All right guys, how’s it going? It’s been another bad week at Intel. And in this video, I will cover the reasons for that, going over why the tech community
is having a bit of a meltdown. And, on top of that, I’ll be taking a look at
Threadripper and EPYC, and analyzing what it all means.
So this could end up a long video. Before I get started on all the new stuff, here’s a quick recap
of the current CPU situation. We’ll start off with Intel. The way they segment the market is: You got all your i3, i5, i7s — all on your Z270. The basic desktop platform
is comprised of all those CPUs, stuff like the 7700k, which would be considered
the highest-end one. That’s your i7 and your i5-7600K. So this is all based on the newest architecture, which was Skylake, and then kind of re-branded into Kaby Lake, which is basically just Skylake
on a slightly tweaked process for higher clock speeds. So, that’s actually their most advanced CPUs, coming in between 2 and 4 cores, and also — of course — 8 threads with the i7 7700K. Now after the desktop segment is their high-end desktop segment (HEDT) comprising of their Broadwell-E CPUs. At the top, you got the 6950X, which is 10 cores; you got the 8-core 6900K in there; and then two 6-core i7s: the 6850K and the 6800K. Once again, based on
their Broadwell-E architecture, which is actually their previous
desktop architecture. So that’s how Intel does it. The new architecture goes to the desktop, first of all, and then—generally speaking—a year later or so moves on to their high-end desktop. The same architecture with more cores. So that covers everything between 2 and 10 cores. Intel, of course, has even higher core count CPUs
—again, based on Broadwell— and, of course, these are their
Xeon-branded server CPUs, which—as of today, the fastest they have—
is the 24-core Xeon E7-8894 v4 (that really rolls off the tongue, that one) coming in at only $9,000. That is not $9,000 per server;
that is $9,000 per CPU. And here we can see 2.4 GHz with an all-core turbo of 2.8 and a one-core turbo of 3.4 GHz. In the server market, this one-core stuff is not really that important. Servers are, of course, all about throughput: basically, how fast you can get all those cores; and TDP (or performance/watt) is, of course, also very, very important. So that was just a summary of Intel’s
current CPU lineup. Now, moving on to AMD,
whose CPUs are a bit fresher in the memory. They’ve just got over the disaster that was Bulldozer, and they’re currently in the middle
of the Ryzen releases. They started off with the Ryzen 7 series: 8 cores, 16 threads, which went into direct competition
with Intel’s Broadwell 6900K CPUs. That was very much “win some, lose some” but there did appear to be an issue
with Ryzen’s gaming performance. From the start, I said
that this was not a CPU problem, it was an optimization problem. And over the past 2 months or so,
I think that’s been proven. There’s no reason to believe that Ryzen can’t be
very close to Intel in gaming. But then they launched R5s with the 1600X and R5 1600 in particular being very popular with gamers for their 6 cores and 12 threads at the same price point as Intel’s 4-core i5s. They also had a quad-core there,
the R5 1500X, and there is a 1400 as well. Neither of these CPUs really impressed me, but they are certainly better than an i3 and pretty much on par with Intel’s non-K i5s. So, like I said: AMD is in the middle of this, getting rid of all of their old Bulldozer architecture CPUs. And we’ll soon see R3s, and APUs are coming as well. And those look very nice. But what was much more interesting was
something I had predicted about 1.5 year ago in my “The future is Zen” video, where I said that there really wasn’t anything stopping AMD from releasing
a 16-core CPU on the desktop as well. And it wasn’t long after the initial Ryzen reviews before we started hearing rumors of an X399 platform: AMD’s own high-end desktop platform to compete squarely with Intel’s. AMD’s newest 16-core, 32-thread Threadripper coming in to battle squarely with Broadwell-E. 16 cores vs 10 cores… looks like a bit of a foregone conclusion. If you’ve been following this so far, you will, of course, know that it’s not quite that simple: Broadwell-E was launched a year ago. And, like I said, about one year after launching on the desktop or mobile, they generally update their high-end desktop CPUs to the same architecture. So Broadwell is on the way out, and we soon caught wind of Skylake-X. As you can see here, between 6 cores and 10 cores. So, that was pretty disappointing, as it was simply the same
as the current Broadwell-E core count. In addition to that, we also got Kaby Lake on the high-end desktop platform. Only 4 cores, though. Immediately, people looked at this and said, “Intel, what the hell are you doing?” Kaby Lake-X at 4 cores and only up to 16 PCI-E lanes? This was clearly the same Kaby Lake CPUs we have on the desktop. And on the slide we can see that it’s a 112 Watt CPU, which is well up on the 91 Watts of the desktop Kaby Lake i7s. A bit later we discovered that,
yes, the CPUs do have 100 MHz more, but they also come without the integrated graphics —as you might expect on an X-series platform. None of these Intel high-end desktop CPUs come with integrated graphics. But this was clearly going to be a major issue, especially for motherboard guys, who were told that all Kaby Lake-X and Skylake-X CPUs must work on all X299 motherboards. Now, I don’t wanna go into
the details of motherboard manufacturing, but stuff like PCI-E lanes can make a massive difference to the cost of a motherboard. And we can quite clearly see here that Skylake-X has up to 44 lanes, while Kaby Lake was stuck at up to 16 lanes. That’s because the Kaby Lake CPUs were only designed with 16 PCI-E lanes And there are even more issues because Kaby Lake’s memory controller is only capable of dual-channel or single-channel mode, whereas the high-end CPUs
are capable of quad-channel. So, all this together is adding a little bit of a nightmare for the motherboard guys, and it’s gonna lead to a massive amount of confusion. But, even with that, you might think that’s not a huge problem, it’s only between 4 and 10 cores, anyway. Right? Wrong! After Ryzen released, Intel decided to update
their high-end desktop count to 12. My guess here is that they probably felt that the 10-core options were simply not good enough value in the face of Ryzen. I mean, there are actually cases
where the Ryzen 7 1800X, with its 8 cores and 16 threads is almost a match for the 10-core Broadwell-E, which is a $1,700 CPU. So, again, another 10-core high-end desktop CPU? There is simply no way that anybody would buy that. So Intel decided that 12 cores would be the new limit on the high-end desktop. Isn’t competition just great? Then, a couple of weeks ago, at AMD’s Financial Analyst Day we saw something very, very interesting. And something that has changed
the CPU landscape forever. When Ryzen 7 launched, one thing in particular wasn’t that highly discussed, and that was just how efficient Ryzen was compared to the Intel CPUs. And in almost every case, in performance/watt, Ryzen 7 was well ahead of Broadwell-E, core for core. So, after that, I was sort of looking
for one thing in particular. And 2 or 3 weeks ago, during
Mark Papermaster’s presentation —like I said, at AMD’s 2017 Financial Analyst Day— one slide in particular caught my eye. And it was this one. “Infinity Data Fabric delivers near perfect scalability.” This one kind of went under the radar as well. And, in actual fact, it’s really talking about EPYC—AMD’s server CPU. But what this shows is that AMD is capable of scaling almost perfectly, all the way from 16 cores up to 64 cores. Now, that simply means that, if a 16-core CPU scores 1,000 points in something, then the 32-core CPU should score 2,000, and the 64 should score 4,000—that kind of thing. This, of course, assumes that
clock speeds remain consistent. Now, this is a pretty difficult thing to do because—obviously—the more cores you have, the more difficult maintaining those clock speeds is. Remember (going back to the Xeon)
the E7-8894 v4, a massive 24 cores but only capable of 2.8 GHz on all of them. And that is the turbo, so there will be some loads where it actually falls down below 2.8 and maybe even closer to the 2.4. And all of that is in a 165 W package, which is actually very, very impressive. But make no mistake about it: These Xeons, this one in particular, is incredibly rare. This here is the very best silicon that Intel can manufacture. That’s why it costs $9,000. And at 24 cores, it must be an absolutely massive die. I got information that the 10-core Broadwell-E was around 250 mm². So, a 24-core CPU on the same architecture, more than double the cache, cannot be all that far away from 500 mm². CPUs of this size are not very manufacturable, and CPUs this size, able to maintain these kinds of frequencies are very, very rare, indeed. So that’s how all this works. Here we can see a die shot of a 20-core Intel CPU. I believe it’s 20 cores; however, 2 of the cores are clearly a lot different from the rest. Not entirely sure what that’s all about. But if you imagine, all of these 20 cores, in order for them to pass a certain standard of CPU, every single one of those cores needs to be capable of it. So, if you had 19 cores, let’s say 19 of these cores could do 3 GHz, but the other one could only do 2.4 GHz, then this could never be a 20-core 3 GHz CPU. This last core would let the whole thing down. In a case like that, all Intel would do: fuse off this core and another, and sell it as a 3 GHz 18-core CPU. But there’s more to it than that:
some are lower power as well. So looking at this, you should be able to see that this 24-core Broadwell, you might even
be talking 1 in a 1000 CPUs; I simply don’t know.
But there’s not gonna be many of them this good. So, what’s the relevance here? Well… The relevance here is: every one of these CPUs is comprised of the same Ryzen 7 die. Ryzen 7 is about 200 mm². So these 16-core CPUs would actually comprise
of two of those 8-core CPUs. And, obviously, the 32-core CPU would comprise of 4. Once you get to 48 and 64 cores, you’re now talking two sockets. In other words, 2 CPUs on the one motherboard. And how AMD is able to do this is due to their Infinity Fabric. which, in a nutshell,
is the interconnect between the cores, on both the CPU itself and between CPUs. I’ve already shown the Ryzen 7 die shot a few times. We can quite clearly see both core complexes, each comprising of 4 cores. In an 8 core CPU, the Infinity Fabric ties those cores together. And in a 16-core CPU, for example, like Threadripper, which, as you can see here, is a massive CPU, the Infinity Fabric ties those
together at the same speed. It’s almost like two CPUs acting as one. And right here, in this shot of the EPYC package,
you can see 4. 4 of what is effectively Ryzen 7 CPUs all tied together through the Infinity Fabric, effectively acting as one CPU. Now, those of you who have been
following my channel for a while have almost certainly seen my “Master Plan” videos, which was very much focused on graphics. But now we can see that the Master Plan was
really all about CPUs, all along. But AMD claiming near-perfect scalability is all well and good, but you should never trust
a marketing slide from anyone. Demos, on the other hand, I do tend to trust. And last week at Computex, we finally got our first real demo of Threadripper. 16 cores, running Blender. And here it is. “So let’s jump in. So, this is Blender, and you may remember that image,
that’s the Ryzen processor that we unveiled in December and rendered 8 cores and 16 threads. You see in the upper right-hand corner a massive amount of threads. There, in the Windows Task Manager
you see 32 threads. So, let’s run the render! I’m gonna have to talk fast, because
this thing is so incredibly fast that this render completes in the matter of seconds. So, immediately, it peaks all 32 threads, and just an incredible amount of horsepower running the latest Blender app.” 13.04 seconds to complete the render. Now, this is actually running a different version
from the version they used previously when demoing the Ryzen 7 CPUs. This is version 2.78c, whereas the previous version was 2.78a. But I downloaded v2.78c. You can do that as well,
Blender is free and open source. On my 1800X and 3.2GHz memory, the render completed in 24.24 seconds. Now, it’s not quite perfect scaling. Had it been perfect scaling, then Threadripper would have finished in 12.12 seconds. So this makes me think that Threadripper
—16 cores, 32 threads— the highest-end one, at least,
may be running around 3.5 GHz, compared to 3.6 GHz of the 1800X. Now, there is a couple of reasons for doing this. 1800X is a 95W CPU, and it does draw a bit more power than that due to XFR running 3.7 GHz on all cores. As a high-end desktop platform, X399 and Threadripper do use a bit more power. Rumors have suggested around a 150W or so. Now, the Threadripper CPUs will be higher quality, at least in terms of performance/watt compared to the Ryzen 7, probably even the 1800Xs. Which are, of course, the tech of the desktop CPUs. But remember: on the desktop we are basically getting the worst silicon possible. And then the high-end desktop silicon should be better —unless, of course, it’s Kaby Lake X
you’re talking about— and then, finally, the server CPUs are easily the pick of the bunch, as discussed. So, what we could be seeing here is: the highest-end Threadripper, 3.5 GHz, good quality silicon, coming in around 150W TDP. 16 threads at 3.5 GHz exhibiting almost perfect scalability compared to the Ryzen 7s. Now, we know that Ryzen 7 scores over 1,600 points in Cinebench R15. So, we can reasonably expect Threadripper to score over 3,000 —or at least pretty close to 3000. And last week, again,
we saw a demo of a 4.5 GHz overclocked i9-7900X (that’s the 10-core Sklyake-X) overclocked to 4.5 GHz. And it only scored 2,419 points in Cinebench R15. Looking at that, it should be blatantly clear that the 10-core Intel CPU has no chance of getting even close to Threadripper. And if the 12-core CPU does 4.5 GHz, it might get close, but this 10-core CPU is already $1,000. And i9-7920X, Intel hopes to command $1,200 for that one. It’s just not gonna be good enough. There is simply no way that Intel can win this fight with their 12 cores against 16 cores. And they know it, because at Computex Intel announced that Skylake-X, previously designed for 6-, 8- and 10-core CPUs —recently upgraded only to 12 cores— will now also be available in 14, 16, and 18 cores. In other words, these monster dies, huge chips that Intel was saving for the datacenter, they have now been forced to offer on the high-end desktop platform as well. But does it even matter? Now, let’s take a look at the Xeon E7-8867 v4. This is, of course, Broadwell-E with 18 cores and an all-core turbo of 2.8 GHz. 18 cores, 2.8 GHz, and a 165 Watts TDP. 18 cores at 2.8 GHz? Now, let’s just run that one through a calculator: For Broadwell, we’re gonna assume
a roundabout equal IPC. So, 18 cores multiplied by 2.8 would give you a total of 50.4 . Threadripper, 16 multiplied by 3.5=56. So that’s still Threadripper around 10% ahead. And the Xeon currently sells for… $4,672. This is the best 18-core CPU that Intel can manufacture. And they can command $4,500 for that. Now, looking at this slide from Intel, they only intend to charge $2,000 for the Skylake i9-7980XE. Again, 18 cores, 36 threads, and it will pretty much be the same clock speeds or, more likely, they’re gonna be forced to run it up to 200W, simply in order to beat Threadripper. And, before I continue,
let’s be clear here: Over at ASUS, one of their guys made the claim that the 18-core CPUs are not scheduled until next year. So they won’t have them for a while. This was edited to say that they are not scheduled until later this year, but they still won’t have them for a while. So, Intel, in complete disarray and panic are announcing 18-core CPUs, Because, let’s be frank here. They know that their 16-core CPU cannot defeat Threadripper, so they are forced to sell these these high-end, extremely expensive server CPUs on the high-end desktop. And there is simply no guarantee that they will be able to beat Threadripper, anyway. The X299 platform, from 4 cores, all the way up to 18 cores, different memory setups, different numbers of PCI-E lanes, nothing, but a confusing, panic-ridden mess. And it’s all for nothing, anyway. You already saw the Threadripper CPU package. And there’s EPYC CPU package, and while EPYC is 4 cores, Threadripper is only 2. But the socket is pretty much the same. 1 or 2 differences, but there is literally nothing preventing AMD from selling 32 cores or 24 cores on the desktop. And think about this because a CPU like the R5 1600, 6 cores, 12 threads, 3.2 GHz base clock and a 3.6 turbo with a 65W TDP. Even this bog-standard Ryzen 5 1600, all AMD really needs to do here is get this down to 50W, which can be done by simply using better silicon (easily done) or simply drop this base clock down to 3 GHz. 24 cores of $220 worth of CPU. So, effectively, you’re talking
less than $1,000 worth of CPUs, easily, easily faster than the 18-core Skylake-X, which Intel believes will be charging $2,000 for. And if you remember what I talked about: all those cores, they all need to hit that speed. Every Ryzen 7 that isn’t dead is capable of running 3 GHz on 6 cores. All of them.
Yields must be near 100%. And, most importantly, it’s here now. This isn’t about the future. Skylake-X is the future.
Probably 6 months away. The Master Plan is here, now. Threadripper, when it gets released, will easily be the fastest desktop CPU. I mean, yes, sure, it’s gonna lose in gaming. Obviously the 6-core Skylake
is gonna be the fastest gaming CPU. Maybe, if it can overclock as well as the 7700K can, then that one should be the fastest CPU. But this is not about gaming. Nobody really is buying these CPUs for gaming, and if they were, they’re not gaming at 1080p, which is the only resolution that CPUs actually matter at. And, in actual fact, would probably be gaming at 4K, at which point the lack of PCI-E lanes is likely to be a barrier towards full GPU performance. We are talking extremely high-end stuff, and the fact is: these high-end desktop CPUs they really are much more about throughput. So, that’s Threadripper. And it will not lose to anything Intel currently has, or anything coming really soon. In servers, it’s just gonna get worse. We don’t have details on clock speeds, but based on what we can see with Ryzen, 8 cores at 3.6 GHz and around 100W; Threadripper: 16 cores at 3.5 GHz, around 150W, there is little reason to believe that EPYC, with its 32 cores and 64 threads will not be capable of 3 GHz while remaining under 200 W. EPYC is coming later this month, and it will be clearly faster than the Xeon E7-8894 v4. If they need to go head to head at 165W, they will still be clearly ahead. They got so many more cores, even 32 cores at 2.4 GHz, it should be more than enough
to beat Intel’s $9,000 flagship. The Infinity Fabric has made all this possible, and, in fact, this has been made possible because AMD had nowhere left to go. Intel can create multiple different dies. Huge dies for servers, tiny dies for mobile and the desktop. Each one of these cost hundreds of millions to develop, and AMD simply could not afford it. The only thing they could do was, start from scratch, a clean slate, and look at how they could create a CPU that expanded their entire portfolio. And this is a CPU that we first saw as Ryzen 7. And it is the Master Plan. It is just superior in every way. AMD doesn’t need to get 28 working cores at 3 GHz, they simply need to get 8 cores at 3 GHz on multiple different dies. Much smaller dies, much cheaper to manufacture dies much higher-yielding dies. At the very worst,
they are set to make an absolute fortune at Intel’s expense. And Intel is really in trouble here because, unbelievably, (and as AMD has been saying from the start) this is only the beginning! The first CPU on a process that was designed for mobile phone chips, remember? That’s what Global Foundries’ 14 nm is. The first Ryzen CPU has basically defeated years of Intel CPUs —massive CPU on a high-end process, CPUs that used to sell for almost $9,000. I’ll catch you later, guys.

You’re beaten, Intel.
Tagged on:                                                                                                 

100 thoughts on “You’re beaten, Intel.

  • June 23, 2017 at 9:11 pm
    Permalink

    Well, people argue that reinventing the wheel is bad.
    That's what AMD just did, except they made a wheel that fits their situation. Now Intel gets raped.

    Reply
  • June 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm
    Permalink

    I have a intel 4k gaming rig, but I want amd to do very well. Competition brings down prices and that is great for us… the consumer. Plus intel has gotten sued by the ftc for anti competitive practices on amd, intel had to pay amd 2.5 billion dollars.

    Reply
  • June 24, 2017 at 12:12 am
    Permalink

    that accent is amazing

    Reply
  • June 24, 2017 at 1:01 am
    Permalink

    Amd gonna do to Intel what Intel will do to your bank balance

    Reply
  • June 24, 2017 at 3:10 am
    Permalink

    Video Summary:

    Intel got rekt by AMD

    covfefe lake

    Reply
  • June 24, 2017 at 7:15 am
    Permalink

    intel marketing strategy :

    *our product sucks, but we release our product earlier than AMD, so our fans who already bought our CPU and won't buy AMD.

    Reply
  • June 24, 2017 at 7:21 am
    Permalink

    They are far from beaten. Just like in the past, they'll regroup and dominate again.

    Reply
  • June 24, 2017 at 10:12 am
    Permalink

    Maybe soon AMD will rule and do an "Intel" on pricing as Intel will not be able to compete! haha, how the tables are about to turn!

    Reply
  • June 24, 2017 at 4:01 pm
    Permalink

    trust me, I like AMD, but their processors and graphics cards are just too expensive in Romania compared to the competition

    Reply
  • June 24, 2017 at 7:00 pm
    Permalink

    EPYC Fail, Intel

    I'm sorry.
    Really.

    Reply
  • June 24, 2017 at 7:28 pm
    Permalink

    what is this language? I understand it but it's like I'm in a Lord of the rings movie

    Reply
  • June 24, 2017 at 8:45 pm
    Permalink

    AMD is leapfrogging Intel so badly I have doubts Intel will ever recover since the mainstream market is moving in the direction of ARM so by the time Intel does come back with something great ARM will be the leading platform.

    Reply
  • June 24, 2017 at 10:34 pm
    Permalink

    Let's wait for Coffee Lake I bet it will tear Ryzen apart and maybe there will be Xeons for it.

    Reply
  • June 25, 2017 at 7:56 pm
    Permalink

    @AdoredTv How many cores do You think they will be able to stuff in this socket with the 7nm process? I also believe that AMD EPYC line, the highest chips at least will likely drop around 20% in price OR better are 20% more than what they should cost…the 32 coreX should cost 3200us$ and not 4k same for the single socket version , should cost more like 1600US$ rather than 2000….do You think that AMD adopted this pricing strategy to force intel to state pricing for they 16 and 18 core cpus, and then lower pricing , knowing that Intel usually does NOT practice price cuts even on legacy xeon CPUS….what do You think, is it possible that at AMD they are deliberately wanting to cripple Intel as much as possible in order to avoid Intel buying out Nvidia and possibly compete on the consoles market?

    Reply
  • June 25, 2017 at 8:12 pm
    Permalink

    Like just form that amazing accent.

    Reply
  • June 27, 2017 at 6:38 am
    Permalink

    "AMD released it's first ever halfway decent CPU.. INTEL IS DEFEATED"
    Sounds like AMD faggotry to me, lolol

    Reply
  • June 27, 2017 at 9:13 am
    Permalink

    We have known all this for years. Intel have had the facility to turn on sleeping cores when someone offered some decent competition.
    So now Intel is switching them on. Big deal. I am AMD, I have always been, but for 4 years AMD have messed up. So I bought Intel, had to.
    That's 4 years of Intel taking the piss out of the customer. The customer is not stupid and I will not be buying Intel any more unless AMD mess up again.
    So Intel? Why did you turn those cores off? All you have done is make me dislike you more. Thats NOT very INTELigent.

