-
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
Soldato
For IPC around Broadwell level, I think (correct me if I'm wrong, experts). But without knowing clockspeeds, it's very hard to talk about actual performance. That said, with 8c/16t as standard, I think it will be good for certain workloads.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
So correct me if im wrong, if its around 4790k speed with 8c/16t, then its probably going to be better than an i7 in anything that uses more cores?
Definitely sounds like it could be better than my 4770k, thats good enough for me to ugprade.
Just need devs to start making more use of Multiple threads in DX12 titles lol
Caporegime
Basically, people are saying that it's going to be as good as the 5960K if not better.
Like I say, if AMD can match Intel, they'll do so on price.
Which will put them in an interesting predicament, I.E a 4 core chip and their current FX9 in benchmarks, depending on what the 4 core is priced at.
Caporegime
There not going to match Intel's pricing, whats the point in that? they will never sell any.
Caporegime
Maybe they'll be slightly cheaper, but I really don't see it being much more than 10%, why would they go uber cheap?
But Lisa has shown they don't want to be perceived as the budget option, you've only got to see how the Fury/300 launched and their FX9 launching (Which again, was hilarious)
Soldato
Yes. I'm trying not to buy into hype but as we get closer, little things we're hearing are making me quite hopeful. I work in programming and with databases so more cores is a strong positive for me. Gaming has a little way to go to catch up with using more cores, but it's happening and we're seeing that shift right now. It's going to be work-load specific. I think for most games right now, more than four cores is redundant and so higher single-core performance (which I expect Skylake to have) will continue to give it the edge in games. But that will shift. Especially for strategy games! And for programmers like myself and similar, I'm secretly hoping Zen will be amazing.
Heh. Yes. One advantage is that third-party developers of game engines have the resources to do this, and when they do, everyone who uses those game engines moves forwards with them. I think it will be a while before people take full advantage of what DX12 can offer, but we're already seeing big gains from it.
Soldato
By that logic, nor would Intel. Your post is written from the viewpoint that Intel is the default buy and AMD have to provide some significant lower cost in order to justify their chips.
That is not so. If the chips are roughly equivalent to Intel's, then they can be roughly the same price. I expect AMD to come in undercutting slightly, but not by much.
People expecting Bulldozer-like price disparity with Intel's chips are doing themselves and others a disservice.
Caporegime
So a 4 core 8 thread AMD CPU for £260?
I don't know what price 6 core 12 thread Intel Skylake CPU's are going to be but it should be what, £450? so £410 for the AMD?
roughly about £700 for the AMD 8 core 16 thread?
Would you buy those chips at those prices?
Same question to you, h4rm0ny.
Last edited:
Caporegime
No, because I've currently got a 4770K.
It's also the same reason I'm still on an R9 290X, pricing/performance gains.
If AMD had a 4770K performing part at say 260 when I upgraded from my 2500K, yes I'd have bought it, given I paid like 280 for my 4770K.
That said, because of the 5820K being 300 quid, that'd be the CPU I go for, so AMD would need to have a 6C/12T at 300-330, like the 5820.
Again, why would AMD go cheap if they've got a solid product?
Caporegime
Bulldozer didn't have a pricing disparity, the FX8150 was the same price as a 2600K.
Caporegime
I have a 4690K, if the AMD 4790K is £260 i'm buying an Intel 4790K, i already have the Motherboard.
If there is only a £28 difference between a Skylake 8 threader i'm not sure i would buy the AMD even if i still had the X6 1090T, i prefer to give my money to AMD but for that difference even i would go Intel because Intel.
I think you would too
i'm not sure enough people with Sandy Bridge CPU's would quibble over Skylake CPU for a couple of tenners.
Ergo, AMD sell low numbers again.
The price difference will be at least 20%, higher up the range.
Caporegime
Why would I pay more for the same performance?
Don't forget I'm the type of person that bought Phenom II X4 965's/1055T's/1055T 95W's on launch, I'm the type of person that had an 790FX and 890FX boards at launch etc.
For you, why would you not buy an i7 if you're on the platform.
It's all about what you've got, and what you're wanting to buy. Spending more for the same performance is silly.
I don't buy AMD CPU's currently because for the most part they're second fiddle, but when performance parity is there, I don't care what the brand is.
I don't know why you're assuming there's going to be price differences given history is firmly against you, the only recent "high end" launch that agrees with you is PD, and AMD couldn't have had a weaker CPU portfolio at that time, and they weren't performance parity products either.
Last edited:
Caporegime
What history are you talking about now
Not the blinkered one you're remembering, that's for sure.
Bulldozers launch.
The FX9 launch.
The Fury launch.
All of those 3 launches were pretty poor, and none of them were cheap.
The FX8350 at 167 on OCUK was basically i5 3570K pricing, so while it wasn't ridiculously expensive, it certainly wasn't "cheap" in comparison, the FX8320 though was the hitter.
Last edited:
Caporegime
It must be hard to deal with facts when you've got an agenda.
Maybe in your anti AMD world. You said in your last post you would take a Fury over a GTX980Ti
Caporegime
To me FX-8### series CPU's are greatly under estimated and unfairly treated, i had one for two years before i got the 4690K, i know their strengths and weaknesses.
But i still think AMD need to prove themselves, especially for efficiency, a couple of benchmark runs does not tell the whole story, not even close.
I value what well ajusted, knowledgeable and experienced users think far more than any reviewer, in fact i don't think some of these big name reviewers should be doing it at all, they have no idea what they are doing or what they are talking about.
It takes time from scant sources to get the truth about a product, look at those GTX 1080 launches, every mainstream reviewer is almost masturbating over them, that in its self sends alarm bells off in my head as nothing is that perfect and amazing.
A couple of much more independent commentators are finding significant fault with them, to the extent that they don't look anything like as good as Nvidia and those mainstream reviewers have them.
Until I know what the product is in reality i'll stick with what i know, right now what i know is Intel are far more efficient across the board and the performance while not always better or even as good is much more often the case, much better balancing of performance and efficiency.
But i still think AMD need to prove themselves, especially for efficiency, a couple of benchmark runs does not tell the whole story, not even close.
I value what well ajusted, knowledgeable and experienced users think far more than any reviewer, in fact i don't think some of these big name reviewers should be doing it at all, they have no idea what they are doing or what they are talking about.
It takes time from scant sources to get the truth about a product, look at those GTX 1080 launches, every mainstream reviewer is almost masturbating over them, that in its self sends alarm bells off in my head as nothing is that perfect and amazing.
A couple of much more independent commentators are finding significant fault with them, to the extent that they don't look anything like as good as Nvidia and those mainstream reviewers have them.
Until I know what the product is in reality i'll stick with what i know, right now what i know is Intel are far more efficient across the board and the performance while not always better or even as good is much more often the case, much better balancing of performance and efficiency.