• 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) ***

CAT-THE-FIFTH;30480132 said:
You can't read - stop defecting. The top SKU in that chart says 3 to 3.6ghz not 3.6ghz onwards or 3.4ghz.


Plus stop more of deflection - Lisa Su said that Ryzen would be shipping with AT LEAST 3.4ghz in her speech and the slides says that.

You want Ryzen to have a slow as possible base clockspeed and I think I know why because you know very well if it ships with lower clockspeeds in its top SKU you can then go on how Intel or better.

Unfortunately for you the 8C/16t model will be shipping at launch at a minimum of 3.4ghz as per what Lisa Su and AMD said.

This is why the moment that list popped up you have gone into overdrive since you are terrified of Ryzen 8C launched at 3.4ghz+ and you want to make sure it doesn't.

Edit

Oh and another thing to deflate you - pro CPUs are business CPUs with a lower tdp,so unfortunately for you whatever 8C CPUs with smt AMD will be launching will be 3.4ghz for us Diy builders.

Pro CPUs tend to be for business systems which are prebuilt.
Click to expand...

CAT I have said all this. I am actually pro AMD but the suggestion was "all" Ryzen chips would be 3.4GHz plus. Not sure what your getting at. I stated that the Pro series's as you stated pages back with it being professional chip also hence the lower core speed.

CAT you have completely miss understood the posts I have provided. And I haven't deflected anything at all. Try actually reading what I type do and stated with the evidence rather than miss-reading/quoting.
 
Curlyriff;30480312 said:
CAT I have said all this. I am actually pro AMD but the suggestion was "all" Ryzen chips would be 3.4GHz plus. Not sure what your getting at. I stated that the Pro series's as you stated pages back with it being professional chip also hence the lower core speed.

CAT you have completely miss understood the posts I have provided. And I haven't deflected anything at all. Try actually reading what I type do and stated with the evidence rather than miss-reading/quoting.
Click to expand...

AMD was very specific on what they said - Lisa Su said in her talk 8C/16t will be launching at 3.4ghz AT LEAST.

It's why they demoed it at 3.4ghz since this is the lowest clockspeed it will be launched at. It's why the slide said 3.4ghz - that is what we get at launch.

Do you honestly think AMD would get away with launching 8c/16t chips to big review sites if the SKUs are under 3.4ghz - they would get roasted for it.

AMD is confident they will get 3.4ghz upward for launch SKUs.

If they were not she would have said nothing about clockspeeds.

We don't know what other SKUs amd will launch and that is where the speculation is.
We even are unsure if 4C and 6c will launch anytime soon.
 
Since I haven't seen this news posted here, but some poor pathetic jokes.....


AMD Ryzen Chips 10% Smaller When Compared to Intel Skylake Dies


AMD states its upcoming Ryzen core fits into a 10 percent smaller die area than Intel’s currently shipping second-generation 14nm processor. Analysts and even Intel engineers in the session said the Zen core is clearly competitive though many confidential variables will determine whether the die advantage translates into lower cost for AMD reports eetimes.

EEtimes: The paper detailed techniques AMD used to reduce switching capacitance by 15 percent compared to its existing chips. For example, Zen marked AMD’s first use of a metal-insulator-metal capacitor which helped lower operating voltages and provide greater per-core voltage and frequency control.

Engineers tracked on a weekly basis power benchmarks on high activity regions for more than a year to reduce switching capacitance. The company now has two eight-core designs running with simultaneous multithreading at 3.4 GHz.

Hilbert: one thing they are not taking into account is the lacking integrated GPU. On Intels side it eats up nearly a third of the die space. For AMD, they do not use an IGP - the entire die size is thus used for the actual processors.

source
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-chips-10-smaller-when-compared-to-intel-skylake-dies.html
Click to expand...
 
It seems kind of concerning to me that the parts with fewer cores are clocked lower, that suggests to me that clock speed scaling is an issue rather than the 8 core parts just being limited by power draw/TDP?

I hope I'm wrong because it's great that AMD are back in the game again, it'll just be a shame if they don't overclock very well and Intel can carry on charging outrageous prices based on their overclocking capability.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH;30480347 said:
AMD was very specific on what they said - Lisa Su said in her talk 8C/16t will be launching at 3.4ghz AT LEAST.

It's why they demoed it at 3.4ghz since this is the lowest clockspeed it will be launched at. It's why the slide said 3.4ghz - that is what we get at launch.
Click to expand...
No. Just no.

I mean it may well be that the lowest clocked 8c/16t chip has a base clock speed of 3.4+ GHz since they've clearly improved their clock speeds over the last month or two, but that is not what she meant in that video.
 
Panos;30480419 said:
Since I haven't seen this news posted here, but some poor pathetic jokes.....
Click to expand...

It's unclear if that includes the whacking great GPU that Intel has? not particularly impressive if so?
 
mmj_uk;30480473 said:
It's unclear if that includes the whacking great GPU that Intel has? not particularly impressive if so?
Click to expand...

On the article you will see at the bottom has the CPU size comparison, without the IGP.

The 6700K for example is 122.4 mm2 WITH the IGP, however on the article chart states the Intel CPU is 49mm2. So clearly without IGP, and talking about the 6900K, which do not have one.

Just uploaded it in case you cannot see the image there
Capture_zps38stsgg1.png
 
Nutella33;30480759 said:
Ryzen appearing on a certain Chinese site for 290 dollars and at 4.2Ghz clock by Shanghai AMD seller.

States 28th Feb shipping.
Click to expand...

Wait, 4.2GHz? Is that boost? What's the base clock?

Or is 4.2 the base clock?????? :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
 
akarypid;30480844 said:
Wait, 4.2GHz? Is that boost? What's the base clock?

Or is 4.2 the base clock?????? :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...

Just comes under core frequency. If it's advertised the same as it's other listings though, it would be base clock. (860k on the site is listed at 3.7ghz but has a boost of 4ghz)

Listing doesn't say if it's 4/6/8 core or if it's just place holder info though.
 
akarypid;30480847 said:
OCUK: WHERE IS MY PRE-ORDER LINK?????
Click to expand...

True!!!!!

Also taking about OCUK and Ryzen : OCUK was on the AMD booth with a "system" it seems, and on the list of the companies who will officially have AMD Ryzen systems ready on release day.

So from that we can guess that 8Pack going to come out with some special overclocked chips and bundles also.
Hence I would rather wait to see what is on offer and the pricing, than jump straight on to buy a retail box.


DragonQ;30480864 said:
8c/16t overclockable Ryzen at 4.2 GHz base clock for £280 including VAT then...

*dies*

Oh it was just a dream.
Click to expand...

You do understand something like that will show that Intel is ripping us off, and that alone is the reason for everyone to boycott their products until they go bust? :mad:
 
I have no idea why people think Intel aren't ripping everyone off.

TSMC costs for a 14nm finfet wafer using double patterning is said to be around $6k, though I've seen lower listed

If that’s not enough, there is also a sizable jump in manufacturing costs. In a typical 11-metal level process, there are 52 mask steps at 28nm. With an 80% fab utilization rate at 28nm, the loaded manufacturing cost is about $3,500 per 300mm wafer, according to Gartner.

At 1.3 days per lithography layer, the cycle time for a 28nm chip is about 68 days. “Add one week minimum for package testing,” Wang said. “So, the total is two-and-half months from wafer start to chip delivery.”

At 16nm/14nm, there are 66 mask steps. With an 80% fab utilization rate at 16nm/14nm, the loaded cost is about $4,800 per 300mm wafer, according to Gartner. “It takes three months from wafer start to chip delivery,” he added.
Click to expand...

http://semiengineering.com/finfet-rollout-slower-than-expected/

Do some really basic maths, on a 300mm wafer area wise it translates directly to 579 potential i7 7700k dies. Reality is, the area isn't perfect, you'll lose ~ 100.

http://www.silicon-edge.co.uk/j/index.php/resources/die-per-wafer

using 10x12.2 you get 487, so yes, about 100 less. Now even if you presume a 50% yield, that is ~$40 per working die if the wafer cost was $10k. The reality is.... there is no way in hell Intel are anywhere near 50% yields, probably closer to 90% than 80%, and $10k is being insanely conservative on cost, it's likely no where near that high, not least because if TSMC who are a foundry are building profit into ~5k per wafer, then Intel, with their own fabs have an effectively lower cost for wafers.


Current pricing is insane, as with Nvidia we're well into 'just charge more and see if people keep buying' price range.

Even with profit, and R&D, shipping, and distributor/retailer profits built in, £300+ is insane. You could probably sell an entire wafer of i7 at i3 pricing and still make a profit.

With actual competition fair pricing on an i7 is probably around the £200 mark, and a 180-200mm^2 8 core Zen being £250 is more than doable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom