• 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) ***

Pricing on the 6 core and 4 core chips is going to be very interesting as is the speeds that they can reach and how that stacks up. AMD are stacking up to be the sensible choice in 90% of CPU only situations. If their APU's follow suit they are going to have a truly epic year. 700% share price rise over 12 months as well - Lisa Su must be a very very happy lady right now.
 
I really want to know how well that 1700 overclocks like because that looks like the best bang for buck, knock that TDP off in the BIOS settings and we should be able to get close to a 1800x.
 
Interesting some newer info on another site showing that the ryzen cpus are only faster or as fast as intel in the 2 bench leaks so far. In actual gaming and video conpression tests ryzen is a lot slower by over 20%
 
https://semiaccurate.com/2017/02/22/amds-ryzen-7-1800x-beats-intels-i7-6900k-half-price/

"Cinebench may be seen as a non-representative benchmark for some but SemiAccurate is confident that Ryzen’s performance will hold up across a wide range of benchmarks. This last bit may explain why Intel PR sent out a last-minute “call us before you write” email to most of the press, but not SemiAccurate, after hours last night. You could infer that they are suddenly really worried about something. In case we read that wrong, they should be."

Intel do sound worried which is only good news for AMD and gives me confidence that the reviews will be positive.
 
Cyber-Mav said:
Interesting some newer info on another site showing that the ryzen cpus are only faster or as fast as intel in the 2 bench leaks so far. In actual gaming and video conpression tests ryzen is a lot slower by over 20%
Click to expand...

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark at the only possible target and grab this post from earlier.

A leak of an engineering sample at low clock speed which is of course on many other sites.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Yet,some also forgot the CPC leak magically and these same people ignored them when the same lot leaked the Athlon 64 results months before it was launched.

CPC is a well known French print magazine so there is no reason they would risk their reputation on making up benchmarks.

They showed Haswell to BW-E level IPC in their leak,and almost all the leaks have shown that level of performance.

tic6i57uob5y.jpg


That is on a 8C/16T sample with buggy SMT,and clockspeeds between 3.1GHZ to 3.3GHZ using a Fury X,so now think of an 8C/16T CPU at 3.6GHZ to 4.1GHZ,and now you can see where it might land.

Before Bulldozer launched there were leaks showing IPC might have regressed and nobody wanted to believe it since it seemed unlikely it would be the case,but they were accurate.

Nobody is expecting AMD to match or beat Intel IPC or clockspeeds when overclocked,but it does not matter as the pricing is aggressive.

Edit!!

Even at Haswell level IPC for gaming,its still going to be solid overall.
Click to expand...

It turns out that the three 8 core cpus are being released with 3.7GHz to 4.0GHz+ boost speeds so that leak is just an example of why you shouldn't look at engineering samples too hard.
 
According to Linus's video posted above XFR only affords you an extra 100MHz boost with sufficient cooling?

Sounds a bit underwhelming to me; the way it was described previously made it sound kind of like GPU boost but for CPUs.

I hope it's not pointing to limited overclocking headroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom