• 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) ***

It does not look too shabby,and even if Intel wins a bit overall in IPC with KL,AMD looks like it will have something competitive.

The last time AMD could even compete with £1000 Intel CPUs,let alone £400 ones,was during the Athlon and Athlon 64 days.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It does not look too shabby,and even if Intel wins a bit overall in IPC with KL,AMD looks like it will have something competitive.

The last time AMD could even compete with £1000 Intel CPUs,let alone £400 ones,was during the Athlon and Athlon 64 days.
Click to expand...

and ofc - who designed those cpu`s ;)
 
Minstadave said:
It does seem off we're not seeing turbo in these previews, it's due for release in the next 2-3 months so final silicon must be available.
Click to expand...

Might be being held back, so they can reveal just prior to release to allow them to fine tune the performance of the CPUs versus Intel's price/performance stack.

After the last number of *YEARS* I'd imagine they want to come out the starting gates quite strong with Ryzen.

I mean Intel would be hurting if they're expecting Ryzen to clock to something like 4GHz, then AMD releases with a base clock of 3.5GHz Turboing to 4.5GHz with decent cooling...by holding the boost information back, they're holding the true performance back of the chips from Intel as much as us.
 
Last edited:
This is looking extremely promising... i think AMD potentially have a winner on their hands here.

IPC looks good on an Engineering sample, Lisa Su stated final silicon will be 3.4 base, so thats higher than sample those guys had, also the boost clock has not even been shown yet, AMD could have some proper voodoo magic up their sleeves and drop a massive bomb on the CPU market with this.

Only other thing now is price.... pricing is key, the performance looks to be there, pricing is the only worry.
 
Harlequin said:
erm the 6900k is a 140w part , zen is topping out at 95w
Click to expand...

Look at the French results posted both are consuming between 90-95W at full load, TDP relates to cooling requirements. I ignored the game benchmarks as they're meaningless really, even AMD FX does well in a lot of games.

If CAT-THE-FIFTH is right about the 6900K running at much higher clocks then it's good news for performance but even worse from a power efficiency standpoint. I just assumed a 6900K won't boost very much when all cores are fully loaded.

I've just gone through the hassle of translating the productivity test text:

Performances - Gross Computation said:
With its eight real hearts, Zen manages to realize prowess despite the limited frequency of 3.3ghz. It is even approaching dangerously - for Intel - of the Core i7 6900K with comparable performances of the Core i7 5960X equipped with an identical frequency (3.3ghz in turbo mode). AMD's allegations a few months ago seem to be well verified in practice and this is excellent news. Compared to the FX-8370, a performance gain of about 35% at an equal frequency is observed. Also in line with the manufacturer's forecast (40%).
Click to expand...

So Zen was running at 3.3ghz with turbo I assume? they say it's the same performance as 5960X at 3.3ghz but don't include that in the benchmarks go figure.
 
Last edited:
Power consumption said:
Measurements under full load (watts)

The electrical consumption measurement of the Zen CPU was taken at the amperometric clamp on the ATX 12V connector, under full load. Although it is less precise than the ones we usually perform on the oscilliscope, it gives a good idea of the performance of the 14nm LPP process of Global Foundries. After removing the VRM losses from the motherboard, it can be estimated that the CPU consumes just under 90W, a value very close to that of a 6900K. A good result for the future.
Click to expand...

A bit more that looked interesting:

Although the Octo-core models seem well on the rails, the manufacturer must imperatively finalize the quad-core declinations with frequencies much higher than on the current prototypes: 3.8 or even 4.0 or 4.2GHz seems to us the minimum to go titillate the Last Kaby Lake.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Harlequin said:
Intel state its a 140w cpu and they make it , so I would rather listen to them , than some random website

oh and anadtech had it at above 140w under full load

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337...900k-6850k-and-6800k-tested-up-to-10-cores/10
Click to expand...

140W TDP, it relates to cooling.

That link you provided they used a wall meter which includes the whole system and PSU inefficiencies, it tells you in the first paragraph.

Power consumption was tested on the system while in a single MSI GTX 770 Lightning configuration with a wall meter connected to the OCZ 1250W power supply. This power supply is Gold rated, and as I am in the UK on a 230-240 V supply, leads to ~75% efficiency > 50W, and 90%+ efficiency at 250W, suitable for both idle and multi-GPU loading. This method of power reading allows us to compare both the power management of the BIOS and the board's ability to supply components with power under load, and includes typical PSU losses due to efficiency.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
Look at the French results posted both are consuming between 90-95W at full load, TDP relates to cooling requirements. I ignored the game benchmarks as they're meaningless really, even AMD FX does well in a lot of games.

If CAT-THE-FIFTH is right about the 6900K running at much higher clocks then it's good news for performance but even worse from a power efficiency standpoint. I just assumed a 6900K won't boost very much when all cores are fully loaded.

I've just gone through the hassle of translating the productivity test text:



So Zen was running at 3.3ghz with turbo I assume? they say it's the same performance as 5960X at 3.3ghz but don't include that in the benchmarks go figure.
Click to expand...

Well from what I gathered on Reddit it was under 3.2GHZ with all cores Turbo,and 3.3GHZ might have been what we see during gaming.

That gives the Intel chip a 300MHZ to 400MHZ clockspeed advantage - the Core i7 6900K is 3.5GHZ all cores Turbo and 3.7GHZ for lighter loads.

From what I gather AMD has not fully enabled Turbo on these parts,so we could be seeing higher clockspeed alround and apparently it will ship with 3.4GHZ base clockspeeds.
 
Just hoping Ryzen drops sooner rather than later now... looks very good from the French review, AMD is definitely coming back strong it would seem! :D
 
OK,I looked at the review again - is the power consumption figures the difference between idle and load or just the load figure??

If its the former,Ryzen is supposedly an SOC with chipset functionality like SATA,etc in the CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom