HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

> Are the recent AMD CPUs generally better for their price than Intel ones, and are there any downsides? My personal context is compiling programs,

Oh boy, are you in for a nice surprise. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-37... the Ryzen 7 3700X (323 USD) stands its ground against the i9 9900K (485 USD). The top end is not even funny, there is no consumer Intel CPU that can stand against the Ryzen 9 3900X (499 USD), the LGA 2066 workstation chips that can are double, triple the price. Or, to put it another way: at the same price the 3900X vs 9900k it is 32% faster when compiling the kernel. Passmark https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-3900X-vs-In... shows no less than fifty percent. Right now the 3900X is in such a short supply it sells for 700-ish on eBay. This will resolve in a few months -- there's a 3950X scheduled for September with 16 cores instead of 12 cores, slightly lower base clock (3.8 vs 3.5) but slightly higher turbo clock (4.7 vs 4.6) tightening the screw on Intel. Of course, it'll have a "halo" price at 750 USD but will compete, again, with Intel workstation chips double the price (and much higher TDP as well). Intel is in deep... and they have nothing to counter with, Comet Lake-S is only scheduled for next year, this roadmap was posted just a few weeks ago: https://www.techpowerup.com/img/Gouh8r91rj9vR7FV.jpg and these are just words, there is no guarantee whatsoever they will be able to ship 10nm in mass market quantity ever.

Ps. Intel's workstation (HEDT) strategy is a mess anyways -- https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9900K-vs-Intel... they essentially have nothing to offer between 485 USD and 950 USD which of course right now hits them with a vengeance because they can't just take a 700 USD CPU, bring it down in price a bit and make it into a 3900X competitor. The LGA 2066 platform was nothing but a mess ever since launched, watch this video from 2017 highlighting the problems with LGA 2066: https://youtu.be/TWFzWRoVNnE

⬐ kreetx

Thanks - and wow! I had heard that they are good, but not this good. Since price per performance is pretty much what I always look at then AMD looks like a clear winner.

Some time ago I had just had a discussion on CPU choice with a friend and I think he went with Intel (citing something vague about "less problems"), and unfortunately I didn't look anything up then. It is sad in how little the general public knows about what is the best choice at any given moment and how long it takes for this knowledge to spread.

⬐ belltaco

The only downside is that Intel CPUs are better for gaming, especially if you pair with a high end GPU and high refresh rate monitors

⬐ kreetx

But are they really better? I.e if the CPU can have any cost then maybe, but if looking at any performance level where both AMD and Intel are present, then AMD is always cheaper?

⬐ chx

Not if you go 1440p+ where the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

⬐ hencoappel

Only slightly, like 5% between the 3900x and 9900k. And if you're not gaming with a 2080ti you're likely to not even notice the difference between a similarly priced Intel/AMD chips. If you do anything else other than gaming though the Ryzen chips blow Intel out of the water.

Like I have written in the other thread already: add to that the ECC support of Threadripper [0], 20 more PCIe lanes and no raid key shenanigans (on Intels x299 you have to pay 100$ extra for RAID 1 and 300$ for RAID 5 support with their VROC feature [1]). Unless you really need AVX 512 and better single thread performance (and 2 more cores in case of the not available 18 core part), why would you buy Intels new offering? Because you can reuse the cooler since it's compatible with x99?

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6icdyo/amd_threadrippe...

[1] https://youtu.be/TWFzWRoVNnE?t=11m38s

⬐ calafrax

It is important to note that this is the launch retail price.

AMD's design is cheap and high yield so they can cut prices a long way.

⬐ aphextron

>on Intels x299 you have to pay 100$ extra for RAID 1 and 300$ for RAID 5 support with their VROC feature [1]

This really bothers me about Intel. It's not like they have a separate die for these chips. They are literally charging you to flip a switch on something you already paid for.

⬐ andrewstuart2

Not that I really agree with their decision, but to play devil's advocate: they are essentially creating multiple products without having to waste effort and resources on creating separate dies, and without you having to throw away money (e.g. selling your used board) to get new features.

My money says that they were probably set on multiple product levels, and some engineer said "hey, we can be less wasteful here by creating only one board." So now you can pay $100 to unlock RAID 1 whereas before you would've had to either pony up before you needed it, or sold your used $500 board for $350 to buy the new $600 board with RAID.

Again, not saying I agree with the decision to charge for RAID when it's obviously included already, but that it's probably at least less wasteful than the alternative of actually having separate dies.

⬐ infogulch

You have this backwards. Well, mostly. Having a separate die is definitely not the other option. A separate die would cost millions of dollars to develop, test, and produce separately, even for a smallish feature like this. The resulting price hike to cover the R&D would push the product even farther out of the competitive market than they are now.

No, the only two options are the ones Intel and AMD have already taken: artificial segmentation via feature flags, or just opening it up entirely.

I don't really like the artificial segmentation thing but I can't seem to reconcile that feeling with my feelings on software licensing, which doesn't bother me but can be the exact same thing.

⬐ tdb7893

The artificial segmentation I don't like because I view it as a market failure. In a more competitive market they probably wouldn't be able to segment it like that

⬐ kajecounterhack

If it makes you feel any worse both AMD and Intel provide cheaper chips by disabling cores on more expensive chips.

To me it's fine -- it's just a method of manufacture. No different than buying different versions of software.

"They are literally charging you to flip a switch on something you already paid for." << To be clear, physically you have the thing in your possession, and you could physically figure out how to flip the bit or re-enable disabled cores (people do try this). I'm 100% for that being legal since it's a physical device -- no DRM for me. But I'm also 100% OK with them doing this to begin with if it makes it cheaper for them to give me their base product.

⬐ bjpbakker

So you're saying no to DRM (which I fully agree on). But hen you seem to say DRM is fine if it makes products cheaper.

That's basically you hopping onboard with DRM. It's always the excuse of manufacturers that their DRM makes things cheaper or more secure (the latter is what Intel used on its ridiculous ME).

⬐ kajecounterhack

It's not drm if you're allowed by law to circumvent it when you know how. At that point it's obfuscation.

⬐ Veratyr

Don't they generally disable those cores because they have more flawed silicon?

⬐ Grazester

Yes.

⬐ pacificmint

They didn't used to do that. I feel that it became more and more common the less competitive AMD became, in some kind of direct correlation. (Not that this is some kind of big surprise)

So hopefully the fresh wind and competition that AMD is bringing forward will put the pressure back on.

Fairly recent benchmark with cards dropping nothing from 16x to 8x : http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2488-pci-e-3-x8-vs-x16-per...

Linus Tech Tips has a rant about how Intel is trying to segment the market by only offering more PCI-E lanes on the most-expensive CPUs despite mobo support with their new X299 platform (they've done this in the past as well): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWFzWRoVNnE

Basically, if you want the full 44 lanes, you have to get the top-spec processor for $1k ($1k for the cpu itself). The i9s above the 7900x don't even have details yet, since Intel is working on adapting their Xeons to their new HEDT platform to keep up with AMD. Here's the breakdown: https://www.cinema5d.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Intel-co... I've also heard speculation that they're crippling the lanes on cheaper chips because they're so worried about cannibalizing their server market. Don't expect ECC support on these either. Honestly, if any Xeon BIOSes and CPUs supported unlocked multipliers, they'd be a better deal, but I get that overclocking and max stability don't really mix. OR they could totally wow everyone and come out with some 5.0Ghz (all-core) 16-core chip that isn't overclockable any further but can run ECC. Sell THAT for $2k to workstation users and rich gamers. Make it 2P capable as well in case you need 32 cores. Maybe AMD will do it with ThreadRipper, which BTW has 64 PCI-E 3.0 lanes ( https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/Computex-2017-AMD-Thre... ).

relevant for people who don't know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWFzWRoVNnE

the funnier version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xah84cJwdxE

http://i.imgur.com/EZ6LyI1.png

http://i.imgur.com/tbwNbdh.png

EDIT: by mistake I originally linked this video I had in my clipboard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5scez5dqtAc

I just can't believe they chose the 18-core 2018 Intel vaporware chip [1] over this year's 16-core AMD Threadripper. Very strange decision on Apple's part. Not to mention they could've sold the iMac Pro for like $1,000 less.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWFzWRoVNnE

⬐ knd775

Thunderbolt.

⬐ redtuesday

Yeah, probably the biggest reason. Maybe this will change when Thunderbolt will be royalty-free next year. AMD has the advantage of being the only company on this planet which can combine a high performance x86 CPU and high performance GPU.

⬐ fliptables

I'm kinda hoping for Thunderbolt PCIe cards that aren't tied to a specific brand or board. Would be nice to just throw an x4 or x8 card into an existing system to get one or two TB3 ports for stuff like external storage.

⬐ None

None

⬐ BenzinNZ

I believe that OSX is optimized for Intel's brand of x86 - might have been too much effort to switch vendors when it comes to future kernel support.

⬐ dom0

macOS does not seem like an OS that has been optimized much at all in regards to the CPU.

Also, Apple dragged macOS from PPC to x86; switching x86 implementations is no big deal for the rest of the world, it surely should not be a challenge for Apple.

⬐ floatboth

Yeah. People have done AMD Hackintoshes. It's more likely that they have some agreement with Intel that prevents them from going AMD for the CPU.

⬐ endorphone

18 core Xeon chips have been available for 3+ years. There is nothing particularly odd about Apple's choice -- AMD has not been a serious competitor in the workstation market for years, and even with their newest entrant are only nipping at the very bottom of the market.

⬐ masklinn

Also, no Thunderbolt from AMD.

⬐ Quequau

I confess that I am really not fan of this person and I find his videos off putting and really difficult to get through.

Has anyone come across any other source making similar claims?

⬐ rakshithbekal

Its common sense. Source or not do you really think Intel would have introduced a new line of products if it weren't for AMD? The price cuts also seem to be reflecting that. Intel just arent as innovative as they used to be and it seems that they are now trying the adapt to situations so they arent at a disadvantage. Linus makes honest videos, and his opinion sure might not be everyones cup of tea but atleast he isnt afraid to bring attention to the elephant in the room.