*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

[Troezar]

Well I'm looking forward to see what AMD come up with. I've always felt their CPU's provided a "smoother" experience albeit slower than Intel most of the time. I would be tempted by 8 core 16t 3.5 GHz chip, but the motherboards will have to be the equal of the UK Intel ones. I'd love an MSI Z170 Titanium AM4 equivalent

 

[Orangey]

ASMedia are doing the chipset.

 

[chippy08]

ASMedia are doing the chipset.

Dont sound great Asmedia are not fast when it comes to sata connectors. But all this possible realease this year makes me wonder if i should cancel the skylake order i made last week

 

[Hotwired]

It's not even the processor power that concerns me the most - I just need a platform upgrade so I can use faster memory and put in a PCI-E SSD.

Whats stopping you using a pci-e ssd right now.

 

[Martini1991]

I don't understand the "Engineering Sample" defence, as it's always closer to actual reality than not (Clock speeds excluded, as it depends on what they've clocked at said sample) as far as performance per clock etc go.

 

[PhoenixUK]

We're approaching the 4th birthday of the FX8350.
It's frankly not good enough to not release a new product in that time frame.
The sooner AMD release a competitive product the better.

It's also almost 4.5 years since 3770k release and yet we're still waiting for any kind of proper performance gains from intel.

3 generations later and upgrading still seems pointless.

At least AMD makes some big steps in the APU market. I understand that most people on this forum aren't interested in these but I've had a play with one recently it looks like they provide quite a good value for majority of market that usually runs on integrated intel IGPus or £60 GPUs.

It doesn't seem like the extra power is needed either for gaming (except extreme cases, 4k eyefinity and other crap) anyway looking at the fact that most games barely stress 4year old CPUs over 60-80% load.

 

[Martini1991]

It's also almost 4.5 years since 3770k release and yet we're still waiting for any kind of proper performance gains from intel.

3 generations later and upgrading still seems pointless.

At least AMD makes some big steps in the APU market. I understand that most people on this forum aren't interested in these but I've had a play with one recently it looks like they provide quite a good value for majority of market that usually runs on integrated intel IGPus or £60 GPUs.

It doesn't seem like the extra power is needed either for gaming (except extreme cases, 4k eyefinity and other crap) anyway looking at the fact that most games barely stress 4year old CPUs over 60-80% load.

Top kek.

And AMD gains in the APU market? Because of the DDR bottleneck their IGP performance gain slowed quite a chunk.
I think Broadwell Desktop is the best IGP solution at the moment.

I'm hoping that with the next generation of stuff that AMD really kick their APU stuff to another level.

 

[humbug]

Top kek.

And AMD gains in the APU market? Because of the DDR bottleneck their IGP performance gain slowed quite a chunk.
I think Broadwell Desktop is the best IGP solution at the moment.

I'm hoping that with the next generation of stuff that AMD really kick their APU stuff to another level.

IMO he has a point, There isn't a huge difference in performance from his 3770K to a 6700K and with Motherboard we are talking about £450 to upgrade. Edit, forgot the DDR4 which is another £60.

Iris Pro iGPU's are not available to custom PC builders, even if they were they would be incredibly expensive, probably no more expensive to buy an i3 and an RX 480.

AMD APU's are actually pretty viable for budget E-Sports builders.

 

[gpuerrilla]

I think people are just frustrated as tech has slowed down so rapidly. These forums were packed with posts due to hardware requiring almost an annual upgrade at one stage.

I for one welcome the fact that my calculated spends will last me 3-4 years per cycle rather than the 1-2 years of the past.

 

[humbug]

I think people are just frustrated as tech has slowed down so rapidly. These forums were packed with posts due to hardware requiring almost an annual upgrade at one stage.

I for one welcome the fact that my calculated spends will last me 3-4 years per cycle rather than the 1-2 years of the past.

Well, its not good for those who like to upgrade.

One other thing, his CPU is 3 years older than mine, guess which is faster...

 

[Martini1991]

IMO he has a point, There isn't a huge difference in performance from his 3770K to a 6700K and with Motherboard we are talking about £450 to upgrade. Edit, forgot the DDR4 which is another £60.