    Reply
  • June 27, 2017 at 4:55 pm
    Permalink

    Bulldozer is not a mistake or a failure, it's an innovation. It's what they learned in the adventure that lead to what is happening right now with Ryzen and even more Threadripper and Epyc. Making manufacture more modular, optimizing branch prediction, better core interconnection, make their processors less expensive and have better multithreaded performance. Their experience with ARM also gave them knowledge how to integrate SME, even if the result is needing faster DDR4 clock, it's awesome to see AMD caring about security when Intel compromise our security with Intel ME/AMT.

    Reply
  • June 27, 2017 at 6:52 pm
    Permalink

    In theory the cost of an AMD CPU is about an 1800x times however many cores you need.

    So a 16 core CPU could cost about $1000.00 retail. So about half the price of an Intel 12 core. Whoops.

    Reply
  • June 28, 2017 at 4:44 am
    Permalink

    Yo.. and to think I was just about to build a 2000 dollar sort of cool intel..

    But now it's starting to sound like I can build a 2000 SUPER AMD!

    Reply
  • June 28, 2017 at 5:51 pm
    Permalink

    wtf is that abomination? Scottish or Irish?

    Reply
  • June 28, 2017 at 5:54 pm
    Permalink

    The result of lack of competition, Intel sat on it's ass counting money and got lazy. And now Intel got caught with it's pants down by AMD.

    Reply
  • June 29, 2017 at 9:35 pm
    Permalink

    The good thing is that the ryzen came out, and its a good cheap processor.
    The bad thing is that after the video card boom, i cant get an afordable card…

    Reply
  • June 30, 2017 at 12:18 am
    Permalink

    "AMD Master Race

    Reply
  • June 30, 2017 at 6:19 am
    Permalink

    Looking forward to retiring my x79 rig.

    Reply
  • June 30, 2017 at 7:49 am
    Permalink

    Ryzen has 80% yield rates. It's very very high.

    Everything you said makes perfect sense if the turbo of the 18 core i9 is below 3.2ghz. We'll have to see

    Reply
  • June 30, 2017 at 9:10 am
    Permalink

    This is why competition is a good thing. Not only has intel had to go back an release higher performing chips they'll also have to drop the prices.

    Reply
  • June 30, 2017 at 11:03 am
    Permalink

    Could listen to this guy reviewing grocery market soup.

    Reply
  • June 30, 2017 at 4:54 pm
    Permalink

    Another AMD fanboy fap page. Enjoy your slow computers.

    Reply
  • July 1, 2017 at 12:59 am
    Permalink

    On top of things, the current X299 boards can't handle overclocking due to very poor VRM cooling. The famous overclocker and Caseking.de employee der8auer tested the boards and found severe VRM issues, apparently due to Intel not giving board manufacturers enough time to properly test their products. We're talking about 100c+ temps, severe throttling, etc. His advice was not to buy an X299 board for the next few months – people should wait for new, fixed boards.

    Threadripper was a massive fucking surprise to Intel, and now they're in full-on panic mode. I'm glad there's finally proper competition again, but somehow Intel still found a way to fuck the consumer over.

    Reply
  • July 1, 2017 at 1:15 am
    Permalink

    AMD is nowhere near beating Intel. You're stupid for putting such propaganda nonsense without any benchmarks to prove your point. I';ve seen the benchmark test and AMDis getting better but no where near the performance of Intel. Back up your BS with facts not theory.

    Reply
  • July 1, 2017 at 4:25 pm
    Permalink

    love it how you say "K" , keee

    Reply
  • July 1, 2017 at 10:23 pm
    Permalink

    holy shit threadripper wwtf

    Reply
  • July 2, 2017 at 3:31 pm
    Permalink

    In the picture where you show the i9 7900X overclocked to 4,5 GHz, the program in the picture actually says 3.32 GHz, is the program reading the CPU speed wrong or did you make a mistake?

    Reply
  • July 2, 2017 at 7:58 pm
    Permalink

    23 minutes of Apu.

    Reply
  • July 2, 2017 at 9:07 pm
    Permalink

    Great video AdoredTV!

    Reply
  • July 2, 2017 at 9:50 pm
    Permalink

    I couldn't understand about a half of what's been said, but I've still enjoyed listening to dat accent

    Reply
  • July 7, 2017 at 8:05 am
    Permalink

    I personally couldn't be happier, I've waited for this moment for a long time, been forced to use Intel CPUs has been painful and expensive. Hope Intel as a company falls to pieces over this, greedy fucks.

    Reply
  • July 8, 2017 at 12:36 am
    Permalink

    The Ryzen Threadripper 16 core is a massive MCM. I don't really see that as a desirable object. Just wait for a single chip solution. You can always use MCM to jump ahead of the current technology, but what is the point? If you bought a server MB with two sockets, and loaded a single chip 8 core in each, you get to the same performance. Probably cheaper.

    Reply
  • July 8, 2017 at 2:02 pm
    Permalink

    i am SO glad that AMD is putting out good stuff now! I would like to see them beat the Intel over priced re-branded stuff in to the dirt! My net build will be a AMD 7 CPU and a Vega GPU.. Much more affordable and works just as good if not better.

    Reply
  • July 8, 2017 at 2:05 pm
    Permalink

    Intel is in desperate mode. And by the time they get something to match AMD's new CPUs.. AMD will have come out with the next generation of Ryzen! LOL so funny I am loving seeing Intel squirm! BUY AMD Stock Guys! Because they will be over taking INTEL in everything soon!

