaving the surplus resale opportunity OFF THE TABLE. Whoops in this example of not taking the surplus in the BUNDLE DEAL, leaves that surplus ON THE TABLE and out of the procurement, not taking the risk of holding overage. If you only buy the processors you want, for integration into a PC sold quickly, you pay more. Take the surplus in a bundle deal price and you might pay less overall IF you can resell that overage in that sales package for a profit margin. mb
And a note, I'm here auditor and monitor. The information and data I glean here, from you, and anywhere you see me commenting including tech tube is relied for channel supply assessment.
Channel supply assessment is important. Understanding what will and will not sell. Primarily to prevent, on inventory sales management, to mitigate channel getting stuck with rotten tomatoes, CPU surplus and overage that takes from industry active capital funding primary production. That can be as it was in the past, 2001, 2005, 2007/08, destroyed on purpose by Intel to take back cartel price making control from open market channel. By prematurely obsoleting channel held industry accumulated capital values, processor and systems. Intel was about to try that in 2019 and refrained. mb
I want to add one thing to that as well: if Intel returns into a dominating position, as they are already a too strong company it will again just suffocate the market and options for PC users. Anyone who is interested in good technology should oppose Intel being as strong as before and hope AMD stays on pole position.
Despite Intel being on the back foot for years now, they had a strong control over the market, we don’t need Intel to be completely dominating it again, they will be strong enough anyway. Better is if Intel loses more share of the market to AMD so it evens out at about 50% each, that would be great.
@Khanan, you got it, that's my job. [Intel] "they had a strong control over the market, we don’t need Intel to be completely dominating it again, they will be strong enough anyway"
That is right, Intel never needed Intel Inside to tie channels financially, Intel processors for the most part were always good enough to move without what's called 'extra economic' incentives.
Processor launches I was closely associated all the while Intel was recruiting me to steal from my employers which I ignored, reported to my superiors and in certain instances a mistake they were working for Intel clandestinely, and then my first report to FBI in summer of 1996; Cyrix FasMath, embedded 387, 486SLC, 486DLC, 486S, Arm Thumb TDMI, StrongARM, C-Cube PC MPEG encoder, NexGen 586, AMD 486 120/133 and K5, Samsung Alpha 21164, IDT Centaur WinChip and since May 1998 my FTC role. It's been an eye opener. mb
> Better is if Intel loses more share of the market to AMD so it evens out at about 50% each
That would depend on TSMC scaling fab capacity at an unreasonable pace. Even AMD isn't that unrealistic. If you comb through their reports and disclosures, you can find what targets they've set for themselves.
To have a real market influence, I think AMD needs only about 20%. But they also can't be completely chained down by supply constraints.
AMD desktop share is typically higher than stated by commercial analysts.
AMD mobile share is typically less than stated by commercial analysts. Its a financial and executive MBO validation game; sleezy combined with commercial analysts to validate executives quarterly MBOs this way.
AMD commercial (server) share is more or less vis-a-vis Intel dependent calculating on channel share vs production share. AMD server share is typically less than commercial analyst statement when determined on channel and when calculating on quarterly production vs Intel its been more.
My estimate in on that SA pointer is precise and gives cross category share a number of ways.
Part of my FTC auditor monitor job is to determine when and where Intel share falls to less than 80%.
I wouldn’t hold my breath for Intels as per usual abysmal 5% IPC gain and 0% gain on the E cores because the old ones will be reused. And then 24 cores / 48 threads vs 24 / 32 threads doesn’t look that good for Intel either.
Yes, and from Ice Lake to Tiger Lake there was a 2.5x L2 cache size increase (512KB -> 1.25 MB) and ~0% gain per clock. It all depends on whether or not the 2x L2 increase in Intel's next gen E cores is countered by something else such as increased L2 cache latency, longer pipeline depth, etc.
> from Ice Lake to Tiger Lake there was a 2.5x L2 cache size increase (512KB -> 1.25 MB) > and ~0% gain per clock.
Your point seems to be that L2 cache doesn't matter, but that's not what Ian & Andrei concluded. From the Tiger Lake review:
"IPC improvements of Willow Cove are quite mixed. In some rare workloads which can fully take advantage of the cache increases we’re seeing 9-10% improvements, but these are more of an exception rather than the rule. In other workloads we saw some quite odd performance regressions, especially in tests with high memory pressure where the design saw ~5-12% regressions. As a geometric mean across all the SPEC workloads and normalised for frequency, Tiger Lake showed 97% of the performance per clock of Ice Lake."
So, it seemed to make a significant impact in *some* cases. Without deep analysis, one can't conclude exactly why the regressions occurred, because there are other differences between the chips than their caches.
However, another point worth remembering is that performance increases from clock speed alone tend to be sub-linear. Therefore, it takes more than merely cranking up the clocks to even maintain IPC-parity.
I'll toss this in for consideration. Not a design consideration but a fabrication consideration.
Density can be an enemy to performance as well as a friend.
Ice U quad to Tiger U quad to Tiger Octa to Sapphire Rapids 14C incremental fabrication improvement is how Intel validated SF10/x; getting back on process track.
Pursuing design process validation this way quad/octa/dodedeca Intel seriously over produced TL quad and I suspect a wide variance from spec across TL quad production volume. I also believe this to be a great undergraduate / graduate studies project to record variance across all three architectures in relation to spec. My thesis is its all over the place on Tiger quad U and may be with Tiger octa? I don't have the time or resources to do this but for those who do, you'll get a job after graduation on this project.
I think Alder Lake structurally is an improvement, but architecturally on design process I am not sure.
The abysmal IPC gains were on Skylake respins. Of course they didn't gain much on IPC, they were basically the same core (which was still better than Zen 1; it took Zen 2 to beat Skylake+++ on a core per core basis)!
The abysmal ~5% IPC gains were consistent across every Intel generation after Sandy Bridge and only stopped with Ice Lake, which lost so much in clock speed that overall performance didn't improve. We finally got a proper improvement with Tiger Lake on mobile and then Alder Lake on desktop.
> The abysmal ~5% IPC gains were consistent across every Intel generation after Sandy Bridge and only stopped with Ice Lake,
Intel was busy adding things like AVX2, AVX-512, TSX, and bigger iGPUs. That's the direction they went with the additional transistors they were willing to use. That's not to say they couldn't have done more on IPC as well, but I think they made a conscious decision to invest in other aspects.
Rocket Lake recently would like a word with you. A nice disaster that was, again a abysmal IPC gain that was offset or more than offset in most cases by the larger cache of 10900K. Intel up to 12th gen didn’t really do many good things. 12th then again only is up to par with 5950X when running on over 200W, not really as good, I would certainly buy the 5950X and not the 12900K if I needed 16 cores and a lot of threads.
> Rocket Lake recently would like a word with you.
Yeah, that was an interesting experiment. It turned out better than I expected, but still not great. The problem with backporting a uArch is that each is designed around the properties of a process node - most importantly, the critical path. If such assumptions go out the window, then you might be looking at things like adding more pipeline stages, which then potentially invalidates other tradeoffs.
> abysmal IPC gain that was offset or more than offset in most > cases by the larger cache of 10900K.
I'll have to go back and look at benchmarks, because the sense I got was that only those which had good scaling vs. number of cores were the ones that still came out ahead on Comet Lake. The ones with poorer scaling favored the IPC gains on Rocket Lake.
Here's what Ian concluded about Rocket Lake's IPC:
"Compared to the previous generation, clock-for-clock performance gains for math workloads are 16-22% or 6-18% for other workloads"
Since that review lacked SPEC2017 tests, you have to go back to the i7 "surprise!" review, for those:
"Here, the new generation from Intel is showcasing a +5.8% and +16.2% performance improvement over its direct predecessor. Given the power draw increases we’ve seen this generation, those are rather unimpressive results, and actually represent a perf/W regression."
It's weird that you mention cache, because Rocket Lake actually boosted L1D by 50% and doubled L2! It's only L3 that's a little smaller, but we're still talking about 2 MB per core.
I'm not sure about the flip/flop. AMD has been in the lead in most relevant benchmarks since Zen (1xxx). Zen3 vs TGL was a bloodbath. I am glad to see Intel back up: I think AMD was starting to slouch a bit with the improvements: competition is awesome. And yes, ADL is only marginally better than Zen3 (generally speaking: more power hungry, but slightly better perf/watt, ending up in a decent advantage in peak performance, despite the massive consumption). So it's likely that Zen4 will re-establish AMD dominance. The chiplet approach also should make Ryzen noticeably cheaper to manufacture, which means Intel would really need to bump up the performance on the next Gen.
Chiplets should not give much of a pricing advantage. Going from monolithic dies to chiplets adds manufacturing, validation, and design costs. You save money from the chiplets having better yields and being able to reuse chiplets (like AMD did with their IO die). Intel’s consumer processors aren’t that big and yields are good, so it’s probably a wash overall in pricing (excluding the money Intel saves from in-house manufacturing). Chiplets would be a competitive advantage for big processors (EPYC vs Xeon or Navi 31 vs AD102) because of yields.
Nonsense, chiplets absolutely provide a price advantage once you are using more than one CPU chiplet. There's a reason why AMD has done so well in the HEDT, workstation, and server markets. The chiplets allow them to provide more cores for less money than Intel (the yields on those high core count monolithic chips are abysmal by comparison).
ive read somewhere thats part of the reason why intel cant offer more cores then they do, and why they also went with the P/E core setup. they just can't make the cpus that big with the big cores.
Die size gets expensive as you scale it up, because not only do you get fewer chips/wafer, but yield becomes a major factor. This is even more true on a young process, such as "Intel 7", and why smaller chips tend to be the first to utilize them.
In one way or another, cost is *always* a factor, whenever companies are deciding on the parameters of a new chip.
i think, the other reason was power consumption, if intel uses this much power with what 10 P cores ( and no e cores ) i dont want to know what 12, or even 16 cores would use.
> if intel uses this much power with what 10 P cores ( and no e cores ) > i dont want to know what 12, or even 16 cores would use.
That's not necessarily a direct tradeoff. They could cap the power (i.e. clocks) and still deliver more performance than 8 P-cores.
Of course, the other thing they could do is trade more die area & clock speed for a uArch with higher IPC, like Apple's. But die area costs $.
The sad reality (for the planet) is that the winning strategy seems to be making less-sophisticated cores that simply clock really high. That gets you winning headline numbers on lightly-threaded benchmarks. Then, wedge in some throughput-optimized cores, so you can also do well on heavily-threaded workloads.
just saw a review of the 12900ks, to me, when a reviewer types " the Core i9-12900KS represents Intel throwing value and power consumption out the window in a no-holds-barred attempt to retain the performance crown, particularly in gaming. " screams desperation. looks like one of the ways intel is only able to compete, is by doing this.
@Otritus, I agree MCMs trade off packaging cost for monolithic die fabrication cost. Moving to Systems in Package in the near term will eclipse their dice fabrication costs; "manufacturing, validation, and design costs". mb
Last time I checked 5950X had still more performance despite being challenged by a 250W auto OC 12900K. I mean, imagine, you can easily activate auto OC on 5950X with activating PBO too. And yep it crushes the 12900K then. Reviews that don’t reflect this are as per usual kinda trashy.
> I thought that Intel’s current big.little designs do not support AVX, because the small cores don’t.
It's AVX-512 they dropped. Gracemont (the E-core in Alder Lake) is actually the first Intel "little" core to support AVX/AVX2. And because it lacks AVX-512, Intel actually added a couple more regular AVX instructions, for special-purposes (deep learning) that had only so far been by AVX-512.
Oh, and if you didn't know, AVX and AVX2 are both 256-bit. AVX basically provides instructions for operating on 8-element fp32 vectors, while AVX2 adds operations on 4-element fp64 vectors and various sizes of integer vectors.
This mirrors what Intel did with SSE and SSE2, where SSE was introduced with the Pentium 3 and SSE2 was introduced with the Pentium 4. Before SSE2, you'd have to use (64-bit) MMX for vector operations on integers, but MMX had various downsides (besides the width).
"Keep in mind that Zen 4 is coming later this year and will make Alder Lake 2nd again. " Pretty sure that is not all that is coming out this year. (Raptor Lake) But, the difference is, I'm not really on a side, and wish both do well, and, honestly, although I seem to root for Intel, no one can deny 5600X on up are good products. Quibbling over the 5-10% differences is almost pointless.
COMPLETELY disagree that AMD approach looks rudimentary. The intel design is impressive and them making it work in an x86 architecture is great! That thread director (or whatever its called) is really cool and I can't wait to see how they develop it and optimize it in future setups. However, Intel is using a design setup that mobile parts have been using for years in having big little. They have a very power hungry design. A process node that is archaic compared to TSMC 7nm and smaller. And finally not being able to move away from expensive monolithic design. Chiplets are the future and AMD lead the way in that!
Granted I will say 100% I am very impressed that Intel was able to do what they did with the tools in hand, but to call AMD design rudimentary is inaccurate.
The true test for 12th gen is the low power U series that will be in thin and light laptops. The fact that they haven't released it yet and started with a desktop alternative laptop processor is worrisome. To me that chip was just throwing 100W+ in a laptop that is completely useless for 99% of the user base to impress people, but it isn't the reality of what their laptop lineup will look like.
It is an interesting time and I'm glad there is competition in the space!
Note the difference : a closed platform design, an open cpu silicon design. You want to build a PC, you can't use an Apple chip. You want to run windows, you can't use an Apple chip. You want to add memory, a second drive, an input card? You are catching on.
Let me guess, due to the unfreezing process, you have no internal monologue?
Anandtech has done some of the best reviews of Apple Silicon on the Internet, your internal monologue notwithstanding. I'm hoping to see a new one of the Mac Studio with its M1 Ultra. If there isn't going to be one, I'd just like to know so I can stop checking every day.
Future is speedily becoming another TechTarget, acquiring and discarding sites after they serve their revenue-devouring purposes. I wager AnandTech forums will be closed down much like all the TechTarget forums (BrightHand, NotebookReview, TabletPCReview, etc.) now are.
There are applications that run on both platforms - some of them (like Cinebench) are even in this review. Also, there was a rough comparison between the Apple mobile phone core performance versus Intel server CPU core performance a couple of years ago. So, plenty of prior examples for an Apple vs Intel article, even if it's M1 versus Zen3 or whatever else.
We want detailed benchmarks. We want to know how good the Ultra really is, particularly how well CPU and GPU performance scale up to dual-die. We want to see Apple's claims on performance and efficiency tested. I'm never going to buy a Mac, but I still want to know if their architecture lives up to their claims.
Since Apple is leading on the innovation front, this could be taken as a harbinger of what's to come for other CPUs and GPUs.
Detailed analysis of leading-edge tech is/was what this site is/was all about.
Did I talk to you? No. I realize you’re a huge nerd that has to comment on everything here. You don’t own this website and you should get a therapist for that, it’s a bit alarming what you do and not a good showing for this site.
That said, I’m not gonna waste my time with you again. You should know why. Didn’t read your comment either.
You must have this confused with private messages. This is an open discussion where anyone can read and reply to anything posted. If that's not what you want, go somewhere else.
> has to comment on everything here.
This is one of the sites I tend to check on a daily basis. As there's not much new content published recently, most of the discussion seems to happen in the latest article.
That you feel the need to psycho-analyze me really says more about you than me.
> not a good showing for this site.
Since when do you care about this site? It's been going for 25 years, yet you seem to have no clue what it's really about. Worse, I don't think you care. Your agenda seems quite obvious, by this point.
> That said, I’m not gonna waste my time with you again.
Somehow, I doubt it.
> Didn’t read your comment either.
Your loss.
Also, I doubt it. Unless the post is overlong, this is typically just an excuse used by those who cannot reply on merit.
Not a need to psychoanalyse you but it’s very obvious, your comments are literally everywhere here. You’re worse than me in my worst times - again not a insult, but you should look into it. It stems from insecurity issues.
Nope. I've been a tech-head for most of my life. I love this stuff. These are my people and I enjoy learning and sharing what I've learned. That's why I read & post here.
There are people who post here that I respect & learn from. Not as much as when the site had more content, but still some. And I do what I can to pay it forward. If you're paying attention, you'll see that I try to fill in details, present counterpoints, and support my claims with links where I can.
I think it's funny that you can presume to know me, after just a few comment threads.
I wanna add: I don’t have a agenda, don’t misuse big words that are unsuitable for small things. I’m sorry this site is nearly dead, I would’ve loved it to be different.
I don't even care if you do, as long as you play fair. We don't need insults or name-calling. State your best case and back it up with references (when possible). The better you can support your argument, the more chance there is that at least someone will learn something.
Plenty of people have biases, on here. That's just a reality. All you can do is present your side or get them to clarify and support their position. You never win by attacking people. It shuts down any chance they'll listen and turns off anyone else who might be following.
Try to wisen up yourself before lecturing others on what to do. :) I don’t asked for advice and I don’t need it, never really did, coming to think of it, not even 23 years ago in the first tech forums I visited.
"Will there be a review of the Mac studio with M1 Ultra? If not, I’ll stop checking the site." Yes, hopefully next week. Things have been a little busy in the GPU space in the last month, to say the least.
Another perspective: Once Ryzen made it to the competitive levels, I was very excited about the prospect of owning a Zen 3 based gaming PC. So I bought the 5800X. I had 6 USB based devices connected to it. So after I would power up or even right after I'd turn the power on my PC would go click and crash. Even after Windows booted at any random moment my PC would go "click" and shutoff. Since this was a new build, I started part swapping. First power supply. Problem continued. Next: RAM. Problem continued. Next motherboard. Next CPU. In each case I spoke to the respective technical support, explained my problem and each recommended the swapout. But once thing I noticed that was consistent, I had a USB based Sound Blaster sound bar system. And Ryzen never handled that device well. When sound was supposed to be playing there was lag with AMD's chipset USB ports and it would be delayed and crack and pop as audio was "warming up?" So then I contacted Creative Labs, no known issues with Ryzen.
Months later AMD announced there was a "known issue" with USB on their 570 based motherboards. Another month later and AMD announced they had "isolated" the problem and a fix would be on it's way through MB bios. I received the fix and the "click" and "cut" stopped but my audio was still crackly and laggy. By this time was so worn out and frustrated with this system I parted out the CPU and MB on Ebay and switched it to a 12700KF. Problem solved. Moral of the story, AMD still isn't as mature as INTEL when it comes to baseline reliability and compatibility. That USB problem never should have made it into production.
Intel baseline reliability and compatibility a.k.a. - pushing dangerous bugged silicon and hope no one takes notice when microcode patch lands lowering performance by 30% - benchmarking and marketing already done, time to hop on new product, bye bye! - let's push out cost of our platform into: chipset, socket, power supply and hope no one takes notice - i mean we're talking about processor prices! RIGHT?!!?!?! - let's drop onto market some dead-end platforms on regular basis so we can milk our customers more!
So reliable. Much compatible.
I'm not even starting with ancient history where Intel had plethora of famous bugs, as we're talking what's now relevant.
99 of 100 times the problem sits in front of the PC, you’re a premier example of that. And please spare us your “reliability report” it’s most obvious you don’t know much about tech and are a obvious fanboy.
This strikes me as the kind of post Ryan was talking about, below. If all you're going to do is hurl insults and call someone a fanboy, please post somewhere else.
Again, you’re a huge nerd that has to comment on everything here. This in itself is alarming and toxic as well and not a good showing for this site. You don’t have any right to call anyone else toxic or whatever else, as it is obvious you have huge problems to deal with yourself. Maybe try getting a life, Anandtech isn’t everything you can do in a day, you know. Or maybe you don’t.
You don’t have a point as usual. I’m not here 24 / 7 like you are and commenting on literally Everything. Your post count and mine aren’t comparable. I know this behavior of someone having to comment on everything, it’s a deep psychological insecurity. Not intended to be a insult. You should look into it.
Having observed that I see all new posts, why is it that you feel the need to repeat yourself? Do you think I'll suddenly come to accept your diagnosis only the 3rd or 4th time? Perhaps you can understand that, with each repetition, your concerns seem that much less sincere.
Perhaps you don't know this, but a proper psychologist would never attempt to diagnose someone on the basis of a few forum posts or even youtube videos. From the sound of it, perhaps you're projecting your own issues onto the phantasm of me you've conjured.
A more cynical take, on which I'll not dwell, is that perhaps your true objective is to discredit someone you know will hold you to account for any disingenuous claims you make. I'll put that notion aside, and let your actions speak for themselves.
Only a hobby psychologist not a true one, whatever true means. And yes you can do whatever you want and forget anything I told you no problem. Have a nice day
I posted this issue many times here. AMD's Zen 3 is flawed so is Zen 2. The issue is from IOD. It's having hardware issues. The thing is IOD handles all the I/O, and PCIe. Which has USB ports. This issue started since Zen 3 release and it persists even today. They released many BIOS updates but none of them solve. I waited for a whole year, because I wanted to hear about X3D refresh and before that B2 Stepping of Zen 3. None of them fixed at all.
People still have problems on Stock. And once you touch the DRAM, the Fabric and DRAM clocks ratio with high speed RAM it gets more annoying and on top you have to test that Core Recycler and run the curve optimization which is another giant head ache to find the stability of the clock.
Zen has a lot of firmware issues. The only solution is to run PBO2 and let it run at the XFR speeds and DRAM do not go over 3600MHz.The bigger problem was how X3D entire stack how it was going to play, and now AMD even locked the Voltage and OC on that CPU, so you are screwed no matter what as they did not and will not put more R&D and effort into optimizing since they have EPYC X taking plus AM4 refresh along with Genoa, since not all of them face this USB flaky issues, they won't care. Go and search USB on r/AMD and see the problems.
Intel 12th gen is not good either, because of the LGA1700 ILM issues and the DRAM DDR5 problems, it's a brand new test platform, which is why it has DDR4 support too, but the advantage of DDR5 is not great now. So I chose the 10th gen it has super fast and stable Clocks with solid IMC in Gear 1 and fast MT performance only sacrifice was to get DMI choked up, but I won't be hammering all the I/O so it's ok. Waiting for Zen 4 is again a big headache since AMD needs to refine their Firmware optimization need to be improved heavily.
Oh and biggest of all ZERO Documentation, so all the IOD and BIOS voltages and names, one must scour reddit and all the forums, for Intel I can search in the Datasheet itself and find out myself.
Let's also not forget the fTPM lag bug that's plagued Ryzen... forever. they only just ACKNOWLEDGED IT, let alone getting it fixed. My next platform will probably be Intel
You have no clue about Pc tech else you would know that Intel had numerous bugs and security problems as well, the latter way more than AMD. Good luck with your buying decisions
The USB problem you’re talking into something big was a big that only affected a small portion of users, don’t blow it out of proportion. And clearly your comment can be viewed as fan nonsense as Intel had its numerous own issues you’re completely ignoring here for your own sake. Suffice to say, PCs aren’t for noobs or people that want perfect experiences, they will always be a bit trouble and shoot.
It's hard to take this article seriously when it compares processor prices when it spends more on memory for the Intel system than it does on the processor for the AMD system.
On the flipside, low-end boards for AMD are pretty lacking in IO. B660 boards are competitive with and often superior to X570 boards in IO.
While obviously choosing a B350 board was my own fault (a couple years back), it's pretty painful to realize that the total available IO from my B350 board is already showing its age. There's tradeoffs here and you should acknowledge them.
There are a range of motherboards for LGA1700. You can get Z690 MBs with either DDR4 or DDR5 memory slots. Sites have done comparisons between the two, we know that these Intel chips benefit from DDR5 and the IGP particularly benefits from it.
There's no reason anyone sane would pair DDR5 with a low end i5.
"There's no reason anyone sane would pair DDR5 with a low end i5", absolutely, and not one PC review site I'm aware has said this specifically, more generally focusing on the price premium.
Another area that get's my goat that has not been said by PC review sites is if u'r sticking with Windows 10 late market (I am) the choice is V5x, M3x, Comet top bin or 9900K and if you must have Windows 11 'adoptive adaptive then its AL/RL or wait for Zen 4 validation . . . so simple to express simply and precisely. mb
If this was the case, Intel would only put 2 little cores and call it a day. 4 little cores takes up similar space to 1 big core, but delivers around 1.5 big cores worth of performance. In single threaded tasks (web browsing and gaming) the big cores are preferred, but in highly multi-threaded tasks the little cores are a better option to boost performance.
> 4 little cores takes up similar space to 1 big core, > but delivers around 1.5 big cores worth of performance.
It's actually more than that. According to the SPEC2017 estimates in the original Alder Lake review, a single E-core delivers 64.5% as much int performance and 54.1% as much float performance as a P-core. All while using only 1/4th the area and 20% of the power.
Intel says the correct order for assigning threads, for max performance, is:
1. Load 1 thread on all P-cores. 2. Load threads on all E-cores. 3. Load an additional thread on the P-cores.
So, that puts E-core performance at somewhere greater than the portion of a P-core that you'd get by sharing it with another thread (i.e. via hyperthreading).
Little Cores are not for saving energy. Not really sure where this myth originated from. A little core cluster of 4 is used instead of a P core to maximize multithreaded performance in a given die space. Lightly threaded applications benefit from P cores, where as other applications want as many threads as possible, where E cores can boost those workloads.
8+8 being top chip is because it's the first iteration. Intel will continue massively increasing E core count with each generation.
"Efficiency" is a value ratio. People wrongly associate it with total power draw, rather than the ratio of performance to power draw or die space. E core clusters certainly offer more multithreaded performance given the same die space and power draw as a P core.
> "Efficiency" is a value ratio. People wrongly associate it with total power draw,
Right, but that inference should've been obvious to Intel. I think they really showed a lack of imagination, here. Or, perhaps other motives were at play.
Intel would've done better to user terms like latency-optimized cores and "throughput clusters". Because a single P-core will give you results with lower latency, while the corresponding 4-core tile of E-cores has higher overall throughput.
Appreciate the thorough review and analysis of the benchmark results. One thing I think might be useful to add is a power consumption measurement during a gaming benchmark. While Intel's peak power consumption is quite a bit higher than AMD's I've noticed in some reviews that do power test lighter workloads Intel has been equal or better.
I'm looking forward to seeing how the inevitable back and forth between AMD and Intel goes over the next few years.
What I'd really like to see are benchmarks of AMD and Intel running at 65W modes (both checking that they're legit and checking performance). The small form factor community would greatly benefit.
Imagine, if you will, a world where one CPU will be pegged to 1.4v and instantly throttle, one will behave as expected, and one will explode into a fiery ball of death because the motherboard's required combination of Doctor Strange hand signs were mistranslated from Mandarin.
You've just crossed over into...the Manual Undervolting Zone!
Power consumption for all benchmark runs would be great, possible just plotted into a single plot for all runs (power consumption on X, normalised benchmark performance on Y) to directly compare effective performance per joule. A task that completes faster at a higher power level than one that draws less power but takes longer may user less energy overall.
Okay, nice to know, but why isn't there even one test of a non-K AL i7 and i5 with the stock cooler? Not everyone will or can shell out the $$$ for a K CPU, a feature-rich and expensive 690 board, and an AIO water cooling solution, and what can one get for a more regular budget, and how much performance does the extra expense buy? Just wondering, might be worth an article.
Please use current pricing, in the benchmark charts. Otherwise, simply don't include them.
Your charts show the 5600X as $299, but its new price is $230. The 5800X is shown as $449, but it's now $350. And the 5900X is listed as $549, but it's now $450.
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that it's a simple mistake. If you look at the conclusion, they seem to use street prices. So, I don't sense malicious intent.
"Intel in worse light' haha. V5x price and dGPU price is crashing at end run as channels accelerate clearance to refinance for restocking. Sometime this week I will have the new WW GPU supply data which has shown not miner returns but enthusiast returns and some Nvidia and AIB stuffing to drag down inventoried pricing. mb
Somewhat off-topic: the top of my page is serving me an from ASML, indicating they're seeking optical engineers to work on EUV.
Crazy. You'd think it would be a dream job for anyone with the proper skillset, but I guess their growth is outpacing the available talent pool.
Well, if anyone reading this thread knows an optical engineer, you might tell them to go have a look at ASML. I didn't check to see whether relocation would be necessary, but perhaps that's the catch.
Peak power consumption is handy data but not very useful by itself. How about average power consumption during applications / games / ... You also used to represent power consumption to complete a task, now that was useful data.
Peak power is essential for understanding how robust power delivery system and heat sink need to be.
"Average is the only important thing" is typical Intel's bs pushing cost of more expensive components different than processor (mobo, psu, cooler) to the consumer.
> Peak power is essential for understanding how robust power delivery system and heat sink need to be.
Yes and no. It really depends on the minimum duration over which a "peak" is defined. If we're talking about a couple milliseconds, then absolutely not. If we're talking about a couple seconds, then yes.
> "Average is the only important thing" is typical Intel's bs ...
I understand your point, but it's still relevant for people trying to determine which CPU will deliver the most performance per unit of energy. With increasing energy prices and the warmer months approaching those of us in the northern hemisphere, that's not merely a theoretical concern.
Your post oozes fanboism. Firstly, I didn't dismiss peak power consumption (as you assume) but by itself it's useless. The graph doesn't even state how long it's holding this peak power consumption. Secondly, where do I say "Average is the only important thing". Right, nowhere. But if a CPU peaks 200W for 1s and then goes to 65W, I would like to know that. That's important data. It's data that Anandtech used to provide but stopped doing.
i9s = 55.01% of all Alder Lake with 12900K @ 43.56% and KF @ 2.07% and 900 @ 8.92%
i7s = 34% of Alder Lake with 12700K @ 29.42% and KF @ 3.82%
i5s = 9.3% with 600K @ 3.13%, 600KF @ 1.5% and 400 @ 2.63%
i3s = 1.13% with no SKU greater than 1% of full line volume.
Pentium = 0.08% Celeron = 0.45%
Alder Lake full line can be characterized, essentially, all i9 12900K and i7 12700K and remainder fall out from sort. Similar Coffee Refresh where most of full line volume are disabled i9s. Cores disablement is discouraged on industrial management best practice subject manufacturing cost optimization not incorporating the added production step to purposely disable that at bottom bin can drive cost > price, despite most bottom bin given away anyway cost : price averaged across the total sales package.
Analyst suspects OEM volume procurement price for Alder mirroring exactly the category percent supply is range $254 to $239 each per i9/i7 component calculated $1K Average Weighed Price of i9/i7 category / 2 and that all i5/i3/P&C are thrown in for free as sales package 'close' incentive.
Net cost of Alder at $1K AWP < Cost of Sales, < Cost of R&D, < Tax Accrual = $214. Average Marginal Cost of production = $63.34 per component Average Marginal Cost of fabrication = $25.88 per component
Adding on Alder, there are supposedly two mask sets. The first a 215 mm2 full P+E and the other a cost optimized for area 116 mm2 P only. Not much has been said can anyone confirm these two mask sets and die area?
AMD is still growing and maturing. With that, their quality control should hopefully improve.
About 11 years ago, Intel suffered a similarly embarrassing problem, with the SATA controller in their Sandybridge motherboard chipsets. Had you forsworn never to buy Intel again, you now be up a creek without a paddle.
i still have issues with the intel systems i used to use. lan drivers on x58, and sata on x99. i solved those issues, buy upgrading tthem to ryzen based comps last year. no issues since.. even usb ones.
AMD was already very mature since Zen+, so if you had problems with 3rd gen products it is most likely your own issue. I used Zen 2 without any issues for 2 years now and Zen 3 is even better, millions of others will confirm what I say.
I wanna add: calling a product “beta” that millions of people love and regard just shows you’re living in a world of your own with full ignorance of what anyone else thinks. Good luck
What do you mean "gimped cores"? Are you talking about the lack of AVX-512?
Did you know that Intel has been disabling features on their desktop CPUs for at least a decade? Things like vPro, ECC support, and virtualization enhancements have been fused off and limited to people buying the Xeon-branded versions of the same CPUs.
AMD has also engaged in this, to a lesser extent, reserving ECC support for only their Ryzen Pro APU, as well as a few other features.
This almost seems to be an Intel Commercial. No mention of the extreme motherboard prices that won't be used for the next CPU, the larger Watercooling needed, the bigger power supply needed, and don't forget the Bigger Electric Bill to boot. You are paying out the A&$ for that little extra performance by not being GREEN. I run 3 AMD PCs for Folding@home (#5 on Toms Hardware Team). My utility bill is $450-500/month. I can't imagine how high it would be with Intel CPU spinning the meter.... LOL
No idea. I'd read through every review of the X you can find and see if it sounds like it'll fit your needs. Running Windows on an ARM-based CPU still sounds a little risky, but maybe it'll pay off in better battery life? Just a guess.
windows10/11 office 2016/2019/2021 Want to be our wholesaler?
The best quality products and pre-sale and after-sale service, become our wholesaler, establish a long-term cooperative relationship, the greater the wholesale quantity, the greater the discount! ! !
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
196 Comments
Back to Article
Gondalf - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Beh! in short words Intel have the best 7nm (or 7nm equivalent) desktop cpu, this is pretty evident.Same applies to Mobile parts obviously. AMD approach look like rudimentary and silicon hungry versus Intel big-little silicon.
We'll see on finer nodes next year or so. Still i have the idea that Intel will never be anymore behind AMD like in past years.
eek2121 - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Keep in mind that Zen 4 is coming later this year and will make Alder Lake 2nd again. The flip/flop continues.From a technology standpoint AMD has the best setup. They can just add chiplets or cores to increase multicore performance.
They have 90-95% of the performance for less than half, or in some cases, 1/3rd the power.
Stop trolling. It makes you look immature and childish.
DannyH246 - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Yup. Completely agree, Intel are finally competitive with what? A 2yr old AMD product, but at triple the power. Yet some of the posters on here are acting like Intel are saviors who have finally returned to save us all from our PC ills. They forget that Intel literally screwed us all for a decade with high prices, feature lock outs, core counts limited to 4, new motherboards required every year, anti competitive behavior, and anti consumer practices. Why anyone would want Intel to return to the dominant position that they used to occupy is beyond me.Khanan - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Fully agree.lmcd - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Pretty delusional here -- AMD's whole plan with Bulldozer was to create vendor lock-in where you used an AMD GPU to accelerate floating point operations on an AMD CPU. Consumer-friendly to claim 4 cores are really 8? Thuban outperformed Piledriver until its instruction set finally was too limited years later. AMD just wanted a marketing point.Also, how are you playing both narratives at once? Intel both wasn't willing to deliver more than 4 cores and has too high of power consumption in its parts with more than 4 cores? Which is it? Because it quite literally cannot be both.
Samus - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
OMG people are still going on about the shared FPU BS.It HAD to be that way. The entire modular architecture was built around sharing L2 and FPU's. There was nothing inherently wrong with this approach, except nobody optimized for it because it had never been done, so people like you freaked out. If you wanted your precious FPU's for each integer unit, buy something else...
Otritus - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
It did NOT have to be that way. AMD intentionally chose to share the fpu and cache creating a cpu that was abysmal in performance and efficiency, and deceptive in marketing. Thuban was a better design, so updating the instruction set would have made a better product than bulldozer.I along with most people chose to buy something else (Sandybridge to Sky Lake). The lack of a competitive offering from AMD created the pseudo monopoly from Intel, and many people rightfully complained about the lack of innovation from Intel.
Also there is no optimizing for hardware that isn’t physically present. 4 fpus means 4 cpu cores when doing floating point tasks, which is highly consequential for gaming and web browsing.
There is no arguing for AMD’s construction equipment family. It sucked, just like Intel’s monopolistic dominance and Rocket Lake.
AshlayW - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
FYI, most instructions in day to day workloads are integer, not floating point. Your argument that Floating point is "highly consequential" for gaming and web browsing is false.mode_13h - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
> most instructions in day to day workloads are integer, not floating point.Sure. Compiling code, web browsers, most javascript, typical database queries... agreed.
> Your argument that Floating point is "highly consequential" for gaming
LOL, wut? Gaming is *so* dominated by floating point that GPUs have long relegated integer arithmetic performance to little more than their fp64 throughput!
Geometry, physics, AI, ...all floating point. Even a lot of sound processing has transitioned over to floating-point! I'm struggling to think of much heavy-lifting typical games do that's *not* floating point! I mean, games that are CPU-bound in the first place - not like retro games, where the CPU is basically a non-issue.
Dolda2000 - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - link
While games certainly do use floating-point to an extent where it matters, as a (small-time) gamedev myself, I'd certainly argue that games are primarily integer-dominated. The parts that don't run on the GPU are more concerned with managing discrete states, calculating branch conditions, managing GPU memory resources, allocating and initializing objects, just managing general data structures, and so on and so forth.Again, I'm not denying that there are parts of games that are more FP-heavy, but looking at my own decompiled code, even in things like collision checking and whatnot, even in the FP-heavy leaf functions, the FP instructions are intermingled with a comparable amount of integer instructions just for, you know, load/store of FP data, address generation, array indexing, looping, &c. And the more you zoom out of those "math-heavy" leaf functions, the lesser the FP mix. FP performance definitely matters, but it's hardly all that matters, and I'd be highly surprised if the integer side isn't the critical path most of the time.
mode_13h - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
> looking at my own decompiled codeThis is a bad way to judge performance. You should use profiling tools like VTune to know how much runtime is spent in the FP-heavy code, because that's what counts.
> I'd be highly surprised if the integer side isn't the critical path most of the time.
I'm sure it depends a lot on the type of game and the game engine being used.
Dolda2000 - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
Well, certainly, running objdump was just easier in order to type up a comment, but looking at a Linux perf recording of a typical run certainly also doesn't reveal a single FP-heavy function at the top of the heatmap.mode_13h - Monday, April 4, 2022 - link
> looking at a Linux perf recording of a typical runYou mean operf?
When profiling optimized code with any tool, you obviously want to keep in mind that inlining can cause some functions either to vanish or seem to have a lot less footprint than they actually do.
Spunjji - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
"Thuban was a better design, so updating the instruction set would have made a better product than bulldozer."False. Thuban hit a hard clock limit and it was never very competitive with Core.
If you're going to blame AMD for Intel's abuse of their dominant position because AMD didn't compete, you kinda have to blame Intel for staving AMD of cash when they had better designs, leading to the abd decisions that resulted in Bulldozer...
Qasar - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
i have seen comments from some that if intel didnt stagnate the market, and stick the mainstream with 4 cores, for all those years before zen was released, it would of put amd out of business.eek2121 - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - link
You have 'seen' correctly. If Intel had kept innovating, AMD would not exist right now. They didn't, so AMD not only exists, but is stealing their breakfast and lunch money. Intel can only keep losing until they address the biggest elephant in the room: efficiency. Using 241W to beat a CPU that consumes half the power isn't efficient.Qasar - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - link
eek2121, sure we " could " say that now, but in the end, NO one knows 100% for sure. i have seen some very heated debates on this as well. one person even said, intel did this, just so it wouldnt put amd out of business. yea right, since when has intel ever done anything for the benefit of others.Khanan - Thursday, April 7, 2022 - link
Eh nonsense. AMD kept itself alive by pushing console APUs and even if Intel would’ve stayed ahead they could’ve made money with CPUs on desktop anyway.mode_13h - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - link
> if intel didnt stagnate the market, and stick the mainstream with 4 cores,> for all those years before zen was released, it would of put amd out of business.
I really wanted the FTC to break up Intel, forcing it to spin out its fabs. The FTC has done things like this, in the past, but not recently. Judging by how competitive the CPU market became when TSMC caught up with Intel, I think the whole industry would've benefited.
Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
@mode_13thIf Intel were to spin out or off fabs they're different approaches, the fabs (as some financial analysts illogically proposed as financial analysis, more like shills for some institutional investment think seller houses like vultures) Intel would collapse under the weight of its own cost structure built around those fabs, a 30 year monopoly cost structure is difficult to fuel when chopped off from its multiple heads think Hydra. Removing the kilns from design production would devastate the design and manufacturing side simultaneously in relation to the on waiting competitors. The cause is Intel structural elephantiasis, having to sustain the costs of historically a monopoly structure before fully cost optimizing, pulling out the unnecessary costs, tied to that x2 to x3 processor production volume over annual computer 'real time demanded volume' to pay for Moore's Law. AND now 2.5 full node cycles across so said 5 nodes (its really 2.5) in 4 years its going to be interesting to watch from an enterprise cost : price / margin perspective.
Spinning out the fabs would be too great for Intel as an enterprise, less fabrication, and the Intel house of cards, the current structure on its maintenance cost weight, would collapse. The place would really have to be gutted, the variable cost of operations meaning people especially on the operations management side would have to be well cost back.
I'm for IFS and for Intel foundry on every attempt. Attempting to cost optimize overall enterprise structure reconfiguring for 'real time demand. Producing for real time demand verse producing for x2 to x3 MPU supply over computer demand meant by Intel to pay for Rocks CapEx doubling law while simultaneously holding channels financially tied up with Intel processor surplus production 'weight'.
Spinning out presumes sale. Spinning off does not necessarily presume sale of the fabs. One spin off option it to federate the various fabs, placing each on its own balance sheet and enabling more autonomy over what type of products each decides to produce which of course is what they're good at technically, economically and in terms of profitably. Under this federated model, none would walk away from Intel Conglomerate (think ARM Holdings) model on existing processor volume none would walk away from that volume at least for the near term.
Under a federated model and decision making is already that way currently, more or less, every fab now operates on it own balance sheet opening to up every manufacturing division, and where Intel already has design divisions, to its own R&D and innovation and the capital markets. Where every fab operates under a federated model but still combines financially with the parent entity, Intel Conglomerate, think ITT, to chose what customer, Intel or others the fab works, what the fab will produce which again is what they're good at technically, economically and financially.
This federated 'conglomerate' model makes greater sense as IFS itself under the current whole enterprise structure becomes successful. It's an option as the dynamics of monolithic processor volumes morph into systems in package.
mb
mode_13h - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
> Intel would collapse under the weight of its own cost structure built around those fabsIt wouldn't have to be overnight, and obviously they'd have to rationalize some aspects of the business. However, it seems like the right thing to do, especially if there are activities they couldn't undertake without manufacturing in-house. That just screams either "inefficiency" or, more likely, "unfair advantage".
The one thing I don't accept is that "it has to be this way, because it always was". That's almost never a good reason not to change something.
Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
"That just screams either "inefficiency" or, more likely, "unfair advantage".I agree, both, there are many inefficiencies in enterprise and industry relations, and governance and oversight.
"Always was", the inefficiency is being addressed for a very long time! It's just the way things have worked out over 24 years to resolve Intel inefficiencies that are not effective under democratic capitalism caught in associate network conundrums. mb
.
Spunjji - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
"Because it quite literally cannot be both."It literally can given that Intel only started adding more than 4 cores after Ryzen launched and then, subsequently, had to blow their power requirements out just to keep up... and you're reaching all the way back to 'dozer - a CPU designed long after AMD had relinquished leadership - to try to bat back the valid accusation that Intel have always abused their leadership position to rinse consumers.
ballsystemlord - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - link
And CUDA isn't vendor lock-in?GPU compute is a great idea -- and that's not just my opinion. AMD failed to deliver in a big way when it came to getting CPU/ GPU sharing compute capabilities off of the ground. They're still working on it (CDNA...). But it's unlikely at this point to be available to us -- which is what I dislike.
mode_13h - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
> AMD failed to deliver in a big way when it came to getting> CPU/ GPU sharing compute capabilities off of the ground.
Yeah, HSA really fizzled and even the original APU & fusion concept as some kind of synergistic processing unit went sideways.
Then, AMD got distracted by AI and became consumed by chasing Nvidia in that market and HPC. The consumer platform has been largely neglected by them, since.
Khanan - Friday, April 8, 2022 - link
Nonsense. Fusion culminated into APUs and is one of the biggest successes of AMD ever, please talk and comment less, you’re a huge wannabe.mode_13h - Monday, April 11, 2022 - link
> Fusion culminated into APUs and is one of the biggest successes of AMD ever,What I mean is that "Fusion" turned out to be a marketing thing. The idea of using iGPUs as a compute accelerator didn't really go anywhere.
AMD jumped from backing OpenCL to HSA, thinking that would spur industry adoption, but it fizzled even worse than OpenCL (which has continued plodding along, in spite of loss of interest/support).
Microsoft is even discontinuing C++ AMP.
> please talk and comment less, you’re a huge wannabe.
Please troll less. News comments were fine without you. I have yet to see you add anything of value. Mostly, you just seem to antagonize people, which is the very definition of trolling.
mode_13h - Monday, April 11, 2022 - link
> OpenCL (which has continued plodding along, in spite of loss of interest/support).I meant AMD's loss of interest/support. Heck, even Nvidia has gotten on board with 3.0!
Kangal - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
It's hard not to agree.These Intel 12th-gen products are a 2022 product and should be compared with a 2022 alternative. Besides they're somewhat of a paper launch, anyway. AMD has a lot of headroom to turbo boost solo core, add more cores, increase thermal headroom, add faster memory..... without having to do major overhaul on Zen3 architecture. They have somewhat rested on their laurels with Zen3, but I suspect that Zen4 is going to be a very distinct uplift. The way the companies stack is:
2017 Zen1 vs Intel 7th-gen
2018 Zen+ vs Intel 8th-gen
2019 Zen2 vs Intel 9th-gen
2020 Zen3 vs Intel 10th-gen
2021 Zen3. vs Intel 11th-gen
2022 Zen4 vs Intel 12th-gen
PS: both AMD Zen2 and Intel 10th-gen are significantly slower in single-core, multi-thread, and use much more energy than Apple M1 chips. Things look a bit more even with Zen3 and Intel 11th-gen. But the Apple M2 chips will likely "humiliate" the likes of Intel 12th-gen and AMD Zen4. But then again this is comparing Apple's to Windows, so a moot point.
theMillen - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
Except, 12th-gen launched in 2021. And 13th-gen will launch in 2022... sooookwohlt - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
Just not how it works. I would understand if AMD and Intel were releasing CPUs in the same month, but Zen 4 H2 2022, and Alder Lake is Q4 2021... Besides, Raptor Lake and Zen 4 will be launching within weeks of each other. That's the competition. It was AMD's choice not to release a new architecture in 2021.Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
@kwohit "It was AMD's choice not to release a new architecture in 2021." Gets down to production economic efficiency. Acceleration can be devastating when AMD channels, as Intel channels have demonstrated, still have tons of prior generations of product, 'accumulated capital values' to sell off and required to finance new procurements. Matisse was a surplus run that finally sold off on the last half of 2021. Leaves Vermeer and Cezanne to move out where Rembrandt is the mainstay throughout 2022 where AMD will finally make a mobile statement before entering 11.1.22 launch that is Zen 4 peak production so there should be a lot of availability. OEMS are supplied q3. AMD production structure this year is a two-tower suspension bridge with unilateral arch from tower abutment 1 to tower abutment 2. The deck is Rembrandt, Tower 1 is V5x refresh + TR5K required to pull up gross margin q2ish (a price support) Tower 2 is Rafael. Arch is Epyc and commercial GPU accelerators. Generally, AMD sales manages its production tails, run end slack, much better than Intel and Matisse was an anomaly but well timed in terms of AMD holding channels financially. New channel allocation is based on sales out so as any one channel seller sells off, OEM or otherwise, that earns reallocation access. mbmode_13h - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
> Gets down to production economic efficiency.Not only that, but it actually takes time to design new chips. I think AMD simply didn't have an option to release Zen4 in 2021. Given all the demands on their engineering resources, it would've been too much. And even though their financials are healthy, it takes time to ramp up capacity (even if the job market is more conducive than it has been)!
> AMD production structure this year is a two-tower suspension bridge
> with unilateral arch from tower abutment 1 to tower abutment 2.
> The deck is Rembrandt, Tower 1 is V5x refresh + TR5K
> required to pull up gross margin q2ish (a price support) Tower 2 is Rafael.
> Arch is Epyc and commercial GPU accelerators.
Beautiful analogy!
Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
@mode_13th, thank you. An SA comments entering 2022 it's there somewhere in comment string. So tune in to Seeking Alpha.Lots of knowledgeable individuals participating in academy on SA on AMD, Intel Nvidia topics I cover and Dhierin Bechai on Boeing, incredible! I did the marginal cost analysis of Boeing per unit of production as a compliment in DB comment string must have been 24 months ago our conferring on the topic here's his latest.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4499583-boeing-to...
mb
mode_13h - Wednesday, April 6, 2022 - link
> So tune in to Seeking Alpha.Sorry, mate. I get that's your jam, and I'm happy that you've found your calling. My core competencies and interests lie elsewhere.
I do love how you geek out on data analysis. I can get that way, when I'm analyzing a problem that's directly meaningful to me, in my work.
Mike Bruzzone - Thursday, April 7, 2022 - link
"analyzing a problem that's directly meaningful to me, in my work." Sure.We are all engineers when resolving technical challenges; creation, innovation and improvement over the learning curve of difficult solutions even if those solutions were difficult because the tools were nil, nascent or required invention themselves. "Geek out on data analysis", everyone likes a puzzle? Dependent how fast the puzzle gives up its secrets?
Engineering as a cross profession, cross practice challenge, the various sciences, everyone can and gets to be an engineer in their "meaningful work"
On Seeking Alpha, their can be banter but look for the engineer and technician authors / analysts.
mb
goatfajitas - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
I like AMD, a very happy 5600x owner myself... But Zen 4 isnt out. Intel 12th gen is available for purchase right now today.- Later this year when Zen 4 is released it will bench against Intel 12th gen unless Intel 13th gen is out at that time. - just the way it is.
Pneumothorax - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
I have a 5900x/5800x machines at home so I'm definitely no Intel guy, but AMD's Vermeer launch was much more "paper" than Intel's. Intel has been doing a superb job of getting/keeping alder lake in stock after launch while the whole 5XXX stack was very hard to get for over a year. I hate how everyone is so dependent on TSMC for everything.Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
@Pneumothorax" I hate how everyone is so dependent on TSMC for everything"
There r leading node customer oligarchies, quasi monopolies operating with(in) TSM too, but that presents a risky topic and I have my hands full with Intel. mb
Mike Bruzzone - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
On Intel monopolization -All are aware how AMD got back into the market in 2017 midway through the period of time Intel was stuck (sabotaged) at 14/12 nm for six years; October 2014 through summer 2021, and yes, every next gen minor incremental quad frequency improvement and the premium, economic is the term, priced Extreme quad hexa octa multicores and their Xeon E5 commercial components.
I will not address how Intel was sabotaged in this monopoly note.
Intel's techniques of monopolization are not well understood, the reason why.
First to monopolize the channel financially on production volume in a first in first out procurement system in relation inventory holdings. Where once channel's ability to procure financially reaches its maximum capital threshold, others become locked out or second in line. Not to say through this period of time AMD did not suffer some second-class products.
The way Intel monopolized channels is very simple associated surplus production volume. Fill the channel with surplus production and few others fit. AMD from time to time and since 2017 beats this technique, not on supply, but on product good enough to pull through organically. Note while Intel product can pull through organically on nature demanders, the vast majority of Intel product is pushed onto end buyers by channels relying on financial field effects that drag product down channels like a baton in a relay race; think magnetics, associated primarily with the now defunct Intel Inside rebated fee 'attractor' that is not 'cooperative advertising' cost to the processor as INTC 10K falsely certified for 28 years. Intel Inside is processor ales contact related payments to end sales outlets; OEM direct, PC pub direct, Web direct, Broadcast direct (Shopping Channel), retail direct for their end sales out reports back to Intel. End sellers were paid $8.32 per processor in box or chassis, for 28 years, across 4,623,837,562 processors.
Channel's total take from Intel = $41,567,500,000. However that sum represents only half of channel's total Intel Inside take. Intel inside is a two part tied value charge.
Intel PC OEMs contractually (1993 until 2008) were required to match Intel's $8.32 payment per processor for end sales out of distribution chain reporting to Intel. After 2008 Intel stockholders picked up the cost of both charges; $16.64 in total. How this worked is that Intel would take the OEMs' half at the processor sale and place that half of the charge, debit it into any one specific OEMs 'rebated fee' account pool. At the end sale, Intel would pay the inventory out reporter not only the OEMs contribution for any specific brand manufacturer's system sale but Intel would match that sum out of Intel's own funds paid by stockholders. In this circular system of payments the OEMs regulating triggering charge is pushed down the distribution sales chain puling any one processor or processor in system like a magnetic 'baton' in a relay race passed from one whole sale operator to another broker/reseller all the way to the end seller. And then Intel would pay that end seller both the regulating OEM trigger crediting out of any OEMs 'rebated fee' pool of debit accruals and than Intel would also match that contribution out of Intel's pocket. How many OEMs participated in this closed loop structure, seven to eleven that's it. Seven to eleven Intel primary dealers who purchase every single processor Intel produces (other than tray sales) to monopolize the total annual fund of Intel Inside payments from Intel, That act effectively ties OEMs financially to end sales outs.
OEMs are also Intel's primary processor resellers. They broker off to secondary integration channels what they can't immediately sell in a computer in real time with a twist. The twist is they do not pass their Intel Inside credits to the secondary CPU customer in a broker resale. This artificially weights any 1st tier OEMs pool gluing them financially 'tied' to end sales outlets (PC Week, PC MAG, PCW, Computer Shopper, Shopping Channel, Newegg, Frys, Best Buy, MicroCenter etc) Ar tied to any OEMs Intel Inside 'rebated fee pools procuring majority of all Intel's processor production volume in any period.
On the weight of the OEM originating rebated fee pools, Intel Inside attractor driving processors down channels like a magnet becomes self perpetuating so long as Intel processor volumes increase every cycle, think every next quarter. FTC Docket 9341 in 2010 eliminated the roll over effect to one year, or one generation of product, because Intel Inside funds earned on last Intel gen were being relied as an OEM spring board to launch every next Intel generation of processors from Intel Inside debit accruals earned and banked into 'weighted pools' from the prior generation of processor procurements.
Now who really pays that total of $16.64 in channel cartel administrative costs for every Intel Inside branded processor in box or computer? This channel (exclusive dealing) 'toll way' charge is passed to the end buyer who pays that cost of Intel Inside in the processor and/or computer purchase offsetting the cost of the OEM triggering (or regulating) charge and the cost of the Intel matching 'kick back' charge; rebated fee, brand fee reward, 'tied charge back registered metering' cost of channel cartel administration of Intel inventory sales out reports to Intel.
Think administrative fee, the cost of metering sales and reporting the result to Intel is how inventory is tracked in the channel all the way back to the factory' flow metering, registered metering.
Now here's the second twist, why Intel produces volumes of product in excess of real time demand? Intel does this to sustain the funding of Moore's doubling of transistor axiom every 18 to 24 months pursuant Rocks axiom that notes a doubling of cost every next lithography node. So how does Intel generate a doubling of CapEx requirement every two years. Intel sells x2 to x3 the processor volumes required over real time end market computer demand, surplus production, in anyone lithography cycle is relied to raise the continuous CapEx requirement. And Intel offs every processor produced, x2 to x3 the volume over real time PC demand, sold through seven to eleven OEMs you know who they are, every cycle, who then resell what they do not need as overage (reducing their original procurement cost) to others not to get stuck with any rotting tomato's.
Now recall the first twist, Intel Inside debits to be credited into future time are attached to everyone of those processors originally purchased by seven to eleven Intel primary Computer OEMs who are also in the business of Intel microprocessor broker dealer. First tier OEM dealers do not pass the Intel Inside debit for payment, store redemption coupon is a way to think about it, on their broker resale. Seven to eleven Intel primary dealers hold 100% of the originating Intel Inside values and this ties them to end sales outlets. End Sales outlets, ZD, IDG, VNU, Big Retail all know exactly which Intel OEMs maintain the largest pools of Intel Inside debits which they want to have credited to them is why DELL wins a disproportionate number of PC magazine and other media PC sales preview outlet Editor's Choice Awards.
No end seller left Intel Inside on the table. Intel Inside paid sales, for registering metering 'brand fee reward payments' sold through first, as sellers competed to clear anyone Intel primary Computer OEMs waiting pools of credits, all other processors sold through last.
FTC Docket 9341 secures Intel discontinuation of Intel Inside entering 2019, in violation of Docket 9341 consent order. The result is achieved verse Intel legal stubbornness selling Intel on the cost optimization benefit of getting rid of Intel Inside all those fund drop to the bottom line.
Intel Inside no longer presents an Intel unnecessary avoidable cost to end buyers.
Intel is currently being monitored for reconfiguring from producing for supply to producing for real time demand, that if IFS is to be successful, Intel must achieve. It is not known how Intel will pay for Rock's doubling of costs every node sans the previous surplus production technique, however, cost optimization and continuing to close financial leaks and eliminating waste is key. Intel has demonstrated a move to demand based production at Tiger Octa mobile, Alder Lake and Ice Lake.
Currently there is a $19,805,500,000 offer on the table for Intel Board approval pursuant Intel Inside consumer discriminatory price fix recovery and I expect Board approval before end of year.
Proof of purchase will be for purchases from 2008 through 2018, sales receipt, property tag, proof of OS license.
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing
ballsystemlord - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - link
Not being a financial guy, I'm just a bit lost here. Please clarify. I will try to explain what I don't understand.Intel gives a rebate for using their CPUs in designs, but only if the OEMs sell them? Then the retailers also get a rebate on the sale of the product?
