• 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) ***

AthlonXP1800 said:
http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-es-benchmarks/

First Zen ES Ashes of the Singularity benchmark leaked.

sIaA6DX.jpg

Zen ES has 2.8GHz base clock and 3.2GHz turbo clock but the performance is slower than Haswell 4790 CPU, it not at skylake level AMD claimed months ago.

Zen ES are seemed underwhelmed for 8C/16T, if the final retail are similar or slight improved peformance at higher base and turbo clock then guess I will wait for Kaby Lake.
Click to expand...

Home now so lets have another look at this.

Ashes does not scale over 8 threads, RE:

Average FR 59.6, GPU 980 Ti @1520/2001, Normal FR 64.9, Medium FR 64.0, Heavy FR 51.9, CPU 6700k @4.4, Doom112
Average FR 59.1, GPU 980 Ti @1590/2100, Normal FR 64.8, Medium FR 61.9, Heavy FR 52.2, CPU 6700k @4.9, Besty
Average FR 54.2, GPU 980 Ti @1530/2102, Normal FR 58.3, Medium FR 55.7, Heavy FR 49.5, CPU 4930k @4.0, Kaapstad
Average FR 53.5, GPU 980 Ti @1500/2100, Normal FR 58.6, Medium FR 56.2, Heavy FR 47.1, CPU 4790T @3.9, Telecaster
Click to expand...
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=29220321#post29220321

As you can see once using 8 threads the only way you can improve performance is by having better IPC or higher Mhz, more threads makes no difference.

So with that out of the way :)

Its doubtful any of these CPU's will be boosting at all with 6 to 8 threads working, so i will stick to base clocks.

Intel Devils Canyon @ 3.6Ghz = 65.4 FPS.
AMD Zen @ 2.8Ghz = 58 FPS.

The difference in performance is 13% to Intel.
The difference in clock rates is the Intel is clocked 28% higher.

Its impossible to know exactly how fast Zen would need to be clocked to match the Intel CPU, but if we assume 0.7% scaling (not at all unrealistic) then Zen would need to be clocked at 3.3Ghz to match the 3.6Ghz Intel in this game.

At the same 3.6Ghz clock Zen would score 69.6 FPS, again with 0.7 scaling.

The would put AMD's Zen at 107% of Intel's Devils Canyon IPC, or about equal to Sky Lake.

Like the slide its self there is absolutely nothing factual in that, it is purely speculation based on the completely unverified data given here.

With that said Wccf and Techspot are completely mad to be so down on the data given in their own articles.
 
Last edited:
It's an engineering sample - they are not final, not optimised and are always down clocked for stability.

It's encouraging but too early to make a call one way or the other. I'm not selling my shares yet tho ;)
 
its pretty simple look at amd on a whole.

gpus are behind top end. cpus are behind.

so why would they suddenly leap frog in front ?

nice wishing for it but amds market is budget now.this will be the same.
 
Catching up to Haswell or being between Haswell & Skylake in performance would be more than enough to bring good competition back anyway, and since limited supply is coming before end of the year (apparently?) we should see a lot of benchmarks not very long from now i suppose.
 
AMD are always going to be behind Intel, personally i don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, it depends on how far behind, a few % IPC on the day does not make any difference in practice.
The nuance is that if (Hypothetically) AMD do find themselves leading Intel in real terms performance Intel will no longer look invincible, they ain't going to like that, reputation is critical to them.
Intel may kick off what a lot of people want, a price war, that is not what AMD want because Intel have the ability to muscle AMD out of the market and they know it.

Which brings me to this, if anyone thinks AMD CPU's competitive in real terms performance are going to be dirt cheap like the current FX series CPU's are you will be disappointed. they will be more expensive.

Likewise for those who hope a performance competitive AMD will drive down Intel's pricing structure you're also out of luck.

A performance competitive AMD will be cheaper than Intel, but AMD want to get back to healthy profits and the fact is for that to happen they will have to temper themselves as not to upset Intel.
Intel know AMD need profit and they are happy for AMD to have a share of it because if they didn't have an x86 competitor it could complicate things for them.

A competitive AMD will return healthy profits, they will take market share at Intel's expense, and Intel will allow it, but like an unwritten agreement what neither of them will do is rock the boat.
 
Last edited:
im fine with amd doing well. i like the company but its just you see people saying oh..i will wait for Zen like its jesus 2nd coming.

it wont compete it will just be like AMD as normal. a budget option. there is nothing wrong with that its just it wont compete with intel.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
im fine with amd doing well. i like the company but its just you see people saying oh..i will wait for Zen like its jesus 2nd coming.

it wont compete it will just be like AMD as normal. a budget option. there is nothing wrong with that its just it wont compete with intel.
Click to expand...

People just don't find £320 for a 4 Core 8 Thread CPU reasonable, all people want is something like that at a more reasonable cost, thats why they wait.
 
Will the price be reasonable though? Even i5s have trashed every AMD CPU out there and only cost 150-200 for the best current i5s each generation. Is Zen going to release at £99 or something? It would have to. The best AMD Piledrivers at the moment cost almost identical to a 6600k, and for gaming in any capacity it is immensely inferior.

AMD are dominating the budget multi purpose desktop CPU market, but how big of a market is that?
 
humbug said:
People just don't find £320 for a 4 Core 8 Thread CPU reasonable, all people want is something like that at a more reasonable cost, thats why they wait.
Click to expand...

You can buy a 6 core 12 thread processor for that price, it's not Intel's fault that people still get hung up on a CPU which includes a GPU (because it's developed for mobile devices) whilst completely ignoring the fact because they don't use it.

The number of cores/threads in isolation are not a gauge of performance/value either though, if it was AMD would have swept up the market with FX. i5 is still the best balance between price and performance.
 
Last edited:
~>Dg<~ said:
im fine with amd doing well. i like the company but its just you see people saying oh..i will wait for Zen like its jesus 2nd coming.
Click to expand...

That's not what I've seen in this thread. The last few pages have mostly been pretty reasonable opinions, largely thinking it might be competitive with Skylake in its price range. Which is supportable speculation based on what we know and statements that have been made. I don't see this thread filled with people calling it Jesus's second coming.
 
Omaeka said:
Will the price be reasonable though? Even i5s have trashed every AMD CPU out there and only cost 150-200 for the best current i5s each generation. Is Zen going to release at £99 or something? It would have to. The best AMD Piledrivers at the moment cost almost identical to a 6600k, and for gaming in any capacity it is immensely inferior.
Click to expand...

Funny definition of immensely. In the mid to low end PC gaming the graphics cards are almost always going to be the limiter on performance. I don't think an FX-8350 is going to be holding back your FPS much on many games on a <£600 system. They handle mid-range gaming fine. Is an i5 so much better?

Omaeka said:
AMD are dominating the budget multi purpose desktop CPU market, but how big of a market is that?
Click to expand...

Based on the fact that mid-range and lower GPUs account for something like 85% of the PC gaming market, probably pretty huge. OCUK forum members are not representative of most gamers.

Also, an FX-8350 is better than an i5 in a number of scenarios as well as not merely not being the bottleneck in a mid-range system. For example, I do a lot of database and programming work and the eight cores of an FX-8350 are more suitable for my work than the half that number of cores an i5 has, even though those cores are better individually.
 
humbug said:
People just don't find £320 for a 4 Core 8 Thread CPU reasonable, all people want is something like that at a more reasonable cost, that's why they wait.
Click to expand...
Exactly, Or as in my case they want 8 cores for less than a grand all in.

Scougar said:
Totally agree. 320 just for the CPU is nuts.
Click to expand...

It does feel like a lot for a 4 core i7, When I bought my 4790k it was only 50 less but I did it because at the time it was replacing a 4770k that would only do 4.1 stable and the resale price is good which meant the cpu switch cost £30.


They still managed to screw me for more money though, Leading up to the 4790k's release the Intel website had a list of Devils Canyon compatible Z87 motherboards which included my MSI G45 Gaming m/b, The day they released the 4790k the page got refreshed with less than a quarter of the motherboards previously on it and lo and behold my motherboard was no longer on the list, I still tried it though and even with the latest bio's it would not work so I ended up having to buy a new motherboard and OS which were not originally part of the plan. That increased the upgrade from £30 to about £100 after I sold the Z87 board with OS which was a disappointment but the cpu upgrade has been a worthwhile one.
 
Last edited:
The i7-920, which was the low-end enthusiast chip (albeit the only option for nearly a year before the i7-8xx line came out), was £225 in 2009 (assuming VAT of 20% like now). That's about £270 adjusting for inflation. The i7-860 was slightly cheaper when it came out.

Sandy Bridge and onwards have been about the same price for the unlocked i7 mainstream chip. Seems a bit rubbish considering improvements have been few and far between on the CPU front.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom