• 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) ***

No more talk of "samples" that people may or may NOT actually have, "my industry source", "my knowledge" or anything of that type.

Thanks - Your "Supposed Mod" :)
 
If true Intel look bad either way. They don't respond and AMD look good. They do respond and give AMD a bloody nose and it shows they've been sandbagging. The PR people will earn their money this quarter!
 
It's not a huge secret they've been dragging their feet. Remains to be seen by how much. Doubt AMD is going to put so much pressure that they have to pull all the stops.
 
The same Intel slide that claims 8th gen will be 15% faster than 7th gen also says that 7th gen was 15% faster than 6th gen. So it might just mean higher clocks.
 
DragonQ;30488747 said:
The same Intel slide that claims 8th gen will be 15% faster than 7th gen also says that 7th gen was 15% faster than 6th gen. So it might just mean higher clocks.
Click to expand...

The 15% is BS. Suddenly Intel finds that performance on the same architecture?

8th gen will just be overclocked Kaby Lake, which was overclocked Sky Lake. Or they could just be adding more cores destroying the premium they were hoping for with Sky Lake E or Kaby Lake E.
 
SiDeards73;30488702 said:
Intel in panic mode? funny how they can wheel a +15% Improvement in one move when they have been dishing out marginal improvements for generations... That pretty much says all you need to know about Intel, were happy to rinse your wallet for minimal upgrades while we have no competition.. oh wait competition, heres a decent performance boost, but its gunna cost yah!
Click to expand...

Clever market spin is clever. Instead of Q1 2018 you bring the date back by 6 weeks and you can call it H2 2017 which only seems 4 months away. Then in December you hold a paper launch for stock that will be available end of Jan or early Feb...

If Intel can actually bring another 15% then sure we can all blame them for being lazy but until you actually have decent competition you don't have to push the development cycle as hard as you possibly can.
 
Beren;30488788 said:
Clever market spin is clever. Instead of Q1 2018 you bring the date back by 6 weeks and you can call it H2 2017 which only seems 4 months away. Then in December you hold a paper launch for stock that will be available end of Jan or early Feb...

If Intel can actually bring another 15% then sure we can all blame them for being lazy but until you actually have decent competition you don't have to push the development cycle as hard as you possibly can.
Click to expand...

Plenty of us were saying Intel was taking the mickey on pricing smaller and smaller chips at a higher premium and some here would keep arguing that was not correct. The standard excuses were,but,but dev costs are much higher now so this is why a 122MM2 14NM chip needs to cost £300 to £350(OFC,this ignored the larger 14NM chips which sold for something similar a year or so ago).

The moment AMD actually has something which might be competitive we get £65 Core i3s(essentially),sudden rumours of faster CPUs coming out sooner than expected,cheaper CPUs for socket 2011,6C Core i7s on the consumer platform,etc.

Intel was just charging as much as they could and too many enthusiasts accepted it without questioning it.

The desktop,and especially enthusiasts became a cash cow and they splurged that money by wasting billions on making all those Atom tablets and phones cheaper. That is where the extra profits went to make all those £50 to £100 Atom based tablets you can buy in shops since Intel literally gave the Atom CPUs away for years.

Edit!!

The 14NM Cherry Trail Atom is just under 90MM2:

https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...rporation-cherry-trail-die-size-revealed.aspx

That is nearly 75% the die size of the entire Core i7 7700K chip.
 
The KBL rumours consist of x299 (KBL-X)SKU. But don't let me stop you (again).

That platform is going to wipe the floor with AM4, by the way.

Am I allowed to be that direct? :D


Never fear, almost time for bed. :p
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH;30488824 said:
Plenty of us were saying Intel was taking the mickey on pricing smaller and smaller chips at a higher premium and some here would keep arguing that was not correct. The standard excuses were,but,but dev costs are much higher now so this is why a 122MM2 14NM chip needs to cost £300 to £350(OFC,this ignored the larger 14NM chips which sold for something similar a year or so ago).
Click to expand...

No arguments from me on that one - though you have to remember that their job is to return the biggest rewards possible to their shareholders - not just charge a 20% margin on top of their costs. I also hope that actually a lot of the profit they have been making has been piled into R&D, you can chuck an awful lot of money down blind alleys looking for the next thing when you have a great and secure revenue stream. They just needed a push to bring some of those toys out earlier.

Remember that in 2015 Intel spent $12 Billion on R&D that is what 4 times AMD's total Revenue??

That is not a company being completely lazy - I suspect it may be a Company that is a little scared that the Moore's law that they have lived by is ending and looking for what is next but they are not some Evil MegaCorp ® that is taking us all for a ride.

At the same time AMD have taken some massive risks borrowed heavily and gone back to the drawing board to come up with Ryzen. Which I hope is epic and lifts AMD to new levels of success - because I am really impressed with how they do things.

Bottom line - Intel might have been a little lazy, but you need to look at what they have done in CoreM and SSD tech over the last 7 years as well as heaps of other areas not just CPUs.
 
AthlonXP1800;30488950 said:
https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/829685483408089090

Hmmm accorded to CPCHardware that distributors and retailers listed Ryzen 7 1700 with 65W TDP is a typo. AMD did not have any 8 core CPUs validated with 65W TDP so 1700 is really a 95W CPU just like both 1700X and 1800X.

Ryzen 5 CPUs with 6C/12T probably will be 65W parts.
Click to expand...

Or CPC are simply wrong and retailers aren't.
 
Ryzen 7 1700 (YD1700BBAEBOX) with SpecSheet Appeared at HardwareSchotte.de

Translates to..

• Energy-efficient AMD Ryzen 8-core processor with ZEN architecture with quiet Wraith cooler
• This CPU has no fixed multiplier , similar to the AMD Black Edition.
• 8 cores with 16 threads at up to 3.7 GHz clock
&#8226; AMD Ryzen processors has no fixed turbo clock - the maximum Turbo clock is dependent on the cooling. < This I find interesting!

Stolen from reddit again :p
 
ubersonic;30489336 said:
Good news people, my samples arrived today and Ubersonic cares not for NDAs, are there any tests/etc people would like?
Click to expand...

Does it float? how hot is too hot? blowtorch edition. How many pins can be removed before it stops working? :p Please don't actually do any of these.
 
TaKeN;30489335 said:
Ryzen 7 1700 (YD1700BBAEBOX) with SpecSheet Appeared at HardwareSchotte.de

Translates to..

&#8226; Energy-efficient AMD Ryzen 8-core processor with ZEN architecture with quiet Wraith cooler
&#8226; This CPU has no fixed multiplier , similar to the AMD Black Edition.
&#8226; 8 cores with 16 threads at up to 3.7 GHz clock
&#8226; AMD Ryzen processors has no fixed turbo clock - the maximum Turbo clock is dependent on the cooling. < This I find interesting!

Stolen from reddit again :p
Click to expand...

It leaves it as a bit of an unknown so we'll just have to wait and see how much of a difference better cooling actually makes in the real world.
 
Silent_Scone;30488011 said:
For the same reason they do anything else. How do you think things like T-Topology came about? It wasn't at a cake sale lol
Click to expand...

t-topology is a very VERY basic technology and has absolutely nothing at all to do with reverse engineering anything.

The more you say the dafter it sounds. T-topology is about making the trace length the same distance between the front and back dimm slots... ie, they added some wiggly lines to the nearer dimm slots to make the traces longer to match the distance to the back traces.

The memory controller then has less work to do in staggering signals as the trace lengths are all equal and as such is more stable at higher clock speeds.

They made copper traces the same length.... reverse engineering... lol.

Also for the record, this HAD to be done on many systems throughout the history of electronics. For instance GDDR5 initially had to have the same trace length, in a later revision unequal trace length was added, support was added to memory controllers and it made life easier in design to allow unequal length in PCB design. All Asus did was realise that equal trace length was more stable, precisely because they used to do it on graphics cards and when they stopped doing it they would have found memory overclocking less stable, realising it's more work on the memory controller. IE all they did was revert to the older way of doing things essentially and via experience from changing it on other products in the past.

There is no magic here, it's common sense, whoa, we took advantage of those unequal lengths and got worse overclocking... what's the reason, easy to deduce, if we equal trace lengths on another platform, maybe that will increase memory stability... it did. Literally nothing to do with reverse engineering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom