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

← 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 Monday January 7, 2019 @04:41AM 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.

61 of 105 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Meltdown, Spectre, etc by Red_Forman · 2019-01-07 04:54 · 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 · 2019-01-07 05:16 · 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 · 2019-01-07 06:19 · 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 · 2019-01-07 06:20 · 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 · 2019-01-07 08:14 · 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 lederhosen · 2019-01-07 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Meltdown was never a problem on AMD but it was a problem on Apple ARM, so not only Intel.
Zen 1.0 by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · 2019-01-07 05:00 · 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 · 2019-01-07 08:18 · 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.
Intel should not worry too much... by bogaboga · 2019-01-07 05:12 · 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 jellomizer · 2019-01-07 05:37 · 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.
2. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by laffer1 · 2019-01-07 06:29 · 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
3. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by mlyle · 2019-01-07 06:48 · 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.
4. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Voyager529 · 2019-01-07 07:02 · 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.
5. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by drinkypoo · 2019-01-07 07:09 · 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.'"
6. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-07 07:40 · 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.
7. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-07 07:50 · 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.
8. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Gr8Apes · 2019-01-07 08:14 · 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.
9. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Tough+Love · 2019-01-07 08:22 · 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.
10. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Kjella · 2019-01-07 08:34 · 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
11. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Xtifr · 2019-01-07 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  The version I always heard was: "Looks nice on the outside but...Intel Inside".
12. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by epine · 2019-01-07 09:25 · 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.
13. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Tough+Love · 2019-01-07 09:40 · 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.
14. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Tough+Love · 2019-01-07 09:42 · 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.
15. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Tough+Love · 2019-01-07 09:44 · 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.
16. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Tough+Love · 2019-01-07 09:48 · 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.
17. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by drinkypoo · 2019-01-07 09:54 · 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.'"
18. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by drinkypoo · 2019-01-07 10:05 · 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.'"
19. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by laffer1 · 2019-01-07 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Intel's killing backward compatibility with UEFI 3 soon. They are not open source friendly.
  
  --
  MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
20. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Tough+Love · 2019-01-07 11:38 · 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.
21. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by mlyle · 2019-01-07 11:39 · 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.
22. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Highdude702 · 2019-01-07 12:35 · 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.
23. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Highdude702 · 2019-01-07 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  I think technically that lawsuit is what gave us Ryzen. So technically Intel bought Ryzen for AMD. We should thank them.
24. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Highdude702 · 2019-01-07 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  Where AMD is, more so in the Graphics division I believe.
25. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Highdude702 · 2019-01-07 13:09 · 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.
26. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by drinkypoo · 2019-01-07 13:52 · 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.'"
27. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Highdude702 · 2019-01-08 01:18 · 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.
28. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by drinkypoo · 2019-01-08 01:42 · 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.'"
29. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by Highdude702 · 2019-01-08 03:34 · 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.
30. Re:Intel should not worry too much... by drinkypoo · 2019-01-08 03:47 · 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.'"
ECC Support?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-07 05:50 · 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 · 2019-01-07 07:20 · 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 · 2019-01-07 08:15 · 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 · 2019-01-07 11:34 · 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 drinkypoo · 2019-01-08 01:37 · 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.'"
5. Re:ECC Support?! by DigressivePoser · 2019-01-08 04:09 · 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.
Re:Traitor Drumpf WILL HANG by Killall+-9+Bash · 2019-01-07 06:08 · 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
Re:wtf by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-07 06:25 · 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)
I'm not sure if this is impressive or not by rsilvergun · 2019-01-07 06:25 · 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 · 2019-01-07 07:19 · 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 Tough+Love · 2019-01-07 10:12 · 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.
3. Re:I'm not sure if this is impressive or not by DontBeAMoran · 2019-01-07 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's relevant for entry-level laptops. There's no discrete graphic cards in those.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
Re:Single Thread Performance? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-07 06:27 · 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).
MacBook Air by DontBeAMoran · 2019-01-07 07:18 · 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 Tough+Love · 2019-01-07 10:15 · 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.
2. Re: MacBook Air by Tough+Love · 2019-01-07 11:39 · 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.
3. Re:MacBook Air by painandgreed · 2019-01-09 11:52 · 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.
Try selling CPUs without built in back doors. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2019-01-07 10:32 · 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 · 2019-01-07 13:27 · 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 · 2019-01-08 03:59 · 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.'"
Disappointing. Press conference link. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-07 11:41 · 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.
Re:Single Thread Performance? by ChrisMaple · 2019-01-07 14:42 · 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