• 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) ***

Rainmaker said:
I'm honestly not sure if I'm missing something in this. What's the significance of the fact an i7 6900K can approximate the same time as Ryzen 8/16? All that tells me is that Ryzen appears to have Broadwell-E IPC (even without turbo, which I assume everyone here left enabled on their 6900s?). That being the case, if Ryzen is less than £1,000 then it's winner winner chicken dinner?

I may have taken the wrong end of the stick but some of the posts seem to be 'Ah but look, my 6900K gets the same(ish) time as Ryzen'. Well, yeah... but it's a £1,000 CPU, and shouldn't it rather be 'Holy crap AMD are finally matching Intel's top desktop chip, and at 90W TDP instead of 140W'? As I said, I may be missing the point.
Click to expand...

Glad you asked, firstly no the results posted are off boost on the 6900K to match the Zen results. At stock, the 6900K clocks up to a boost speed of 4Ghz.


When running on the same build as AMD did (2.77) The 6900K is consistently overtaking AMD's result. This particular point isn't of the most importance. The most important thing to take away from the very beginning is that everyone should be praying Zen overclocks well and that it's aggressively priced. Or else you've got an alternative that's purely only good assuming you underclock your 6900K or potentially, even 6 core BWE CPU.

In addition, this is purely when looking at rendering workloads. If we took other workloads into account, then the appeal is potentially even less.
 
Harlequin said:
AMD used the 2.78a version to render in the live stream - so saying your faster in an older version is completely pointless.

apples to oranges and all that
Click to expand...

According to the small print listing the specs at the end of their video, it says they used 2.77. I checked myself after reading Silent_Scone's post.

52a475894a.png
 
Rainmaker said:
I'm honestly not sure if I'm missing something in this. What's the significance of the fact an i7 6900K can approximate the same time as Ryzen 8/16? All that tells me is that Ryzen appears to have Broadwell-E IPC (even without turbo, which I assume everyone here left enabled on their 6900s?). That being the case, if Ryzen is less than £1,000 then it's winner winner chicken dinner?

I may have taken the wrong end of the stick but some of the posts seem to be 'Ah but look, my 6900K gets the same(ish) time as Ryzen'. Well, yeah... but it's a £1,000 CPU, and shouldn't it rather be 'Holy crap AMD are finally matching Intel's top desktop chip, and at 90W TDP instead of 140W'? As I said, I may be missing the point.
Click to expand...

If its true and known the value of their 6850K's and 6900K's will fall off a cliff.

Used CPU's lose value over new anyway but they will lose £100's more, so they argue till blue in the fact that its just not true.

For some people here Zen coming good is a very bad thing.
 
Last edited:
Silent_Scone said:
Glad you asked, firstly no the results posted are off boost on the 6900K to match the Zen results. At stock, the 6900K clocks up to a boost speed of 4Ghz.


When running on the same build as AMD did (2.77) The 6900K is consistently overtaking AMD's result. This particular point isn't of the most importance. The most important thing to take away from the very beginning is that everyone should be praying Zen overclocks well and that it's aggressively priced. Or else you've got an alternative that's purely only good assuming you underclock your 6900K or potentially, even 6 core BWE CPU.

In addition, this is purely when looking at rendering workloads. If we took other workloads into account, then the appeal is potentially even less.
Click to expand...

It's only one workload, true. They also stack up in Handbrake and games relying heavily on single core clocks though, so it's still got my interest. Most of my 'work' is threaded (par2 recovery, transcoding, encoding, running several VMs at once etc), so it's what I'm after.

Even if it transpires the 6900K beats Ryzen by x%, if it's y% cheaper and y > x then it's still going to be a great chip. As you said, until we see the retail chip speeds, turbo and real reviews/benches it's all speculation. Ryzen could come out at 99% of the 6900K's speed and 60% of the price. I'm obviously going to extremes for the sake of example, but it's a valid point. At the other end of the spectrum, Ryzen could come out with 4GHz stock and a 5GHz turbo, with equivalent IPC to B-E and end up blowing it away. We just don't know, so it's all hot air on both sides atm.
 
