Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 21 Feb 2020.
I'd dispute this, mainly because workloads that take advantage of large numbers of cores or threads (>4, even >2 for most cases) - regardless of whether that is a threaded application or running of multiple applications - are less common than workloads that take benefit from high single-thread performance. Especially for day-to-day use for anyone who is not doing CPU video rendering or heavy simulation.
And this is something people can test! Set up the following Data Collector Set in perfmon:
Add a counter for Processor Time for each logical core (i.e. double the actual physical core count for SMT processors), you need to do this one by one rather than use the 'All Counters' option. Remember to start the Data Collector after setting it up.
This will log once per second (or more or less if you want) your actual core utilisation. After running for a few days, you can then check the logs and see how many of your cores are actually doing work, and how many are basically just sitting unused. Because the log is over time, you can also see if 'bursty' workloads are something that is commonly pegging all cores, or just some cores.
New socket, new board, two more cores.
AMD - from 8 to 12 and 16 cores on the same board.
That's the bit that gripes my arse with Intel absolutely more than anything. Two cores at a time, whole new board needed.
This isn't the same as it used to be, where people would buy every new CPU they make with a new board every year. The landscape has changed dramatically.
I don't understand why they can't forward plan and make a board with a bigger socket with more pins that they know would be capable of supporting their future CPUs.
Well no, I do understand, it's greed as usual. The thing is I don't get why they do it even being greedy, because if they made one chipset that lasted three years they'd still sell them for three years to new buyers, and they'd probably sell more CPUs as more people would buy them.
It's funny how out of touch they are. They're still convinced they're totally winning but are just deluded.
It's all just going to push people to AMD. Especially now that all of the shill bots on YouTube have now all completely switched to AMD and have told kids that basically AMD offer the best value and performance.
Have they not even noticed something as silly as this? Does not one single one of them have a job checking social media and reactions from users?
The answer to all of that. Clearly no.
I don't watch many of Adored's videos because he's clearly a raging AMD fanboy and contrary to what people may think of me I don't like that. But his last video is very telling. It's all about egoes and how Intel are totally deluded.
Oh well. I don't know why I bothered to even prod all of that on my phone. It won't make any difference. I mean, Intel made netburst p4s and survived.
Two CPU-and-chipset gens per socket has been the case for a decade now, feigning surprise over it is just silly.
As for why, note that 3 gens in AMD is already dealing with fragmented compatibility (older boards not supporting newer CPUs, newer boards not supporting older CPUs) due to a combination of spec changes to support new features (e.g. CPIe4 signal routing requirements) and lack of BIOS storage capacity to hold microcode updates for the entire range of potentially installable CPUs. It's a lot less consumer pain to communicate "if you have board X or Y, then you can use CPUs from list Z" vs. "if you have board X or Y, then go check with your manufacturer who may or may not have added/removed support at some point in certain BIOS revisions, and maybe google for some forum posts because said manufacturer may or may not have actually communicated this anywhere officially".
Social media has vastly less influence on purchasing than people assume, especially compared to traditional advertising routes (TV, in-store posters, corporate direct sales, etc).
These 10th gen products are just gap fillers anyway because you occasionally need to release new products...
because the really new stuff (Foveros, glue a bunch of different cores together) isn't just ready yet.
To be fair though a CPU (the actual cores) typically spend most of their time doing nothing even when software reports that they're at 100% usage, most of the time they're waiting on other parts of the system to supply them with what they've requested from their caches, ram, drives, GPU, sound, etc.
The time a CPU actual spends on executing instructions typically makes up a rather small percentage of the pie, most of the time it's waiting for other things to happen.
EDIT: I think this was the video i was looking for.
Yeh, they're having such a terrible time of late, I'm amazed they've not folded already....
Intel reports record financial results for Q4 and 2019
Most of that cash is coming from OEMs, laptops and so on.
Sure, it'll keep them in business the same as it did during the netburst years, but PC gaming is now a hot commodity. Very hot. Not from guys like us but kids, who now want gaming pcs for Christmas. I flat out refused to cooperate with my cousin over Xmas when her (imo) spoiled kid said he wanted a gaming pc.
She didn't listen to me nor take my advice so I just let her get on with it.
Any way, where was I? Gaming.
Going back to YouTube I'll say that I did some basic maths earlier and between them the channels I know about have around 17 million subs between them. Every single one as of today (because I checked) is recommending only AMD at nearly every level and price point unless you're a flicker 240hz gamer.
That's going to have some impact no?
I never even so much as hinted that they were in trouble or that they were about to go bankrupt, but are much worse than they could be if they listened and paid some attention.
They've spent 31 million dollars enabling AMD. In fact, they're doing about everything they can to shoot themselves in the foot.
As I said they'll force through that with brute ignorance as always but yeah, a little research and some listening would go a long way. Companies who listen and deliver what people want always do better than those who are pig ignorant, especially with channels like Gamer's nexus around who don't profit from them much at all and will even buy things out of their own pocket just so they can be brutally honest about something.
To not acknowledge a huge area like pc gaming in this day and age is daft. Just as daft as that time Blockbuster didn't buy Netflix because they didn't think it had a future.
But Intel ARE the best gaming CPUs. They might not be the best value, particularly for budget builds, but they are the best performing. They don't care much about the enthusiast market because it is tiny compared to oem and servers and they are still top dog for gaming performance anyway.
AMD and tech sites have led us down the garden path with "ooo, look at the multithreaded performance in cinebench5000. Oooo". That's not gaming, that's workflow/professional performance that mean little to nothing for gaming performance. 99% of the time the gpu will be the bottleneck in the system. For those times it is the CPU, it's turn based games and performance of your machine won't affect your performance, or your gpu is spitting a million frames a second at the CPU, so it's not exactly going to be sluggish.
For AMD to pull 1ghz out the hat will be nigh on impossible. Even if they do they'll still be behind because Intel will have pushed theirs even further. Plus Intel are enabling HT on everything now too, so they can't even hold core count over them.
Intel do as little as possible to keep ahead. They do what they have to, not what they could do and certainly not what we want the to do.
Yeah, this can't be repeated enough really. Doesn't matter how hot a market PC gaming is, it's small beer compared to where Intel make their real money.
Also PC Gaming includes plenty of Laptops and Pre builts...
and yeah, if everyone on this forum ordered 10 AMD CPUs just for the sake of it that still wouldn't equal one order Intel gets from say Dell.
Well I bought a Ryzen laptop for the good lady. Take that Intel.
TBH what with the endless cycle of mitigations and mitigations of mitigations that didn't work when Intel first mitigated them I was adamant she was having Ryzen.
That kind of malarky I wanted to avoid on the laptop she'll have for a while.
As for desktops, I game at 1440p and the biggest difference between Intel and AMD are pricepoints at this resolution, not framerates.
*shakes Magic 8-ball*
At 1080p, with stupid GPUs, with stupid refresh rates if you are a competitive Esports gamer.
Any way, I shall leave it there. I'm not here to argue over why Intel are being so stupid. They are, and they have been for years.
I didn't have time (nor the inclination tbh) to respond fully to everything yesterday (nor do I today, I've got a banging headache) but I will say that the comment about "It being like that for about ten years" needed a response.
It's been like that for about ten years, since AMD were no longer competitive, since socket 775 was around for years, ETC ETC. Things have changed.
Sure, not all AMD boards will support all three gens of Ryzen but that isn't down to AMD. That is down to board manus, VRMs and build quality etc. Oh and a good BIOS team. If you bought well and you bought wisely (say CH at launch) you should have no issues. If you skimped out on a board with no VRM cooling and crap phases? well that's hardly AMD's fault.
In fact, the only foot they have put wrong, IMO, is Threadripper. It's beat to bring out a whole new board and etc especially with the price of the boards. Then again, I can't see my 8 phase board supporting the 64 core chip and nor would I want it to lol.
In other words what I am saying is the landscape has changed, so the very fact Intel are carrying on like they did when AMD weren't even really in the game is ludicrous.
So, you were saying..... Please, please tell us how intel absolutely dominating the market for at least 10 years is being stupid?
I don't want to say it, but you're becoming "him" again.
I love listening to people discussing low level code like this. Thanks for the video
Who peed in your Cheerios?
Have a word with yourself.
True, but orthogonal: if a given workload is limited by threading issues (idling waiting for the results of a prior task to complete a subsequent task), adding more cores will have no affect on total completion time.
Separate names with a comma.