Will Ryzen be the new Athlon 64, and the Intel *Lake series the new Pentium 4?

Will Ryzen be the new Athlon 64, and the Intel *Lake series the new Pentium 4?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=UhKmeCdB914
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Will the Macbook 2016 be the new Macbook 2015?
Will pokemon gold be the new pokemon red?
What are you trying to say, OP?

Just a reminder that the Pentium 4 EE cost $1000 while the Athlon 64 3500+ cost $345.

yes

Nah, Athlon 64 was actually blew the fuck out of intel while Ryzen is merely competitive.

Skylake arch is quite good, it will keep being the top (although over 4.0 GHz, it's not power efficient anymore). But AMD will offer the better overall CPUs thanks to more cores.

Outside of children's games the two weren't really all that different on a pure technological basis outside of sometimes higher TDP, the A64 being clock-for-clock efficient didn't matter as much when Jewtel could just push clocks further up to match them

>match
But Intel could never match Athlon 64 with Pentium 4 technology. Bumping up clocks only worked for beating the Athlon XP.

A64 simply had too good IPC, Pentium 4 EE could only match the regular A64 models by going up to an insanely high clock speed with incredible thermals, but AMD's own extreme model (FX series) had much better performance.

Netburst was unsalvagable, they had to move to a different architecture, the Core/M architecture.

Most of the reviews I've looked over on the subject don't really seem to be a blowout, K8 will pull around on some tests while NetBurst will pull through on others. The 64 does overall pull through to the top on most of the shit I'm looking at, but not by an impressive margin. Maybe enough to influence my decision in its direction where I purchasing a new system in 2003-2005, but I wouldn't be crying if I had to go with a NetBurst box either.

>Pentium 4 EE could only match the regular A64 models by going up to an insanely high clock speed with incredible thermals
The Emergency Edition is a joke, especially the shitty nocache LGA 775 ones, so that's pretty much a given. I usually end up looking at Xeon vs. Opteron comparisons when I look into this shit since those tend to be the kinds of older systems I look into picking up, and in those cases both parties are generally good.

Plenty of A64s also reached similar TDPs, some of the dual-core ones hit 110 W similar to the Pentium D, although by and large most of them were still 45-65W.

>Netburst was unsalvagable, they had to move to a different architecture, the Core/M architecture.
Of course. It was simply unsustainable, once you hit a wall on clocks in an architecture that derives most of its performance from high clocks, it's not going to do you much good.

damn thats a lot of frames per second
what has the world come to where 30fps is now acceptable

>640x480
>200 wow fps

Dude i swear the internet is welcoming new idiots every hour. The only way they stress CPU back then is to drop every details to minimum and see how much can the CPU keeps pushing frames.

What you are comparing nowadays is max detail at max resolution running 30+fps. Which is the same back then 6800GT/800XT era where most don't push past 50fps on max unless you CFX/SLI it.

Running anything above 60fps is a rich boy meme who just want the most expensive stuff.

Pretty sure you can figure this one out by yourself champ.

Athlon 64 had much better IPC compared to P4 and was cheaper. Resulting in Intel pumping out heatbeast P4s to compete.

Ryzen is at best equal to Skylake clock-for-clock. It's a bit cheaper for the models normal people will buy.

FUCK OFF

you must be 18 to post here

According to a Turkish tech site that is now testing 1800x with 1080;

When you are testing it against 6xxx series 8 and 10 cores of intel, it outshines them a bit on stock.

BUT when you just OC it a bit in bios, it simply has no competition.

IT SIMPLY HAS NO COMPETITION!!!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=UhKmeCdB914

Check 9.45 at 0.25 speed. You can see one of the test scores but I can't make it! Any CSI guy here who can enhance the image???!?!?!?!?!?!

>According to a Turkish tech site that is now testing 1800x with 1080;
>When you are testing it against 6xxx series 8 and 10 cores of intel, it outshines them a bit on stock.
>BUT when you just OC it a bit in bios, it simply has no competition.
>IT SIMPLY HAS NO COMPETITION!!!!!
>youtube.com/watch?v=UhKmeCdB914
>Check 9.45 at 0.25 speed. You can see one of the test scores but I can't make it! Any CSI guy here who can enhance the image???!?!?!?!?!?!

I just can't make out the image, anyone that can help?

Fucks sakes, Iposted it in a wrong thread. I was trying to get more attention and find someone that can make out the image...

That was application performance, in games the integrated memory controller was blowing P4s out completely.

You misremember the TDPs, 90nm K8 singlecores were 65W in socket 939 times, higher or 130nm SKUs were 90W, X2s were 110W.

Pentium4s also had some ~90 W TDP singlecores, but the higher-performance ones were 115 W and dualcores were mostly 130W. More importantly, the TDP was understated with them, so you could have 30-50 W difference compared to Athlon 64/X2. They would overheat back then with the coolers (not advanced as much as today) not managing to cool them under serious stress. And there would be similarly big difference in idle power consumption.

However, Pentium 4 was not completely shit and utterly unusable, as kiddos who didn't experience the era believe. That's just a fucking meme. It was just worse than K8, that's it.

Go back to Sup Forums, retards

Don't trust turkroaches.

Personally I consider application performance a pretty significant metric here, the A64 was obviously a great choice for games but of course computer use by and large extended far beyond that. I used the rather detailed Wikipedia lists for my TDP checks, but I think I'll give it to you since I do not recall the 115W Prescotts, I think I'm mixing it up with the Xeons whcih always seemed to do a little better. I'll cover my ass a bit and say that the difference ultimately doesn't really seem all that apocalyptic to me, I was actually expecting it to be even worse, I didn't think the K8 chips would go past 80 watts.

>However, Pentium 4 was not completely shit and utterly unusable, as kiddos who didn't experience the era believe. That's just a fucking meme. It was just worse than K8, that's it.
I mean, this is my overall opinion as well. I have a bit of bias towards the Pentium 4 being into older OEM equipment and having a lot of experience using and messing with them, they're not bad runners at all and I would have no qualms with being given one back in the day. And I'll say the same about the K8 chips; the good OEM boxes (and whiteboxes of course) featuring them were just fine, it was a nice era, and they were both alright.

I'm just tired of all these fucking shill threads, I'd just like to appreciate the tech for what it is instead of always having to fatigue myself trying to discuss around this fucking us vs. them narrative where something must always be "the best" without getting sucked into it like I always end up being. Everything's nice.

Donanimhaber was one of the most credible tech sources there was available once. I remember they were the ones who leaked bulldozer specs and prices accurately while everyone else was calling them ''fake'' for not believing in bulldozer hype.

So yea, I trust them when they say that this card is

>this card is better than intel's 8 cores in stock
>this card has no competition when OCed even beating 6950x in some cases
>Has better IPC than 7700k when OCed to similar clock speeds.

I really think if intel doesn't pull another Pentium 4 shit with anti-trust frauds, it's gonna lose huge market share for atleast 2-3 years.

>I really think if intel doesn't pull another Pentium 4 shit with anti-trust frauds, it's gonna lose huge market share for atleast 2-3 years.
I can't see OEMs giving that much of a shit, the A64 was a much more marketable chip with that big 64 on the sticker, Ryzen is just... Ryzen, to some random schmuck off the street how are you really going to compel them to go with it? I wouldn't be surprised if the years of shitdozer trash hasn't placed a big consumer stigma on the AMD brand as well.

I think the difference is that there is internet now, a company can't just fake it's way through consumer and OEM (although I think faking through OEMs are easier) like it was with Pentium vs Athlon.

And yea, I remember athlon vs pentium, better IPC, lower power consumption... better everything and intel still wiped the floor with AMD back then simply by bribing OEMS, marketing etc... Fucks sakes, it was so frustrating.

During the K8 era, alot had to do also with AMD not being able to deliver Opterons for the sudden demand by their far superior performance/price, so many buisness/server buyers just had to go with Intel.

It was quite sad really, robbing themselves out of a good chunk of market share just before core2 came along and litterally curbstomped them.

Lets hope Zen brings them back to the fight!

The internet was a thing back then, too, and it's ultimately up to the OEMs themselves whether they want to switch off.

>Fucks sakes, it was so frustrating.
Why? Nothing stopped you from building one yourself or buying from the OEMs that used them anyway. Stop being a white knight for a faceless corporation that doesn't care about you any more than Jewtel.

>During the K8 era, alot had to do also with AMD not being able to deliver Opterons for the sudden demand by their far superior performance/price, so many buisness/server buyers just had to go with Intel.


Thanks for the info user, I didn't know that!

It's not about white knighting a corp. mate. It was about my own selfish reasons, same with g-sync, same with vulkan, same with everything that is open source, competition which helps the consumer and user.

The fact that AMD with better prices, better performance was pushed back in to second rate brand, not having the R&D to keep up with Intel forced me personally to buy a 4930k at incredibly high prices for my work station.

The fact that AMDs GPU department had to shoulder CPU departments budgets meant that the FirePro I used could have been a better product that got hampered by failed CPU department.

I admit that I have a soft spot for AMD since all of my childhood PCs were built with AMD chips by my big brother but main reason is the fact that I care for myself and am a selfish person who wants the best for myself.

Well said.

>Dat pentium m 2.4 ghz
Why was Intel so blind for so long?
Did they believe more gigahutrtz sells more?

It's understandable and far less bitter/smug/shill sounding when described this way. I'll leave you at that. Have fun.

It's likely one of the larger portions of the equation. NetBurst wasn't designed for clock-for-clock efficiency, that's not really bad in itself, so long as you can keep raising clocks. But it wasn't a sustainable strategy.

>$500 cpu
>$250 mobo

who the fuck cares? give me 6core/12ht with single perf similar to i7 7700k at lower prices

>Did they believe more gigahutrtz sells more?
No but people did

You too user you too.

It's more like K7 was to Pentuim 3, very competitive in price, but Intel still had a slight lead performance in the high end.

It takes a lot of time to roll out a new uarch. They bet on long pipelines and high frequencies, that doesn't pan out well, then they are stuck with their bets for several years.