Hype trains are always a two-sided coin when it comes to fans on both sides of the aisle. Remember the Pentium 4 hype and more recently the Intel Atom Bay Trail and Cherry Trail hype? As it is, Ryzen desktop processors are between Broadwell and Kaby Lake which equates to the claimed 52% IPC (and single-thread) improvement over Bulldozer. This is nothing to be sneezed at no matter how you try cutting it.
Again, CPU power consumption is approximately a cubic function of the voltage you see (link). The lower slope means a huge savings in power draw for the lower frequencies. The higher slope means a huge uptick in power draw for the higher frequencies. Numerically, this means for half of the voltage, we will see about an eighth of the power draw without any additional transistor-level optimization. Better said, for a quarter drop in the voltage, we will approximately half the power draw without any additional transistor-level optimization. In addition, halving the number of cores will halve the power draw, where the processor in this chart is an eight-core configuration. Based on the model in the chart, since the voltage has increased substantially for the higher frequency processors, naturally, following the chart downwards in frequency, we should see far lower power draw given the lower slope and, in turn, lower power levels for the lower frequencies.
To reiterate, the second chart has nothing to do with frequency and per-core performance. Period. I do not know where you are extrapolating this from, but IPC (instructions per clock) does not change with frequency rate. IPC is a constant value, or, in other words, for a given unit of frequency, you get a given amount of performance throughput. As to the chart, all it is saying is the lowest stable voltage an eight-core Ryzen processor can be supplied by for a given clock frequency. This is to say, it is telling the lower the stable voltage, the lower the power draw. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now, the calculations I made were based solely on the 52% IPC improvement. This is why I added the qualifier “and possibly more.” In other words, this is without also taking into account Ryzen’s improved power efficiency and any additional transistor-level optimizations that will inevitably be made for the mobile versions of the architecture. These upcoming Raven Ridge APUs will be able to reach higher clocks as well at the same power level as Bristol Ridge. Even a meager 15% increase in clock rate compared to that Bristol Ridge processor, thanks to increased efficiency and transistor-level optimization on the top of the already 52% IPC improvement, would mean an overall single-core performance improvement of 60%. That would equate to a single-thread Cinebench score of 120 using the 76 reference score of the current Bristol Ridge processor. Note that this is a conservative estimate, meaning more performance is also possible.
Maybe. But not all of them can be manipulated. For example, running a benchmark on your own computer. Or asking a friend to run a benchmark. Or just using a “crowdsourced” benchmark website like userbenchmark.com
Once Vega comes out with tile-based rendering, things will end up being more in AMD’s favor. Note: This is in addition to Vega’s design being more powerful and its architecture more efficient. Since Maxwell, Nvidia has used tile-based rasterization as a technique or “trick” to eek out more performance. This has allowed their GPUs with less raw TFLOP throughput to win at game performance. Tile-based rendering will again put AMD on an even playing field with Nvidia, and then all bets are off for Nvidia.
Let me just add this final thought: the reason Ryzen’s current desktop processors consume so much power is there is an extremely steep slope immediately following the two critical points which are the region of their normal operating clock speeds (3.5 GHz-4.0GHz). One reason of the many aforementioned reasons that Ryzen’s upcoming mobile processors will consume much less power is their normal operating clock speeds are located long before the steep slope begins. I will leave it at that since this conversation is a topic typically reserved to upper-level undergraduate and graduate computer engineering courses and this topic alone could easily consume the rest of this thread for weeks on end.
The most important thing - does it come with a lot of red LEDs, grey and black sharp angled edges, unneccessary bits of plastic and generally look like an alien weaopn from a 90’s film. These are the most important considerations for most people buying any new component as far as I can tell.
Unfortunately, this is typically the case for a good deal of the PC gamers out there. They get sucked into the nonsensical world of brand tribalism and use their gaudy, tacky, overbuilt PC builds as their war paint. Over the years, I myself have switched back and forth between AMD, Intel and Nvidia without any regrets. At the end of the day, it is all about getting the best solution that meets your requirements for your given budget–to heck with brand loyalty and fanboyism.
“Threadripper, AMD says, will try to conquer the high-end desktop CPU space with 16 cores and 32 threads.”
"The Mobile-branded chips will be destined for AMD-powered laptops, which are due later this year and will integrate bits of AMD’s “Vega” graphics tech."
Hmm… We could use this in an Eve device in the future…
TDP != power consumption. With Intel laptop processors, the power consumption is usually several times lower. For example, my V prototype’s CPU was eating up 1W most of the time.During benchmarks it went up to 7W because that’s where the limit is, but that’s a “special” processor with power consumption being itsmain limit. Regular Core processorsnever reach their TDP: the highest power consumption I’ve seen on my tablet was 12W, and that includes the screen, WiFi and other components. It has a 17W processor. The system’s total power consumption doesn’t even come close to that, even at full load.
Then we can look at Lenovo Ideapad Y700, my friend has one. He manages to dqueeze it down to below 10W, even though the processor’s TDP is 45W. At full load it still doesn’t reach 45W.