News:

Willkommen im Notebookcheck.com Forum! Hier können sie über alle unsere Artikel und allgemein über Notebook relevante Dinge disuktieren. Viel Spass!

Main Menu

Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by A
 - December 20, 2023, 10:48:38
It's not a competition, these machines are created to meet pre-agreed specifications for specific tasks and not to show off "who can build the fastest one". Clickbait title out of nothing.
Posted by ArsLoginName
 - December 12, 2023, 01:05:51
M.M.,

1 - The products you are comparing are made on Intel's 10nm+ and TSMC's 7 nm nodes - to which Intel renamed 10 nm+ to Intel 7 nm because Intel said their product had the same transistor density as other 7 nm.

2 - do you still stand by your statements when considering all the recent information regarding Intel 4 with no Meteor Lake products on the higher end desktop? Because it tells me that although Intel managed to increase transistor density compared to 10 nm+/Intel 7, Intel 4 is not performing as well as TSMC's older 7 nm node on which the Zen 3 Frontier is based upon.

Intel is improving their manufacturing problems. But they are not there yet.
Posted by David Dille
 - December 09, 2023, 21:01:26
*chips
Posted by David Dille
 - December 09, 2023, 21:00:42
Quote from: M.M. on December 09, 2023, 18:46:35Intel's current CPUs have approximately the same performance and power efficiency as AMD chips, while the latter have 40% more transistor density. 

What does that tell you (any reader) about...

It tells me that AMD has a system that allows them to cheaply produce cups with 40% not transistor density than Intel. I've got to admire that Intel practically matches AMD when AMD has 40% more transition density, but that's particularly informative.

I hope Intel manages to match AMD on transistor density - they would probably churn out some really impressive numbers if they manage that, and that would be good for everyone.

Competition benefits consumers.

I appreciate that AMD is doing a good job keeping Intel on their toes. I just wish they (or Intel) would become a more realistic threat to Nvidia.
Posted by M.M.
 - December 09, 2023, 18:46:35
I feel like this article is harping on Intel's delays from the time period when the Ponte Vecchio was a serious chip consideration for data.

Intel's current CPUs have approximately the same performance and power efficiency as AMD chips, while the latter have 40% more transistor density. 

What does that tell you (any reader) about what the performance and power efficiency of similar designs, when they are on par, with regards to fab scale, and have new technology to boot (backside power delivery)? 

What does that tell you about where data center markets will go, once Intel's fab process is on par with TSMC, which is due to happen within the year?

This article effectively amounts to trolling the past, and misleads people without the knowledge to see around the next corner.  It's correct that the data center market is titanic, but it gets it really backwards, by looking backwards, when all the info to see around the next corner is already public.
Posted by Redaktion
 - December 08, 2023, 22:54:22
Gaming frames may get all the hype and excitement on the internet, but when the enterprise world has orders of magnitude more money to throw around, the world of interconnects and accelerators is far more important.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-s-defeat-by-AMD-at-Supercomputing-2023-was-bigger-than-half-a-million-Ryzen-9s-literally.778934.0.html