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

[Martini1991]

If this line up is true it's going to stir things up a lot:

They look solid.

 

[ubersonic]

That 1400 though overclocked to 4GHz is going to wipe the floor with the i3.

And the non-K i5 (which costs more).

 

[teppic]

And the non-K i5 (which costs more).

Yeah, it looks like it's going to compete very favourably with the i7 when you take the current issues of the R7 out of the equation. I wonder if it'll still get the smoother performance people have talked about.

 

[Kashinoda]

If this line up is true it's going to stir things up a lot:

6 Cores for £200? I've found my biting point.

 

[DragonQ]

The R5 1600 is looking like a beast. It should clock to the same as my Westmere-EP part, has the same number of cores and threads, yet will have far better IPC (including newer instruction sets) and much lower power consumption. All for the same price as an i7-920 back in 2009 (~£220).

 

[Mtom]

Those prices are known for a while now. No surprise there. and i think they will do the same clocks as the bigger ones, AMD just hold them back at stock to keep them chew up the big ones sales.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If this line up is true it's going to stir things up a lot:

The R5 1400 is actually going to be cheaper than a Core i5 7400 - finally no more £175 Core i3 7350K CPUs!!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The R5 1600 is looking like a beast. It should clock to the same as my Westmere-EP part, has the same number of cores and threads, yet will have far better IPC (including newer instruction sets) and much lower power consumption. All for the same price as an i7-920 back in 2009 (~£220).

The R5 1400 is going to be the part to look at - one of those with a RX480 or GTX1060 is going to make a solid gaming rig.

 

[Martini1991]

Imagine if we were still 1.50 to a dollar.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

4c/8t with more IPC than BW-E

No it isn't - if that is the case,a higher R7 1800X in gaming would would be faster than a Core i7 6900K especially with a higher clockspeed,except it isn't especially if you look at mixture of lightly threaded and threaded games. Please don't overhype it,otherwise it will be like the RX480 and people thinking at launch it would be a Fury X.

Edit!!

Even without any gaming fixes,a 4C/8T unlocked Ryzen fighting against a Core i5 7400 which has similar clockspeeds,means with an overclock AMD has not the potential to have a decent clockspeed advantage,but the SMT will help in certain games.

 

[DragonQ]

The R5 1400 is going to be the part to look at - one of those with a RX480 or GTX1060 is going to make a solid gaming rig.

Agreed, was talking more personally though. Once you go hexcore, you never go back.

 

[AllBodies]

No it isn't - if that is the case,a higher R7 1800X in gaming would would be faster than a Core i7 6900K especially with a higher clockspeed,except it isn't especially if you look at mixture of lightly threaded and threaded games. Please don't overhype it,otherwise it will be like the RX480 and people thinking at launch it would be a Fury X.

Don't under-hype it?

As far as I've seen Zen is higher IPC than BW-E, other than in games. Many reviewers have even written exactly that in their reviews.

And the gaming situation is still in limbo. The current opinion is that games have been optimised for Intel over the years, and Zen is different enough to need patches to be used to its full potential

 

[flopper]

6 Cores for £200? I've found my biting point.

Yea AMD got it right all right that Intel has missed out on.
Ton of people going 6/8cores

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Don't under-hype it?

As far as I've seen Zen is higher IPC than BW-E, other than in games. Many reviewers have even written exactly that in their reviews.

And the gaming situation is still in limbo. The current opinion is that games have been optimised for Intel over the years, and Zen is different enough to need patches to be used to its full potential

No,because you are on purpose over-hyping like with the RX480,and when it does not meet YOUR over-hyping it WILL be BW+ level IPC in gaming,you will only cause people to start getting dissapointed for no reason in it and I started the review thread,so I do have a clue of how IPC does look like which fits to what I said it would be like MONTHs ago in non-gaming scenarios.

Remember,AMD has a more efficient SMT implementation in non-gaming scenarios than Intel,so its not really BW+ plus once you look at core IPC,which is not the same thing.

This is part of the reason why you see in certain scenarios,performance looks worse and in other scenarios it punches well above its weight.

Edit!!

I give you an example - look at video encoders. They can use SMT quite well,so Ryzen can even beat an Intel Core i7 6950K.

Now move over to stuff like Lightroom,etc - you find it does not use SMT as well,so IPC looks worse.

 

[Kashinoda]

Imagine if we were still 1.50 to a dollar.

Why would you do this

 

[ubersonic]

Imagine if we were still 1.50 to a dollar.

Wouldn't that benefit Intel just as much though?

 

[AlamoX]

If this line up is true it's going to stir things up a lot:

what's going on ? why is the 8 cores clock higher than a 4 core ? i dont get it, even the 6 cores is set to 4Ghz, why is the 4 cores 3.7Ghz ?

 

[DragonQ]

what's going on ? why is the 8 cores clock higher than a 4 core ? i dont get it, even the 6 cores is set to 4Ghz, why is the 4 cores 3.7Ghz ?

What did you expect? Core i3s are clocked lower than Core i5s, which are clocked lower than Core i7s.

 

[Martini1991]

Wouldn't that benefit Intel just as much though?

Not really? The AMD price point is already better, it'd just make AMDS 6 core under 200 pound.

 

[ubersonic]

Not really?

It was actually rhetorical. If you decrease AMD and Intel prices by the exact same amount then it doesn't benefit either of them (just the consumer).