Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Jun 2017 21:55 UTC
Intel

This review comes in two big meaty chunks to sink your teeth into. The first part is discussing the new Skylake-X processors, from silicon to design and covering some of the microarchitecture features, such as AVX-512-F support and cache structure. As mentioned, Skylake-X has some significantly different functionality to the Skylake-S core, which has an impact on how software should be written to take advantage of the new features.

The second part is our testing and results. We were lucky enough to source all three Skylake-X processors for this review, and have been running some regression testing of the older processors on our new 2017 testing suite. There have been some hiccups along the way though, and we'll point them out as we go.

An extra morsel to run after is our IPC testing. We spend some time to run tests on Skylake-S and Skylake-X to see which benchmarks benefit from the new microarchitecture design, and if it really does mean anything to consumers at this stage.

As always, AnandTech delivers the goods when it comes to CPU reviews.

Order by: Score:
Benchmarks ...
by cade on Tue 20th Jun 2017 01:01 UTC
cade
Member since:
2009-02-28

Those benchmark results/graphs should also have been normalized w.r.t CPU power (Watts).

Comparing a 140W Intel CPU with a 95W AMD CPU would not necessarily show the benefit of CPU architecture.

CPU architecture efficiency/design should be compared while using the same CPU power level.

The above-mentioned Intel/AMD CPU power levels corresponds to the Intel CPU being ~50% greater in power than the AMD CPU (w.r.t AMD CPU power level) and the inferred relative performance/price shows that Intel's latest CPU architecture offerings are not impressive.

I believe the "bang for buck" is with the AMD CPU offerings.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Benchmarks ...
by Kochise on Tue 20th Jun 2017 04:15 UTC in reply to "Benchmarks ..."
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html : Ryzen doesn't looks that impressive on such benchmark

Was also done on GPU in 2014 : http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gpu_comparison_s...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Benchmarks ...
by Fergy on Tue 20th Jun 2017 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Benchmarks ..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/power_performance.html : Ryzen doesn't looks that impressive on such benchmark
Most of those cpus are low power mobile cpus so not comparable to a desktop cpu.
Interesting:
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 3Ghz 212 65watt
AMD GX-412HC 1.2Ghz 209 7 watt
Intel Core i7-7Y75 @ 1.30GHz 873 4.5watt
So AMD's new desktop cpu is as power efficient as their 2014 embedded low power soc. Guess what happens when they release a cpu for laptops.

Edited 2017-06-20 17:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Timing!
by Brendan on Tue 20th Jun 2017 04:42 UTC
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

I find it "nicely coincidental" to see article/s about Skylake-X today, the 20th of June (the day that AMD is expected to launch their Epyc CPUs).

- Brendan

Reply Score: 2

RE: Timing!
by Morgan on Tue 20th Jun 2017 10:44 UTC in reply to "Timing!"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I love the reviews on AnandTech, but they have historically had a pro-Intel/Nvidia slant. I don't know if it's intentional or just coincidental bias on the part of most of their staff, but the timing of this article is indeed interesting.

Though, they did do a short article on Skylake-X when it was first announced that didn't seem to coincide with anything AMD related at the time.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Timing!
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 20th Jun 2017 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Timing!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I love the reviews on AnandTech, but they have historically had a pro-Intel/Nvidia slant.


Historically, reality has had a pro-Intel/Nvidia slant.

For the past few years especially, AMD has produced garbage compared to Intel/Nvidia. No bias needed. It's only now that things are starting to get competitive again.

Edited 2017-06-20 10:51 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Timing!
by Morgan on Tue 20th Jun 2017 11:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Timing!"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I guess I didn't consider that. And perhaps I'm forgetting that for any perceived bias on the part of AnandTech writers, there's actual, usually vicious bias flooding their comment section that is likely affecting my view.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Timing!
by Kochise on Tue 20th Jun 2017 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Timing!"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Well, for quite a long time I'm always fascinated how AMD puts very clever technology on move but with sub par implementation (GlobalFoundry ?)

arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-amd-how-an-under dog-stuck-it-to-intel/

www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/713-amd-cpu-history.html

Pre K5 era, good CPUs faster than Intel.
Athlon, good CPU with slower FPU
Athlon XP, good CPU, especially Barton
Athlon 64, first x86-64 (after Opteron)
Phenom, hot and buggy, like the Pentium 2
APU, good and balanced CPU-GPU mix
Ryzen, stronger than ever.

Now AMD should really really invest into the mobile *non-x86* market to compete with Qualcomm and so.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Timing!
by Carewolf on Wed 21st Jun 2017 10:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Timing!"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

It is pretty non-accidental these days. They are the ones that described the non-upgrade that was Kaby Lake as "fastest CPU ever", though their benchmarks showed it didn't yet reach the fastest Skylakes, let alone Broadwell-Es.

They have no shame when it comes to doing Intel PR.

Reply Score: 2