    Reply
  • July 9, 2017 at 11:33 pm
    Permalink

    AMD shows that when as restricted in options as they have been especially financially, they are forced to innovate, wheeas Intel shows that when you get complacent and have limited restriction then you are less likely to be innovative. I can see Intel copying infinity fabric though on future CPUs, with the consumer cores being the single die chips and the E, X and Xeon chips being the multi die versions. Seems that its just lucky for intel that AMD don't have the same  money or market share as them, as it seems the innovation seems to be coming more from AMD in recent years than intel

    Reply
  • July 13, 2017 at 8:15 am
    Permalink

    Oh dear jesus …….. https://segmentnext.com/2017/07/12/amd-epyc-processors-intel/

    Reply
  • July 13, 2017 at 12:47 pm
    Permalink

    dam you can almost hear him fapping as she drools over the fact amd have finaly made a decent cpu… well i guess hes making up for all the years of blue balls.

    Reply
  • July 14, 2017 at 1:07 am
    Permalink

    Intel is getting raped lmfao

    Reply
  • July 14, 2017 at 8:34 am
    Permalink

    Wait, AMD cpus are more powerefficient than Intel's? This is definitely a very bad omen for Intel…

    Reply
  • July 15, 2017 at 5:00 am
    Permalink

    This is my new favourite tech channel on YT.

    Reply
  • July 17, 2017 at 4:01 am
    Permalink

    I can't even find the ways to express how happy I am for AMD to be back!!! It seems I came back into PC life at the perfect time. First- with the RX series- which came out just as I was looking for a graphics card for my first PC in 12 years. Then directly after- AM4 for my second PC! AMD is tearing it up across the board, from lower end graphics cards- all the way up to high end business class servers.. . Kudos AMD

    Reply
  • July 20, 2017 at 4:20 pm
    Permalink

    AMD is kicking Intel's ass right now, i love it!

    Reply
  • July 22, 2017 at 1:19 pm
    Permalink

    I have a Zambezi 8150 and its at 4.9(oc) and i don't see what your guys are talking about it being a shitty chip. I does everything I ask of it. There is not one single fucking game I cant play just fine in 1440p or higher with the 1080 paired with it! On high settings. to boot. For gaming it is a good chip especially if you can get a decent used one! I got mine for 80$ used. I already had a spare UD5 board. I bought 16 gigs of 1866 memory for it. I had the case, power supply, and hard drive already as well. Games are multi thread support any how. Stop with the IPC bullshit single core shit. Games rely on core count and frequency period!!!!!

    Reply
  • July 22, 2017 at 3:28 pm
    Permalink

    I've been building AMD systems exclusively for the last 16 years due mainly to price point. My next build will be a Threadripper system, no question about it.

    Intel will not be "out" for long. They are still the power house in CPUsss

    Reply
  • July 24, 2017 at 3:17 am
    Permalink

    Check this out AMD Threadripper 16Core vs a 20 core Xeon.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U9Gj8Vklgg

    Reply
  • July 24, 2017 at 8:06 pm
    Permalink

    Just a thought, but if you went big today on an Intel system it would last you what 4 years. Take a threadripper and goto town with it today, and its gonna last you a decade……. Time to change the rules 😀

    Reply
  • July 24, 2017 at 10:55 pm
    Permalink

    Thank you for a great talkthrough of what's to come. My next rig will be AMD, for sure!

    Reply
  • July 27, 2017 at 4:48 am
    Permalink

    Intel be like trolololo
    AMD be like lol, infinite fabric
    Intel go NOOOOOO!!!!

    and then Navi happens and NVIDIA gets the spectacular BDSM spanking that they deserve

    Reply
  • August 5, 2017 at 5:13 am
    Permalink

    intel sucks,…!

    good to hear others aware of this age old fact

    Reply
  • August 11, 2017 at 6:29 am
    Permalink

    Great analysis. I knew this was coming already in 2012 when AMD rehired Jim Keller. The guy is a legend, just look him up. He's (co)responsible for AMD K7, K8 (including the first consumer 64bit processor ever, Athlon 64), first two Apple SoC, Tesla autopilot software and hardware, x86-64 architecture, Hypertransport and now Zen. They must have been already working on a completely new architecture very shortly after the release of Bulldozer. In the meantime, Intel has been milking their iX lineup and especially our pockets just for making a smarter decision to go for higher IPC. Go AMD!

    Reply
  • August 13, 2017 at 5:55 pm
    Permalink

    Lol, the comments. I somehow doubt that Intel's been blowing that $12B/year R&D budget on strippers and booze. They probably have a lot of tech squared away, and now they will probably bring out the big guns to win their crown back.

    Exciting times.

    Reply
  • August 15, 2017 at 11:06 am
    Permalink

    You know what? Instead of getting a CPU for 9000, why not invest it in 9 computers with gear and monitors and make a living off a gaming house? Fuck you scum Intel.
    Nvidia atleast innovate and don't use anti-consumer practice as much.

    Reply
  • August 17, 2017 at 7:55 am
    Permalink

    What an absolute shit accent, I hope you die soon dude, please.

    Reply
  • August 18, 2017 at 11:03 pm
    Permalink

    Aaaand 7800x basically sucks 1600 balls now. Sad but true.

    Reply
  • August 19, 2017 at 1:44 pm
    Permalink

    Is this just a channel for AMD lovers?

    Reply
  • August 25, 2017 at 8:05 am
    Permalink

    Cinebench is not worth to mention. It scales locked to available logical CPU cores. It does not use CPUs to its full potential.

    If you set Cinebench to use all availaible Threads on a HT enabled CPU, it will achive the maximum and much higher score. But if you set Cinebench to 12 threads on a 6 Core CPU with HT disabled, it will only achieve a score like a 6 Core CPU with HT enabled and Cinebench set to 6 Threads. (At that point, cinebench makes no sense. HT on Intel CPUs does not implement extra ALUs. It only allows to split a physical CPU Core into two logical CPUs) If you use more threads than logical CPU cores, it should perform better. (So the pipeline gets filled and all ALUs can be used without buffer underruns/ stale) Or identical to a CPU with HT enabled. Even if HT is enabled and you use the double amount of available logical CPUs, you should get a performance improvement. It is not a useful benchmark. The scores are a joke.

    Reply
  • August 28, 2017 at 11:10 am
    Permalink

    Subbed and liked extremely well explained thanks for the info

    Reply
  • September 8, 2017 at 7:42 am
    Permalink

    sex core i7-6850k

    Reply
  • September 13, 2017 at 9:53 am
    Permalink

    If you get Ryzen you can get a B350 motherboard (which allows overclocking) & 1 or 2 2666mhz ddr4.

    Ryzens are supported fully in Windows 10. Ryzen does work with Windows 7 but not with its newest instruction sets (this won't affect most people).

    To install Windows 7 with Ryzen you need to use a ps/2 mouse & keyboard (the installation won't detect USB devices). Other solutions:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/11182/how-to-get-ryzen-working-on-windows-7-x64

    Asus and Gigabyte list Windows 7 32- and 64-bit drivers on their sites for ryzen.

    This ASROCK ryzen board has two ps/2 ports & drivers for Windows 7 USB devices (also compatible with an AM3 clip-on heatsink)
    http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/AB350M/index.asp

    If you want RAID and M.2 NVMe you add those after windows is installed. The method to get it to boot from NVMe is to clone your working SATA drive to NVMe using Macrium Reflect once you have the missing NVMe drivers installed.

    How to migrate your Windows drive to a new motherboard:
    http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/making-sure-windows-7-will-boot-after-changing-the-motherboard/

    Linux now works with ryzen. I recommend Mageia, PCLInuxOS, OpenMandriva or openSUSE in that order. Try the GNOME versions.

    Certain AM4 boards have a DVI port as there are AM4 non-ryzen APUs (the boards have no onboard graphics).

    Intel's new Coffee Lake CPUs won't use the z270 chipset (made by Intel) so won't work with the Sky/Kaby Lake 1151 boards. Angry users:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt-oA4x776A

    A gaming reviewer on Amazon wrote of his Ryzen 3 1300x: "its snappier than the i3 4170 its replacing and games are running smoother, I cant say frame rates are much higher but its more consistent with less drops and stuttering. Farcry 4 and The Division seem to be running at a much more solid 60 fps now with 4 physical cores instead of 60 with drops down into the 30s and 40s randomly with the 2 core 4 thread of the i3."

    Someone with an Intel G4560 & a Ryzen 1200 wrote: “I own both of these cpus and believe me, g4560 slows down a fucking lot after 2 weeks of usage due to the antivirus and other stuff, and with ryzen I can even listen to the music on twitch in full hd, have 3 more chrome bars with tutorials for csgo/lol champ builds and much more while still sustaining stable and better fps than the g4560".

    Someone tested a ryzen 3 1200 with an nvidia 1050ti in a few games. The card was at 100%. The CPU was at 50%. My guess is that an i3 or a g4560 would have been more at 90-100 than 50%.

    People who have moved from an i7-7700 to a ryzen 1700 have written on how pleased they've been.

    One person, who claims to have 35 years' experience of PC building, wrote that they couldn't get their modern (Ryzen) motherboard to detect an SSD for installing Windows 7. They blamed it on the Ryzen motherboard & I think sent it back. Others with different CPUs have had the same problem but found the correct way of getting their motherboard to detect it. Lots of people have installed Windows 7 on an SSD. 35 years ago is 1982. In 1982 the only people who had PCs were businesses.

    Reply
  • September 16, 2017 at 12:34 am
    Permalink

    @15:00 You nailed it for Threadripper crushing Cinebench with a 3,000 score!
    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11697/90026.png

    Reply
  • September 25, 2017 at 7:15 pm
    Permalink

    Adored, please do a video on how the big players acquire/implement/influence CPUs (aws, azure, ect)

    Reply
  • September 26, 2017 at 2:21 pm
    Permalink

    I'm still an nvidia fanboy on graphics but man AMD just destroyed Intel and I'm so happy. Intel was pissing me off with their overpriced 4-core cpus. I refused to upgrade from my 2600k. Ryzen and Threadripper are amazing and it's so much fun whitnessing Intel's frantic behavior.

    Reply
  • October 1, 2017 at 11:48 am
    Permalink

    So, its a few months later, and reviewers have shown that the high core count Intel CPU's can get to 5~ish Ghz on the right cooling. Intel still have the performance crown and the advantage of clocks and IPC.

    AMD have the advantage on price, and performance/$. They have the advantage of more IO for less $, and Intel has (yet) to counter the R7 1700, though they likely will with the release of the 8000 Series CPUs. AMD will have to answer with Zen+ and Zen2.

    AMD have the advantage of price, and budget-conscious enthusiasts will still go with them (typing this comment from a 1700) but Intel Beaten? Not yet.

    AMD are now viable as a CPU option.

    Reply
  • October 5, 2017 at 3:28 am
    Permalink

    So thread ripper is a pentium D

    Reply
  • October 20, 2017 at 8:35 am
    Permalink

    Threadripper – name sounds badass.

    Reply
  • December 24, 2017 at 1:32 am
    Permalink

    Chiming in here, long time Intel user, dumped my system and got a Ryzen 7 based system. Really happy that AMD is back in the game.

    Reply
  • January 7, 2018 at 2:31 pm
    Permalink

    0:07 "The tech community is having a bit of a meltdown"… You knew all along…

    Reply
  • January 15, 2018 at 7:42 am
    Permalink

    Few months later the newestxenon which somehow have a better price per performance ratio on some od them? Atleast from ehat i've seen… Correct me if im wrong

    Reply
  • January 16, 2018 at 5:59 pm
    Permalink

    you sound like paul mcgillen

    Reply
  • January 31, 2018 at 3:25 pm
    Permalink

    Can't stand Channels that don't shoot their own videos and just steal graphics..

