Caporegime
Yeah.
I think even if AMD only manage 90% of Haswell they have done incredibly well going from Vishera to that, its go to be the biggest performance jump in the history of Semiconductor chips.
-
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
Yeah.
I think even if AMD only manage 90% of Haswell they have done incredibly well going from Vishera to that, its go to be the biggest performance jump in the history of Semiconductor chips.
If it's hovering around Haswell IPC, then I'd doubt we'd see an 8 core chip that cheap.
Less than £350 would be good value for an 8 core Haswell-ish chip.
I don't see how Zen will match Intel with rumours of 40-50% IPC increase, AMD's current cores are about twice as slow as Intel which is why FX8350 and quad core i5 perform so similarly in applications which utilise all of the processor. Perhaps if they offer more cores it will compensate somewhat.
I'm aware they want to go upmarket but I see two problems with that. The first is they look like they will still be a little slower than Intel. The second is Intel have the lead, are seen as the premium brand the majority of market share. AMD will have to sell cheaper than Intel until they change that perception, by how much is another matter.
It will certainly be interesting to see what happens. I hope there are some nice motherboards to go with the new CPU's. I much prefer the way AMD goes with it's sockets unlike Intel that seems to change them with the weather!
Soldato
I suppose it depends on what they view as their previous gen, the last FX being Piledriver, or Excavator which is used in the Carrizo APUs, which seems to perform nicely even with the lack of L3 cache.
Caporegime
This. Excavator is about +20% IPC over Piledriver, so +40%+ becomes 60%+ over Piledriver.
Also, clock for clock an FX-8350 is about 10% faster than a Haswell i5 Chip across all cores.
I came from a 4.7Ghz FX-8 core to Haswell and in those situations the FX is faster, even in games.
Last edited:
No, that would make 68% over Piledriver. It amazes me how many people get this wrong.
Ah the old adding rather than multiplying of percentages. I bet there's a few businesses gone bust doing that
Indeed, this 40%+ improvement is over Excavator (the latest chip) and not piledriver.
So clock-for-clock, we should be seeing ~70%+ over an FX-8350
It's hard to determine the full IPC improvement from Piledriver -> Steamroller -> Excavator though. Due to there being no steamroller/excavator chips with L3 cache. So any comparisons to piledriver are mildly worse than they would be in a 'proper' desktop excavator chip.
So clock-for-clock, we should be seeing ~70%+ over an FX-8350
It's hard to determine the full IPC improvement from Piledriver -> Steamroller -> Excavator though. Due to there being no steamroller/excavator chips with L3 cache. So any comparisons to piledriver are mildly worse than they would be in a 'proper' desktop excavator chip.
Last edited:
Well, working out IPC improvements is difficult at the best of times because it totally depends on the situation. When Intel or AMD say "10% faster", that could translate to anywhere from 2% to 10% in different workloads. So even if Zen's headline IPC improvement over Piledriver is ~70%, that could be just for the odd situation, and most of the time it may only be 50% faster or whatever.
Not really possible to know until we see some benchmarks.
Not really possible to know until we see some benchmarks.
Soldato
I'm looking forward to this. This could* be my next upgrade.
(Please be good, Please be good, Please be good, Please be good, Please be good...)
P.s Are we still looking at 8 cores or more?
(Please be good, Please be good, Please be good, Please be good, Please be good...)
P.s Are we still looking at 8 cores or more?
The first iterations of the architecture are "up to" 8 cores for the desktop CPU's
Soldato
But initially they are going to have to come in under Intel. People simply don't trust amd CPUs. So they are going to have to come in under Intel prices. Wait for the benchmarks and word of mouth to spread around that they are indeed as fast as / faster than Intel. Only once that is COMMON knowledge (that could take years) can they start putting their prices up.
Soldato
Can I ask. Is it not a case that more cores will only be used if the particular program is written to use 6/8/16cores?
Most threading is pretty "dynamic" these days. The application will spawn as many as it wants. My browser (firefox) is currently running 84 threads for example, according to task manager.
No, you could also be running lots of non- or lightly-threaded applications at once.
Associate
many mistakes there is about performance...Vishera is example very good in integer performance, FP is not all also. Depends at how the program is writed. We can look today clock to clock at PHenom II vs Vishera. Most people thinking, Phenom II is better clock to clock at one core. But its not true. In many single thread application is Vishera better than Phenom II and also old Trinity chips are a bit better than Phenoms II. One test few years ago did Tomshardware as proof.
Of course, old 1994 benchamrk Superpi doenst mean real 1 core performance
and clock to clock there will be PII better.
Of course, old 1994 benchamrk Superpi doenst mean real 1 core performance
and clock to clock there will be PII better.