Fingers crossed the s7 doesn't explode this time
yeah, I know it was the note 7 not the s7, but joakes
Last edited:
-
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) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Fingers crossed the s7 doesn't explode this time
yeah, I know it was the note 7 not the s7, but joakes
Are you sure? I haven't seen anything indicating the CPUs will actually be called "AMD Ryzen ...". The SR3/5/7 moniker was seen in a single slide but personally I hope they don't use them. It's unnecessarily confusing for an 8 core CPU to be called SR7 (for example).
Caporegime
SR for Summit Ridge, just to confuse it even more 
Soldato
So what has happened is that Summit Ridge is the main architecture and has been given a branding name of Ryzen for desktop chips.
The server and APU's are still using their code names Naples and Raven Ridge. These are likely of course to be renamed otherwise. The codes are SR3/5/7 to be able to easily understand what they compare too from AMD's view in regards to Intels counterparts. That makes sense.
I have no issue with it being called AMD Ryzen SR7 for instance.
Details below as I have read:
With the above I would say that it is a good step forward but still a generation behind Intel. If they had just managed to push it so that they could have got closer to the 4.6GHz in turbo across all cores and I would see everyone almost migrating across to AMD. what will be interesting is with the less cores on the SR3/5 series is how they boost. Could be for gaming if they boost closer to the 4.6GHz they will be better anyways.
Although I am not very savvy on CPU's so not sure how the L2 & L3 cache will relate to that performance.
The server and APU's are still using their code names Naples and Raven Ridge. These are likely of course to be renamed otherwise. The codes are SR3/5/7 to be able to easily understand what they compare too from AMD's view in regards to Intels counterparts. That makes sense.
I have no issue with it being called AMD Ryzen SR7 for instance.
Details below as I have read:
- $499 (SR7B), 8/16 (core/thread) L2: 4MB, L3: 16MB, core speeds 3.6Ghz standard, Turbo to 4GHz (coor speed for 3.6GHz was confrimed as SKU3 being used on the Doom demo).
- $349 (SR7), 8/16 (core/thread)L2: 4MB, L3: 16MB
- $249 (SR5), 6/12 (core/thread) L2: 3MB, L3: 12MB
- $149 (SR3), 4/8 (core/thread) L2: 2MB, L3: 8MB
With the above I would say that it is a good step forward but still a generation behind Intel. If they had just managed to push it so that they could have got closer to the 4.6GHz in turbo across all cores and I would see everyone almost migrating across to AMD. what will be interesting is with the less cores on the SR3/5 series is how they boost. Could be for gaming if they boost closer to the 4.6GHz they will be better anyways.
Although I am not very savvy on CPU's so not sure how the L2 & L3 cache will relate to that performance.
Last edited:
Soldato
Anything that's cache and memory interaction intensive will likely be in Intel's favour, but I wouldn't hold either vendor to that till we see results.
The sources where you got this info from are they saying these are the confirmed speeds and prices for Ryzen?
Soldato
On the speed side of things for the SR7B, they confirmed they were using an SKU3 version for the Doom Demo.
On the price, they what they were provided on the details from AMD for their "listings" this of course could change with how things are and the dollar changing etc but in principle from what I have "read" yes.
I feel that it seems to be about right in ballpark based on the little info we have had.
On the price, they what they were provided on the details from AMD for their "listings" this of course could change with how things are and the dollar changing etc but in principle from what I have "read" yes.
I feel that it seems to be about right in ballpark based on the little info we have had.
Soldato
Interesting, why would you suggest that. I mean the i7 7700k has L3 cache of 8MB and 256KB of L2 cache would put that well below that of what AMD are doing.
Or are you basing this of older architecture from AMD?
Those prices are far from confirmed and, IMO, unlikely. It's possible that an 8c/16t chip will be around $500 but not the top SKU.
Last edited:
Caporegime
£250 for the 6 core 12 thread is way too good to be true.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Intel's highest clocked 8core part runs at 3.7Ghz turbo, their highest clocked 6 core was last gen at 4Ghz, with Broadwell-e it's only 3.8Ghz.
But 4Ghz boost for AMD is a 'generation behind' because it won't hit 4.6Ghz, which nothing Intel make above 4 core comes remotely close to? PS that 6 core 4Ghz part was $1000, and the current 8 core 3.7Ghz part is $1000, the current 6 core broadwell-e at 3.8Ghz is $660 or so.
oof. those prices look too good to be true. could see each shifted up one with the top being more like $650 and a 4c4t filling the bottom slot.
Which would still be a fair bit cheaper than the intel equivalent
Soldato
Rumour source for those prices is wccftech on November 25th, reporting on a purported presentation slide leak that came via www.chiphell.com
http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-8-core-35ghz-cpu-spotted/
Make of it what you will
In fairness it's actually an okay price, it just seems low due to Intel's reign of pricing terror.
To clarify what I mean by that, accounting for inflation $300 would buy you:
2001: 1c1t CPU
2003: 1c2t CPU
2005: 2c2t CPU
2007: 4c4t CPU
2009: 4c8t CPU
2011: 4c8t CPU
2013: 4c8t CPU
2015: 4c8t CPU
Only having to spend £250 for a 6c12t CPU in 2017 is about right (and would be very welcome if accurate), or maybe a tad expensive, it just appears ridiculously cheap due to how long Intel's monopoly has been skewing the price/performance landscape.
Last edited:
Soldato
It isn't just the core count to the Ghz that makes me feel they are still a gen behind on this as currently source is suggesting that regardless of core they all boost to a max of 4GHz at this time.
I don't know why but the fact they only have 1 core hitting 5GHz would suggest there is a limitation to the fastest the FinFet can do regardless of cores.
Soldato
Rumour source for those prices is wccftech on November 25th, reporting on a purported presentation slide leak that came via www.chiphell.com
http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-8-core-35ghz-cpu-spotted/
Make of it what you will
That wasn't where I picked up my prices from, although having a quick google they appear to have been dropped to a few people first that wccftech then re-reported.
Caporegime
spotted something, estimated Cinebench R15, whose estimates? they are kinda low scores, the 8 thread Zen is about the same as the 8 thread Pildriver.
Soldato
More than likely based on older, low clocked, engineering samples if they have anything to go by. considering they have no clock speeds showing.
Nothing but speculation no doubt.
Also talking about CPU's look what i spotted! https://www.chiphell.com/article-17282-1.html
Someone finally made the spinning heatsink cooler into a commercial product!
product page http://www.thermaltake.com/products-model.aspx?id=C_00002957
Nothing but speculation no doubt.
Also talking about CPU's look what i spotted! https://www.chiphell.com/article-17282-1.html
Someone finally made the spinning heatsink cooler into a commercial product!
product page http://www.thermaltake.com/products-model.aspx?id=C_00002957
Last edited:
Can't see the image but are you comparing a 4c/8t Zen with a 4-module Piledriver?spotted something, estimated Cinebench R15, whose estimates? they are kinda low scores, the 8 thread Zen is about the same as the 8 thread Pildriver.