Harlequin said:
then I stand corrected ; which then must be asked , why is the AMD site listing 2.78 as the go to version?
Click to expand...

Good question. Another 'mistake'? If so which one is mistaken? It makes it harder for enthusiasts to compare their current CPU fairly to the preview score, but it doesn't change the apples to apples comparison given to the Intel chips in the preview itself, so it's still all good. Annoying to have such muddy waters, though.
 
Rainmaker said:
It's only one workload, true. They also stack up in Handbrake and games relying heavily on single core clocks though, so it's still got my interest. Most of my 'work' is threaded (par2 recovery, transcoding, encoding, running several VMs at once etc), so it's what I'm after.

Even if it transpires the 6900K beats Ryzen by x%, if it's y% cheaper and y > x then it's still going to be a great chip. As you said, until we see the retail chip speeds, turbo and real reviews/benches it's all speculation. Ryzen could come out at 99% of the 6900K's speed and 60% of the price. I'm obviously going to extremes for the sake of example, but it's a valid point. At the other end of the spectrum, Ryzen could come out with 4GHz stock and a 5GHz turbo, with equivalent IPC to B-E and end up blowing it away. We just don't know, so it's all hot air on both sides atm.
Click to expand...

If the performance from Blender is anything to go by, and the SR7 clocked up to 5Ghz, that would be game changing.

From what I've been hearing, though, the reality is not near that...
 
Silent_Scone said:
It might pain you to hear it, but yes certain circles certain things are said ;)
Click to expand...

I don't suppose you would want to share that with us, eh? or are you under some sort of NDA?

Edit response to your edit, so not under NDA, are you a gambling man? you going to put into text right here exactly what you heard? i don't believe a thing you say so lets put that to the test.
 
Silent_Scone said:
I'm telling you what I've heard. Memory overclocking is practically non existent. I'd love to have seen some results for myself, but I haven't.
Click to expand...

So you are saying you know Zen cannot run memory speed over its base memory frequency. what exactly is its base memory frequency?

And what does that have to do with Core Mhz which is what you originally said you knew about, what happened to that claim?
 
humbug said:
So you are saying you know Zen cannot run memory speed over its base memory frequency. what exactly is its base memory frequency?

And what does that have to do with Core Mhz which is what you originally said you knew about, what happened to that claim?
Click to expand...


Well, like with all DDR4 JEDEC is 2133, and practically non existent would, to me, imply speeds of potentially up to 2400 or 2600 at best.

In other words, don't expect much in the way of memory overclocking? Similar was said for core mhz as well, but like you I'm waiting to see these things for myself. AMD are still 'refining' aspects, after all. Not that this is reassuring in any real way.
 
Harlequin said:
so given we don't have retail cpu`s or retail boards - what your saying is complete rubbish then?

you are basically making it up as you go along?
Click to expand...

If hearing things from people who work closely with AMD is making things up, then yes that's exactly what I am doing. Might come as a surprise to you, but there aren't simply magical fairies, and Q&A and assessments take place.

I'm not claiming to know anything for certain otherwise, given how you're responding I'd jam it down your throat lol.
 
Silent_Scone said:
Well, like with all DDR4 JEDEC is 2133, and practically non existent would, to me, imply speeds of potentially up to 2400 or 2600 at best.

In other words, don't expect much in the way of memory overclocking? Similar was said for core mhz as well, but like you I'm waiting to see these things for myself. AMD are still 'refining' aspects, after all. Not that this is reassuring in any real way.
Click to expand...

Changed yer tune from this...

Silent_Scone said:
Well for one, don't expect anything in the way of memory overclocking.
Click to expand...

My DC's IMC is rated for 1866Mhz on the memory, i don't run it higher than 2400Mhz because it need's too many volts and gets too hot

2133Mhz OC to 2600Mhz is perfectly reasonable.

I'm still waiting on you laying down what it is you claim to know about its core Mhz, thats what i'm actually calling you out on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom