Associate
If the architecture were to allow a CPU to out-do or equal Intel at 4.2Ghz, or less, then so what's so funny about 4.2?
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
If the architecture were to allow a CPU to out-do or equal Intel at 4.2Ghz, or less, then so what's so funny about 4.2?
Iv seen people start comparing these non APU ZEN chips to main line i7/i5/i3 chips, however for a lot of consumers (non gamers) this would have to be comparing the ZEN based chip plus a low end GPU to compensate with the lack of an IGP. I mean if AMD has a chip that's on par with the 7700k for £100 cheaper that's all well and good but you will need a graphics card to go with it.
Now I really really hope that zen gets on par (or close to) current gen intel chips and I think that the non APU chips will sell well with enthusiasts and PC builders, but I think that the largest gains for AMD will be when the ZEN APUs are out later this year.
Now I really really hope that zen gets on par (or close to) current gen intel chips and I think that the non APU chips will sell well with enthusiasts and PC builders, but I think that the largest gains for AMD will be when the ZEN APUs are out later this year.
Caporegime
Pepole who spend £350 on a 7700K are not doing it for the iGPU, C'mon.......
Even here most people will not spend £500 - £600 on a CPU.
I have a 4770k sitting in a machine that's just runs the IGP, I also know a few friends (non gamers) who have 6700k's with no dedicated GPU. They have them for the CPU grunt and the IGP is more than adequate. My 4770k for instance is used for heavy code compilation.
In any case my argument spanned from i3 to i7, yes probably few people buy i7s and not pair with a dedicated GPU. But a lot will run i3 / i5 systems just on the IGP.
All I was saying the most interesting / profitable processors for AMD will be the APUs (if they get CPU power on par with intel)
AMD will have their APU for integrated gpu, and a real standalone for gaming with graphics powerfull enough, so no need for them to put it on Ryzen, beside most motherboards will probably add graphics like they used to do before
This. I've never had dedicated gpu run with my 4770k. I built the machine for video encoding where the CPU grunt was required.
That said, I am currently budgeting £100 for a second hand gpu to go with a possible Ryzen build.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I would think about it in these terms, on desktop where power, space/packaging isn't an issue, then APU's aren't particularly useful.
In a HTPC system in a tiny box, sure, you can get gpu performance but still if you don't use most of it, it's a waste. In laptops the space saving/packaging/power reduction is very important.
Take a 7700k, basically half the die is GPU, of that a max of 5% of that is used just for video output. ON a 7700k that means 45% of the cost is the parts of the GPU you would use for gaming or performance in an application that can use it. If you're using purely CPU performance, then you're literally paying £162 for a gpu you aren't using. Also that igpu performance for £162, is no better than a £40 discrete gpu and a £160 discrete gpu will have likely between 4-8x the performance.
The value of an APU changes massively if you have half the APU cost and twice the performance. When you consider a current £100 AMD apu with similar gpu performance to a 7700k, then £50 for igpu performance isn't bad. When talking about Zen APUs, you're probably looking at one or two chips in the £150-200 price range and double the gpu performance, probably not too far from a RX460 performance, potentially 75% or so, which again brings drastically better value.
For anyone with a relatively normal home desktop, a pure CPU + any old discrete gpu just for output, including say 2-3gen old low end at £25, you get better CPU performance and better value for a given cost. If you want GPU performance save on the CPU, waste nothing on an iGPU and put all that money to the discrete GPU.
The thing that was always hoped for and can definitely change how APUs work, is things like HSA. If you look up HSA + windows image search, you have genuine offloading of work to the GPU which also drastically increases performance. But it's incredibly complex to come up with an ecosystem which can easily access the on die gpu for low latency fpu acceleration. There is almost no software that makes use of it. Intel hasn't pushed this in the slightest, largely because if they do and devs utilise it, it will benefit AMD far far more than Intel. At the point that software can genuinely utilise the on die gpu(which when done right can have a magnitude lower latency than accessing a discrete GPU), then an ondie GPU should become ubiquitous but right now it just isn't offering great value for most users.
The current issue is latency, if you have to copy memory/instructions over to gpu memory, then send to the gpu, then send back, copy back to cpu memory, then cpu can continue the acceleration becomes either minor or non existent. If it will take 10ms to run some fpu instructions on the CPU and 2ms to run it on the GPU, you would save performance running it on the CPU, but if you have a 4ms latency penalty to get the instruction to the gpu and another 4ms back, then you've saved no time despite the instruction itself running 5 times faster. HSA, unified memory(which eliminates the need for the memory copying) and the ability to send instructions direct to the GPU rather than to the CPU then GPU can mean bringing that latency hit maybe down from 8ms total, to 2ms total. So now offloading that instruction becomes 2.5x faster. When more software makes use of programming that can utilise things like HSA, having that igpu on die can accelerate maybe the majority of software, but until then there is extremely little work done in utilising the igpu because the latency problems coupled with more complex coding brings nearly no benefit in most software.
Last edited:
Soldato
Nothing, if it were possible
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
If a zen @ 4.2 matches my 4770k @ 4.8 then I'm sold.
I actually think AMD are in a good position. They're never going to sell Ryzen to people who already have a 7700k or a 6850k or above but there must be LOADS of people like me who are itching to upgrade from processors below a 6700k but can't justify the cost of intels options that offer minimal gains. But Ryzen is a whole platform change and hooks into the "upgrading because it's fun" element of pc enthusiasts.
I've had a 6850k system in my cart on OCUK so many times but I've never felt able to pull the trigger - I don't think I'll have that problem with Ryzen.
Last edited by a moderator:
true if its at that performance or what you hope it is.
what if its not at the performance you hope for ?
look at components now for pc.they are at there most expensive ever in uk.you think even if close to intel cpus they are going to be cheap ?
nope.they will be just cheaper.not by much.
some on here think they getting x99 performance for £200-£250 not happening.
what if its not at the performance you hope for ?
look at components now for pc.they are at there most expensive ever in uk.you think even if close to intel cpus they are going to be cheap ?
nope.they will be just cheaper.not by much.
some on here think they getting x99 performance for £200-£250 not happening.
Soldato
As long as it's competitive (Within ~10%) in terms of IPC and clock they can compete on price. For the enterprise market (where the fat margins are) they need to be much more aware of total processing throughput and wattage.
Personally I have no questions whether or not they will be competitive performance wise but the rest is up in the air.
Personally I have no questions whether or not they will be competitive performance wise but the rest is up in the air.
I agree that some people are getting carried away with some of the price speculation. But I also think we'll see a fair price reduction on the overall platform cost. The x99 motherboards tend to come in at around 50-100 £ more than the z chips set boards. And they're about £50 more than the standard boards. So even if the chips are 90% the cost of the Intel equivalent you're still looking at £100+ savings.
true but look how the prices have risen in last year.
realistically look at it like this if and its a big if the top ryzen chip as quick overall as say a 6800
they are 400 + 200 mb + 100 for mem + cooler £50 min. so £750 entry lvl x99
they gunna be at least £600 plus all in.thing is in last year pc components i worked out same bundle gone up £100-150.entry level bundles on x99 from ocuk were as cheap as 680.now are 811.00 for same bundle.lol.
so if its £600 all in now.thats not that great.hast to be cheaper which i cant see.
so some are thinking £250 or less cpu plus board and stuff its not happening on top end.
realistically look at it like this if and its a big if the top ryzen chip as quick overall as say a 6800
they are 400 + 200 mb + 100 for mem + cooler £50 min. so £750 entry lvl x99
they gunna be at least £600 plus all in.thing is in last year pc components i worked out same bundle gone up £100-150.entry level bundles on x99 from ocuk were as cheap as 680.now are 811.00 for same bundle.lol.
so if its £600 all in now.thats not that great.hast to be cheaper which i cant see.
so some are thinking £250 or less cpu plus board and stuff its not happening on top end.
Permabanned
Whever I read this I automatically start to look for posts by Danger Mouse.
Pretty much the same for me. I've also had X99 systems in my cart a few times but decided they don't offer enough performance for the money over what I've got now. Even when offers come up it's just not worth moving to X99 when AM4 offers longevity.
If Ryzen offers the performance of an 8 core 16 thread version of a 2600K/3770K thats unlocked and at a fair price I'm sold. If Ryzen can better that then great.
I'd probably upgrade three systems just to get on the AM4 socket even if that meant fitting a Ryzen CPU with 10% less IPC than Intel offer simply because of the Ryzen+ upgrade option and I don't have to burn a OS licence in the typical Intel CPU+ motherboard chipset upgrade.
Intel costs over the odds so many don't buy and prices go up.
point is people think amd are going to be giving away or many do the higher end cpus.they will be priced just under intel cpus if close in speed.
all pc components have gone up in last year.
so you wont be getting cheap intel matching cpus.they will be similar.if similar speed.
all pc components have gone up in last year.
so you wont be getting cheap intel matching cpus.they will be similar.if similar speed.
Caporegime
"will be priced just under Intel CPUs" is soooooo subjective, anyone can say that and when reality hits you can argue "25% less is what i meant by just under"
The fact is Intel's 4 core 8 thread is £350, if AMD similar 4 core 8 thread is £330 (what i would call just under) no one will buy it.
This is the simple little thing people who make this idiotic argument always fail to realise, AMD are not the brand recognised more than Intel, its the other way round and by a very long way, its for AMD to attract buyers to themselves, they ain't going to achieve that by being an Intel pricing clone.
Last edited:
If the chips cost AMD a similar price to produce and AMD need to make a similar amount of profit. Then maybe.