• 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) ***

If they can get an APU out, with slightly better CPU performance, with a decent whack of GPU performance, then I think they'll be laughing.
Maybe not on enthusiast forums, but for the average Joe, it'd offer a great system.
I've been pretty impressed at what the 7850k will run, and will definitely buy its successor.
 
ALXAndy said:
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.
Click to expand...

The situation AMD are in is that it's costing them more to manufacture their products than their rivals so if they want to compete on performance they can't afford to play the undercutting game. I do think you're right about being the value alternative though, AMD would have been better off without the complications of HBM and AIO coolers.

I think the 8GB 390X updated with GCN1.2 and sold for £300 would have been a popular product, even if it didn't win benchmarks it would have clawed back market share. The fact that 290X is an old architecture will put a lot of people off.
 
The 390 is a popular card ^^^^
------

The Fury-X is just as fast as the 980TI, Its Nvidia's super-efficient DX11 Driver that has the Fury-X trailing it at 1080P, at 4K where the scaling is off loaded to the GPU the Fury-X is faster.

AMD do keep making incremental improvements to their own DX11 Driver overheads but i doubt they will ever get them as good as Nvidia's.

IMO the 980TI is the better card but the Fury-X is an investment in brand new technology that Nvidia will also benefit from, it would have been much easier for AMD just to go along with existing GDDR5, another technology developed by AMD and Hynix.
I think it deserves a level of respect for that.

IMO its not worth as much as the 980TI in terms of overall performance, at least not on DX11.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
The 390 is a popular card ^^^^
------

The Fury-X is just as fast as the 980TI, Its Nvidia's super-efficient DX11 Driver that has the Fury-X trailing it at 1080P, at 4K where the scaling is off loaded to the GPU the Fury-X is faster.

AMD do keep making incremental improvements to their own DX11 Driver overheads but i doubt they will ever get them as good as Nvidia's.

IMO the 980TI is the better card but the Fury-X is an investment in brand new technology that Nvidia will also benefit from, it would have been much easier for AMD just to go along with existing GDDR5, another technology developed by AMD and Hynix.
I think it deserves a level of respect for that.

IMO its not worth as much as the 980TI in terms of overall performance, at least not on DX11.
Click to expand...

People keep saying amd developed this and that. Have they kept anything for themselves? Look at Nvidia people dislike there way they lock their tech into their own products. AMD needs to do the same imo if they want to get back to gaining market share and been a go to brand.
 
elmuzzy66. said:
People keep saying amd developed this and that. Have they kept anything for themselves? Look at Nvidia people dislike there way they lock their tech into their own products. AMD needs to do the same imo if they want to get back to gaining market share and been a go to brand.
Click to expand...

I agree, Having said that GDDR3/GDDR5 and HBM was developed in partnership with SK Hynix, AMD designed the architecture but they needed Hynix input and ultimately to make the IC's.

They can't exactly work with the main Memory company, take their help and input and then say "oh BTW this is just for us, you can't sell the chips to anyone else"
 
humbug said:
I agree, Having said that GDDR3/GDDR5 and HBM was developed in partnership with SK Hynix, AMD designed the architecture but they needed Hynix input and ultimately to make the IC's.

They can't exactly work with the main Memory company, take their help and input and then say "oh BTW this is just for us, you can't sell the chips to anyone else"
Click to expand...

I agree that being partners would have limited their say in the sharing of the tech, which is logical. But amd still pumped money into it. I hope ZEN is a success because of what it will do for the market.
 
Anyone else find the reports that the Zen APU will be as fast as the current consoles a bit underwhelming?

The current consoles have graphics performance around a R7 270 (I think), so Zen should easily have a better GPU part than the current consoles.
On the CPU side the current consoles have APU's based on jaguar x86 core's which from what I remember have considerabliy weaker performance than steamroller cores. So Zen will easily have much better x86 core performance than the consoles with it's new cores.

So I don't get how it will have performance around console level's when the Zen APU should have considerably higher performance than that on both the cpu and gpu side.
 
Gazb said:
Anyone else find the reports that the Zen APU will be as fast as the current consoles a bit underwhelming?

The current consoles have graphics performance around a R7 270 (I think), so Zen should easily have a better GPU part than the current consoles.
On the CPU side the current consoles have APU's based on jaguar x86 core's which from what I remember have considerabliy weaker performance than steamroller cores. So Zen will easily have much better x86 core performance than the consoles with it's new cores.

So I don't get how it will have performance around console level's when the Zen APU should have considerably higher performance than that on both the cpu and gpu side.
Click to expand...

R7 270 is GTX 660 performance, from an iGPU.
 
Gazb said:
Anyone else find the reports that the Zen APU will be as fast as the current consoles a bit underwhelming?
Click to expand...

Find that hard to believe (would be a massive failure if true).

But Nintendo's next console is rumoured to be based on a Zen APU, and was supposed to be "much faster" than anything available today.

All these rumours are next to worthless tho, sadly.
 
pingu666 said:
the igpu stuff would be pretty respectable if it roughly matches consoles imo
Click to expand...

Perfect_Chaos said:
I'm not sure why people are expecting so much out of an IGPU anyway :confused: :D
Click to expand...

Why?

The consoles use an APU/igpu. A customised, modified one with different interconnects, but it's still an igpu.

Those consoles were launched a few years ago. So why would it be OK if newer tech was only able to match older tech?
 
Here's hoping the early release happens, even if it was server chips.
At least we'd maybe get some numbers, to let us know where they are performance-wise.
 
Early AM4 boards will be filled with APUs (Careezo and whatnot, not Zen).

But yes I imagine high-volume server customers will be trialing Zen around that time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom