AMD Ryzen 5000 IPC Performance Tested: Everything at 4GHz

[Avro Arrow]

it was full of ironie we hace to respect the actual better company. now its not the intel but intel was very long time good. we are talking about more than a decade.

Intel had just illegally crippled AMD with their criminal actions so they looked good compared to crippled AMD. Intel wasn't good for a decade, they came out with Sandy Bridge and sandbagged everyone for a decade. AMD wasn't able to do anything because Intel kept dragging the courts along over the years about its criminal activities.

It wasn't until the European Commission finally said "enough is enough" and convicted Intel. Once that happened, AMD took the lawsuit money, combined it with a good chunk of ATi's R&D budget, hired Jim Keller, created Zen and came all the way back in less than four years. Imagine where we'd be if Intel really WAS good. We'd be at least four generations ahead of where we are now.

Don't be so ready to applaud Intel's actions during the new millennium. Intel makes nVidia look like an absolute angel in comparison (and that's no easy task!). Jim from AdoredTV has the most accurate and in-depth analysis of Intel's activities over the past couple of decades:

The Intel has never been the better company. They just had a better product than their only competitor that they had illegally wounded.

That's like when Commodorus stuck a knife into Maximus before they fought in the movie "Gladiator". Not exactly the most admirable of actions, eh?

 

[tellmewhy]

If Zen3 has better IPC than Zen2 then it’s a mystery why Zen2 (same cores, Ghz and nm) performs not just better but a lot better than Zen3 in wPrime benchmark...

 

[Indekkusu]

Intel had 4 years to get there act together with the first warning shot fired with a lackluster Ryzen 7 1800 which had horrid IPC and single thread performance. What has Intel done since? Fail to deliver again and again for 4 years and still no comprehensive strategy for side channel attacks. This all shame on Intel. Moar cores mantra by AMD wasn't a winner but when AMD single core can clearly win against Intel on single core it is game over for Intel. This was 4 year slow moving train wreck in the making. Now AMD get to gouge people with higher prices and absent product nowhere in stock. The price war that should have happened never occured, and now it is even less likely. It all just stink all around!

 

[Irata]

I bought a few hundred bucks of AMD around/before Zen 1 when it was at $15 per share "just for lulz." Even after that, it was still a good buy considering it was hovering around $20-$30 around 2018-2019 and it's now at like $70-80 per share.

Same here...got 30 AMD shares at slightly below €10/ share (so total with commission was about €300) for my kid‘s first portfolio to show him that investing could have good returns.

Boy, was that a good learning experience.

 

[yeeeeman]

There are only two companies that make x86-type CPUs for the consumer market so being "comfortably in second-place" is like saying "comfortably in last-place". Sure, they can be comfortable there because it's not like VIA is coming up behind them.

Again, there are only two companies involved so how can you be in "the middle of the pack" when there's noone behind you?

Your point about the Intel architecture being old is quite valid and you should have stopped there because this nonsensical part of your post makes you appear to be a raving fanboy who is in denial of reality. That reality is that there is no "comfortable second-place" and being "in the middle of the pack" is literally impossible. Intel is dead-last in both single and multi-threaded workloads and that's really all there is to it.

When AMD only had the FX-series, did you say that AMD was "comfortably in second-place"? I sure didn't. I said that while the FX-series CPUs aren't as terrible as people say, they were clearly inferior in pretty much all performance metrics. They were a better value than the Intel CPUs but that only went so far.
If you were just a regular gamer (like me) then the FX CPUs were fine and actually pretty great for the price. For everyone else, the only word that could be used to describe them was insufficient.

Don't try to spin reality into something that it isn't. It's bad for your psyche and it makes people think that you're either absorbing some really exotic chemicals or you're just guano-crazy.

Intel is getting it's posterior handed to it and, believe it or not, that's a great thing for the industry because they've been sandbagging since Sandy Bridge. Intel's not going to die from this. They are very diversified and, considering that AMD managed to survive the FX-series years, Intel could be completely uncompetitive for over a century and would still survive. Yes, they are THAT big and THAT rich already. Never fear.

Aaaand what can we do about the fact that there are currently only 2 x86 companies? Create a few more to prove your point?
I don't vouch for Intel and I don't like what they are doing, BUT until 2015 they absolutely ran on all cylinders and our current day comparison between a 2015 product that is Skylake and all series from 6th to 10th gen and AMD latest and greatest product is still a comparison to be done and more importantly not be laughed at. Lets try to compare what AMD had in 2015 with Zen 3 and see if we can talk about competition and comparisons like we are still talking about 10th gen which is a rehashed and rehashed product.
Sure, we can only guess what would have been if Intel wouldn't have had problems with their process, but one thing is safe to say. A big part of AMD's current success is thanks to Intel staying still for 5 freaking years.