For people talking about gaming results, IT still doesn't matter the GPU is still the bottleneck, there is zero reason of testing CPUs at 1080p gaming and comparing them, the only absolute advent of this reversing is #if next gen GPUs are so ridiculously strong they blast and manage to oversaturate the 3.0 bus, which with Compute is plausible pertaining to Ray-tracing, even then keep in mind 4 - Titan V's on HEDT did the Ray-tracing on the real time render, so the question is, On a mainstream platform At what point will the CPU be weaker(Bottleneck wise) than the GPU?, and affordable for normal mortals?
The 1180 will apparently be a 13Tflop card, the 1080Ti has about 10.6Tflops. Without SLI being a real thing I seriously doubt in the next 5 years we will be at a point where we will see a CPU bottleneck, let alone not even accounting for further CPU releases increasing their strength. The most gains I think we will se on the GPU side will be NVidia's optimizations for DX12 with the new architecture that will give a significant bump in titles making the 5-15 frame difference on the CPU side even more negligible.
The only issue AMD has is Intel's clock advantage on the node process, a 1.0Ghz increase, AMD has a far superior interconnect between Cores and Nodes with the InfinityFabric Mesh. As all things dictate we will have to wait and see how this turns out and changes with the Industry.
Finally! Someone who gets the secret sauce of Infinity Fabric
The clock advantage will be further narrowed in the next gen, where in time they feel they can reach 5Ghz and much less power consumption, greater densities.
Intel are probably 2 years behind. So when I speak of the true window, its until 2020, lets say. AMD have had a big burst of speed. The graphics thing is completely true - and going forward there there's interconnects being worked out for them too.
This is what I mean about a cost effective way of making these things. Intel are behind on the interconnect, they pulled the existing one from upper-part Kaby Lake, but the truth is that anything coffee lake is designed for older, higher clocked monolithic type parts. You can't make an 8700k 8 core, for instance. Nothing about it 'works'.
The thing about interconnects like this, is that you can't clock as high. So the more cores, the lower the clock ATM. AMD aren't just in front with the cool Infinity Fabric name, there's limits to what can be done with them; and thats being worked out.
Things won't change until you can buy an intel version at the shop.
AMD are not after world domination, they are only looking to capture around 25-30% of the market at least with the Ryzen's, the more the better. With the IPC race almost over, not just because of reaching the limits, but because of the future work loads that hinge upon and build off the existing software that utilizes IPC (and hence moves to supporting multi-threads), the focus shifts to interconnects and multi cores and bringing those to market and of course on cost/efficiency. Naturally Intel with an in-house fab will have some kind of advantage there - and intel do a lot of different things for different segments. They make billions more than AMD.
The trouble for Intel's fab atm is their competitors have caught up. Do people think its cheap to run a fab? Sure, Intel gets all the profit, but they also get all the costs. Thats why its 'dangerous' as some articles said of AMD's success with Ryzen, because you take out any of Intel's profits and those margins get chipped away. Not that they can't handle that as a business, its just not ideal and they will take a hit.
The whole point of discussing IPC in that light, which the article helps with, is in terms of wanting to buy one. I am merely stating that IPC is great, I lover IPC, but going forward IPC is a lesser consideration than today for a large swathe of reasons.
Did the 3-12% IPC deficit depending on work load (but 5-7% with good memory [and there's other improvements coming]) stop AMD from selling 40% of the entire volume of chips at certain outlets? NO. It did not.
I am merely saying about that, that going forward IPC is so close, and will practically mean nothing soon, that its not a consideration. I loved this article though.
Whats more important going forward is latency and efficiency. The IPC thing atm is close and the clocks are coming.
A 5-15 frame difference in a game is meaningless going forward. The article is spot on for today, and I fully appreciate it, but there's no forseeable situation where things get worse for a Ryzen CPU in those situations, and said situations far exceed whats required anyway.
People buying a Ryzen today, and I think the article said so, but you can simply expect the IPC deficit to close by the time bios's are updates, AGESA is updated, games, applications, windows, etc.
But the point is, all that aside you're not making a mistake buying a Ryzen right now. Unless of course you own a recent enough CPU. The same is true for an 8700k.
Intel have the more rounded architecture and capability to scale to much higher clocks. The 8700K at least being able to do 20 percent faster clock speeds when pushed hard in overclocking, of course that doesn't translate to a similar win everywhere but it does give it the edge.
However this is talking at the bleeding edge and top end of the consumer market only. AMD have a design that is extremely close overall in IPC to Intel's latest and greatest. For the majority of people going out the buy anything below the highest end parts they do have a viable alternative.
Good point! Glad someone said. Fact: the 8700k is a fairly low selling chip by volume. And so is the 1080 TI. Maybe 1 or 2% of people have both. The amount who have either, maybe 5%. Even the 1080 is fairly rare worldwide. In some country's given higher free money to spend its higher/concentrated, but world wide its still extremely low.
More people are likely to be buying lesser intel CPU's and nvidia cards to play games on. Or they're buying the Ryzen. Because IPC is just not a concern. And it will be less so.
My only concern with the article, which does not remove its enjoyment of aptness from me, is that the 8700k is a dead arch, and its not representative of what most, if anyone reading/watching videos about them will experience.
Like the first quoted fellow said, there is no situation where the Ryzen sucks, and its cheaper. IF intel could compete on price, monolithic core and all, don't you think they would have done that. I mean, you even get a free cooler with the Ryzen. The better case is for the I 3's in the medium term for gaming as they're 4 core now, and see where this
window of AMD advantage I'm talking about ends or closes, and what the situation is then.
But I think you will find that interconnects and efficiency on core scaling will have run away with the industry by then. And only things like compiling will need high IPC, etc, which will be close from both companies, perhaps swapping spots once in a while
