If it's PS4 performance I'm buying one.
-
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 it's PS4 performance I'm buying one.
Associate
If the gpu portion is as fast as a ps4 that puts it around 7870 performance, perfect for a mini pc, I want!
Soldato
Exactly. And after all the claims about performance of Bulldozer AMD they have a lot of work to do to regain the confidence of the consumer. Still you can't blame them for talking it up lets just hope it lives up to the hype.
Soldato
I don't often buy into the hype...not after bulldozer, I just wait for the figures. It's probably more to do with me not willing to buy something on the bleeding edge anymore lol (i.e. paying the premium).
I'm actually very skeptical of how this chip will turn out, and it's a very long way away till release.
I'm actually very skeptical of how this chip will turn out, and it's a very long way away till release.
Fan theories put it anywhere from Sandy to Skylake.
Going purely on the IPC numbers released by AMD (40% more than Excavator) it won't be as fast as Skylake. Also it may be constrained by production issues. However there are a lot of unknown unknowns still.
Going purely on the IPC numbers released by AMD (40% more than Excavator) it won't be as fast as Skylake. Also it may be constrained by production issues. However there are a lot of unknown unknowns still.
Thanks!
That would be very impressive, I mean considering how small company compared to Intel AMD is to produce almost similar quality for me is just amazing, especially as AMD also diversifies to graphics cards and such which Intel don't. AMD should always be behind Intel's considering how much money both use but if Zen manages to be so close this is unreal achievement.
Looking forward to more news about this.
That would be very impressive, I mean considering how small company compared to Intel AMD is to produce almost similar quality for me is just amazing, especially as AMD also diversifies to graphics cards and such which Intel don't. AMD should always be behind Intel's considering how much money both use but if Zen manages to be so close this is unreal achievement.
Looking forward to more news about this.
Caporegime
Thats architectural, its that no matter what production node its on, if it ends up on a higher performance node it could be slightly higher.
Besides that Excavator has <20% higher IPC than PileDriver.
Going from Vishera to Devils Canyon its about 60% per core per clock faster, i was surprised at that, really, multi-threaded performance is pretty much identical.
So yeah, architectural performance we should expect ZEN to be very similar to Devils Canyon.
But you know what, i would be happy with that, that is very solid performance and no doubt with them trailing Intel a bit at the times they will no doubt be a cheaper alternative.
Intel are charging over £320 for an 8 thread i7 (Last time i looked a while ago) thats madness and whatever the the replacement is from Intel at the time we could be looking at nearer £400 they way Intel are going right now.
Considering the number of people still using Bloomfield onwards, I think a 6-core or 8-core Haswell-performance CPU would be extremely popular, especially if it is sensibly priced around Core i7s and games continue to use more cores over the next year.
Caporegime
Oh i, if we end up with a ZEN CPU with 6 cores and 12 Threads Haswell performance for around the £200 mark i'm switching back to AMD.
I suspect it'd be more £280-300 since AMD really need to make some money on these chips. This all assumes Zen meets expectations though...if they have to sell decent CPUs that can't compete with Intel's top chips for discounted prices again, that won't go down well.
Caporegime
Yeah ^^^^ and it actually depends on Intel's pricing, the higher Intel are priced the higher AMD can price, Intel set the pricing trend.
Soldato
Looking at the current prices on their "Not even as good as Nvidia" graphics cards I would say that you are having a laugh.
Well, more that AMD are.
Every time that I think AMD are about to pull themselves out of the poo they go and do something even more outlandish than their last effort.
Fury X - pretty much around the same as a 980ti @ 4k @ stock. However, it doesn't overclock. So how do you compete? sell it for exactly the same price and basically watch pretty much every body go Nvidia.
Now had they released Fury X at a more reasonable price (£400) they would be laughing now. But no, got to compete with the big boys, lose, yet charge big boy money.
I really don't get why AMD don't see the situation they are in, nor seem to be able to read the recent responses to their tech launches.
ATI were a company that thrived through value for money. They pretty much lost to Nvidia every single time but their cards were so cheap no one cared.
the 5870 is kinda like the Fury X in a way. All AMD needed to do was charge less than Nvidia like they did with the 5870 vs the 480 and they would be quids in. The 480 was always faster than the 5870 but the 5870 was £100 less, so sold like hot cakes.
Caporegime
ATI needed AMD's help after the Radeon HD 3000 Series, the result was the HD 4000 and HD 5000 series designed in partnership.
ATI did indeed sell lots and lots of them but it seems it wasn't enough, ATI was about to go to the wall, AMD stepped in and bought them out.
You can't just sell your products on the cheap and hope that way you will sell massive amounts of them, enough to make up for the unsustainably low margins. It doesn't work.
Yes it does, plenty of companies use this business model. China has made it their ideology.
AMD has made billions since 2013 off the consoles, clearing $100+ a pop. Nvidia trolls screamed endlessly about margins and were proven wrong.
Last edited:
If it matches AMD numbers it should significantly outperform enthusiast (not necessarily HEDT) Skylake in most scenarios.
Excavator's already pretty good in all respects but memory latency and bandwidth (the biggest issue with this family of chips). Carrizo is faster than similar Skylake / Broadwell chips in raw integer performance, roughly the same in FP, but still a long, long way behind in memory. Had AMD done an FX Excavator chip, it would have been extremely good at some things, assuming they could have scaled the performance of the small APU cores to bigger ones.
They don't have as much to do as people think ... though this is obviously a big departure from the earth moving family processors, so things could go wrong.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Yeah "$100+ a pop" that's why, those chips cost about $40 to make.... those are not low margins, their CPU's are low margins, HD 7000 series GPU's ended up low margins when they still had 40%+ market share and look at what that has got them, annual profits in the tens of millions from several billions revenue, low single digit margins.
Where are they now? in the same situation ATI were before AMD bailed them out, just about.
AMD don't have the luxury of high volume, that space is well and truly dominated at both ends by Nvidia and Intel, by comparison AMD can only do low volume so their margins must be reasonable, reasonable is not Intel pricing, not by a long way but i don't think Nvidia's pricing structure for most of their line is anywhere near as unreasonable so AMD don't have a lot of room to move in with GPU's.
Last edited: