AMD Discussion

[AidenShaw]

If Intel will not adjust their pricing, and solve their power consumption, its Intel who will be forced to build AMD compatible CPUs.

You're still carrying on about that discredited power consumption story?

And by "compatible", I mean CPUs that run the same instruction sets. You can't run code that exploits Intel features on an AMD CPU - they are not binary compatible.

I know you are AMD hater....

The last resort is ad hominem....

 

[cube]

And by "compatible", I mean CPUs that run the same instruction sets. You can't run code that exploits Intel features on an AMD CPU - they are not binary compatible.

? AMD adds Intel instructions incrementally. I think it is Intel who doesn't add AMD instructions (except the extension to 64-bit).

 

[AidenShaw]

? AMD adds Intel instructions incrementally. I think it is Intel who doesn't add AMD instructions (except the extension to 64-bit).

Where are the SGX instructions in the Zen CPUs?

 

[cube]

Where are the SGX instructions in the Zen CPUs?

I said incrementally, but AMD never has the latest Intel instructions.

If you want that, AVX-512, or good AVX2 performance now, you should buy Intel.

 

[AidenShaw]

I said incrementally, but AMD never has the latest Intel instructions.

If you want that, AVX-512, or good AVX2 performance now, you should buy Intel.

SGX and AVX 2.0 have been out since summer 2015 - the Zen processors just came out. Two years behind Intel?

 

[cube]

SGX and AVX 2.0 have been out since summer 2015 - the Zen processors just came out. Two years behind Intel?

Zen has AVX2, but the execution unit is half its width.

I think the delay is understandable given that the Zen engineering started like 5 years ago.

 

[AidenShaw]

I think the delay is understandable given that the Zen engineering started like 5 years ago.

But frustrating for software vendors, and damaging to AMD's market share.

We're developing products based on SGX, and we have to say "for Core 6 and later - no AMD CPUs supported".

 

[cube]

But frustrating for software vendors, and damaging to AMD's market share.

It has always been like this, not much of a problem that the latest instructions are not there for most users and even developers.

You should look at the Steam hardware stats and be amazed at the kind of machines people are still playing with. The common baseline for Linux and Windows is SSE2. For Mac, it is SSSE3.

 

[cube]

I see Blender uses AVX2 for rendering, yet it was the application AMD chose to showcase Ryzen. Probably not heavily, then.

 

[koyoot]

You're still carrying on about that discredited power consumption story?

And by "compatible", I mean CPUs that run the same instruction sets. You can't run code that exploits Intel features on an AMD CPU - they are not binary compatible.


The last resort is ad hominem....

Discredited?

I think you should read something more than just Intel and Nvidia marketing material.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/-intel-skylake-x-overclocking-thermal-issues,5117-3.html
This article is continuing the in depth dive at power consumption of Intel CPUs. In this page they prove that the CPU peaks at 230W at stock settings, without Overclocking.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/22
Dual Xeon 8176 - 451W of power consumption.
Dual Epyc 7601 - 321W of power consumption.

If you will take out one Xeon 8176 out of equation you will end up with power consumption level of dual Epyc CPUs.

So not only Epyc is faster in most tests than Intel CPUs, it is cheaper, because for the price of single 8176, you can buy two Epyc CPUs.


I suppose all you can remember my previous posts about Threadripper pricing. Well, it leaked.
Top-end 1950X with 16C/32T - 999$.
https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-to-cost-999-usd
Will be actually interesting to see the efficiency of those CPUs.

It balatantly obvious right now that Threadripper CPUs are made on 14nm respun process, with 15% higher efficiency than Ryzen has been.


Edit: Rumors from Retail supply lane: There is a chance AMD is lowering prices, because they are making room for... Ryzen 7 1900X. One CPU that is supposed to be top-end in Ryzen 7 lineup, that is made on new 14 nm process.

 

[cube]

It balatantly obvious right now that Threadripper CPUs are made on 14nm respun process, with 15% higher efficiency than Ryzen has been.

Edit: Rumors from Retail supply lane: There is a chance AMD is lowering prices, because they are making room for... Ryzen 7 1900X. One CPU that is supposed to be top-end in Ryzen 7 lineup, that is made on new 14 nm process.

I imagine Epyc, Threadripper, and Ryzen PRO all use the same new dies.

 

[koyoot]

I imagine Epyc, Threadripper, and Ryzen PRO all use the same new dies.

Its possible.

 

[cube]

Is FMA4 officially supported on the new die?

 

[koyoot]

Is FMA4 officially supported on the new die?

It appears that yes, it still has FMA4. The design is the same. Ryzen had FMA4 support, altho undocumented, but working.

 

[cube]

It appears that yes, it still has FMA4.

Ryzen has FMA4, but not officially. It may be buggy.

 

[cube]

Just immature BIOS ?

 

[cube]

AMD introduced AVX in 2011 with Bulldozer, the same year as Intel.
AMD introduced AVX2 in 2015 with Excavator.

Intel does not have FMA4, even if they invented it.

Skylake-X brings part of AVX-512 to the desktop.

 

[AidenShaw]

AMD introduced AVX in 2011 with Bulldozer, the same year as Intel.
AMD introduced AVX2 in 2015 with Excavator.

Intel does not have FMA4, even if they invented it.

Skylake-X brings part of AVX-512 to the desktop.

The XOP (eXtended Operations[1]) instruction set, announced by AMD on May 1, 2009, is an extension to the 128-bit SSE core instructions in the x86 and AMD64 instruction set for the Bulldozer processor core, which was released on October 12, 2011.[2] However AMD removed support for XOP from Zen (microarchitecture) onward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XOP_instruction_set

Is that messy, or what? Zen isn't compatible with Bulldozer!

 

[cube]

Well, almost all of 3DNow! was also removed a long time ago.

 

[cube]

16-core TR seems a bit like a deal as it's probably more expensive to make than 2x 1800X.

12-core is quite a bit more expensive than 2x 1600X.

 

[koyoot]

Each wafer costs AMD around 7500$. In the end, AMD is getting 99% yield with 90% fully functional dies. Each die costs AMD around 40$. Total cost of packaging, testing, soldering etc for Threaripper is around 95$.

So you get pretty good markup anyway.

AMD can afford to sell Ryzen 7 1700 at 250$. Intel cannot afford to sell even 6 core 7800X at that price point because each die costs them 175$ to make. Mainstream Core i3/i5/i7 costs Intel around 45$ to make.

This is very reason you see FUD from Intel marketing over AMD CPUs. AMD is capable of winning any price war with Intel. And they already do. Baidu is going from Intel to Epyc CPUs, totally.

Now you might also know why AMD can afford to sell 8 core Epyc CPU for 485$. Because total manufacturing cost of this CPU is 200$. From design perspective when you look at broader picture, Infinity Fabric, and decision to go with scalable performance was complete masterpiece from AMD design team.

 

[cube]

Let's talk again when you can buy the top 8-core TR for $380.

 

[koyoot]

Let's talk again when you can buy the top 8-core TR for $380.

Im not sure there will be 8 core Threadripper .

 

[cube]

Im not sure there will be 8 core Threadripper .

If there's not, it will be a mistake.

Kaby Lake-X is not a mistake, just poor execution.

Of course in AMD's case, we are talking about true TR.

 

[cube]

1700X for $290 at monoprice.