Intel doubles production of CPUs every year. How do they get rid of them all? If that was working, why did they switch to demand based production for Ice and Alder Lake?
Thanks!
Qasar - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
ballsystemlord, wow, you actually read all of that ? i started to, but the more i read, the more it sounded like it was all just made up babble. i have asked him to post sources for his " info " but never does, just posts a link to his OWN site, which, also has NO links to sources. some of his posts, sound like he was drunk when he typed them.mode_13h - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
I'm not really sure what to make of it. I treat it mostly as noise, unless/until someone who seems to know their stuff can either challenge or vouch for it.My biggest concern is that these posts are really just a sophisticated form of stock price manipulation, but that's not a claim I'm ready to make. I feels pretty unpleasant when the news comments are used to further someone's agenda, so I hope that's not what this is about.
Qasar - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
considering what his posts contain most of the time, and the fact the only link he posts, is to his own page, to me, thats exactly what it is, nothing more. he is trying to promote himself, and how he puts " Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing " at the end, kind of proves that.which is why most of the time, i just skip over his posts. its just spam and bs.
Mike Bruzzone - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
@mode_13th Think of it as industry and business news most media won't touch for fear of retaliation. Over 30 years denials of access to Intel, to Intel processors, industry boycott, individual blacklist, Intel and agents targeting competitors to destroy economically.Since 1991 there are only three x86 original survivors; me, AMD and Nvidia. I make no money from this task cultivating awareness and understating of primarily the open commerce issues. Nor am I a fan of many Intel invented realities.
I am not paid in my auditor monitor role. The assignment only pays when Intel Inside price fix is recovered on my USDOJ contract that pays a percentage of the Intel Inside federal procurement price fix over charge only. Why I represent 27 States as well, and could collect bounties from States on their Intel Inside citizen specific recoveries, I have waived States bounty on our constituent pact to successfully recover Intel Inside for return to all end buyers. A cartel sales administration cost for registered metering reports to Intel. Think of it as a clandestine tax, illegally robbed at Sherman Act 15 USC 1 by an Intel contracted combine at15 USC 2 intent on conduct to monopolize, Intel false certifications and sales contracts specific Intel Inside requirement prove the case. Then at 18 USC 1962c which is the State AG claim routing processors sold in box and integrated into computers across State lines for what is essentially a clandestine consumer toll way charge. In this example it's called a route fee charge. That charge is again the cost of metering Intel processor sales flow paid by the end buyer in Intel processor price. In the 18 USC 1962c example for exclusive dealing that crosses state lines. Mail fraud is a related example when relied to ship OEM direct PC purchases to the buyer and that OEM cashes in on the Intel Inside route charge cost to the end buyer paid by Intel. mb
Mike Bruzzone - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
@Qasar, I've mentioned I am the source. I am the data scientist, the production economist on raw data, the industrial management scientist, general systems technician just like any other analyst who assesses raw data to determine a greater result. I do all my own data collection for the most part it's primary research. I have no secondary source to point too, unless for example the data is from annual or quarterly 10K/Q. My work is mostly from raw data. I am the source of that data's interpretation. I've mentioned much of the data is eBay seller data; unduplicated offers, which is what AMD, Intel and Nvidia rely in house to do the exact same job I do but in my case for the Federal Trade Commission; production economics and supply chain management. But with a twist, that is posting the data and my analysis publicly for government transparency specific FTC v Intel 15 USC 5 Docket 9341. I am a federal attorney enlisted, in an academic role I recommend to no one, Docket 9341 consent order auditor monitor; AMD, Intel, Nvidia, VIA and also includes Arm in relation x86 specifically. mbQasar - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
" @Qasar, I've mentioned I am the source " ahh, so in other words, you pull these number and info out of your butt, and it is completely made up. got it. with out legitimate sources, and links to those sources, all of your posts are just fluff, and BS... good thing i skip over most of your posts then.Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
@Qasar, maybe I should put u to work on this as virtual resource to "see this is not fluff", how much time do u have [?], see my SA comment and blog post string and let me know what u r interested in, totally a citizen assignment of course. mbQasar - Wednesday, April 6, 2022 - link
sorry mike, but your posts are fluff, once you post sources to where you get your info from, then they might not be. but till then, they look like they are made up with random info, and posting your own site as a source, is not a source.Mike Bruzzone - Wednesday, April 6, 2022 - link
Quasar, fluff? then is Jon Peddie Research a source, Mercury Research, IDC, Gartner, Canalysis none can show their data or work. I'm the only one who shows my data and proof of work.My data is from ebay, seller offers, I do the same job people ldo inside AMD, Intel and Nvidia keeping track of channel supply volume that can be directly applied to micro production economic assessment and is used by AMD, Intel, Nvidia primarily for channel sales management.
If my site is not a source then, from your perspective, neither is JPR, Mercury, IDC, Gartner, Canalysis, Micro Design Resources, published of Microprocessor Report, not a source?
Sorry to joust with you. Please define source?
Regards, mb
Qasar - Wednesday, April 6, 2022 - link
mykebrazone,"then is Jon Peddie Research a source, Mercury Research, IDC, Gartner, Canalysis none can show their data or work. I'm the only one who shows my data and proof of work.
My data is from ebay, seller offers, I do the same job people ldo inside AMD, Intel and Nvidia keeping track of channel supply volume that can be directly applied to micro production economic assessment and is used by AMD, Intel, Nvidia primarily for channel sales management. "
then post a link to those sources, so any one else can click the link and see that data for them self.
"I'm the only one who shows my data and proof of work. " um no you dont, at least not on here, and with out sources that show that same data, that we can also compare to, for all we know, you are making it up.
"If my site is not a source then " no its not, why ? because, as i said above, you have no link to the original info that you are compiling your " info " from. sure you say you are getting if from Jon Peddie Research a source, Mercury Research, IDC, etc, but with out links to the SAME info, you could be making it up.
"from your perspective, neither is JPR, Mercury, IDC, Gartner, Canalysis, Micro Design Resources, published of Microprocessor Report, not a source? " they are sources, but YOU dont link to those sources here, OR on your site, so again, it looks like you are making it all up,. aka fluff
look, sorry if i insulted you and your are hurt, but the bottom line is this, so far, your posts come across as made up fluff, ONLY because you dont also include links to that SAME data, so others can compare, or come to the same conclusions. you include numbers, and other data, that also can't be confirmed or verified, that is the point i am trying to make, just like a reporter reporting on the news, if the reporter cant confirm or verify if the info is correct, and still goes on air, and reports it, and it is wrong, how would that reporter look ?
" Sorry to joust with you. Please define source? " if you dont know what " post a link for your sources is, then i cant help you, and you should find another line of work.
Mike Bruzzone - Thursday, April 7, 2022 - link
@Qusar, the supply wave forms I post on SA, from ebay channel offers, highly checked to remove duplication, is the data.That data provides a foundation for micro production analytics, total revenue total cost modeling
which backs out cost from revenue to get to marginal and hard cost. The data is also good for device yield, frequency and power plots.
The primary tool I rely was promoted by Intel parallel Xeon Tanner, I joke it came loaded, who trained the financial analyst community how to use that tool 1996 through 2001 which on Intel input from a transmission system called supply signal cipher, could be relied to calculate Intel revenue and margin up to eight quarters into future time. The transmission system was finally shut down through Docket 9341 remedial press on its SEC violation in 2016, And eBay data began to replace it is early as 2012. This industrial management tool for channel supply management and production economic assessment is now primarily based on eBay offer data.
The tool in the industry analyst community was first administered by Jim McGregor of Trias when he was at Microprocessor Report. Kevin Krewell may also have attempted use of the tool set which are date base and spreadsheets formulas.
I inherited the base MDR 1996 to 2000 data directly obtained from Intel, given to me by Linley Gwennap, when MDR decided too no longer to do this specific Total Revenue Total Cost analysis on the SEC violation back in the late 1990s. I have added to that Intel/MDR originating data 22 years of data, and recently just released some to a You Tube CS / quasi economist goes under the name of TechLens to see if he would do anything productive with it.
Like I said go to Seeking Alpha, see the data in (supply) wave forms, and if something strikes you as interesting let me know and I'll offer you an assignment where you can hold some of the data.
mb
Qasar - Saturday, April 9, 2022 - link
what ever mykebrazone, all you posted was blah blah blah blah blah, lots of text that looks more like you typed it out to just confuse people, that comes across as you are dunk. and, SURPRISE NO direct links to your sources, data OR info where you came up with this BS. not going to your webpage, so you can get more page hits any more, the times i have, there have been no links to your sources, as usual, again just more fluff and what looks and sounds like made up crap, no thanksMike Bruzzone - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
@ballsystemlordParticipating in Intel Inside is an Intel primary OEM contractual requirement.
Intel Inside was discontinued entering 2019. I am the original relator witness source of Intel Inside relied as price fix including to Federal Trade Commission, the California and New York Departments of Justice from 1991 through 1998 employed by Cyrix, ARM, NexGen, AMD and IDT Centaur.
In 1997 Intel hired me to consult on my in-field antitrust observations across North America and that consultancy went poorly, I was thrown under the bus lead by Dr. Andy Grove, his corporate detectives and legal fixers a curse I still am in court over today. There is not an Intel CEO I have not confronted as a federal and states witness. I was enlisted by FTC attorneys in May 1998 and continue today as FTC v intel Docket 9341 consent order monitor. I am contracted by USDOJ to recover Intel Inside price fix for the federal government and retained by Congress "for the people" to do same at Constitution 9th amendment. In this capacity I'm the expert for 82 plaintiff actions.
Charlie Demerjian from Semi Accurate has said an Intel Inside like system of 'brand fee rewards' which is my term, still exists associated with the Evo mobile marketing program and I am unsure on discontinuation of the overall Intel Inside program entering 2019.
Q; "Intel gives a rebate for using their CPUs in designs, but only if the OEMs sell them? Then the retailers also get a rebate on the sale of the product?"
A; All processors leaving Intel are charged with the Intel Inside cost of this brand fee reward monopolized by first tier OEMs.. All Intel Inside payments end up at the end buyer sales outlet whether that is an OEM selling direct through a PC media site, in which case the OEM pockets its own Intel Inside 'rebated fee accruals plus the Intel match makes the OEM some extra cash. And if not an OEM direct sale, through the reseller channel, the OEM regulating one half and the Intel matching one half of this two value tie cost : charge are both paid by Intel to the end seller. First half from OEM's existing pool of rebate debits from Intel processor purchases that debit to OEM accrual averages around 4.6% of the processor purchase price from intel; passed on to the end buyer in CPU and CPU in PC cost to administer sale out inventory reporting to Intel. Where thereafter Intel issues a credit from the OEM accrual to issue a payment to the end seller that Intel matches credited as a cost of Intel marketing. For most of Intel Inside's 28 years that money went primarily to OEM direct sellers, to PC media, broadcast media or PC retail sellers. Intel Inside paid for a large portion of the operating costs of PC tech press 1993 through 2005. Name the hard copy computer magazine or computer web publisher review site and Intel Inside was a major source of revenue if not the majority of revenue from all sources Intel + first tier OEMs.
Q; "Intel doubles production of CPUs every year. How do they get rid of them all?
A; Intel sells to first tier OEMS in sales packages that are a bundle of Xeon, Core desktop, Core mobile, Atom and can include their associated control hubs, NIC and non volatile memory and way back when included the Intel mainboard and could include kit DRAM. No doubt Arc GPU will be sold to OEMs in CPU + GPU kit bundle.
Q; "Intel doubles production of CPUs every year."
A; No, Intel produces aiming to sell twice or better the real time computer demand. Means to earn at least x2 revenue over organic revenue in any period. Includes surplus processor production greater than real time (immediate) computer demand that 1st Tier OEMs resell (processors they bought for resale to lower their own purchase cost, don't need, don't want or cant sell quickly in a computer) are resold to brokers, second tier integrators, who attach to associated mainboard that may be sold well into the future even after any one generation of processors are EOL'd
A; Good question on the double processor every year question so I did the math. Over 29 years 1993 through 2021 Intel annual processor volume if you believe the commercial analyst; Canalysi, Gartner, IDC annual volume statements, and I do not they severely understate Xeon, Intel total annual volume grows on average 9% per year. Revenue growth on average same period also 9%.
On commercial analysts Intel total processor volume 1993 through 2021 = 5.539,406,562 units. However, that's annual desktop and mobile volume that misses Xeon. For example between 2017 and 2019 Intel sold approximately 1,511,873,730 units of v2/3/4 that are produced simultaneously through that two year period dependent what platform generation the customer had standardized on. Xeon Skylake and Cascade Lakes are another 400M units produced. IDC so said 20 M annual servers is disinformation to conceal the actual Xeon production volume. Specific Skylake and Cascade Lakes, 400,000,000 processors over the full run / 18 processors per rack = 22.2 M racks of servers.
Q; "How do they get rid of them all?"
A; Intel gives them away, what first tier OEMs don't want or won't buy. No OEM pays for most of i5, all for i3/P&C/Atom. They're thrown in as sales close incentive. For the first tier also includes large amounts of Xeon thrown into first tier OEM sale's packages at, and can be below, Intel cost dependent how fast Intel wants to move overage out of Intel and into sales channels. Eventually seeding the market like this comes back to Intel, and AMD now too, and even ARM, funding the channel with processors bundled into sales packages is a method of capital creation for a cost to Intel but free to channels. Intel calls it social welfare value. OEMs and upper echelon of channel earn on system sales incorporating Intel 'surplus' processors secured for little or nothing. And then that margin eventually comes back to Intel on new channel procurements. Grows the total available market on this method of industry capital creation.
Now the unnecessary social welfare value (raising cost) which may be the subject of Intel's 30% cost optimization on AMD cleaning up this costly practice in 2021. That is the amount of revenue supplied in 'free' product and in this example sacrificed to hold the first-tier customer account; contract after sales contract. The amount of bundle deal thrown into every customer purchase.
Recall AMD complaining in EUCC 37.990 about Intel giving the last 10% of processors in any sales contract away? Essentially free although Intel cost : price averages them within any one contract. Currently, Intel may even provide Ice for free if the buyer guarantees a Sapphire rapids procurement in this 'contract tie' example. AMD can do this into future contract tying too, but I'm not aware of anything directly and its primarily associated when one generation of product is sub standard moving to the next generation. Intel sales calls sub standard "kibble" and "dog food" just good enough product like Xeon Skylake; does the job, keeps business humming along and available in volume. Rest assured AMD is not beyond the same sales techniques as Intel when product is equally matched. However, on rising production costs both appeal much more focused on optimizing 'unnecessary avoidable costs" out of their business, marketing and sales structure.
