Quote from: John Doe on September 26, 2023, 18:42:53

Quote from: rs on September 26, 2023, 09:57:38And that's how many people of the total market? 0.0000001%? LOL. I wasn't talking about niches. The MAJORITY of the market doesn't need an expensive and overpriced graphics card. They have quite different requirements. Most people are fine even with an integrated graphics unit.

Nah, buddy. Everyone needs at least a 7900 XTX / 4080. CPUs are irrelevant. 🤣

Joking aside, what you say is absolutely true and well said. 👍 GPUs are only accelerators. And therefore only relevant for a small fraction of the total market. CPUs were and are the driving computing component. That won't change anytime soon. And the reasons are simple, versatility and software ecosystem. Even Nvidia knows it. That's why they developed a server CPU for data centers.

But that Neenyah guy (and his fake profile) is funny anyway. A clueless gaming kiddie that knows only his little bubble. Likely because he gets everything paid by mommy. Maybe he should spend a day with our server clients. Then he would see how "relevant" GPUs really are. 🤣

You are replying to yourself. Apart from that being comically cringe and sad, it's also a sign of a necessity to seek professional help while it's not too late. Good luck.

Advanced buyers are not expecting this at all, but at least a 256-bit memory controller - x86 cores are simply suffocating with slow RAM on all x86 processors. It should already be at least 3 times faster in terms of bandwidth...

Quote from: rs on September 26, 2023, 09:57:38And that's how many people of the total market? 0.0000001%? LOL. I wasn't talking about niches. The MAJORITY of the market doesn't need an expensive and overpriced graphics card. They have quite different requirements. Most people are fine even with an integrated graphics unit.

Nah, buddy. Everyone needs at least a 7900 XTX / 4080. CPUs are irrelevant. 🤣

Joking aside, what you say is absolutely true and well said. 👍 GPUs are only accelerators. And therefore only relevant for a small fraction of the total market. CPUs were and are the driving computing component. That won't change anytime soon. And the reasons are simple, versatility and software ecosystem. Even Nvidia knows it. That's why they developed a server CPU for data centers.

But that Neenyah guy (and his fake profile) is funny anyway. A clueless gaming kiddie that knows only his little bubble. Likely because he gets everything paid by mommy. Maybe he should spend a day with our server clients. Then he would see how "relevant" GPUs really are. 🤣

Quote from: Turd Ferguson on September 26, 2023, 15:38:00The people who need better CPUs are also the people who need good GPUs.

Nah mate, i9 13900K or Threadripper PRO 5965WX is somewhat required to browse or run financial software, he pretty much said so. No need for any dGPU, but gotta get dem cores to run 10 tabs in Chrome!
 
But yeah, joking aside your whole comment is spot on, well said 👍

Quote from: rs on September 26, 2023, 09:57:38

Quote from: Neenyah on September 25, 2023, 21:38:20Who needs a GPU? Let's see - every single serious CAD user, 3D modeler/developer/artist, video editor, graphic designer, game and software developer...

And that's how many people of the total market? 0.0000001%? LOL. I wasn't talking about niches. The MAJORITY of the market doesn't need an expensive and overpriced graphics card. They have quite different requirements. Most people are fine even with an integrated graphics unit.
I work for a company whose business completely relies on computers and software. We have about 100 employees. Exactly one girl does CAD and other 2D/3D graphics stuff. And even she doesn't need a high-end graphics card. Most cheap cards nowadays have more than enough performance for such tasks. The rest of us needs performance for office software, web browsing, programming, virtual machines, financial software, etc. Which need appropriate CPUs, not GPUs. I wouldn't want to work with less than 4 cores anymore. Or with Atom class CPUs. But I don't need more than a GT 1050 or similar.
And that applies to most companies out there. You sound like a clueless victim. Who just sees small parts of marketing bubbles. Your link to Steam is a good example. You don't have any clue about how the real world works.

Talk about hypocrisy.

The people who need better CPUs are also the people who need good GPUs.

You're right that the majority of the market doesn't need dedicated GPUs, but that's because the majority of the market is just running excel and can work off of 10 year old CPUs with no problems yet.

Oh look, the guy is not hungry so he thinks that the hunger in the world doesn't exist. Stay inside of your little safe box my friend.

Quote from: Neenyah on September 25, 2023, 21:38:20Who needs a GPU? Let's see - every single serious CAD user, 3D modeler/developer/artist, video editor, graphic designer, game and software developer...

And that's how many people of the total market? 0.0000001%? LOL. I wasn't talking about niches. The MAJORITY of the market doesn't need an expensive and overpriced graphics card. They have quite different requirements. Most people are fine even with an integrated graphics unit.
I work for a company whose business completely relies on computers and software. We have about 100 employees. Exactly one girl does CAD and other 2D/3D graphics stuff. And even she doesn't need a high-end graphics card. Most cheap cards nowadays have more than enough performance for such tasks. The rest of us needs performance for office software, web browsing, programming, virtual machines, financial software, etc. Which need appropriate CPUs, not GPUs. I wouldn't want to work with less than 4 cores anymore. Or with Atom class CPUs. But I don't need more than a GT 1050 or similar.
And that applies to most companies out there. You sound like a clueless victim. Who just sees small parts of marketing bubbles. Your link to Steam is a good example. You don't have any clue about how the real world works.

The article contradicts itself. Where are the "substantially slower clock speeds"? According to the rumor it's 200-300 MHz. Which is just ~5% slower clock speeds if we use the 5.7 GHz boost clock of the 7950X as base line. That's not much.

Average clock speeds under full load might be another story. But I don't expect any regressions here. Zen 4 doesn't scale that well with 16 cores >5 GHz. Zen 5 will probably scale better with clock speed and TDP.

A 25-30% IPC increase with a nominal 5% reduction in clock speeds (250 MHz/5 GHz) is a nice generational gain since TDP is staying the same.

As for Intel and Meteor Lake, if the same leaks hold true, expect same performance as Alder Lake but at 20-25% less power in laptops. The more interesting part is idle battery life and media playback times with the very low power cores in the I/O die. AMD better power optimize waaaay better than what people are reporting for the 7X40HS processors which haven't shown any battery life gains compared to 6X00HS. Maybe the 7X40U chips that are finally rolling out now that it is October are binned/processed differently.

Your whole post is quite funny (although correct in some points) but this is just wild:

Quote from: rs on September 25, 2023, 20:20:32And who needs GPUs? No one except high end gamers. Which are quite irrelevant for the whole market.

Who needs a GPU? Let's see - every single serious CAD user, 3D modeler/developer/artist, video editor, graphic designer, game and software developer... Plus many more.
 
And only high-end gamers require GPUs? Welp, Steam stats are a bit different: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

Then when you consider that there is 1.75 billion of PC gamers worldwide ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/420621/number-of-pc-gamers/ ) and let's say that only 15% of them use something near high-end... You get to huge numbers and billions of $ to reap from that "insignificant" part of the GPU market.

Quote from: davidm on September 25, 2023, 14:01:40As if anyone really benefits from marginally faster CPUs. It's such a joke, PC users chasing diminishing returns egged on by review sites. Let me guess, it boots faster?

NPUs, GPUs, memory transfer speed, efficiency are what's needed. I'm not an Apple guy, but their chips are great at those things. The x86 market is embarassing. I mean at last Intel is trying, AMD is just being flaky with their NPU.

Intel is trying what? Wasting power for nothing? Just to claim clock speeds as high as 6 GHz? Their CPUs need twice the energy under full load to achieve the same performance as AMD CPUs.
It's not the x86 market that is embarrassing. It's Intel that is embarrassing. But at least they try to catch up to AMD in the next years, for better competition. With more efficient uarchs and multi chiplet designs. But it's still embarrassing that they will use other fabs, like from TSMC, instead of their own fabs.
OTOH, ARM is more embarrassing than x86 right now. There is Apple ... and no one else who is even close. Just some poor processors for smartphones. Or some server processors for niche segments. It's virtually a non competitive market right now. And Apple knows it, selling way too overpriced. I mean you can easily configure a Mac Studio for ~10k. 64GB more RAM easily cost you ~1k, a 4TB SSD cost you over 1k on such a system. WTF? ^^
And who needs GPUs? No one except high end gamers. Which are quite irrelevant for the whole market. Most companies and private people still need good CPUs more than anything else. Because they simply don't have the workloads for highly parallelized special hardware. The nature of many daily apps is having a primary thread which is run on a CPU. And the better it runs ST the better your workflow. If you ever used a crappy Atom based Intel system you know what I am talking about. And that won't change anytime soon.
Apple can be quite good at that. But they also need tons of transistors and the latest process nodes for it. Resulting in quite expensive designs. And outside the advertised Apple scenarios the M1/2 processors also can be quite poor.
AMD is actually doing better than Apple and Intel. They have less expensive designs than Apple, offering more than competitive performance and efficiency. And much more efficient designs than Intel at similar price points. Zen 5 will be another significant improvement for AMD. Increasing per thread performance and efficiency drastically. But because the design will be a lot wider too, like M1 or Alder Lake before, let's see how expensive it will be. So, from a technological point of view Zen 5 will be world class. But the economical side might be another story.

Quote from: davidm on September 25, 2023, 14:01:40As if anyone really benefits from marginally faster CPUs. It's such a joke, PC users chasing diminishing returns egged on by review sites. Let me guess, it boots faster?

NPUs, GPUs, memory transfer speed, efficiency are what's needed. I'm not an Apple guy, but their chips are great at those things. The x86 market is embarassing. I mean at last Intel is trying, AMD is just being flaky with their NPU.

Apple chips are a waste of silicon. The number of transistors in their high-end desktop chips is greater than the amount of two 7950X + 7900XTX or 4090 combined.

AMD and Intel have to make intelligent design choices all the time, there is no point in making something 100x faster if that means using the entire silicon wafer (costing US$ 17k in 5nm) for a single chip, it would be unfeasible in terms of price and numbers , these are companies that serve the entire world (and for that there are limited resources and production capacity), not just a select group like Apple that pay any price to stay locked in the company's software ecosystem

As if anyone really benefits from marginally faster CPUs. It's such a joke, PC users chasing diminishing returns egged on by review sites. Let me guess, it boots faster?

NPUs, GPUs, memory transfer speed, efficiency are what's needed. I'm not an Apple guy, but their chips are great at those things. The x86 market is embarassing. I mean at last Intel is trying, AMD is just being flaky with their NPU.

5-6% lower clock for such significant IPC gains seems like a quite good trade-off. I hope they update IF too.