    Reply
  • February 7, 2018 at 11:39 am
    Permalink

    do you guys understand how companies work… No competition = no innovation

    Reply
  • March 8, 2018 at 3:41 pm
    Permalink

    Haven't had an AMD in years …just bought a 1950X ! Was simply a no brainer.

    Reply
  • May 19, 2018 at 7:13 am
    Permalink

    Unless its kaby lake u r talking about lmao

    Reply
  • May 19, 2018 at 7:17 am
    Permalink

    Imagine epyc chips at desktop quality with hedt prices!

    Reply
  • June 12, 2018 at 3:40 am
    Permalink

    great video ,one of the channel that spouted facts and truth and not intel shill like Linus tech tips or Jayz

    Reply
  • June 13, 2018 at 12:56 pm
    Permalink

    I like how Jim's videos become more relevant over time.

    Reply
  • June 16, 2018 at 10:43 am
    Permalink

    2018 i9-7960X Skylake X 2.8 ghz 16 core $1399 on newegg
    2018 i9-7980XE Skylake X 2.6ghz 18 core $1879 on newegg
    2018 AMD RYZEN Threadripper 1950X 3.4ghz 16 core $749 on newegg
    The pain is real!

    Reply
  • July 8, 2018 at 11:32 pm
    Permalink

    Good call Jim! On AMD having 32 cores. Almost 1 year later it happened. I guess The Scottish Hammer pounds out the predictions again! NostraScottsman!

    Reply
  • July 22, 2018 at 8:33 pm
    Permalink

    Interesting how a year later, this info was spot on. BRAVO

    Reply
  • July 28, 2018 at 5:57 pm
    Permalink

    INTEL! Xeon v2
    For now!
    They still rule.
    Price wise,and qua performance.

    Reply
  • September 4, 2018 at 12:25 pm
    Permalink

    Greedy people always wasting millions to save a nickle. Bad management has become the American way.

    Reply
  • October 1, 2018 at 2:33 pm
    Permalink

    While I agree intel has stagnated, they still kick ass over AMD for video gaming and I'm betting there are 100x as many video gamers than there are reviewers making videos about cinebench scores. What all these youtubers don't realize is that 99% of the population isn't doing any video editing so 4 core or 10,000 cores it doesn't make gaming, word, excel, chrome, COD, Crysis, Wolfenstein, Prey, etc. any faster. That being said, Intel needs to fix their fabrication process issues and every processor should have at least 64 PCIe lanes.

    Reply
  • October 8, 2018 at 1:32 pm
    Permalink

    You got really close, but didn’t really drive home the significance of smaller dies. You can model it with some formula, it’s in a text book I have – I don’t remember it. But you basically randomly distribute dots. Anything hit by a dot is a dead chip. The larger the chips the larger odds of a defect. Smaller cores mean you might have the same number of dots (defect rate) but many more good chips.

    We know intel has been plagued by yield – even still. They will have to do something like this. 500mm2 and larger dies is just crazy.

    Reply
  • December 31, 2018 at 9:28 pm
    Permalink

    AMD be making Big American V8s IN MAH COMPUTER.

    Reply
  • January 27, 2019 at 8:15 pm
    Permalink

    What do you mean this powerful CPU (Talking about Ryzen, not Epyc) can't even play in 1080p? I thought with great optimization, it could use GPUs and get enough performances for 1080p-1440p? I understand AMD's CPUs are made for rendering, but I still don't understand.

    Reply
  • January 28, 2019 at 2:50 pm
    Permalink

    Love this video 👍🏻

    Reply
  • March 3, 2019 at 10:33 pm
    Permalink

    I've been an AMD fan for year but people changing teams (including the tech channels, websites, writers… etc.) are sort of bashing on Intel bit too late. There's going to be a lot more innovation and performance improvements on the market so I think it's exciting AMD is doing so great.

    Reply
  • March 31, 2019 at 3:03 pm
    Permalink

    9900k is £500
    LoL big losses for intel shares again.

    Reply
  • April 5, 2019 at 1:55 pm
    Permalink

    Lol. Some people is still gaming perfectly on 3rd gen I7 cpu's without problems. Easily achieves 60fps or even +100fps with newer GPU's. So, if AMD wins, or not, it only means you will achieve 140fps at 1080p instead of 130fps. Really, cpu's for gaming, and most office work a 5th, 6th or 7th gen I5 or I7 easily works perfectly. Stop wasting money. I upgraded, the idiot I am, from a older i7 to an 8th gen i7. Absolutely no difference accept in benchmarks and the "new feeling".

    Reply
  • May 15, 2019 at 4:55 pm
    Permalink

    9:39 For anyone wondering, that's an 18-core CPU. The two "cores" that look different are the memory controllers. Right now, Intel has three main dies for non-desktop CPU's – LCC, HCC, and XCC. LCC dies have 10 cores, HCC dies (pictured in the video) have 18, and XCC have 28. These dies are where HEDT and Xeon processors come from.

    That's why going from 10 cores to 12 cores is non-trivial for Intel HEDT processors – they have to jump from the LCC die to the HCC die, which is both more expensive overall due to the lower yields, and also cuts more heavily into Xeon profits when used for non-Xeon products.

    Reply
  • July 16, 2019 at 5:33 pm
    Permalink

    I agree, Intel have stabbed us in the back plenty.
    AMD is not completely loyal to the U.S. market, They do a little business with China.
    As you can imagine, That reduces my performance slightly when I try to make love to AMD
    We shall see where things go from here.

    Reply
  • September 26, 2019 at 2:57 am
    Permalink

    Who says this Intel BS is authentic? AMD Shill!

    Reply
  • October 29, 2019 at 10:40 pm
    Permalink

    Man, this video aged like AMD Fine Wine

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *