How much the difference is from workload using AVX512 in the benchmark?

Quote from: Philly Pappas diddy on December 29, 2020, 08:02:14
Ryzen 5900 series came out last month. They are AMDs current generation and Intel Gen 11 is Intel's.

If they are matched at 14nm then imagine how Intel will destroy competition with 10nm.

Zen 3 is existing generation you can buy, and Intel Gen 11 is an upcoming generation. If I'm wrong - go buy Gen 11 cpu. Can't do it?

They are not matched, first of all. Intel CPUs are much more power hungry when they try to match current AMD CPUs. And Intel's 14nm are actually smaller than, say, AMD's 14nm, so that there isn't that much room of improvement as you may think. And regarding 10nm - why don't they offer such for desktop market? Even for the upcoming generation.

Ryzen 5900 series came out last month. They are AMDs current generation and Intel Gen 11 is Intel's.

If they are matched at 14nm then imagine how Intel will destroy competition with 10nm.

14nm
14nm
14nm

stop BS'ing us. Thermodynamics or GTFO.

Quote from: ariliquin on December 29, 2020, 02:38:52
Actually this represents a 7.6% advantage to Intel in Single Core only and a 49.4% disadvantage in multicore. Add to this the significantly lower power consumption advantage AMD has and there is no real competition to the AMD.

Oh, wow, yeah. Can't believe I made that mistake, posted while watching TV. So even more so AMD > Intel in this case.

Actually this represents a 7.6% advantage to Intel in Single Core only and a 49.4% disadvantage in multicore. Add to this the significantly lower power consumption advantage AMD has and there is no real competition to the AMD.

Quotebut this is still Intel's next-generation of chips competing with AMD's last generation.

Nice to see NBC finally acknowledging this, a point many people can't seem to grasp. (Edit: actually, unless I'm missing something, in this case this is actually incorrect, as Vermeer is, AFAICT, AMD's new generation, so these two chips are truly apples-to-apples)

And it's amazing how suddenly, after years of ~10% generational improvements, give or take, Intel suddenly surges forward with a 25%+ increase now that they have strong competition. And that's with two fewer cores, which makes this easily three times the typical improvement over the past several years. Just imagine where we would be today had Intel pushed themselves all those years instead of being lazy. We might have had today's CPUs two or three years ago if not sooner. But I suppose that might have made it impossible for AMD to come back, so maybe we should be glad they dragged their feet.

As for this i9 vs R9, I'd take 50% higher multi-core performance over 25% more single-core any day, especially if the power usage is lower and the cost is lower. Not to mention the significantly better chance of being able to upgrade within the same socket.