• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=devZ8jETRJo This is the updated video.

See the description.

It happened.

I had forgotten it was a complete set of benchmarks though, and I can't remember fully which ones were which, but the Cinebench one was definitely the i7 980X versus FX8150.

What about it?

Its not an AMD channel, the description states some graphs were "inadvertently mislabeled" the Cinema Bench scene is labeled as 2500K and clearly is a 4 thread CPU.

Your claim is that the Cinema Bench scene was labeled wrongly as a 12 thread i7 980 deliberately by AMD to deceive viewers, is that what you are saying?
 
What about it?

Its not an AMD channel, the description states some graphs were "inadvertently mislabeled" the Cinema Bench scene is labeled as 2500K and clearly is a 4 thread CPU.

Your claim is that the Cinema Bench scene was labeled wrongly as a 12 thread i7 980 deliberately by AMD to deceive viewers, is that what you are saying?

It's AMD's videos, just other channels also uploaded the video, you can't find them anymore on AMD's youtube (Or maybe you can find the "current" video on AMD's youtube, I've not looked, you certainly can't find the original). AMD's site is different so none of their old PR articles and stuff work either.

And yes, there was an i7 980 versus FX8150 Cinebench result in an official AMD video, and it wasn't an i7 980 at all, it was an i5 2500K. I mean, you can clearly see they're comparing i7 980's in even the "proper" official video. Although I can't remember there being any i5 2500K in the original (Why would there be? The FX8150 was more expensive)

It's pretty obvious from that video description it happened.

I "made it up", but yet I'm linking to ancient sauces that back me up. Doesn't compute.
 
Last edited:
It's AMD's videos, just other channels also uploaded the video, you can't find them anymore on AMD's youtube (Or maybe you can find the "current" video on AMD's youtube, I've not looked, you certainly can't find the original). AMD's site is different so none of their old PR articles and stuff work either.

And yes, there was an i7 980 versus FX8150 Cinebench result in an official AMD video, and it wasn't an i7 980 at all, it was an i5 2500K.

It's pretty obvious from that video description it happened.

I "made it up", but yet I'm linking to ancient sauces that back me up. Doesn't compute.

Really? then find me one because your last one isn't one of them, nor does it say what the mislabelling thing was.
All we have, still, is your word that AMD labelled the 4 thread Cinema Bench scene as 12 thread i7 980, and deliberately, to mislead, 4 thread visual benchmark as 12 thread, deliberately.

I think your talking rubbish.
 
Humbug loves to bloviate til the other side gets tired then claims he's won.

Then has the nerve to spew "tinfoil" accusations. Had to get greedy... now someone else will come along and blow him out for sure. Then he'll cry to the mods for "witchhunting".
 
Damn it, Thread continues to fail to deliver news. Do you think we could start a sticky with actual CPU news for all vendors where people just post links to actual articles or other forum posts with information?
 
What about that render test they showed with 3 GHz 8-core Zen, vs the i7 6900k clocked at 3 GHz?

And Zen beat it by a tiny margin.

I had a long thought about that last night and saw CPU Blender benchmark scores list wondered why did AMD used CPU blender benchmark? Because AMD can cheated it easy to lowered render time after ran benchmark few times before audiences.

http://blenchmark.com/cpu-benchmarks

I noticed something wrong with CPU scores, had a look at 6900K 99 sec, 4790S 144 sec, 6700K 144 sec, 4790K 147 sec, 980X 146 sec, 3770S 164 sec, 4770K 167 sec.

Old ancient Nehalem 980X is faster than Haswell 4770K? :eek: :confused:

These scores cant be right!

Core i7 6900K

http://blenchmark.com/device-details/Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU X 980 @ 3.33GHz

same Windows 10, benchmark version and clock speed but 3 different scores.

Core i7 6700K

http://blenchmark.com/device-details/Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700K CPU @ 4.00GHz

Latest benchmark result dated today at 9.03am ran on Windows 10 64bit had 154 sec render time on version 2.78a but that is not the fastest render time. The fastest render time goes to Ubuntu 16.04 64bit with 103 sec on version 2.77a.

Core i7 4790S

http://blenchmark.com/device-details/Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790S CPU @ 3.20GHz

144 sec render time on version 2.77a ran on Mac OS 10.11.6 64bit.

Core i7 4790K

http://blenchmark.com/device-details/Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz

Latest benchmark version 2.78 result with 174 sec render time ran on Windows 10 64bit but that is not the fastest render time. The fastest render time goes to debian 8.1 64bit with 110 sec on version 2.75a.

Core i7 980X

http://blenchmark.com/device-details/Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU X 980 @ 3.33GHz

Benchmark result on Windows 10 64bit saw 142 sec render time on version 2.78a but Mac OS 10.12.1 64bit had the fastest render time of 117 sec on same version 2.78a.

Oh so many different render times all over places on different Windows, Mac and Linux versions, it looked like Linux has the fastest render time than Windows and Mac OS. I think Blender is very terrible benchmark for CPUs and it easy to invalided other results that is why AMD decided to chose Blender the only CPU benchmark to wow the audience.

Guess we will probably have to brace for huge disappointments in Zen reviews in Jan 2017 showed that it is no faster than Broadwell-E but could as fast as Ivy Bridge or could it be another disaster like bulldozer? Who know?
 
Got to admit, I've never seen blender used as a CPU bench.

But I'm setting aside my scepticism.
AMD don't need to match Intels top end, let alone beat it. They've just got to get a product to mix it up, which at the moment they don't.
 
Got to admit, I've never seen blender used as a CPU bench.

But I'm setting aside my scepticism.
AMD don't need to match Intels top end, let alone beat it. They've just got to get a product to mix it up, which at the moment they don't.

This, besides it's only 2 months to CES now so we're all going to know soon enough. The thing not to do is of course pre-order any based upon hype or presentations because that never ends badly :) . However, after the Bulldozer PR disaster I am confident Zen will be competitive against an Intel skew but which one? We'll see.
 
Take with a truckload of salt:

https://m.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5cffyt/newish_details_about_zen/?compact=true

Apologies if there's another thread about AMD's upcoming CPU architecture and of course desktop CPUs, if there is, delete or perhaps merge this info. This is the current state of the retail CPUs, which have been improving by the month.

There are some errata issues present in the current testing samples, similar in a way to the TLB bug of the Phenom. The workaround right now is done via the BIOS. The workaround however, strips around 30 ~ 40% of the CPU performance.

The CPUs are well behind schedule and every day there's real progress and bug fixing being done. Unlike with INTEL's E0 CPUs which make it to the wild that are almost completely final silicon. AMD's samples will continue to get bug fixes right up until retail spec sampling to partners.

In August Clock speeds were 3.8GHz, right now 4.2GHz overclocking is possible, with LN2 5GHz is doable. Again this will change of course, but it is just the current silicon that is behaving like this.

AM4/ZEN uses an SOC design, that means even CMOS/BIOS configuration is on package (not necessarily on silicon, I can't confirm this) so it is possible to clear the "BIOS" and still have old value applied 30 minutes later. How this will be addressed remains to be seen. Perhaps it won't be the same scenario for final silicon

Operating voltages (nominal) are 1.3v and all the way up to 1.5v should be fine it seems for AIO cooling. Frequency scaling isn't a strong point but again that may have everything to do with the process at this point rather than an inherent design limitation.

Performance is particularly strong at this point vs. INTEL's latest offerings. Single thread performance is matching Haswell-E and of course multi-threading performance as well. Tests that are memory bandwidth dependent may go to the INTEL platform simply as a result of having more memory channels, but I can't confirm that right now and have no info on that. The important thing here is that the 16Thread/8-Core CPU is minimum 5960X performance if not better actually. (Based on Cinebench R15) with the error fix disabled.

Can't speak to how well the IMC is working as current samples are locked to low DRAM frequencies (2133MHz and lower) and of course this has an impact on performance.

As stated in the beginning, every week is progress and AMD is working at an unprecedented rate to get these ready by March.

You're unlikely to see any high end boards for the CPUs prior to launch or at launch, simply because no vendors can commit to too much right now as plenty is changing at a rapid rate.

All overclocking is done via Overdrive, you can't change any performance features at all in the BIOS (on to that next) at all.

BIOS or UEFI is actually built into the CPU, so only AMD can update the "BIOS" or microcode. All overclocking must take place within the Operating system

Right now it takes up to 30 minutes to clear the BIOS. If you remove the CPU and place it on another motherboard, it'll have the same settings applied as on the previous board. So debugging is a nightmare

6850K SKU (May not be final designation) is wait for it.... $300 roughly. That's 8 Cores and 16 Threads

AMD's Hyper Threading is called SMU and it is ************ good. The same efficiency as Intel's HT.

Performance is really good, be it SuperPi, Cinebench, 3DMark etc, it's FPU performance is incredibly good and easily matching that of what Intel offers.

Current performance is staggering even though it is limited to 2133MHz (as mentioned before) and NorthBridge Frequency is limited to 2400MHz

There will be a nigher SKU than the 6850K, but it is a higher bin so it will certainly overclock better than 6850K and that may carry a premium price, but unlikely to be double.

There's plenty of excitement from all board vendors about the platform, so we will see how it all pans out. (Especially with the hot mess that INTEL has in store for us H2 2017, that we can leave to another thread)

For Gaming, the CPU is neck and neck with INTEL, even at low res where CPU bound.
 
I won't get hyped up on random reddit comments, but I very much hope that person is telling the truth/has accurate knowledge.

If even half of those things are true it looks like it could be good.
 
"There are some errata issues present in the current testing samples, similar in a way to the TLB bug of the Phenom. The workaround right now is done via the BIOS. The workaround however, strips around 30 ~ 40% of the CPU performance."

And then went on to say...

"Performance is really good, be it SuperPi, Cinebench, 3DMark etc, it's FPU performance is incredibly good and easily matching that of what Intel offers."

"For Gaming, the CPU is neck and neck with INTEL, even at low res where CPU bound."

So what are they saying? despite a bug hampering the CPU's performance by <40% its still a match or better per clock, per thread for Intel latest CPU's in all aspects?

Bucket of slat.
 
The important thing here is that the 16Thread/8-Core CPU is minimum 5960X performance if not better actually. (Based on Cinebench R15) with the error fix disabled

It sounds to me like it's matching/similar performance, so long as the TLB bug doesn't crash your system beforehand... (i.e when the fix is enabled it will be slower than Intel)
The BIOS fix for TLB implemented for Phenom CPUs also killed performance. A better solution was implemented in a new CPU stepping but there was still a minor performance hit.
 
It sounds to me like it's matching/similar performance, so long as the TLB bug doesn't crash your system beforehand... (i.e when the fix is enabled it will be slower than Intel)
The BIOS fix for TLB implemented for Phenom CPUs also killed performance. A better solution was implemented in a new CPU stepping but there was still a minor performance hit.

They ain't going to sell chips that are basically unstable and don't work so the fix will be in place.

And if as you read it 'only as fast as Intel without the fix' then as it will be sold with the fix the performance will be 40% less than Intel, which is not anything like good enough to even consider putting on the market, its only roughly about as fast as their existing FX CPU's, or a bit more.

Now, either there is something very wrong with that premiss, or there is something very wrong with the chip and AMD don't really have a product at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom