• 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) ***

StarShock said:
I kinda wish we knew more about the actual turbo performance. Other than AMD telling us its a thing we've seen nothing, and it seems like it could be the make or break of this chip.
Click to expand...

Given the CPU they were using for the presentation wasn't even able to run on what they're claiming otherwise to be the stock VID, I doubt they even had it working at that point in time.
 
Silent_Scone said:
Given the CPU they were using for the presentation wasn't even able to run on what they're claiming otherwise to be the stock VID, I doubt they even had it working at that point in time.
Click to expand...

yeah, I get that they not holding back just to mess with us and its because they have still been working on it. But its a fairly important question to not know the answer to yet. :p
 
Silent_Scone said:
That's purely circumstance.
Click to expand...
Assuming you mean circumstantial, I will agree there there is no concrete proof that Intel's lack of trying/effort is motivated by money, but can you think of a better plausible reason?

Silent_Scone said:
Intel stuck with Netburst for some years
Click to expand...
During which time they did everything possible to increase performance despite NB's flaws. They raised the FSB, they raised the cache, they implemented HT, they even stapled on a second core.

Even with a flaming pile of **** like NB they were able to dwarf the progress they have made in the last half decade.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Sorry I don't understand the what you mean by that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's part of the problem then. Half a decade in silicon fabrication, you're working on the assumption that designing a CPU is the same as it was back then. Most people would tell you it's probably not the same at all, and that's simply from knowing what we do about how things have been shrunk, compacting more and more into a smaller space.

Once you factor in all these things and the cost of making it happen, you can appreciate it. You don't spend vast sums of money on the premise that you're only out to do OK.

Or maybe you do, who knows. It's out for the jury (apparently.)
 
Last edited:
h4rm0ny said:
I care. We're not all gamers. I use my PC for database work, code compilation and other tasks that have sustained constant demand on the CPU.
Click to expand...

So do I? I run reporting software that can hammer the CPU regularly. Yet I run my current 6850K at 4.4. If stability is really that imperative, then you're probably looking at the wrong platforms.
 
Silent_Scone said:
So do I? I run reporting software that can hammer the CPU regularly. Yet I run my current 6850K at 4.4. If stability is really that imperative, then you're probably looking at the wrong platforms.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about overclocking. I'm talking about turbo which is what 8pack referenced. Turbo provides intermittent boosts in performance as needed. Which works well for games where you might suddenly get a spike in demand. But for scenarios where demand is constant, you care more about the base clock than it's ability to provide short bursts.



akarypid said:
That sounds about right. Intel produces at cost X and sells wholesale at price 1.25*X. Then the wholesaler adds on another 10% so it's 1.1*1.25*X. Then the retailer adds another 30% and it goes to 1.1*1.25*1.3*X which is about 1.8X and then there's VAT/Sales tax.

So when you get a 6900K for £1000, that's actually retailing at £840 pounds (the rest is VAT) and was bought at £650 from some wholesaler who got a large batch at around £590 from Intel who build the chip at a cost of around £470.

EDIT: My point is, people hear it costs £500 to build and see it selling for £1000, then make the wrong assumption that Intel pockets a profit of £500 per chip. That's just wrong.

However, think of the same path for Zen: if it is indeed that cheap to produce (some say it's half the cost of the 6900K) it'd make a huge difference because the margins are applied on top of each other (compounding). Using the same percentages a £250 chip should retail at about £450 plus VAT (i.e. around £550 total price).
Click to expand...

You also need to add R&D costs in there. The production of a CPU is hugely expensive before you even get to the point of manufacture. AMD have borrowed a lot of money to stay afloat and develop Zen. You can't just offset production costs against sales and call the difference profit. A lot of that money is already spent long ago.

ubersonic said:
Ahh right, well the facts kinda speak for themselves but to sum up, since the launch of Sandy Bridge in 2011 Intel have been averaging a 5% performance increase per generation (or in other words **** all), the general consensus for why this is happening is that because they are/were ahead of AMD by such a margin they saw no need to bother with proper upgrades, they could save on or redirect R&D and without any alternative customers would be forced to pay through the nose for their incremental upgrades. As a result progress has slowed to a crawl and profiteering has seen extortionate pricing.

To put it in perspective the i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge) and i7-7700K (Kaby Lake) were launched 6 years apart, the performance increase is lower than between the i7-2600K and the previous generation's i7-920 (Nehalem) launched 2 years earlier.
Click to expand...

Intel have made significant technology gains with their chips over the past half-decade. But maybe not where you're looking. Power consumption has fallen relative to the same performance by large amounts. Your mistake is thinking Intel's competition is AMD. Intel's real competition is ARM. Also, even without competition Intel need to keep selling the new product to last year's customers. To do that for the server market, they need to bring down power costs. So that's where they've put a lot of their focus. Not creaking out some extra FPS in a video game.
 
[QUOTE=ubersonic said:
When you repeat the same fanboy tripe and it gets refuted by someone pretty much every time then it is pretty much == spam.

It's a fact that Intel have been deliberately holding back progression due to having no competition while at the same time price gouging their own customers for years.
Click to expand...

please show me these posts where my argument has been refuted.... Lots of willfully ignorant people going

"nah nah nah .... Can't hear you intel's prices have gone up massively since sandy bridge for their consumer CPU's (demostrably false)and intel are deliberately holding back performance despite DOUBLING there R+D spend IN REAL TERMS 2005-2015 and despite forums like this being full of people saying 'i would upgrade from my 2500/2600k etc but there no compelling reason yet' (so intel have been missing out on sales there why exactly would they have not offered bigger upgrades post sandy bridge to entice people to upgrade?)

Is not a refutation of my argument in any way shape or form


It's not as though AMD have offered much of a compelling alternative in that time frame throw in massive delays with broadwell massive stock shortages with skylake to start with and it doesn't look like Intel are Deliberately holding back' it looks like their struggling to make tangible improvement's whilst contending with the simple laws of physics that dictate that making CPU's on processes steadily approaching the size of just a few atoms width gets increasing difficult and much more expensive
 
Last edited:
h4rm0ny said:
Intel have made significant technology gains with their chips over the past half-decade. But maybe not where you're looking. Power consumption has fallen relative to the same performance by large amounts. Your mistake is thinking Intel's competition is AMD. Intel's real competition is ARM. Also, even without competition Intel need to keep selling the new product to last year's customers. To do that for the server market, they need to bring down power costs. So that's where they've put a lot of their focus. Not creaking out some extra FPS in a video game.
Click to expand...

Even Kaby consumes considerably less power than SKL.
 
Come looking for Zen updates, find many people who will probably never even consider a Zen CPU let alone buy one, argue back and forth about nothing thats relative to Zen pretty much....

Sums up the last few pages here, i get theres been no info, so i guess its just a forum joust now with a lot of 1upmanship going on etc.

On a side note, Microsoft have released a debugging tool to help devs with DX12, this should surely have an impact on both CPU and GPU progression? if they can manage to code properly for both in DX12 it may help push the tech forward in both arenas again?
 
Caracus2k said:
please show me these posts where my argument has been refuted
Click to expand...
Seriously? You want me to trawl through a 58 page thread to find each instance of your spam and post the retorts? How about no, denying your argument has been defeated is no a valid stance to continue it lol.


Caracus2k said:
intel's prices have gone up massively since sandy bridge for their consumer CPU's (demostrably false)
Click to expand...
The point you keep ignoring is, while it's true that Intel's price for their top 4c8t CPU has remained static (baring inflation) for 8 years is not a positive thing.

Keeping the price the same while making the bare minimum of improvements and reducing your costs is extorting customers.


Caracus2k said:
and intel are deliberately holding back performance
Click to expand...
This is an accepted fact, the reason I am having difficulty arguing against you is because you are the first fanboy in years to actually attempt to defend Intel, even former loyalists like myself have long abandoned trying to defend them.


Caracus2k said:
It's not as though AMD have offered much of a compelling alternative in that time frame
Click to expand...
That's the reason Intel have been walking the race.


Caracus2k said:
it doesn't look like Intel are Deliberately holding back
Click to expand...
They have increased performance 50% in 6 years, prior to that (when AMD were fighting them) they increased it 60% in 2 years. They have made no attempt to innovate, they have added no more cores/features at the same price point, they are holding back and anyone who isn't still wearing the fanboy goggles can see it plain as day.
 
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=30417622&postcount=106


So this isn't advancement, then? A current ramp showing that Kaby at 5ghz, consumes less power than Skylake at 4.7. And this is simply a platform refresh...


I don't understand why you're disgruntled at Intel...They're charging what the market will allow. This is the same in all walks of life with industry leaders.

There are always cheaper alternatives.
 
Can we keep this thread to discussion of Zen. Comparisons are fine but we are going off on an Intel tangent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom