Comments by "Winnetou17" (@Winnetou17) on "" video.

Yet AMD had to pause for a while to make a new CPU from scratch and now, many years later after 2600K, their 2600 is about the same or slightly better in gaming. I wouldn't say it's Intel's fault here. Do you know that an 4.7Ghz overclocked 2600K still has better Cinebench single core score than an overclocked R7 1700 (and R7 1700X and R7 1800X) ? Granted, that in stock the i7 is lower vs R7 stock. Also, on CPU benchmark the i7 2600K has a single core score of 1941 vs 2006 and 2009 of R5 2600 and R7 2700. So after all these years, the single core performance is marginally better for stock speeds and slightly worse (though for Ryzen 2 it should be the same) for single core. The problem with Intel isn't lack of technological advancement (at least until now). It's their bullshit marketing, their thermal interface solutions and especially their greed in constantly jacking up the prices.
12
@ @RandoTark That 53% more IPC is from FX to Ryzen ? Or from Ryzen 1 to Ryzen 2 ? If it's from FX to Ryzen, then that doesn't really count, since it's 4.5 years difference, and FX lineup was lagging behind. And unfortunately in GN's graphs, there are no 9th gen (if you can call it like that) 4c/8t intel CPUs, to see the difference from 2600K. In Passmark's CPU benchmark, the 9900K does have a 2900 single thread rating, which is quite amazing. What I am trying to say is that the technology is pretty much out of low hanging fruits. So, both intel and AMD will only offer small improvements from now on, at least on silicon based chips. I'm not denying that Intel's launches have produced smaller and smaller performance gains. The new uarch from intel might be the ever-delayed 10nm cannon?ice?whateverlake. Which is also taking them 4?5? years already.
2
@h2oaddict61 I'm sorry, I made multiple comments in this thread and I'm not exactly certain to whom you're referring.
1
@h2oaddict Yeah, I was responding to Jason M's statement, I quote: "AMD basically has had a single generational increase of 53% IPC" To which I called bullshit (to sum it up). That 53% IPC increase was merely catching up. In multiple generations. Just because they had nothing to offer for 4 years doesn't mean it was a single generation. So this IPC was nothing extraordinary by itself. Mind you, Ryzen 1 IPC was still behind intel's 7th gen. As I said, the problem(s) with intel isn't it's lack of wanting to innovate. I'm certain that they really tried with their 10nm line, but they flopped. I wonder, if intel won't release anything new until 2022 and then (4 years after 9900K launch) launch a new line, which has 53% IPC increase over 9900K, would people be the same "Intel basically has had a single generational increase of 53% IPC" ? No, I don't think so. But it would be exactly the same situation.
1