Iris Pro iGPU's are not available to custom PC builders, even if they were they would be incredibly expensive, probably no more expensive to buy an i3 and an RX 480.

AMD APU's are actually pretty viable for budget E-Sports builders.

Nobody can deny there's somewhat of stagnation as far as the mainstream i7's go, but a 6700K isn't Intels flagship, you can quite easily get more performance than a 3770K, Intel have parts that literally have double the performance (If you can utilise it). It's not remotely the same situation to AMD's CPU line up.

Though Intel HAVE made Hexcores cheaper in the 5820/6820 compared to where they used to be for Intel.
Frankly I find an i7 6700K build almost impossible to recommend over an X99 these days.

And as limited as it was, the i7 5775C or whatever it was called WAS available to custom PC builders.

 

[humbug]

Nobody can deny there's somewhat of stagnation as far as the mainstream i7's go, but a 6700K isn't Intels flagship, you can quite easily get more performance than a 3770K, Intel have parts that literally have double the performance (If you can utilise it). It's not remotely the same situation to AMD's CPU line up.

Though Intel HAVE made Hexcores cheaper in the 5820/6820 compared to where they used to be for Intel.
Frankly I find an i7 6700K build almost impossible to recommend over an X99 these days.

And as limited as it was, the i7 5775C or whatever it was called WAS available to custom PC builders.

I do agree the 5820K was a much better deal because its a 6 core 7 at around the same price as a 4 core i7. a one off, unlikely to happen again.

And yet the fact that a lot of were so impressed by that tells just how low our expectations have become.

Intel have been pushing the same pricing structure for a decade.

Around £100 for 2c 4t
Around £200 for 4c 4t
Around £300 for 4c 8t

What we have seen is marginal increases in IPC and out of the box clock rate bumps, basically around the same performance with the same configuration and in the last year hikes in price above the rate of inflation.

CPU threading has become far better in games in the last couple of years, older Intel CPU's overtaking brand new Intel CPU's with lower thread counts and still Intel stick with the status quo.

At least if you spend today around the same sort of money on a new GPU than what you spend 2 or 3 years ago you get a lot more performance for your money.

With Intel CPU's that concept is already accepted as fantasy, sometimes even defended, why should we expect that, its completely unreasonable.

 

[humbug]

Let me show you something, with great care i designed this on the priceable that an i5 with a GTX 970 is a perfectly balanced system, to squeeze the absolute most out of that. Now, the same CPU with a GTX 980 the CPU would bottleneck the GPU, you would need an i7 to make use of the upto 16 threads i have running in it A-Synchronously.

If 4c 8t CPU become to this level of GPU's i would have more Drawcalls to work with, even a (How many years old 2600K?) would do it.
The facts are, unfortunately, that GPU performance continues to grow way beyond CPU to GPU pricing balance capability.
what that means is i and i would think actual game developers are hemperd by this status quo.

 

[Martini1991]

I do agree the 5820K was a much better deal because its a 6 core 7 at around the same price as a 4 core i7. a one off, unlikely to happen again.

And yet the fact that a lot of were so impressed by that tells just how low our expectations have become.

Intel have been pushing the same pricing structure for a decade.

Around £100 for 2c 4t
Around £200 for 4c 4t
Around £300 for 4c 8t

What we have seen is marginal increases in IPC and out of the box clock rate bumps, basically around the same performance with the same configuration and in the last year hikes in price above the rate of inflation.

CPU threading has become far better in games in the last couple of years, older Intel CPU's overtaking brand new Intel CPU's with lower thread counts and still Intel stick with the status quo.

At least if you spend today around the same sort of money on a new GPU than what you spend 2 or 3 years ago you get a lot more performance for your money.

With Intel CPU's that concept is already accepted as fantasy, sometimes even defended, why should we expect that, its completely unreasonable.

Does it?
I bought my 290X for 250 pound from Overclockers years ago.
I can't get more performance for 250 pound that's worth it. GPU's have stagnated too frankly, except for the upper Nvidia products, but the price is loltastic.

At 299.99 I can buy a Fury, and that's not exactly a show stopper, much better off jumping to a GTX1070, and I'd rather not.

 

[Martini1991]

Let me show you something, with great care i designed this on the priceable that an i5 with a GTX 970 is a perfectly balanced system, to squeeze the absolute most out of that. Now, the same CPU with a GTX 980 the CPU would bottleneck the GPU, you would need an i7 to make use of the upto 16 threads i have running in it A-Synchronously.

If 4c 8t CPU become to this level of GPU's i would have more Drawcalls to work with, even a (How many years old 2600K?) would do it.
The facts are, unfortunately, that GPU performance continues to grow way beyond CPU to GPU pricing balance capability.
what that means is i and i would think actual game developers are hemperd by this status quo.

You have limited control in what you can do with that, it can't be taken as an absolute.
There's games where an i5 2500K would still max out a GTX980.

But that's an aside, I think 4 cores should be entry level now and it's not, it's dual core >.<. 4C/8T should be Intels i5.
But that's not going to happen till AMD can release something (And it's the same with GPU's. Nvidia's offerings are undeniably powerful, but I wanted more. AMD's are just a wet fart thus far)

 

[humbug]

You have limited control in what you can do with that, it can't be taken as an absolute.
There's games where an i5 2500K would still max out a GTX980.

But that's an aside, I think 4 cores should be entry level now and it's not, it's dual core >.<. 4C/8T should be Intels i5.
But that's not going to happen till AMD can release something (And it's the same with GPU's. Nvidia's offerings are undeniably powerful, but I wanted more. AMD's are just a wet fart thus far)

Your right it can't but those situations where an i5 still has viability for higher performance GPU's are either games of a genre where intensive landscaping (as one example) is not a requirement or its just bad, look at FarCry 4 with its dull low quality scenery.

I also agree that its partly AMD not providing proper competition but ultimately its Intel who chose their own product hierarchy and pricing.

 

[regulus]

Out of interest as I know very little about Intel since I've last owned a C2D E6600 (iirc), how does the 2500k stack up against the FX series from AMD? Only asking as I'm trying to find a game where my CPU (8320) bottleneck my 1080. Witcher 3 it (CPU) barely gets to 70%.

What's the name of the game you're playing there Humbug? Wanna give it a go.

Also, can you recommend a CPU heavy game?

Thanks

 

[Martini1991]

Out of interest as I know very little about Intel since I've last owned a C2D E6600 (iirc), how does the 2500k stack up against the FX series from AMD? Only asking as I'm trying to find a game where my CPU (8320) bottleneck my 1080. Witcher 3 it (CPU) barely gets to 70%.

What's the name of the game you're playing there Humbug? Wanna give it a go.

Also, can you recommend a CPU heavy game?

Thanks

With CPU's you don't need 100% overall CPU usage for a bottleneck. It's all about the cores.

Really you want to judge it by your GPU, if you can't get it constant 99 with vsync off then you'd benefit from higher core for core performance.

 

[akarypid]

GPU's have stagnated too frankly, except for the upper Nvidia products, but the price is loltastic.

Well, this stagnation is more due to the fact that AMD/NVidia both skipped the 20nm node and just went to an improved process now. As a result they could not make significant speed gains and nor could they charge the increased prices since people already had that level of performance (how much could they charge for a 390 vs a 290?) and as a result we had a couple of years of decent prices on that node.

We're going to see another bump in performance when they move on to 10nm, but after that it's going to get harder and harder to shrink further, so cycles will probably keep increasing in length...

 

[jigger]

Well, this stagnation is more due to the fact that AMD/NVidia both skipped the 20nm node and just went to an improved process now. As a result they could not make significant speed gains and nor could they charge the increased prices since people already had that level of performance (how much could they charge for a 390 vs a 290?) and as a result we had a couple of years of decent prices on that node.

We're going to see another bump in performance when they move on to 10nm, but after that it's going to get harder and harder to shrink further, so cycles will probably keep increasing in length...

Have you noticed Nvidia's 28nm prices? The GTX Titan was close to £900-£1000, the Titan black was about the same, the Titan Z was £3000 Also the R9 295x2 was £1200. All 28nm cards. Granted Nvidia have now gone full retard on prices but the 28nm stuff was pretty dire.

Why has this turned into another spam graphics card thread?