AMD Threadripper 3990X 64-Core beats dual Xeon Platinum 8280 in benchmark leak

[porina]

8 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

one can argue they were sorta complacent in the consumer space. not that they didnt push out new faster products, but compared to the advancements they have done in the serverspace, its kinda slow. 

Let's look at what they did, vs what they could have done.

 

14nm was a troubled start, with Broadwell coming out on desktop very late, just before Skylake, without the usual product stack and marketing lifespan. If we look at Haswell to Skylake, there were significant architecture improvements there.

 

The problems then started, the Skylake Successor (I don't recall if it was going to be called Kaby Lake) was supposed to be on 10nm... and we have the situation we're in today. For practical purposes, Intel 10nm doesn't exist outside mobile, even then in limited cases. Everything on desktop since then has been derived closely from Skylake architecture.

 

Intel today does have a successor architecture to Skylake, in the form of sunny Cove. Intel does have 10nm, kinda. It was not a case of them not trying, it was a case of them failing to deliver on plan.

 

"More cores" is a partial fix to keep up with AMD, but they fundamentally need to get their process back on track.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

one can argue they were sorta complacent in the consumer space. not that they didnt push out new faster products, but compared to the advancements they have done in the serverspace, its kinda slow. 

 

the current top end chips intel offers is not a sign of complacency. 

They did slow down, but only is as far as they went from being in front most of the time to being behind some of the time (just looking at raw performance).  But that wasn't due to complacency.  We seriously lack enough information about how fast 10nm would have been had it been here and that is on top of knowing whether the issues Intel had could have been avoided (in any reasonable way).   Without that information no one can claim they were complacent.

 

 

And just from another perspective,  how are people judging the performance that Intel's products "should" have been at.   As @porina pointed out, their product development throughout history hasn't always been massive improvement after massive improvement,  Like all companies, they encounter large problems just as much as the next guy in their R+D.   Are people calling Intel complacent because their expectations of product Improvement were/are unrealistic, Just like many thought RTX was a failure because they expected too much of a new technology out of the gate.