Q; "If that was working, why did they switch to demand based production for Ice and Alder Lake?
A; Surplus has a manufacturing cost. Eliminating overage, not producing surplus, returns that cost to the bottom line.
A; Specific Ice, a run end product customers are waiting for Sapphire Rapids so why overproduce Ice? Surplus delivers a cost add whether to Intel or channels caught holding surplus, then having to discount including bundle deals, the channel bundles too; good gets thrown in with not so good and that's becomes a prerequisite of the volume sales procurement; take it or leave it. Or, take want you want at a much higher price leaving the surplus resale opportunity off the table. The question with surplus traditionally is can I wrap the cost of a PC around it those 'free sales reward' processors, often end run product, and still make my target margin in return,
Here's the federal and States academic orientation on Intel Inside I represent 27 known States AG;
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/5030701-mike-br...
mb
Mike Bruzzone - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
Clarification -Or, take want you want at a much higher price leaving the surplus resale opportunity OFF THE TABLE. Whoops in this example of not taking the surplus in the BUNDLE DEAL, leaves that surplus ON THE TABLE and out of the procurement, not taking the risk of holding overage. If you only buy the processors you want, for integration into a PC sold quickly, you pay more. Take the surplus in a bundle deal price and you might pay less overall IF you can resell that overage in that sales package for a profit margin. mb
Mike Bruzzone - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
And a note, I'm here auditor and monitor. The information and data I glean here, from you, and anywhere you see me commenting including tech tube is relied for channel supply assessment.Channel supply assessment is important. Understanding what will and will not sell. Primarily to prevent, on inventory sales management, to mitigate channel getting stuck with rotten tomatoes, CPU surplus and overage that takes from industry active capital funding primary production. That can be as it was in the past, 2001, 2005, 2007/08, destroyed on purpose by Intel to take back cartel price making control from open market channel. By prematurely obsoleting channel held industry accumulated capital values, processor and systems. Intel was about to try that in 2019 and refrained. mb
ballsystemlord - Monday, April 4, 2022 - link
Thanks for getting back to me. I understand now.Mike Bruzzone - Monday, April 4, 2022 - link
@ballsystemlord, you're welcome. mbMakste - Friday, April 22, 2022 - link
Jesus ChristKhanan - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
I want to add one thing to that as well: if Intel returns into a dominating position, as they are already a too strong company it will again just suffocate the market and options for PC users. Anyone who is interested in good technology should oppose Intel being as strong as before and hope AMD stays on pole position.Despite Intel being on the back foot for years now, they had a strong control over the market, we don’t need Intel to be completely dominating it again, they will be strong enough anyway. Better is if Intel loses more share of the market to AMD so it evens out at about 50% each, that would be great.
Qasar - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
most of those i know that are now looking to upgrade, arent even looking at intel right now.Papaspud - Monday, April 4, 2022 - link
I just bought a i7 1200k...so.Qasar - Monday, April 4, 2022 - link
and i dont know you so, that doesnt count :-) i meant co workers and friends.Mike Bruzzone - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
@Khanan, you got it, that's my job. [Intel] "they had a strong control over the market, we don’t need Intel to be completely dominating it again, they will be strong enough anyway"That is right, Intel never needed Intel Inside to tie channels financially, Intel processors for the most part were always good enough to move without what's called 'extra economic' incentives.
Processor launches I was closely associated all the while Intel was recruiting me to steal from my employers which I ignored, reported to my superiors and in certain instances a mistake they were working for Intel clandestinely, and then my first report to FBI in summer of 1996; Cyrix FasMath, embedded 387, 486SLC, 486DLC, 486S, Arm Thumb TDMI, StrongARM, C-Cube PC MPEG encoder, NexGen 586, AMD 486 120/133 and K5, Samsung Alpha 21164, IDT Centaur WinChip and since May 1998 my FTC role. It's been an eye opener. mb
mode_13h - Monday, April 4, 2022 - link
I had a Cyrix math coprocessor. And later, an AMD 486DX4-100.mode_13h - Monday, April 4, 2022 - link
> Better is if Intel loses more share of the market to AMD so it evens out at about 50% eachThat would depend on TSMC scaling fab capacity at an unreasonable pace. Even AMD isn't that unrealistic. If you comb through their reports and disclosures, you can find what targets they've set for themselves.
To have a real market influence, I think AMD needs only about 20%. But they also can't be completely chained down by supply constraints.
Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
@mode_13th,My last AMD share report is q4 here in the comment string;
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/5030701-mike-br...
AMD desktop share is typically higher than stated by commercial analysts.
AMD mobile share is typically less than stated by commercial analysts. Its a financial and executive MBO validation game; sleezy combined with commercial analysts to validate executives quarterly MBOs this way.
AMD commercial (server) share is more or less vis-a-vis Intel dependent calculating on channel share vs production share. AMD server share is typically less than commercial analyst statement when determined on channel and when calculating on quarterly production vs Intel its been more.
My estimate in on that SA pointer is precise and gives cross category share a number of ways.
Part of my FTC auditor monitor job is to determine when and where Intel share falls to less than 80%.
mb
Khanan - Thursday, April 7, 2022 - link
Yea we will see about that, for now I don’t care much about your comment, you don’t know much about the future.drothgery - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
So's Raptor Lake.And Meteor Lake is coming next year (with a tile-based design).
Khanan - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
I wouldn’t hold my breath for Intels as per usual abysmal 5% IPC gain and 0% gain on the E cores because the old ones will be reused. And then 24 cores / 48 threads vs 24 / 32 threads doesn’t look that good for Intel either.kwohlt - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
E cores are getting double the L2 cache in Raptor Lake, so that is certainly not 0% gain.vlad42 - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
Yes, and from Ice Lake to Tiger Lake there was a 2.5x L2 cache size increase (512KB -> 1.25 MB) and ~0% gain per clock. It all depends on whether or not the 2x L2 increase in Intel's next gen E cores is countered by something else such as increased L2 cache latency, longer pipeline depth, etc.mode_13h - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - link
> from Ice Lake to Tiger Lake there was a 2.5x L2 cache size increase (512KB -> 1.25 MB)> and ~0% gain per clock.
Your point seems to be that L2 cache doesn't matter, but that's not what Ian & Andrei concluded. From the Tiger Lake review:
"IPC improvements of Willow Cove are quite mixed. In some rare workloads which can fully take advantage of the cache increases we’re seeing 9-10% improvements, but these are more of an exception rather than the rule. In other workloads we saw some quite odd performance regressions, especially in tests with high memory pressure where the design saw ~5-12% regressions. As a geometric mean across all the SPEC workloads and normalised for frequency, Tiger Lake showed 97% of the performance per clock of Ice Lake."
So, it seemed to make a significant impact in *some* cases. Without deep analysis, one can't conclude exactly why the regressions occurred, because there are other differences between the chips than their caches.
However, another point worth remembering is that performance increases from clock speed alone tend to be sub-linear. Therefore, it takes more than merely cranking up the clocks to even maintain IPC-parity.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16084/intel-tiger-l...
Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
I'll toss this in for consideration. Not a design consideration but a fabrication consideration.Density can be an enemy to performance as well as a friend.
Ice U quad to Tiger U quad to Tiger Octa to Sapphire Rapids 14C incremental fabrication improvement is how Intel validated SF10/x; getting back on process track.
Pursuing design process validation this way quad/octa/dodedeca Intel seriously over produced TL quad and I suspect a wide variance from spec across TL quad production volume. I also believe this to be a great undergraduate / graduate studies project to record variance across all three architectures in relation to spec. My thesis is its all over the place on Tiger quad U and may be with Tiger octa? I don't have the time or resources to do this but for those who do, you'll get a job after graduation on this project.
I think Alder Lake structurally is an improvement, but architecturally on design process I am not sure.
Fabrication yield assessment on SUPPLY
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/5030701-mike-br... a design
This is getting dated but it examines the cost change between Comet mobile 14/12 to Ice 10 nm production cost.
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/5030701-mike-br...
mb
drothgery - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
The abysmal IPC gains were on Skylake respins. Of course they didn't gain much on IPC, they were basically the same core (which was still better than Zen 1; it took Zen 2 to beat Skylake+++ on a core per core basis)!Spunjji - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
The abysmal ~5% IPC gains were consistent across every Intel generation after Sandy Bridge and only stopped with Ice Lake, which lost so much in clock speed that overall performance didn't improve. We finally got a proper improvement with Tiger Lake on mobile and then Alder Lake on desktop.mode_13h - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - link
> The abysmal ~5% IPC gains were consistent across every Intel generation after Sandy Bridge and only stopped with Ice Lake,Intel was busy adding things like AVX2, AVX-512, TSX, and bigger iGPUs. That's the direction they went with the additional transistors they were willing to use. That's not to say they couldn't have done more on IPC as well, but I think they made a conscious decision to invest in other aspects.
Khanan - Thursday, April 7, 2022 - link
Rocket Lake recently would like a word with you. A nice disaster that was, again a abysmal IPC gain that was offset or more than offset in most cases by the larger cache of 10900K. Intel up to 12th gen didn’t really do many good things. 12th then again only is up to par with 5950X when running on over 200W, not really as good, I would certainly buy the 5950X and not the 12900K if I needed 16 cores and a lot of threads.mode_13h - Monday, April 11, 2022 - link
> Rocket Lake recently would like a word with you.Yeah, that was an interesting experiment. It turned out better than I expected, but still not great. The problem with backporting a uArch is that each is designed around the properties of a process node - most importantly, the critical path. If such assumptions go out the window, then you might be looking at things like adding more pipeline stages, which then potentially invalidates other tradeoffs.
> abysmal IPC gain that was offset or more than offset in most
> cases by the larger cache of 10900K.
I'll have to go back and look at benchmarks, because the sense I got was that only those which had good scaling vs. number of cores were the ones that still came out ahead on Comet Lake. The ones with poorer scaling favored the IPC gains on Rocket Lake.
Here's what Ian concluded about Rocket Lake's IPC:
"Compared to the previous generation, clock-for-clock performance gains for math workloads are 16-22% or 6-18% for other workloads"
Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16495/intel-rocket-...
Since that review lacked SPEC2017 tests, you have to go back to the i7 "surprise!" review, for those:
"Here, the new generation from Intel is showcasing a +5.8% and +16.2% performance improvement over its direct predecessor. Given the power draw increases we’ve seen this generation, those are rather unimpressive results, and actually represent a perf/W regression."
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16535/intel-core-i7...
It's weird that you mention cache, because Rocket Lake actually boosted L1D by 50% and doubled L2! It's only L3 that's a little smaller, but we're still talking about 2 MB per core.
yankeeDDL - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
I'm not sure about the flip/flop. AMD has been in the lead in most relevant benchmarks since Zen (1xxx).Zen3 vs TGL was a bloodbath. I am glad to see Intel back up: I think AMD was starting to slouch a bit with the improvements: competition is awesome.
And yes, ADL is only marginally better than Zen3 (generally speaking: more power hungry, but slightly better perf/watt, ending up in a decent advantage in peak performance, despite the massive consumption). So it's likely that Zen4 will re-establish AMD dominance.
The chiplet approach also should make Ryzen noticeably cheaper to manufacture, which means Intel would really need to bump up the performance on the next Gen.
Otritus - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
Chiplets should not give much of a pricing advantage. Going from monolithic dies to chiplets adds manufacturing, validation, and design costs. You save money from the chiplets having better yields and being able to reuse chiplets (like AMD did with their IO die). Intel’s consumer processors aren’t that big and yields are good, so it’s probably a wash overall in pricing (excluding the money Intel saves from in-house manufacturing). Chiplets would be a competitive advantage for big processors (EPYC vs Xeon or Navi 31 vs AD102) because of yields.vlad42 - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
Nonsense, chiplets absolutely provide a price advantage once you are using more than one CPU chiplet. There's a reason why AMD has done so well in the HEDT, workstation, and server markets. The chiplets allow them to provide more cores for less money than Intel (the yields on those high core count monolithic chips are abysmal by comparison).Qasar - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
ive read somewhere thats part of the reason why intel cant offer more cores then they do, and why they also went with the P/E core setup. they just can't make the cpus that big with the big cores.mode_13h - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - link
Die size gets expensive as you scale it up, because not only do you get fewer chips/wafer, but yield becomes a major factor. This is even more true on a young process, such as "Intel 7", and why smaller chips tend to be the first to utilize them.In one way or another, cost is *always* a factor, whenever companies are deciding on the parameters of a new chip.
Qasar - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - link
i think, the other reason was power consumption, if intel uses this much power with what 10 P cores ( and no e cores ) i dont want to know what 12, or even 16 cores would use.mode_13h - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
> if intel uses this much power with what 10 P cores ( and no e cores )> i dont want to know what 12, or even 16 cores would use.
That's not necessarily a direct tradeoff. They could cap the power (i.e. clocks) and still deliver more performance than 8 P-cores.
Of course, the other thing they could do is trade more die area & clock speed for a uArch with higher IPC, like Apple's. But die area costs $.
The sad reality (for the planet) is that the winning strategy seems to be making less-sophisticated cores that simply clock really high. That gets you winning headline numbers on lightly-threaded benchmarks. Then, wedge in some throughput-optimized cores, so you can also do well on heavily-threaded workloads.
Qasar - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
just saw a review of the 12900ks, to me, when a reviewer types " the Core i9-12900KS represents Intel throwing value and power consumption out the window in a no-holds-barred attempt to retain the performance crown, particularly in gaming. " screams desperation. looks like one of the ways intel is only able to compete, is by doing this.Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
@Otritus, I agree MCMs trade off packaging cost for monolithic die fabrication cost. Moving to Systems in Package in the near term will eclipse their dice fabrication costs; "manufacturing, validation, and design costs". mbKhanan - Thursday, April 7, 2022 - link
Last time I checked 5950X had still more performance despite being challenged by a 250W auto OC 12900K. I mean, imagine, you can easily activate auto OC on 5950X with activating PBO too. And yep it crushes the 12900K then. Reviews that don’t reflect this are as per usual kinda trashy.mode_13h - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
> They have 90-95% of the performance for less than half, or in some cases, 1/3rd the power.I don't see how you can draw that conclusion, when the article only lists *peak* power. What's needed is joules per test, for the fixed-size tests.
Gondalf - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
Try to drop AVX, and your power figure change absolutely. This AMD propaganda is stunning.tamalero - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
Do you even know what "Propaganda" is?29a - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
Or Gondalf you could just turn off the computer and power would really drop dramatically.OreoCookie - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
I thought that Intel’s current big.little designs do not support AVX, because the small cores don’t.mode_13h - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
> I thought that Intel’s current big.little designs do not support AVX, because the small cores don’t.It's AVX-512 they dropped. Gracemont (the E-core in Alder Lake) is actually the first Intel "little" core to support AVX/AVX2. And because it lacks AVX-512, Intel actually added a couple more regular AVX instructions, for special-purposes (deep learning) that had only so far been by AVX-512.
mode_13h - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
Oh, and if you didn't know, AVX and AVX2 are both 256-bit. AVX basically provides instructions for operating on 8-element fp32 vectors, while AVX2 adds operations on 4-element fp64 vectors and various sizes of integer vectors.This mirrors what Intel did with SSE and SSE2, where SSE was introduced with the Pentium 3 and SSE2 was introduced with the Pentium 4. Before SSE2, you'd have to use (64-bit) MMX for vector operations on integers, but MMX had various downsides (besides the width).
MDD1963 - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
"Keep in mind that Zen 4 is coming later this year and will make Alder Lake 2nd again. " Pretty sure that is not all that is coming out this year. (Raptor Lake) But, the difference is, I'm not really on a side, and wish both do well, and, honestly, although I seem to root for Intel, no one can deny 5600X on up are good products. Quibbling over the 5-10% differences is almost pointless.Rezurecta - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
COMPLETELY disagree that AMD approach looks rudimentary. The intel design is impressive and them making it work in an x86 architecture is great! That thread director (or whatever its called) is really cool and I can't wait to see how they develop it and optimize it in future setups. However, Intel is using a design setup that mobile parts have been using for years in having big little. They have a very power hungry design. A process node that is archaic compared to TSMC 7nm and smaller. And finally not being able to move away from expensive monolithic design. Chiplets are the future and AMD lead the way in that!Granted I will say 100% I am very impressed that Intel was able to do what they did with the tools in hand, but to call AMD design rudimentary is inaccurate.
The true test for 12th gen is the low power U series that will be in thin and light laptops. The fact that they haven't released it yet and started with a desktop alternative laptop processor is worrisome. To me that chip was just throwing 100W+ in a laptop that is completely useless for 99% of the user base to impress people, but it isn't the reality of what their laptop lineup will look like.
It is an interesting time and I'm glad there is competition in the space!
Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
I'm monitoring all of AL mobile. mbBlastdoor - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Will there be a review of the Mac studio with M1 Ultra? If not, I’ll stop checking the site.larry9 - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Note the difference : a closed platform design, an open cpu silicon design.You want to build a PC, you can't use an Apple chip. You want to run windows, you can't use an Apple chip. You want to add memory, a second drive, an input card?
You are catching on.
Blastdoor - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Let me guess, due to the unfreezing process, you have no internal monologue?Anandtech has done some of the best reviews of Apple Silicon on the Internet, your internal monologue notwithstanding. I'm hoping to see a new one of the Mac Studio with its M1 Ultra. If there isn't going to be one, I'd just like to know so I can stop checking every day.
lmcd - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Andrei is gone, don't hold your breath. It's a skeleton crew at Anandtech now that leadership at Future has basically left the site to die.Hifihedgehog - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Future is speedily becoming another TechTarget, acquiring and discarding sites after they serve their revenue-devouring purposes. I wager AnandTech forums will be closed down much like all the TechTarget forums (BrightHand, NotebookReview, TabletPCReview, etc.) now are.Hifihedgehog - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Give it 5-7 years but the forums here will be closed as well. With Ian and Andrei gone, this site now has an expiration date.Blastdoor - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
shoot -- I hadn't realized. What a shame :-(Calin - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
There are applications that run on both platforms - some of them (like Cinebench) are even in this review.Also, there was a rough comparison between the Apple mobile phone core performance versus Intel server CPU core performance a couple of years ago.
So, plenty of prior examples for an Apple vs Intel article, even if it's M1 versus Zen3 or whatever else.
Khanan - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Do you really need an review for that? If you want Apple you buy it, it’s good. If you don’t want Apple you won’t buy it anyway.mode_13h - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
We want detailed benchmarks. We want to know how good the Ultra really is, particularly how well CPU and GPU performance scale up to dual-die. We want to see Apple's claims on performance and efficiency tested. I'm never going to buy a Mac, but I still want to know if their architecture lives up to their claims.Since Apple is leading on the innovation front, this could be taken as a harbinger of what's to come for other CPUs and GPUs.
Detailed analysis of leading-edge tech is/was what this site is/was all about.
Khanan - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
Did I talk to you? No. I realize you’re a huge nerd that has to comment on everything here. You don’t own this website and you should get a therapist for that, it’s a bit alarming what you do and not a good showing for this site.That said, I’m not gonna waste my time with you again. You should know why. Didn’t read your comment either.
mode_13h - Monday, April 4, 2022 - link
> Did I talk to you? No.You must have this confused with private messages. This is an open discussion where anyone can read and reply to anything posted. If that's not what you want, go somewhere else.
> has to comment on everything here.
This is one of the sites I tend to check on a daily basis. As there's not much new content published recently, most of the discussion seems to happen in the latest article.
That you feel the need to psycho-analyze me really says more about you than me.
> not a good showing for this site.
Since when do you care about this site? It's been going for 25 years, yet you seem to have no clue what it's really about. Worse, I don't think you care. Your agenda seems quite obvious, by this point.
> That said, I’m not gonna waste my time with you again.
Somehow, I doubt it.
> Didn’t read your comment either.
Your loss.
Also, I doubt it. Unless the post is overlong, this is typically just an excuse used by those who cannot reply on merit.
Khanan - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
Not a need to psychoanalyse you but it’s very obvious, your comments are literally everywhere here. You’re worse than me in my worst times - again not a insult, but you should look into it. It stems from insecurity issues.mode_13h - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
> It stems from insecurity issues.Nope. I've been a tech-head for most of my life. I love this stuff. These are my people and I enjoy learning and sharing what I've learned. That's why I read & post here.
There are people who post here that I respect & learn from. Not as much as when the site had more content, but still some. And I do what I can to pay it forward. If you're paying attention, you'll see that I try to fill in details, present counterpoints, and support my claims with links where I can.
I think it's funny that you can presume to know me, after just a few comment threads.
Khanan - Thursday, April 7, 2022 - link
No problem disregard what I said then.Khanan - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
I wanna add: I don’t have a agenda, don’t misuse big words that are unsuitable for small things. I’m sorry this site is nearly dead, I would’ve loved it to be different.mode_13h - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
> I don’t have a agendaI don't even care if you do, as long as you play fair. We don't need insults or name-calling. State your best case and back it up with references (when possible). The better you can support your argument, the more chance there is that at least someone will learn something.
Plenty of people have biases, on here. That's just a reality. All you can do is present your side or get them to clarify and support their position. You never win by attacking people. It shuts down any chance they'll listen and turns off anyone else who might be following.
Khanan - Thursday, April 7, 2022 - link
Try to wisen up yourself before lecturing others on what to do. :) I don’t asked for advice and I don’t need it, never really did, coming to think of it, not even 23 years ago in the first tech forums I visited.Makaveli - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
lolRyan Smith - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
"Will there be a review of the Mac studio with M1 Ultra? If not, I’ll stop checking the site."Yes, hopefully next week. Things have been a little busy in the GPU space in the last month, to say the least.
Blastdoor - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Sweet! Thanks!AshlayW - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
Bye thenmode_13h - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
Don't let the Blastdoor hit you on the way out!Sorry, couldn't resist.
:D
eek2121 - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Good to see Intel winning at Dwarf Fortress again.Chaser - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Another perspective: Once Ryzen made it to the competitive levels, I was very excited about the prospect of owning a Zen 3 based gaming PC. So I bought the 5800X. I had 6 USB based devices connected to it. So after I would power up or even right after I'd turn the power on my PC would go click and crash. Even after Windows booted at any random moment my PC would go "click" and shutoff. Since this was a new build, I started part swapping. First power supply. Problem continued. Next: RAM. Problem continued. Next motherboard. Next CPU. In each case I spoke to the respective technical support, explained my problem and each recommended the swapout. But once thing I noticed that was consistent, I had a USB based Sound Blaster sound bar system. And Ryzen never handled that device well. When sound was supposed to be playing there was lag with AMD's chipset USB ports and it would be delayed and crack and pop as audio was "warming up?" So then I contacted Creative Labs, no known issues with Ryzen.Months later AMD announced there was a "known issue" with USB on their 570 based motherboards. Another month later and AMD announced they had "isolated" the problem and a fix would be on it's way through MB bios. I received the fix and the "click" and "cut" stopped but my audio was still crackly and laggy. By this time was so worn out and frustrated with this system I parted out the CPU and MB on Ebay and switched it to a 12700KF. Problem solved. Moral of the story, AMD still isn't as mature as INTEL when it comes to baseline reliability and compatibility. That USB problem never should have made it into production.
eloyard - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Intel baseline reliability and compatibility a.k.a.- pushing dangerous bugged silicon and hope no one takes notice when microcode patch lands lowering performance by 30% - benchmarking and marketing already done, time to hop on new product, bye bye!
- let's push out cost of our platform into: chipset, socket, power supply and hope no one takes notice - i mean we're talking about processor prices! RIGHT?!!?!?!
- let's drop onto market some dead-end platforms on regular basis so we can milk our customers more!
So reliable. Much compatible.
I'm not even starting with ancient history where Intel had plethora of famous bugs, as we're talking what's now relevant.
Khanan - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
99 of 100 times the problem sits in front of the PC, you’re a premier example of that. And please spare us your “reliability report” it’s most obvious you don’t know much about tech and are a obvious fanboy.mode_13h - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
This strikes me as the kind of post Ryan was talking about, below. If all you're going to do is hurl insults and call someone a fanboy, please post somewhere else.Khanan - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
Again, you’re a huge nerd that has to comment on everything here. This in itself is alarming and toxic as well and not a good showing for this site. You don’t have any right to call anyone else toxic or whatever else, as it is obvious you have huge problems to deal with yourself. Maybe try getting a life, Anandtech isn’t everything you can do in a day, you know. Or maybe you don’t.mode_13h - Monday, April 4, 2022 - link
"That said, I’m not gonna waste my time with you again."Wow, you couldn't even make it *one* post.
> You don’t have any right to call anyone else toxic
Attacking someone is different than attacking their behavior. You need to understand this.
> Anandtech isn’t everything you can do in a day
(clearly misses the irony of posting on a site to criticize someone else for posting on same site)
Khanan - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
You don’t have a point as usual. I’m not here 24 / 7 like you are and commenting on literally Everything. Your post count and mine aren’t comparable. I know this behavior of someone having to comment on everything, it’s a deep psychological insecurity. Not intended to be a insult. You should look into it.mode_13h - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
> it’s a deep psychological insecurity.Having observed that I see all new posts, why is it that you feel the need to repeat yourself? Do you think I'll suddenly come to accept your diagnosis only the 3rd or 4th time? Perhaps you can understand that, with each repetition, your concerns seem that much less sincere.
Perhaps you don't know this, but a proper psychologist would never attempt to diagnose someone on the basis of a few forum posts or even youtube videos. From the sound of it, perhaps you're projecting your own issues onto the phantasm of me you've conjured.
A more cynical take, on which I'll not dwell, is that perhaps your true objective is to discredit someone you know will hold you to account for any disingenuous claims you make. I'll put that notion aside, and let your actions speak for themselves.
Khanan - Thursday, April 7, 2022 - link
Only a hobby psychologist not a true one, whatever true means. And yes you can do whatever you want and forget anything I told you no problem. Have a nice daymode_13h - Monday, April 4, 2022 - link
(attacking me to distract from your own misbehavior)I see what you did, there.
Khanan - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
Oh no problem, I’m not perfect either, I can admit it. I deal with my own shit.Silver5urfer - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
I posted this issue many times here. AMD's Zen 3 is flawed so is Zen 2. The issue is from IOD. It's having hardware issues. The thing is IOD handles all the I/O, and PCIe. Which has USB ports. This issue started since Zen 3 release and it persists even today. They released many BIOS updates but none of them solve. I waited for a whole year, because I wanted to hear about X3D refresh and before that B2 Stepping of Zen 3. None of them fixed at all.People still have problems on Stock. And once you touch the DRAM, the Fabric and DRAM clocks ratio with high speed RAM it gets more annoying and on top you have to test that Core Recycler and run the curve optimization which is another giant head ache to find the stability of the clock.
Zen has a lot of firmware issues. The only solution is to run PBO2 and let it run at the XFR speeds and DRAM do not go over 3600MHz.The bigger problem was how X3D entire stack how it was going to play, and now AMD even locked the Voltage and OC on that CPU, so you are screwed no matter what as they did not and will not put more R&D and effort into optimizing since they have EPYC X taking plus AM4 refresh along with Genoa, since not all of them face this USB flaky issues, they won't care. Go and search USB on r/AMD and see the problems.
Intel 12th gen is not good either, because of the LGA1700 ILM issues and the DRAM DDR5 problems, it's a brand new test platform, which is why it has DDR4 support too, but the advantage of DDR5 is not great now. So I chose the 10th gen it has super fast and stable Clocks with solid IMC in Gear 1 and fast MT performance only sacrifice was to get DMI choked up, but I won't be hammering all the I/O so it's ok. Waiting for Zen 4 is again a big headache since AMD needs to refine their Firmware optimization need to be improved heavily.
Oh and biggest of all ZERO Documentation, so all the IOD and BIOS voltages and names, one must scour reddit and all the forums, for Intel I can search in the Datasheet itself and find out myself.
Spunjji - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
Yes, you have posted this issue many times here. For Reasons.SunMaster - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
>AMD still isn't as mature as INTEL when it comes to baseline reliability and compatibility.Are you for real?
AshlayW - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
Let's also not forget the fTPM lag bug that's plagued Ryzen... forever. they only just ACKNOWLEDGED IT, let alone getting it fixed. My next platform will probably be IntelKhanan - Thursday, April 7, 2022 - link
You have no clue about Pc tech else you would know that Intel had numerous bugs and security problems as well, the latter way more than AMD. Good luck with your buying decisionsSpunjji - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
Oh boy, another off-topic complain about USB on Ryzen. You can always rely on some "person" to post one of these.Khanan - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
The USB problem you’re talking into something big was a big that only affected a small portion of users, don’t blow it out of proportion. And clearly your comment can be viewed as fan nonsense as Intel had its numerous own issues you’re completely ignoring here for your own sake. Suffice to say, PCs aren’t for noobs or people that want perfect experiences, they will always be a bit trouble and shoot.If you don’t like it, get a Apple maybe.
29a - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Thank you for including the iGPU tests. It would be nice to see a few more data points like 720p/high and 1080p/low.dwillmore - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
It's hard to take this article seriously when it compares processor prices when it spends more on memory for the Intel system than it does on the processor for the AMD system.lmcd - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
On the flipside, low-end boards for AMD are pretty lacking in IO. B660 boards are competitive with and often superior to X570 boards in IO.While obviously choosing a B350 board was my own fault (a couple years back), it's pretty painful to realize that the total available IO from my B350 board is already showing its age. There's tradeoffs here and you should acknowledge them.
lmcd - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Point being, you can't normalize platform costs when the platforms are out of step anyway. There's no good way to equalize these platforms.dwillmore - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
There are a range of motherboards for LGA1700. You can get Z690 MBs with either DDR4 or DDR5 memory slots. Sites have done comparisons between the two, we know that these Intel chips benefit from DDR5 and the IGP particularly benefits from it.There's no reason anyone sane would pair DDR5 with a low end i5.
Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
@dwillmore"There's no reason anyone sane would pair DDR5 with a low end i5", absolutely, and not one PC review site I'm aware has said this specifically, more generally focusing on the price premium.
Another area that get's my goat that has not been said by PC review sites is if u'r sticking with Windows 10 late market (I am) the choice is V5x, M3x, Comet top bin or 9900K and if you must have Windows 11 'adoptive adaptive then its AL/RL or wait for Zen 4 validation . . . so simple to express simply and precisely. mb
yeeeeman - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Finally a sign that Anandtech is coming back!I wanna see Exynos 2200 vs Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 analysis.
gal_shalif - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Please note that only the "big" cores can be counted for performance - while the "little" cores are only relevant for saving energy ...eloyard - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
If your workload has enough threads to cover all cores, it should still better to have them.Otritus - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
If this was the case, Intel would only put 2 little cores and call it a day. 4 little cores takes up similar space to 1 big core, but delivers around 1.5 big cores worth of performance. In single threaded tasks (web browsing and gaming) the big cores are preferred, but in highly multi-threaded tasks the little cores are a better option to boost performance.mode_13h - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
> 4 little cores takes up similar space to 1 big core,> but delivers around 1.5 big cores worth of performance.
It's actually more than that. According to the SPEC2017 estimates in the original Alder Lake review, a single E-core delivers 64.5% as much int performance and 54.1% as much float performance as a P-core. All while using only 1/4th the area and 20% of the power.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the-intel-12t...
Intel says the correct order for assigning threads, for max performance, is:
1. Load 1 thread on all P-cores.
2. Load threads on all E-cores.
3. Load an additional thread on the P-cores.
So, that puts E-core performance at somewhere greater than the portion of a P-core that you'd get by sharing it with another thread (i.e. via hyperthreading).
kwohlt - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
Little Cores are not for saving energy. Not really sure where this myth originated from. A little core cluster of 4 is used instead of a P core to maximize multithreaded performance in a given die space. Lightly threaded applications benefit from P cores, where as other applications want as many threads as possible, where E cores can boost those workloads.8+8 being top chip is because it's the first iteration. Intel will continue massively increasing E core count with each generation.
mode_13h - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
> Little Cores are not for saving energy. Not really sure where this myth originated from.Mobile, I'm sure. Intel calling them "efficiency cores" didn't help.
kwohlt - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
"Efficiency" is a value ratio. People wrongly associate it with total power draw, rather than the ratio of performance to power draw or die space. E core clusters certainly offer more multithreaded performance given the same die space and power draw as a P core.mode_13h - Monday, April 4, 2022 - link
> "Efficiency" is a value ratio. People wrongly associate it with total power draw,Right, but that inference should've been obvious to Intel. I think they really showed a lack of imagination, here. Or, perhaps other motives were at play.
mode_13h - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
Intel would've done better to user terms like latency-optimized cores and "throughput clusters". Because a single P-core will give you results with lower latency, while the corresponding 4-core tile of E-cores has higher overall throughput.Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
"latency-optimized cores and "throughput clusters". yes. mbthestryker - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Appreciate the thorough review and analysis of the benchmark results. One thing I think might be useful to add is a power consumption measurement during a gaming benchmark. While Intel's peak power consumption is quite a bit higher than AMD's I've noticed in some reviews that do power test lighter workloads Intel has been equal or better.I'm looking forward to seeing how the inevitable back and forth between AMD and Intel goes over the next few years.
lmcd - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
What I'd really like to see are benchmarks of AMD and Intel running at 65W modes (both checking that they're legit and checking performance). The small form factor community would greatly benefit.brantron - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
Imagine, if you will, a world where one CPU will be pegged to 1.4v and instantly throttle, one will behave as expected, and one will explode into a fiery ball of death because the motherboard's required combination of Doctor Strange hand signs were mistranslated from Mandarin.You've just crossed over into...the Manual Undervolting Zone!
thestryker - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
That could be really interesting to see how they perform at a capped TDP.edzieba - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
Power consumption for all benchmark runs would be great, possible just plotted into a single plot for all runs (power consumption on X, normalised benchmark performance on Y) to directly compare effective performance per joule. A task that completes faster at a higher power level than one that draws less power but takes longer may user less energy overall.Ryan Smith - Tuesday, March 29, 2022 - link
I've purged a good dozen comments this afternoon. If you want to have fanboy fights, please go somewhere else.In the meantime, if you find yourself calling another poster a shill, fanboy, etc, you need to take a step back before you hit "post".
eastcoast_pete - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
Okay, nice to know, but why isn't there even one test of a non-K AL i7 and i5 with the stock cooler? Not everyone will or can shell out the $$$ for a K CPU, a feature-rich and expensive 690 board, and an AIO water cooling solution, and what can one get for a more regular budget, and how much performance does the extra expense buy? Just wondering, might be worth an article.eloyard - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
That would paint a bit of a bad picture for Intel, as they're trying to pitch they have both affordable and top performance offerings in check.If you factor in whole platform cost, TCO, after available optimizations... bang for buck is a bit lacking.
mode_13h - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
Please use current pricing, in the benchmark charts. Otherwise, simply don't include them.Your charts show the 5600X as $299, but its new price is $230. The 5800X is shown as $449, but it's now $350. And the 5900X is listed as $549, but it's now $450.
Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17313/ryzen-7-5800x...
supdawgwtfd - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
That would show Intel in a worse light though?mode_13h - Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - link
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that it's a simple mistake. If you look at the conclusion, they seem to use street prices. So, I don't sense malicious intent.Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
"Intel in worse light' haha. V5x price and dGPU price is crashing at end run as channels accelerate clearance to refinance for restocking. Sometime this week I will have the new WW GPU supply data which has shown not miner returns but enthusiast returns and some Nvidia and AIB stuffing to drag down inventoried pricing. mbmode_13h - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
Somewhat off-topic: the top of my page is serving me an from ASML, indicating they're seeking optical engineers to work on EUV.Crazy. You'd think it would be a dream job for anyone with the proper skillset, but I guess their growth is outpacing the available talent pool.
Well, if anyone reading this thread knows an optical engineer, you might tell them to go have a look at ASML. I didn't check to see whether relocation would be necessary, but perhaps that's the catch.
mode_13h - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
"... serving me an ad from ASML, ...", I meant to say.milli - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
Peak power consumption is handy data but not very useful by itself.How about average power consumption during applications / games / ...
You also used to represent power consumption to complete a task, now that was useful data.
eloyard - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
Peak power is essential for understanding how robust power delivery system and heat sink need to be."Average is the only important thing" is typical Intel's bs pushing cost of more expensive components different than processor (mobo, psu, cooler) to the consumer.
mode_13h - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
> Peak power is essential for understanding how robust power delivery system and heat sink need to be.Yes and no. It really depends on the minimum duration over which a "peak" is defined. If we're talking about a couple milliseconds, then absolutely not. If we're talking about a couple seconds, then yes.
> "Average is the only important thing" is typical Intel's bs ...
I understand your point, but it's still relevant for people trying to determine which CPU will deliver the most performance per unit of energy. With increasing energy prices and the warmer months approaching those of us in the northern hemisphere, that's not merely a theoretical concern.
milli - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
Your post oozes fanboism.Firstly, I didn't dismiss peak power consumption (as you assume) but by itself it's useless. The graph doesn't even state how long it's holding this peak power consumption.
Secondly, where do I say "Average is the only important thing". Right, nowhere.
But if a CPU peaks 200W for 1s and then goes to 65W, I would like to know that. That's important data. It's data that Anandtech used to provide but stopped doing.
Mike Bruzzone - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
A look at Alder Lake Production data;i9s = 55.01% of all Alder Lake with 12900K @ 43.56% and KF @ 2.07% and 900 @ 8.92%
i7s = 34% of Alder Lake with 12700K @ 29.42% and KF @ 3.82%
i5s = 9.3% with 600K @ 3.13%, 600KF @ 1.5% and 400 @ 2.63%
i3s = 1.13% with no SKU greater than 1% of full line volume.
Pentium = 0.08%
Celeron = 0.45%
Alder Lake full line can be characterized, essentially, all i9 12900K and i7 12700K and remainder fall out from sort. Similar Coffee Refresh where most of full line volume are disabled i9s. Cores disablement is discouraged on industrial management best practice subject manufacturing cost optimization not incorporating the added production step to purposely disable that at bottom bin can drive cost > price, despite most bottom bin given away anyway cost : price averaged across the total sales package.
Analyst suspects OEM volume procurement price for Alder mirroring exactly the category percent supply is range $254 to $239 each per i9/i7 component calculated $1K Average Weighed Price of i9/i7 category / 2 and that all i5/i3/P&C are thrown in for free as sales package 'close' incentive.
Net cost of Alder at $1K AWP < Cost of Sales, < Cost of R&D, < Tax Accrual = $214.
Average Marginal Cost of production = $63.34 per component
Average Marginal Cost of fabrication = $25.88 per component
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing
Mike Bruzzone - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
Adding on Alder, there are supposedly two mask sets. The first a 215 mm2 full P+E and the other a cost optimized for area 116 mm2 P only. Not much has been said can anyone confirm these two mask sets and die area?mb
dwade123 - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
Already sold my 5800x for a 12900k. I will never buy AMD again and forced to beta test their crap for them for free.mode_13h - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
> I will never buy AMD againAMD is still growing and maturing. With that, their quality control should hopefully improve.
About 11 years ago, Intel suffered a similarly embarrassing problem, with the SATA controller in their Sandybridge motherboard chipsets. Had you forsworn never to buy Intel again, you now be up a creek without a paddle.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/4142/intel-discover...
Qasar - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
i still have issues with the intel systems i used to use. lan drivers on x58, and sata on x99. i solved those issues, buy upgrading tthem to ryzen based comps last year. no issues since.. even usb ones.Khanan - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
AMD was already very mature since Zen+, so if you had problems with 3rd gen products it is most likely your own issue. I used Zen 2 without any issues for 2 years now and Zen 3 is even better, millions of others will confirm what I say.Khanan - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
I wanna add: calling a product “beta” that millions of people love and regard just shows you’re living in a world of your own with full ignorance of what anyone else thinks. Good luckQasar - Sunday, April 3, 2022 - link
ignore dwade, if irememeber right, he loves intel only. and his posts usually bash amd in some way.i have 4 zen comps here, no isses as well.
Khanan - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
It’s puzzling to me why a Intel fan would buy a AMD product, I guess Intel didn’t live up to his expectations.Qasar - Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - link
my guess, he never really bought one, and is just making crap up, just to bash amd, and proclaim how much better intel is.Zim - Thursday, March 31, 2022 - link
There is something fundamentally wrong with the concept a processor with gimped cores. I for one don't intend to buy into it.mode_13h - Friday, April 1, 2022 - link
What do you mean "gimped cores"? Are you talking about the lack of AVX-512?Did you know that Intel has been disabling features on their desktop CPUs for at least a decade? Things like vPro, ECC support, and virtualization enhancements have been fused off and limited to people buying the Xeon-branded versions of the same CPUs.
AMD has also engaged in this, to a lesser extent, reserving ECC support for only their Ryzen Pro APU, as well as a few other features.
kickstnd - Saturday, April 2, 2022 - link
This almost seems to be an Intel Commercial. No mention of the extreme motherboard prices that won't be used for the next CPU, the larger Watercooling needed, the bigger power supply needed, and don't forget the Bigger Electric Bill to boot. You are paying out the A&$ for that little extra performance by not being GREEN.I run 3 AMD PCs for Folding@home (#5 on Toms Hardware Team). My utility bill is $450-500/month. I can't imagine how high it would be with Intel CPU spinning the meter.... LOL
DannyH246 - Wednesday, April 6, 2022 - link
Sadly most of Anandtech's articles are just that. Intel Commercials.MartyKinn - Wednesday, April 6, 2022 - link
Need opinions:Should I go for a Surface Pro X SQ1, 128GB/8GB for $700 over a Surface Pro 7+ Core i5, 128GB/8GB for $800?
I won't be using either for gaming...other than what's available in the Windows Marketplace.
The Pro X allows for upgrading the storage. Don't know if the Pro 7+ allows that.
mode_13h - Wednesday, April 6, 2022 - link
No idea. I'd read through every review of the X you can find and see if it sounds like it'll fit your needs. Running Windows on an ARM-based CPU still sounds a little risky, but maybe it'll pay off in better battery life? Just a guess.Good luck with your decision.
MDD1963 - Friday, April 8, 2022 - link
No offense, but....The reviews of these two CPUs seem just a tad.....'late to market'....!
romanmungo - Wednesday, April 13, 2022 - link
windows10/11 office 2016/2019/2021 Want to be our wholesaler?The best quality products and pre-sale and after-sale service, become our wholesaler, establish a long-term cooperative relationship, the greater the wholesale quantity, the greater the discount! ! !
mode_13h - Thursday, April 14, 2022 - link
Spammer.iranterres - Wednesday, April 13, 2022 - link
2-3% better on average then a Ryzen 5600X for twice the power consumption? Does not seem high performance for me.