• 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) ***

I think we have been given the answer to the Ashes benchmark posted earlier in the thread, the clock speed for Zen was almost certainly below 4ghz and most likely in the 3.0-3.5GHZ range.
 
It's a bit strange that they would downclock the 6900K to 3ghz however? why not clock the Zen up a measly 200mhz to 3.2ghz? will it even scale to 4ghz? if ~3.5ghz is the absolute overclocking limit won't people still go for a 4ghz+ 6700K assuming price is competitive.
 
Besty said:
I think we have been given the answer to the Ashes benchmark posted earlier in the thread, the clock speed for Zen was almost certainly below 4ghz and most likely in the 3.0-3.5GHZ range.
Click to expand...

Wasnt that Zen sample clocked at like 2.3ghz or something in AOTS?

That Zen presentation that stated its running at 3ghz and they clocked the Broadwell the same 3ghz...

What i want to know is how does it scale with higher clock speeds? What speed will we get at release?

Its damn impressive that it competes at 3ghz, but what about 4ghz or higher?
 
SiDeards73 said:
Wasnt that Zen sample clocked at like 2.3ghz or something in AOTS?

That Zen presentation that stated its running at 3ghz and they clocked the Broadwell the same 3ghz...

What i want to know is how does it scale with higher clock speeds? What speed will we get at release?

Its damn impressive that it competes at 3ghz, but what about 4ghz or higher?
Click to expand...

Wait for reviews, and please try to jump out of the hype train's way!

I want to about it all as well. :p
 
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Zen-Architecture-and-Performance-Preview

Using Blender to measure the performance of a rendering workload (a Zen CPU mockup of course), AMD ran an 8-core / 16-thread Zen processor at 3.0 GHz against an 8-core / 16-thread Broadwell-E processor at 3.0 GHz (likely a fixed clocked Core i7-6900K). The point of the demonstration was to showcase the IPC improvements of Zen and it worked: the render completed on the Zen platform a second or two faster than it did on the Intel Broadwell-E system.
Click to expand...

This is looking good. Ryan from PCper seems very happy about what he's seen. Much needed competition in the cpu market is welcome.:)
The 6900K boosts to 4GHz at stock so will have to wait and see what clocks can be achieved by Zen but at least IPC appears to be as good or better than Broadwell-E @ 3GHz locked. If Zen can clock higher than 4GHz then we may well have a serious contender in the top end here.
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
It's a bit strange that they would downclock the 6900K to 3ghz however? why not clock the Zen up a measly 200mhz to 3.2ghz? will it even scale to 4ghz? if ~3.5ghz is the absolute overclocking limit won't people still go for a 4ghz+ 6700K assuming price is competitive.
Click to expand...

Does make me wonder if there's some kind of low thermal overhead. Which may not be intrinsically the fault of the zen design but the 14nm FF manufacturing process. Polaris isn't a great overclocker really, so that would be my guess as to why they're sticking to 3ghz.
 
These are engendering samples, the chances are they are still tuning it.

But, As i said before, i doubt they will be clocked as high as Intel given that Intel's processing is more mature, with the IPC being a little higher i doubt that will matter much if at all @ 3Ghz, the 6900K base clock is only 3.2Ghz.

Once AMD's own processing matures no doubt the will get revisions with higher clock rates.

i must be physic...

humbug said:
I'm going to look at it in more detail tomorrow, but yes essentially I don't believe 2,8 to 3.2Ghz will be the release speed of Zen, tho it might be for the 16 threader, or it might only get another 200Mhz.
It's the big fat chip of the range, the one sucking up the most power, it's likely to be a bit reigned in to keep it within the 95 watt envelope it look like they set for themselves.
Every chip has a zone beyond which it requires very diminished power to performance returns, 10% more MHz could cost 30‰ more power, on a fat 8 core 16 thread CPU 30% more power could result in 95 watts becoming 120 watts, be that as it may it's better to keep the fat one on a diet.

For the smaller chips like the 6 core you could add another 10% Mhz and keep within the 95 watts, the 4 core perhaps 15% for 85 watts.

So I'm really not worried about the MHz on this chart at all, it's not far off where I would have expected the big flagship chip to be, and it is just a test sample.

16 thread: 3Ghz - 3.2Ghz turbo
12 thread: 3.3 GHz - 3.5Ghz turbo
8 thread: 3.6Ghz - 4Ghz turbo

I don't expect them to clock as high as SkyLake or even quite as high as DevilsCanyon. Intel's process is more mature.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There's plenty wrong with the 480. I don't understand why it's selling so well, it's more or less the same price performance that we've already had. That said, I don't understand the 1060 either.

That's why I've still got a 290x, it basically gives me the same performance as a 480.
 
ALXAndy said:
Nothing wrong with the RX 480.
Click to expand...

Its a great card but the PCIE thing was a bit of a bad moment, thats probably the biggest tarnish to that launch.

Efficiency you can argue that the Polaris presentations leading up to launch were misleading as they supposedly were for the 470 or something rather than the 480.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
I would go zen if priced right.
Click to expand...

Me too, i want to get rid of my 4770k, never really been happy with the clocking on it, it runs fairly hot but ive only ever used the Gigabyte auto OC thing as i do not understand Haswell OC'ing lol. Ive tried it under 2 different AIO's and a Phanteks Air cooler and never really been happy with its OC.

Im not brave enough to delid and slap liquid metal or whatever on it either, so aslong as Zen is better performance and offers more cores then im happy with that. Will give my old rig to my 2 boys.
 
Davedree said:
You're right, but it's 1-2 years too late they needed it when they were fighting Gm204 with Hawaii/Grenada. It gets overshadowed by Gp104 today.
Click to expand...

The RX 480 4gb has brought down the price for the type of performance offered to £199. Heck, Nvidia have just launched a 3gb "1060" for £189. Up until a few months ago that sort of performance would cost far more.

Was it as good as I expected it to be? yeah, it was actually. But then it's all about expectation isn't it? you expect too much you end up disappointed.

I expect Zen to be what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. I certainly won't need it myself as 6c 12t running at 4.5ghz is more than enough for me. However, I suspect that I will end up buying Zen in the future because I have no faith in modern day motherboards at all and history could well end up repeating itself leaving me with a dead board and a perfectly working CPU that I can't use because the boards are not available any more, or, priced extortionately.

If manufacturers actually made things to last I would still be using my 3970x.

Any way, apologies for digressing there. Looking forward to this muchly. If they can make a decent affordable quad core to go with the RX 480 I can see more people picking up PC gaming.

So that's good I guess :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom