Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD's New 12nm Ryzen Laptop Chips Look To Put the Pressure on Intel (theverge.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the competition-heating-up dept.

AMD has been pushing its Ryzen lineup of processors for a few years now, with the company looking to put pressure on Intel's seemingly unbeatable hold on the chip landscape. From a report: At CES 2019, AMD unveiled its second generation of Ryzen laptop chips, which look to jump ahead of Intel's 14nm roadblock to offer some of the first 12nm processors on the market. To that end, AMD is launching a new lineup of Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, and Ryzen 7 chips across both the 15W U-series and 35W H-series lineups, almost all of which are built off of the company's new 12nm Zen+ architecture. For the more powerful H-series, there are a pair of new chips: the Ryzen 7 3750H, offering four cores / eight threads, a base clock speed of 2.3 GHz (which can boost to 4.0 GHz), and the Ryzen 5 3550H, also a four core / eight thread processor, but with a 2.1 GHz base speed (which can boost to 3.7 GHz), and only eight GPU cores to the Ryzen 7 3750H's ten. Further reading: AMD Gets Serious About Chromebooks at CES 2019.

105 comments

  1. Meltdown, Spectre, etc by Red_Forman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are CPUs with the same number of cores/threads immune from some of those security holes?
    (ex: The new entry-level 2018 Mac mini has an i3 with 4 cores/4 threads)

    1. Re:Meltdown, Spectre, etc by Red_Forman · · Score: 2

      Couldn't you post that in the main thread?
      Why put your rant below my post? I don't care about the orange guy, I don't even live in the USA.

    2. Re:Meltdown, Spectre, etc by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      Meltdown and Spectre don't depend on the number of cores/threads.
      These attacks exploit branch prediction and cache timing, and even single core CPUs are affected.

    3. Re:Meltdown, Spectre, etc by laffer1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Meltdown was never a problem on any AMD CPU. That's Intel.

      Spectre affects Intel, AMD, Power, and even some ARM designs. It's unclear what mitigations AMD may have added but since these are based on Zen+ rather than Zen 2, it's likely the same as the more recent desktop chips (Ryzen 7 2700 and so on )

      --
      MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
    4. Re:Meltdown, Spectre, etc by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Meltdown is Intel-only, it is because of Intel allows speculative execution involving addresses that are supposed to be unreadable. Spectre is helped by hyperthreading but still works even without hyperthreading.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:Meltdown, Spectre, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Picasso - the new 12nm APUs - will be patched in the UEFI against Spectre. So no real worries, mate. Meltdown only affects modern Intel CPUs, not modern AMD CPUs/APUs.

    6. Re:Meltdown, Spectre, etc by lederhosen · · Score: 1

      Meltdown was never a problem on AMD but it was a problem on Apple ARM, so not only Intel.

    7. Re: Meltdown, Spectre, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meltdown 3a affects AMD cpus. It's a lessor known variant that affects all ia32 CPUs.

  2. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2.1ghz? is that per cpu? cause if not then far older pcs are better

    1. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.1ghz? is that per cpu? cause if not then far older pcs are better

      Yes but you are talking "base" core speed, not the boosted core speed manufacturers use to market their CPU wares.

      So, AMD's 2.3 GHz cores will be marketed as 4.0 GHz CPUs and their 2.1 GHz cores as 3.7 GHz CPUs. Desktops don't need to sustain peek speed, so this is standard practice in the industry.

      It's like marketing cars based on horse power. Yea, you may have 500 HP under the hood, but you are rarely going to use it for very long.

    2. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to heat a room or did you fail to read the part about the 3.7GHz boost?

    3. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may want 3.7 GHz for long sustained periods, and without thermal throttling. Maybe a train analogy would be better: No power when not in use, low power at the station, but maximum power while travelling long distances.

    4. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or rather the difference between horsepower and torque. I watched a Jay Leno
      (man, what a beautiful human being - I hope he lives long and healthy) show where
      he was showing an old steam car. It was "rated" at 150HP (I think I remember right)
      but it's torque was scary-powerful. But I digress, the biggest thing with faster CPUs
      is the memory bandwidth and if the MB takes advantage of everything the CPU has
      to offer in terms of memory utilization. I mean, seriously, GHz CPUs have been around
      for some time - but the memory speed generally sucked terribly and thus most of the
      speed advantage was completely lost except on processes functioning in a tight loop.

      CAP === 'spraying'

    5. Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Frequency doesn't matter. It's possible for a newer chip to be faster and yet have a slower frequency.

      Goto a benchmark site and look at all the frequencies of different generations of chips. When intel launched core/core2 chips they smoked pentium 4 chips that ran at higher frequencies.

      Similarly, AMD's newer ryzen chips are significantly faster than bulldozer and piledriver chips and at lower frequency.

      The only time frequency is really helpful is if you're comparing the same architecture and generation. A 3.0 Ghz ryzen is slower than a 3.7ghz ryzen (given both are first gen zen cores)

  3. Re:Traitor Drumpf WILL HANG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are you not ashamed of having TDS now? It's a mental disorder you know.

  4. Zen 1.0 by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mind that these mobile CPUs are first generation Zen (which is kinda confusing because people expected 3XXX to belong to Zen 2.0).

    1. Re:Zen 1.0 by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, the 3000 series APUs are Zen+, the second generation, same as Ryzen 2700 etc. Zen 2, the 3000 series non-APUs are third generation Zen. I know, it's confusing. Just remember, the new APUs are 12nm, with modest IPC and clock speed improvements vs first generation Zen.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  5. Intel should not worry too much... by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    ...for AMD has been trying for decades with no success. In addition, name recognition alone favors Intel as far as I can tell.

    The mantra "Intel Inside" in the late 90s & early 2000s made it seem like, "If it's not Intel, then you're doing something wrong" or "you aren't getting the 'best' deal."

    That mind-share kind of stuck.

    1. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of companies these days are monetizing their reputation.

    2. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I think it is more to the fact, that AMD makes a set of chips which are a little better then Intel, then they ride that train until the chips are out of date, while Intel keeps their designs up to date,

      Back in the Mid 2000's with the Multi-Core (Core 2 Duo) chips really shook up the competition back then. And put AMD into a 13+ year tail spin.

      The problem is going with Intel you are probably going to get the fastest chip for its model. While with AMD you might be able to get the best performance for the dollar.

      The problem with budget technology is not like budget automobiles. The difference between a $400 phone vs a $1000 phone or the difference between a $900 laptop of a $2500 laptop, may not scale well to value per what you get. However the difference in how much the extra money will effect your quality of life is rather slim. Sure I would probably be happier with and extra $1600 in my pocket. But If I am to save up for a new Laptop, the extra money is already gone in my head, because that is what I was saving up for. Unlike paying $20,000 vs $80,000 for a car. Unless you are really able to save up 80k, chances are you will be getting it via a loan. Thus having to pay a higher monthly fee, the happiness of all the bells and whistles of the 80k car will be dealing with a constant stress of paying a monthly bill. In which if my job was terminated or had a pay cut, the car would make my life more difficult. Vs. having that more expensive computer, which you probably could keep using a few more years longer until you get back to a better place.

      People naturally would like to get the best. Or at least perceived as the best. AMD sometimes can get there, but Intel is there more often.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel inside idiot on the outside

    4. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...for AMD has been trying for decades with no success. In addition, name recognition alone favors Intel as far as I can tell.

      The mantra "Intel Inside" in the late 90s & early 2000s made it seem like, "If it's not Intel, then you're doing something wrong" or "you aren't getting the 'best' deal."

      That mind-share kind of stuck.

      I always assumed that if it said "Intel Inside" I was almost certainly not getting the best deal.

    5. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel can almost always claim "the fastest chip" by making an insanely hot, large-dye package with more cores and call it "extreme edition". That means (next to) nothing. Also, parent post has a strong pro-Intel bias IMHO.

    6. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      There is a difference now. Intel has been stuck on the same process for several years. They're not innovating right now.

      AMD chips are also more secure due to lack of meltdown issues. Both are affected by spectre of course.

      --
      MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
    7. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by mlyle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Back in the early 2000's AMD had a clear and convincing lead in both absolute performance and price-performance for 2.5-3 years. Intel successfully kept them out of mass-market OEM products and cash-starved AMD was not able to keep up with Intel's research budget-- eventually paying a $1.25B settlement to AMD but this was not sufficient to make AMD whole.

      Following that, we've had an extended period of stagnation on Intel's side until this point where AMD is again neck and neck with them.

      The processor market is a whole lot better for everyone when this competition exists.

    8. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      I think it is more to the fact, that AMD makes a set of chips which are a little better then Intel, then they ride that train until the chips are out of date, while Intel keeps their designs up to date

      Like most things, I think there are a number of factors involved. I think the GP is half right, half incidentally-right. I think that while Intel is a household name that even nontechnical people know, AMD is...less so. Convincing people to buy a $700 AMD-based laptop vs. a $700 Intel-based laptop is going to be a very tough sell, even if they were identical in every other way. In the mid-2000s, when 3GHz Athlon64 processors were superior performance for similar prices, there was room for AMD to compete. However, for one reason or another, AMD stopped competing at the high end for OEM machines. Sure, system builders were always able to make a pretty good AMD build, and their support for ECC RAM on Vishera processors and similar gave them a bit of a niche in DIY cases, but for whatever reason, Dell/HP/Lenovo computers all seemed to only have AMD silicon in the sub-$300 range, which was going to be terrible, but now consumers tied AMD to "poor performance".

      In the server room, there have been a number of software vendors saying "we only support Intel", and it's worth the money not to have the headache. AMD's Bulldozer debacle certainly didn't help matters. Even for those willing to roll the dice, they didn't offer anything radically different, either in performance or price, to make using them instead of Intel a worthwhile decision.

      In the midst of all that, I'd argue that AMD managed to stay afloat as a result of their ATI acquisition; making the GPUs for a number of game consoles seemed to be a worthwhile focus that paid off; Intel didn't seem to really care about the graphics market. because they owned the CPU market.

      AMD is definitely making a comeback in the consumer space, and their GPUs seem to remain neck-and-neck with nVidia, but the server room still seems to be a struggle for now, which is a shame because the added PCIe lanes and memory capacities would be great for some mid-range server uses.

    9. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I've been proudly applying my included AMD labels to my cases since my first Athlon. (I had a K6, but I bought it bare.) And then there was the mockery, e.g. Evil Inside, FDIV Inside...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that, for quite a while, AMD CPUs did not perform as well as Intel on a dollar-per-dollar basis. They cost more, performed worse, and ate up more energy.

      The Ryzen CPUs consume less power and are close to equaling the per-core performance of Intel (they only lack in high-end gaming, but that could change). They can make up performance differences by providing more cores and better value. If the recent leaks are to be believed, AMD will double max core counts. They may even have 6/8-core APUs for desktops and laptops.

      In short, AMD is competitive again. There's actually a reason to buy their products. I see people doing Ryzen and Threadripper builds fairly often.

      Where AMD needs to make gains is the OEM market and they may be able to do just that. Higher core count APUs will help there. But even budget processors like the Athlon 300U are important. That's probably going to crush the equivalent mobile Pentium.

    11. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Intel is changing architectures pretty drastically, to a CCX design, while trying to fix speculative exploits via hardware. I think you'll see performance drop, as you dont change architectures without losing performance.

    12. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I think it is more to the fact, that AMD makes a set of chips which are a little better then Intel, then they ride that train until the chips are out of date, while Intel keeps their designs up to date,

      You might want to review who rides their train to the bitter end. Recall the super pipeline of the P4 architecture that got its ass whooped by AMD's Opteron? Intel then essentially copied AMD's approach. Remember the x64 extensions? By AMD again? Intel licensed those. Then recall the various antitrust lawsuits Intel lost to AMD to the tune of several billion dollars which was the result of Intel using their market leverage to severely hurt AMD in the market? And now AMD has come back with Ryzen, a better design than the Intel Core 2 based one from back in 2006 or so (they just changed the branding).

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    13. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      This competition would be even better for everyone if Intel didn't keep cheating.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    14. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Back in the early 2000's AMD had a clear and convincing lead in both absolute performance and price-performance for 2.5-3 years. Intel successfully kept them out of mass-market OEM products and cash-starved AMD was not able to keep up with Intel's research budget -- eventually paying a $1.25B settlement to AMD but this was not sufficient to make AMD whole.

      September 23rd, 2003: AMD launches Athlon 64, kicking ass
      July 24th 2006: AMD buys ATI for $5.4 billion
      July 27th 2006: Intel launches the Core 2 Duo

      They had more than $5 billion to invest in R&D/fab technology. They spent it on graphics instead and on top of that Intel took the opportunity to throw nVidia out of the IGP market, giving them full control over chipsets and the chance to undermine the graphics market by integrating their graphics on the CPU. Almost nobody took advantage of the APU synergy because it was too niche and because their credit lines were stretched so far already they couldn't mount any effective response. Yes Intel played dirty but AMD made the biggest screw-ups themselves. I'm just glad they somehow managed to stall the death spiral long enough for Zen to show up, I was sure they'd end in bankruptcy.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    15. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very true, but sometimes it isn't the best deal you are after, it is best single core performance or best power consumption, two recent purchases I made were based on those specific metrics and paying extra for intel was worth it. I have another which was best multi core and for that I used AMD.

    16. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      The version I always heard was: "Looks nice on the outside but...Intel Inside".

    17. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by epine · · Score: 1

      They had more than $5 billion to invest in R&D/fab technology. They spent it on graphics instead ...

      My wife had $500 to invest in some Kickstarter whinge. Instead she spent it on a pig, which is now fattening up in the back yard, on some weird personal hypothesis that bacon is a going concern, although I have my own doubts, and Kickstarter is never wrong.

    18. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Actually, divesting the fabs was more important to AMD's survival than acquiring ATI. Arguably, the ATI investment could have been better employed in internal R&D. In an alternate universe, AMD still owns the console market, but with Nvidia GPU cores. Anyway, I like that AMD has ATI, but I am not sure it was the optimal path in retrospect.

      And incidentally, looking forward to 7nm Navi later this year. Also wondering how AMD will answer the raytracing challenge.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    19. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Intel's biggest innovation recently was to get fully behind Linux. That has really helped them build sales in the data center, their main saving grace.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    20. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I would hope there's now a "Zen Inside" label on it.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    21. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      No, AMD cpus never cost more. And by Steamroller the value equation was firmly back on AMD's side. Zen was a sea change, leaving Intel far behind in value, and Zen 2 will add insult to injury by also grabbing the single core performance crown.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    22. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I would hope there's now a "Zen Inside" label on it.

      The plan is to have Zen2 inside, probably. I'm still on a FX-8350, which is still doing what I need it to.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually, divesting the fabs was more important to AMD's survival than acquiring ATI.

      Absolutely correct. Now that Intel is faltering in this department, they look like geniuses.

      Arguably, the ATI investment could have been better employed in internal R&D. In an alternate universe, AMD still owns the console market, but with Nvidia GPU cores.

      Nvidia has delusions of grandeur. They probably wouldn't go for it. They want to be in control.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Intel's killing backward compatibility with UEFI 3 soon. They are not open source friendly.

      --
      MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
    25. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >No, AMD cpus never cost more.

      That's because they can't. AMD have to charge the price that is set by Intel.

      People think Intel make profits by making the fastest CPUs. This is flat out wrong. Intel sells chips across a range of performance, from the tiniest sensor chips to the largest datacenter monsters.

      Intel makes profits by building silicon more cheaply than others who have to buy it from a foundry and then selling it at a profit at a price where the competition can only break even selling something of the same performance.

    26. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Intel makes profits by building silicon more cheaply than others who have to buy it from a foundry

      That used to be true until TSMC and Samsung outgrew them and outsmarted them.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    27. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by mlyle · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a lot of money, huh? But A) it wasn't all cash, and B) a leading-edge process node for processors costs $2.5B or more. Design costs for an microprocessor are a couple billion.

    28. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand what you meant by that. But the fact that you have bacon in your back yard would make me +mod this if I had points... You lucky man, you. Enjoy that bacon. Make sure to fatten it up with some good slop so it tastes good too. Not that bacon can taste bad, at least I'm pretty sure about that.

    29. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I think technically that lawsuit is what gave us Ryzen. So technically Intel bought Ryzen for AMD. We should thank them.

    30. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Where AMD is, more so in the Graphics division I believe.

    31. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      zen 1 with nvme from 8370 with ssd felt like atleast 3x as fast for everything. its lovely. and wasn't very expensive even with fast ram.

    32. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      zen 1 with nvme from 8370 with ssd felt like atleast 3x as fast for everything. its lovely. and wasn't very expensive even with fast ram.

      I have a Samsung 850 Pro 512MB, so I have adequate SSD. What I don't have right now is work...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really torn here.
      On one hand I really want to see all you incessant AMD fanbois get kicked in the nuts by these grandiose leaks to turn out false. After all you keep being annoying despite Dr Lisa Su being reasonable in combating the hype by telling us to not expect too much, after websites like the 'special needs' wccftech blown IPC gains in very certain applications out of proportions.

      On the other hand Intel really needs the competition and I also really want to buy one of those 3850X if they hold up to the promise.

      Well, I suppose there's nothing that can be done other than waiting for AMD's keynote on Wednesday.

    34. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Yea thats not a bad one. I stick with cheap ssd's mainly. They do the job and dont kill the wallet. But NVME is in another realm. As for the work part... That's shitty hope it works out. Vegas always has companies hiring, casino corps. is where its at. And I know a lot of people that leave california for here and love it.

    35. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nah, I'm over pissing in a cup, and I quit tobacco. Either way, a casino is no place for me. Not to mention that the whole point of such a business is to take advantage of people's addictions. Sick, sad world.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Well since weed is legal here the majority of companies dont UA for new hires. Plus lower cost of living. I was raised here so i learned at a young age gambling is bad. But an addiction is an addiction. It's the person that needs to change. And I used to be addicted to drugs. It's easy if you want to stop something.

    37. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't want to stop something. It's the system that needs to change. I'm tired of feeding the wrong beast. If that means I suffer, well, I've been suffering anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    38. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nvidia was who they wanted to buy, but Nvidia wouldn't sell. So they bought up ATI, the plan from the start was the APU and GPGPU as they knew that we where approaching the limits of the x86-64 architecture but there where still significant gains to be made by using the GPU as a co-processor that far exceed what can be done in the CPU.

  6. Re:mod 0P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent poster.

  7. GPU cores: do not want! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only eight GPU cores to the Ryzen 7 3750H's ten.

    Well I don't want ANY GPU cores.

    I am a gamer and gamers use discrete GPUs mostly from nVidia which stomp the shit out of those wimply little on-die GPUs.

    I'm going to use my own GPU thankyouverymuch. I want instead for you to give me more CPU cores which are useful for tasks like transcoding and compiling and won't be purely wasted silicon.

    1. Re:GPU cores: do not want! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good thing no one cares what you want fatso

    2. Re:GPU cores: do not want! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a notebook? You won't use "your own GPU". You'll use whatever the OEM crams into the system.

      Also Intel puts iGPUs on all their desktop CPUs. So I guess you own Skylake-X? Which is slower in games than the 9900k which has an iGPU?

  8. ECC Support?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All AMD Ryzen Zen, etc CPU's support ECC RAM.

    So which laptops have motherboards that support ECC RAM?

    My systems all run ECC, I won't buy anything without it,
    and tired of buying Intel which really only has it in Xeon,
    some i3's, and a few other non leading lines.

    1. Re:ECC Support?! by DigressivePoser · · Score: 2

      Unless you use your laptop often on commercial jets, ECC isn't getting you much extra protection closer to sea level. Even safety critical avionics for single engine Cessna type aircraft (FAA Part 23) don't require ECC.

    2. Re:ECC Support?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unless you use your laptop often on commercial jets, ECC isn't getting you much extra protection closer to sea level.

      The best thing about ECC isn't protection from cosmic ray bit-flips, it's protection from memory cell failure. I haven't had full ECC since I was a Sun guy since I'd rather have fast RAM, but it's pretty great when the machine corrects for a memory failure and lets you know about it so that you can order replacement parts without any interruption of service.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:ECC Support?! by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      People who want ECC memory want it for a reason. Pointing out yet again that most people don't need it much most of the time is not helpful.

    4. Re:ECC Support?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rays, cells, rowhammer, static, or just plain bad chips...
      no matter what you're doing, shoveling gigs per second through your busses... terabytes getting crunched just surfing web all day... average user stuff...
      single bit errors do happen and can be DISASTROUS... entire datasets even GONE... POOF...
      you NEED ECC. ECC exists FOR A REASON.
      Don't let all the anti-marketing naysayers and gamer trolls convince you otherwise.
      It only costs about 1/7 or so more in wholesale fab, and about 5% or less at speed.
      No big deal.
      Use it.

    5. Re:ECC Support?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, speed is the rub. You can't get really high speed RAM in ECC. Or if you can, it costs all the money. Compare like speeds and ECC costs much more than t% more.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:ECC Support?! by DigressivePoser · · Score: 1

      If your data and/or uptime is valuable enough, then ECC makes sense to protect that. We are talking about laptops here. Outside military applications, there isn't much demand for it.

  9. Re:Traitor Drumpf WILL HANG by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

    The government shutdown affects me not-at-all. Keep crying about it tho. Eventually bad orange-man will go away.

    --
    "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  10. I don't think that means what you think it means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've you've tried something like a 150 HP diesel vs a crappy 75 HP gasonline you probably know how bad that analogy is.

    Horsepower = torque x rpm.

    If your car has high HP it can achieve a lot of torque even at lower RPM.

    That is something you'll notice whenever you try to move from standing still or start on a slope.

    Horsepower here is analogous with core_performance = IPC x clock.


    And on a desktop there's a few instances where you want to sustain peak performance.

    For example video games, video editing, all kinds or rendering stuff.

    Maybe you thought about laptops or office PCs?

  11. Single Thread Performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does any of this show that AMD has equaled or exceeded Intel chips in single thread performance? Because if that's what you need, Intel is the only game in town. Unless AMD has cracked that too, finally...

    1. Re:Single Thread Performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself - just checked the PassMark site to help illustrate my point.

      So, in single thread performance, what do you think is the highest place that an AMD cpu attains?

      Top ten? Top twenty?

      Nope, not even vaguely close. According to my count (which is not easy to make given how far down the list it is), the top AMD cpu is in roughly one hundred and tenth place. Yep, 110th, no accidental extra digits.

      Call me when AMD is _really_ catching up. (Oh yes, and I DO want them to catch up - I just need it to be based on facts).

    2. Re:Single Thread Performance? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You missed one.
      At position # 103, AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2850X at 3.50 GHz with a score of 2,211.
      That's against # 1, Intel Core I9-9900K at 3.60 GHz with a score of 2,897.
      For the single thread PassMark test, the Intel processor is 31% faster, and it's less expensive.

      My home processor is i7-870, with a PassMark single thread score of 1,302. It's disappointing that in seven years performance has improved only 122%

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:Single Thread Performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I probably just miscounted. I kept losing my place trying to count by hand and gave up :).

      I happen to have an old i7-920, and I bet we are looking at the same factors while trying to figure out how to upgrade :)

      I do have to admit that I hadn't looked at the percentage difference, and that is less than I thought. With so many Intel branded cpus ahead of AMD, it's pretty easy to think that the margin might be higher.

    4. Re:Single Thread Performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Percentage difference is?
      2. How much more expensive are the CPU's you're comparing to?
      3. Passmark is a scam anyway. Written by Intel people, for Intel CPU's, vetted against tests benefiting AMD, disguised as an "independent" product.

    5. Re:Single Thread Performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Passmark may be shit, but it does not mean that it is useless as an indicator of at least some real world performance.

      From running a public ArmA 3 Exile server (a game notoriously bottlenecked by single threaded performance) with some other people, I know some thing about CPUs and performance from the feedback of our players.

      We recommend using a 4th gen i7 or later. Then there are those who claim that the game runs just fine on their Ryzen.

      But from my experience there's the fact that complaints about bad performance usually come from those with AMDs, or older low end i5s, or notebook users (includes Intel mobile CPUs).

      Now that may not matter to you. Maybe you are not interested in things like competitive gaming.

      That's cool. Not everyone has to like the same stuff.

      You won't benefit from an overpriced Intel. AMD is the sensible choice for you.

      But there are those who like competitive gaming and also like these games that have very peculiar hardware requirements.

      Having the best possible (and sustainable) performance money can buy does given them an edge over others.

      They may pay for that obscenely priced i9-9900k and not really regret it.

  12. I'm not sure if this is impressive or not by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    But AMD integrated graphics can hang with a 10 year old flagship graphics card now (e.g. a $600 card from 10 years ago). On the one hand it's been 10 years. OTOH it's literally the GPU you get for "free". Plus the next gen will let them build the GPU core separately resulting in much higher yields and letting them build better GPUs. I'll stick with a standalone card, but it's still impressive what you get these days

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'm not sure if this is impressive or not by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And how does it look when you compare AMD integrated graphics with Intel integrated graphics?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:I'm not sure if this is impressive or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that even relevant when the GP is clearly talking about IGP vs discrete graphics card?

      They even said "it's still impressive what you get these days".

      Why use Russian logic here?

    3. Re:I'm not sure if this is impressive or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD is better. AMD is about a 1030 level of performance.

    4. Re:I'm not sure if this is impressive or not by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      AMD might introduce a future APU with HBM2 onboard a multi-chip module. This will basically be a GPU card in the CPU. Limiting factors are HBM2 price ramp and thermal envelope. I guess it's probably going to happen, maybe by this time next year.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:I'm not sure if this is impressive or not by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      It's relevant for entry-level laptops. There's no discrete graphic cards in those.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  13. Re:Traitor Drumpf WILL HANG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The government shutdown affects me not-at-all. Keep crying about it tho. Eventually bad orange-man will go away.

    And Trump will be replaced by another figurehead who is as bad or even worse. Elizabeth Warren ? Hillary ? Motherfucker PLEASE. Anyone who thinks those cunts will be a good thing for the US is delusional.

    All you idiots who think Obama was a wonderful president are suckers for his slick bullshitting ability. He was a lying sack of shit.
    I voted for the son of a bitch twice, but I admit I was conned. And that's why I voted for Trump : at least Trump was not part of the system,
    and he actually has DONE some of what he promised to do.

    If you want illegal Mexicans in the US, you're a traitor to the US and anyone who loves the US. You certainly do not represent the MAJORITY opinion on whether illegals should just be allowed to stay.

  14. MacBook Air by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Too bad Apple is married to Intel, I would have loved to see a 15 watts Ryzen inside the 2018 MacBook Air.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:MacBook Air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel would pay Apple to use their chips before they'd let them switch to AMD.

    2. Re:MacBook Air by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I doubt that Apple is all that loyal. Let's see what happens when AMD closes up the single core performance gap.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re: MacBook Air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple will be in the middle of transitioning to its own chips?

    4. Re: MacBook Air by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I don't think ARM is quite there yet. No SMT for one thing.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:MacBook Air by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      I doubt that Apple is all that loyal. Let's see what happens when AMD closes up the single core performance gap.

      It's not about performance. It's about ability to guarantee production. Apple puts out a line of computers and needs a sure source for so many millions chips. AMD won't guarantee they can supply that many in a year, and Intel will.

  15. Try selling CPUs without built in back doors. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    Intel has Management Engine - a total-control backdoor that's already been broken.

    AMD has ASP/PSP. It's claimed to be less of an issue. But as long as it's closed we can't audit it and thus must assume that it IS an issue.

    A plague on both their houses.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Try selling CPUs without built in back doors. by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      What sucks is they have us by the nuts, There is not a whole lot of option if you need performance. Your best bet is to destroy any network chip on the motherboard and go at that point. making it so it cant be connected to a network is really your only option if you need to be sure.

    2. Re:Try selling CPUs without built in back doors. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Destruction is overkill. Just don't use the sucker. That doesn't really guarantee that nothing nefarious is happening, though. The CPU controls the IOMMU and whatever management CPU they hid in the CPU controls the CPU...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Disappointing. Press conference link. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here is the link to AMD's press conference. https://youtu.be/ZKlrSOjzKsw

    The presenter is spot on about the age of laptops these days. My laptop is a Dell XPS 17 with a i7-2630M in it. 16GB RAM. It is 7 years old. I retired it 2 years ago for a Gigabyte Brix with a i7-5775R, but still use it from time to time just because I need a mobile computing platform.

    I use my laptop for code development. My XPS17 was a desktop replacement, as is the Brix. My computing platform needs to be mobile.

    I think AMD has missed the opportunity here. I'm hoping the next generation of their mobile computing processors has much higher performance. I don't replace hardware until I see a big, substantial performance improvement and I'm not seeing that with AMD's release. As a matter of fact, I don't think the 3700U or 3750H are going to beat the 4 core/ 8 thread i7-5775R processor in the Brix. Granted the i7-577R is a 65 watt device, but I thought that by now the market would have affordable laptops with better performance than the Brix.

    I'm wondering why AMD is labeling these parts as 3xxx at all, given that they are not Zen2 nor are they 7nm. In my mind these are Zen+ processors. I love what AMD is doing in general, but this release is disappointing for my needs.

    1. Re: Disappointing. Press conference link. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD did the same thing with the 2000 series mobile and APUs. They were not Zen+ like the 2000 series desktop processors, but original Zen.

      Seems misleading to me, but like a lot of other questionable things, AMD gets a free pass over something Intel would get raked over the coals for.

  17. Jump ahead not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel would be crucified for such misleading marketing, but it seems AMD gets a pass.

    AMD moved to a process technology with a 12 in the name. They're using the same size transister libraries and the CCX has the same size as when they used a process technology with a 14 in the name.

    This is akin to Intel moving from 14 to 14+.

    The only thing that jumped ahead was marketing.

  18. Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, Intel will probably just come up with contracts that the major laptop makers can only use "Intel inside"; otherwise Intel would not sell them any CPUs.

    Intel is sleazy.