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

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

CPC was running all CPUs at the stock clockspeeds. Their sample due to the early version of the motherboard could only run at 3.1GHZ to 3.3GHZ,so was running at a lower clockspeed than the 3.4GHZ sample AMD used.

With something like Blender which uses all cores,the Core i7 6900K was running at around 3.5GHZ during the demo,and I suspect the CPC sample was probably running at closer to 3.1GHZ,so in the end,there is nothing in it,if the CPUs were clocked similarly.

However,if the top SKU is running at 3.6GHZ to 4.0GHZ,it is is running at a 10% clockspeed advantage over the Core i7 6900K.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Also,AMD has confirmed APUs with Zen+ cores will be out this year,so I can see why Intel was saying Ryzen would be disruptive during 2017 and would leverage 10nm to win.

 

[humbug]

CPC was running all CPUs at the stock clockspeeds. Their sample due to the early version of the motherboard could only run at 3.1GHZ to 3.3GHZ,so was running at a lower clockspeed than the 3.4GHZ sample AMD used.

With something like Blender which uses all cores,the Core i7 6900K was running at around 3.5GHZ during the demo,and I suspect the CPC sample was probably running at closer to 3.1GHZ,so in the end,there is nothing in it,if the CPUs were clocked similarly.

However,if the top SKU is running at 3.6GHZ to 4.0GHZ,it is is running at a 10% clockspeed advantage over the Core i7 6900K.

If thats the case CPC are using more low threaded games than anything given the fastest CPU's are the highest clocked 4 core CPU's.

You say Zen was running 3.1 to 3.3.. which is it? they are very different speeds. its 7%

If its 3.1Ghz the IPC is slightly higher than Broadwell, if its 3.3Ghz its slightly lower (Gaming)

 

[Silent_Scone]

Its no deal at all, you brought it up despite it not being anything that matters. ^^^^ its not even related.

I believe you asked how I knew that, but suit yourself...

CPC was running all CPUs at the stock clockspeeds. Their sample due to the early version of the motherboard could only run at 3.1GHZ to 3.3GHZ,so was running at a lower clockspeed than the 3.4GHZ sample AMD used.

With something like Blender which uses all cores,the Core i7 6900K was running at around 3.5GHZ during the demo,and I suspect the CPC sample was probably running at closer to 3.1GHZ,so in the end,there is nothing in it,if the CPUs were clocked similarly.

However,if the top SKU is running at 3.6GHZ to 4.0GHZ,it is is running at a 10% clockspeed advantage over the Core i7 6900K.

Until you overclock it lol.

 

[mmj_uk]

I don't remember them doing that, can you point me to where they did this? its new to me and i just don't see why they would advise using a different version to the one they said and was known they used, it make no sense, i'd like to see it.

I remember it and you were apparently quite active at the time so it must be selective memory.

It starts about here:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=30351437#post30351437

In summary AMD used 2.77a in their presentation which is considerably faster than the 2.78a that they were linking to on their website.

 

[DragonQ]

based on ? what ....

a blender benchmark that was a mess and not clear which version they used


there are 100s of real benchmarks.not one was done.so it doesnt matter if it does 5ghz on air if its still slower.

Guess you missed the Handbrake demo then?

 

[DragonQ]

Yes, yes exactly. Nothing at all matters. Launch should be March by the way. Not sure if it's been posted by anyone here yet.

4Ghz on air is achievable, wouldn't expect much beyond that.

If it boosts to 4 GHz, there's no way 4 GHz is the maximum expected overclock. It'd be a few hundred MHz above at least, depending on what the limiting factor is.

 

[Silent_Scone]

If it boosts to 4 GHz, there's no way 4 GHz is the maximum expected overclock. It'd be a few hundred MHz above at least, depending on what the limiting factor is.

You'll find out soon enough. The limiting factor in overclocking range when it comes to core, boils down to the same thing.

 

[humbug]

I remember it and you were apparently quite active at the time so it must be selective memory.

It starts about here:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=30351437#post30351437

In summary AMD used 2.77a in their presentation which is considerably faster than the 2.78a that they were linking to on their website.

Whats your point? Thats Silent_Scone claiming his Broadwell is faster, what that does not show is what the actual difference is, his scored 2% faster, AMD's result was just short of 36 Sec, that 6900K was just over 35 Sec.

Its 2% margin of error exaggerated hyperbole for effect... which is A typical for him.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Until you overclock it lol.

Well considering that most situations where I have seen HEDT CPUs used don't have them overclocked as they are actual workstations where stability is far more important,its probably not going to be a big factor for most sales IMHO OFC. Plus if AMD can hit 4.0GHZ at stock clockspeeds,I suspect getting a bit higher won't be that hard. Remember,AMD is looking at implementing an overclocking system closer to what Nvidia has with its own version of Boost,so if it is implemented well,I suspect it would simplify overclocking anyway,which I expect most would rather prefer than spending hours mucking around.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Whats your point? Thats Silent_Scone claiming his Broadwell is faster, what that does show is that he scored 2% faster, AMD's result was just short of 36 Sec, that 6900K was just over 35 Sec.

Its 2% margin of error exaggerated hyperbole for effect... which is A typical for him.

Coming from someone who doesn't even have either of the CPU to show any of his own findings, that's comical.

I thought it didn't matter? . There you go making it personal again, I guess when one doesn't have anything tangible or of substance to add, this is what happens.

 

[humbug]

Coming from someone who doesn't even have either of the CPU to show any of his own findings, that's comical.

I thought it didn't matter? . There you go making it personal again, I guess when one doesn't have anything tangible or of substance to add, this is what happens.

It clearly does to you which is why you tried to make an issue out of nothing ^^^^ and still are. Drop it if you want to move on....
-------------------

It may have been missed.... CAT

You say Zen was running 3.1 to 3.3.. which is it? they are very different speeds. its 7%

If its 3.1Ghz the IPC is slightly higher than Broadwell, if its 3.3Ghz its slightly lower (Gaming)

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It clearly does to you which is why you tried to make an issue out of nothing ^^^^ and still are.
-------------------

It may have been missed....

I think AMD will do just about enough for the top SKU to pip the Core i7 6900K,which is their target CPU.

I suspect they will also plonk in a decent stock cooler for it too,ie, some AIO water cooler into the bundle,which will make the Core i7 6900K look even more overpriced.

 

[humbug]

I think AMD will do just about enough for the top SKU to pip the Core i7 6900K,which is their target CPU.

I suspect they will also plonk in a decent stock cooler for it too,ie, some AIO water cooler into the bundle,which will make the Core i7 6900K look even more overpriced.

Yeah, if those CPC results re anything to go by the IPC is right on, for me the question remains clock speeds.

The IPC may be about = or near enough to Intel's 7### series IPC but if Zen can't get to at least 4Ghz for the 4 core and 4.5 OC Intel will still be about 15% ahead with the 7700K through 5Ghz+ Clock speeds.

Personally for me that's irrelevant if AMD's 6 core is the right price.
But for Intel fans its perhaps not such good news as Intel have an excuse to continue charging £350 for 4 core CPU's.

 

[Silent_Scone]

It clearly does to you which is why you tried to make an issue out of nothing ^^^^ and still are. Drop it if you want to move on....
-------------------

It may have been missed.... CAT

So very sorry, won't correct you again

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yeah, if those CPC results re anything to go by the IPC is right on, for me the question remains clock speeds.

The IPC may be about = or near enough to Intel's 7### series IPC but if Zen can't get to at least 4Ghz for the 4 core and 4.5 OC Intel will still be about 15% ahead with the 7700K through 5Ghz+ Clock speeds.

Personally for me that's irrelevant if AMD's 6 core is the right price.
But for Intel fans its perhaps not such good news as Intel have an excuse to continue charging £350 for 4 core CPU's.

TBH,I think if the 8C/16T top bin is 3.6GHZ to 4.0GHZ,we will probably see a top bin 4C/8T SKU with a 3.8GHZ/4.0GHZ base clockspeed and a 4.2GHZ boost clockspeed.

The thing is I do think AMD will price it around the 4C Kaby Lake CPUs. For one the Core i7 7600K is lower clocked than the Core i7 7700K and has slightly less L3 cache.

Also,more games tend to thread better and more software too,even if AMD losses in ultimate single threaded performance,it will gain over the 4C Intel CPUs due to HT.

Then considering the £175 Core i3 7350K,AMD can price their 4C unlocked CPU at around that price and still make it look pointless. The equivalent 4C Intel CPU is the Core i5 7500 which cannot be overclocked.

However,what surprised me more,is that the Ryzen APU is out this year too,so it makes me wonder if the lower end Ryzen CPUs will have a short lifespan.

But more importantly,we will actually have a decent AMD laptop CPU,instead of their top ones barely competing with a lower end Core i3 CPU.

 

[humbug]

I think Zen as opposed to Zen+ is delayed, the original schedule was Q4 2016, its actually going to be late Q1 2017.

They were meant to be 1 year update cycles, like Intel, So Zen+ Q4 2017, tho that could also get pushed back to early 2018.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I think Zen as opposed to Zen+ is delayed, the original schedule was Q4 2016, its actually going to be late Q1 2017.

They were meant to be 1 year update cycles, like Intel, So Zen+ Q4 2017, tho that could also get pushed back to early 2018.

http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/31/a...-products-are-on-track-for-big-2017-launches/

Su said that AMD is on track to ship its Ryzen desktop processors in the current first quarter. It will also ship Zen-based data center server processors in the second quarter. And it will ship laptop and embedded Zen-based chips in the second half of the year.

I suspect those laptop CPUs will use Zen+ cores - look at how Piledriver launched first in laptops since Bulldozer was delayed.

It might explain why they have not bothered with Bristol Ridge in the DIY PC space.

 

[queamin]

I always thought Zen apu's were meant to be out around sept 2017

 

[gavinh87]

8c/16t @ 4.0ghz ashes of the singularity leak. It is from wccrtech so take it with a pot of salt. But it does look legit.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ashes-ryzen-4-0-ghz-benchmarks/