• 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) ***

While i was thinking of doing the math, it does not necessarily scale like that, clocked up to 3.5ghz it could get a bigger boost. Or there could just be something odd with WoT and the processor. regardless of the game being single threaded.

Plus i just noticed it is april 1st, so the results might not be real. :P
 
Last edited:
Seems a lot of work for an April Fools prank?

There's a lot of voltage regulation on that mobo. Suppose it's needed with 2 x 280 W TDP! Also 3.7 V! :eek: Presumably all will come down over the next year or so.

Crap gaming results but incredible compute power and nice to see it obliterate a 5930K. 538 GFLOPS in LinX! About the same as a Fury X! I can see Zen being used in HPC from day 1.
 
joeyjojo said:
Seems a lot of work for an April Fools prank?

There's a lot of voltage regulation on that mobo. Suppose it's needed with 2 x 280 W TDP! Also 3.7 V! :eek: Presumably all will come down over the next year or so.
Click to expand...

I have seen people do far more elaborate april fools pranks. The MSI One is quite elaborate. would have been brilliant if they made mockups to go with it.

Well the 8 core part is rated to be 86 W TDP for a 3ghz part. so those numbers already seem BS to me. for 16 core that would be 172 W TDP or around that for a 3GHZ part if you double up the cores and as long as the thermals scale, which they should.

The new Broadwell-EP xeons for the 8c16t part (Intel Xeon E5-2667 V4) are rated at 135W TDP at 3.2GHZ.
the 16c32t part (Intel Xeon E5-2697A V4) are rated at 145W TDP at 2.6ghz.

So those numbers in their benchmarks don't exactly add up well. is why it looks more like they used a current opteron for the pics.
 
Last edited:
Lokken86 said:
Possibly a joke. If not for 1700mhz its looking really good. Get that to 4ghz and it will be at Intel level for gaming and much faster in applications.
Click to expand...

By the time Zen is available (in 2017, since it hasn't taped out yet), Intel will have launched Broadwell-E and Kabylake. Both will most likely completely annihilate Zen's performance, judging from AMD's track record for CPU's over the last 10 years.
 
Dave2150 said:
By the time Zen is available (in 2017, since it hasn't taped out yet),
Click to expand...

PSA: Troll, ignore.

Intel will have launched Broadwell-E and Kabylake. Both will most likely completely annihilate Zen's performance, judging from AMD's track record for CPU's over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

Intel will provide no tangible uplift until 7nm. What we have now is what you're stuck with for the next 3/4 years. Hoping for anything more than a slight tremor in the needle from a shrink or a rehash is false hope.
 
That's not true Intel will be making 10 core CPU's available to consumers in the next quarter with Broadwell-E which adds an extra 2 cores over Haswell-E (which had an extra 2 cores over Ivy-bridge-E), you'd have to be naive to judge a CPU's performance based on games which are generally IPC limited and GPU bottlenecked, overall processing power should be the metric used whether utilised in day to day activity or not. Don't judge Intel processors on their mainstream platform which is nothing more than a cash cow for selling low power/iGPU centric mobile processors on the desktop.

Given that AMD haven't released any new high end architecture in going on 4 years now and 5 years by the time Zen launches you would expect a significant improvement from them but they'd have been no better than Intel dripfeeding us marginally faster processors (going from Bulldozer > Piledriver > Steamroller > Excavator) if the FX architecture wasn't such a failure.
 
Last edited:
Intel's 10 core X99 offering will be around £1500 though. Not exactly viable for most people. Intel will continue to rule the high end but the hope is that Zen will at least make them more competitive in the mid-level and high-end consumer space.
 
humbug said:
All the slides have 1700 МГц written next to them, it translates as 1700Mhz

In games at best its 70% the performance of the 5930K. at worst 35%

The 5930K Boosts to 3.7Ghz, so with WOWS being DX9 its very single thread dependant, if we take 1.7Ghz and add 118% we get 3.7Ghz, so add 118% to 21 FPS results in 46 FPS, add 40% to that you get 64, which is the FPS the 5930K has, so that would mean this Zen is about 60% the IPC of Intel, which is about the same as Vishera.

Some what odd if Zen ends up with about the same IPC as an FX-8350, i don't trust it, but if its true AMD might as well not bother.
Click to expand...

IPC isn't a standardised thing, one application not making best use of something means it can suck, another making best use of it can be 5 times faster.

WoW without question will have little to no cause to have optimisations for Zen architecture in it yet it will undoubtedly have optimisations for all Intel architectures.

Also scaling isn't as simple as twice the speed, twice the IPC. Cache running at twice the speed dramatically increases performance of clock mispredictions which dramatically improves performance. At 1.7Ghz with cache running same clock then a misprediction means a 20 clock latency hit to get new instructions/data, 20 clocks is literally twice as long at 1.7Ghz than 3.4Ghz. So IPC improves in general at significantly above 1:1 scaling because cache/latency is designed to work together at target clock speed. If you are aiming for a 3.5-4Ghz core, you have a pipeline length and latency for misprediction aimed at manageable levels at those clock speeds.


So add in improved scaling from the chip working at expected speeds, through in some actual optimisation and flagging from the architecture, and 35-60% of the gaming performance from a chip at half the shipping clock speed is very impressive.
 
Last edited:
Dave2150 said:
By the time Zen is available (in 2017, since it hasn't taped out yet), Intel will have launched Broadwell-E and Kabylake. Both will most likely completely annihilate Zen's performance, judging from AMD's track record for CPU's over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

You haven't been around hardware much have you? in 5 years Intel performance has increased by about 15%
Intel have already said in the future they will be favouring power efficiency over performance, so don't expect anymore performance jumps.

Armageus said:
Indeed

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/brute-force-quad-cores,1371-6.html


Forgot that platform even existed :)
Click to expand...

Yeah... its a fake, it explains the DX9 performance parity with Vishera, it is Vishera.
 
Dave2150 said:
By the time Zen is available (in 2017, since it hasn't taped out yet), Intel will have launched Broadwell-E and Kabylake. Both will most likely completely annihilate Zen's performance, judging from AMD's track record for CPU's over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

We know AMD won't match Intel's next gen cpu. I would be happy to get current level performance for 1/2 price :) though that's dreaming a bit.
On a side note I'm sure dx12 is going to make the need for a more powerful cpu less of an issue.
 
If Zen can bring more cores and matched performance with Haswell era Intels then I'll be happy to upgrade. To think that Intel are still peddling quad core cpus at £300 is silly, even dual core i3s are £100+. Madness.
 
Martini1991 said:
If Zen's good, it's not going to be cheap.
AMD have shown they've got a mental block when it comes to pricing.
Click to expand...

The market dictates prices, if they are too close to Intel's equivalents they wont sell enough. they may try to start with, as they did with the FX-9590 but like that they will soon get pulled back to reality.

AMD don't have the brand clout Intel have, for the (in every way) equivalent product AMD can only sell at <70% of Intels pricing.
 
humbug said:
The market dictates prices, if they are too close to Intel's equivalents they wont sell enough. they may try to start with, as they did with the FX-9590 but like that they will soon get pulled back to reality.

AMD don't have the brand clout Intel have, for the (in every way) equivalent product AMD can only sell at <70% of Intels pricing.
Click to expand...

The market does dictate price, but this is AMD, the FX9 was crap AND expensive, costing the same/more as a much much much better CPU.
But it's AMD, it'll be a crap a launch either way, like every other launch for years, regardless of the end product.

To make it sound less like an AMD rant. Suggest an AMD launch that's gone well in the last few years.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom