Associate
At last its looking good for AMD in the CPU arena.
-
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
Well AM4 offers Bristol and Summit ridge chips. IIRC Summit ridge is around 10-15% faster than the current AM2 chips that are already very competitive.
Soldato
Very interesting, good to hear they both have their advantages. Maybe AMD is more biased to the juggling bandwidth of time critical tasks that a server design would have
My FX-8320 also loved Handbrake. It's a very good little processor and was a lot of fun tinkering with.
I've now got it sitting in an ESXi homelab, for which the FX-990 platform is excellent, as it supports IOMMU. Nested FreeNAS LUNs and multiple servers running (32GB RAM) perfectly on the single CPU.
I've now got it sitting in an ESXi homelab, for which the FX-990 platform is excellent, as it supports IOMMU. Nested FreeNAS LUNs and multiple servers running (32GB RAM) perfectly on the single CPU.
Seeing as my 2500k is still hanging on I'll happily wait for zen. Intel + nvidia charging through the nose for things has gone too far IMO. I'd rather give up PC gaming then pay the price.
I'm reluctant on going skylake as I think within a year or two quad core will be old hat. Whatever I decide to do I hope will last me just as long as sandy bridge.
If zen is similar to a 5820k give or take 10% performance and is circa £250-£300 I'm sold.
I'm reluctant on going skylake as I think within a year or two quad core will be old hat. Whatever I decide to do I hope will last me just as long as sandy bridge.
If zen is similar to a 5820k give or take 10% performance and is circa £250-£300 I'm sold.
why ?
when a 5820k can be had for that now
do people honestly believe AMD cpus have gone from way behind to level or close ? no thats not their market.
they will offer reasonable performance at the market they want = budget sector.
what will happen is when its slower they will obviously use some benchmarks that favours the out come of the cpus but in everything else be slower than anything intel. aka ashes of singularity.like its player base.
why ?
when a 5820k can be had for that now
do people honestly believe AMD cpus have gone from way behind to level or close ? no thats not their market.
they will offer reasonable performance at the market they want = budget sector.
what will happen is when its slower they will obviously use some benchmarks that favours the out come of the cpus but in everything else be slower than anything intel. aka ashes of singularity.like its player base.
Well you can't buy a 5820K for £250 unless it's used and AMD would be offering a 8 core 16 thread chip on a brand new platform....
So why not wait and see
Soldato
Not sure if this has been posted, yet. I don't see it so...
http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-architecture-hot-chips/
Now if someone who knows a lot about CPUs wants to explain some of this?
http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-architecture-hot-chips/
Now if someone who knows a lot about CPUs wants to explain some of this?
basically smoke and mirrors to say look like previously our cpu does this in theory and that.lets pick some obscure product to bench or a product we have ties in to show our cpu close or beating intel.
when real world use show slower than intel products.
remember when 8 amd cpu came out and it was 8 core this that.4 core intel mopped it up.will be same thing.
the 5820k can be had for just over 300 at some places.thats why i said jigger why would you wait for something priced similar with less performance that you can have now
you did say £250 -300.
when real world use show slower than intel products.
remember when 8 amd cpu came out and it was 8 core this that.4 core intel mopped it up.will be same thing.
the 5820k can be had for just over 300 at some places.thats why i said jigger why would you wait for something priced similar with less performance that you can have now
you did say £250 -300.
It's down to the Hyperthreading which Zen will also feature, running two applications concurrently on a single core is bound to have an impact.
Caporegime
No doubt the huge L2 cache on the FX series plays its part in that too ^^^
As with the Quote above it = huge architectural improvements.
@Dg, why not wait before condemning AMD?
Not sure if this has been posted, yet. I don't see it so...
http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-architecture-hot-chips/
Now if someone who knows a lot about CPUs wants to explain some of this?
As with the Quote above it = huge architectural improvements.
@Dg, why not wait before condemning AMD?
Because Humbug that is how some people roll or troll. The guy is comparing apples with oranges. AMDs previous architecture was based around CMT and software was just not ready but this time they have used SMT. Apparently Dg knows better than AMD or is a better CPU designer than Jim Keller. Maybe Dg has some inside information regarding benchmarks of the upcoming Zen cores.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Certainly condemning the thing before its even in the hands of reviewers is suspect.
It wouldn't be this first time AMD have given Intel a bloody nose. Intel have become complaisant, AMD are far more talented engineers than people like him give them credit for.
Not that i think that will happen this time.
A 4770k is not a 'midrange' chip. :/ At the time, the 4770k was the best CPU you could buy and was only overtaken by its refresh, the 4790k due to better thermal paste(seriously, that's the only difference). 4790k was *king*. Some people convinced themselves the 5820k was better because it had more cores and didn't cost much more, but for gaming, which is what we're really interested in most(right?), the 4790k was still what you wanted.
And how are we paying 'more and more'? As far as I can tell, CPU costs are pretty much the same since Sandy Bridge, and that's just as far as what I've checked, and going further back will muddle things due to different core configurations and related architectural differences.
If you're talking E-series CPU's, yes, they're highly priced, but they're also not really worth buying except for workstation PC's. Which I dont think most people here are really fussing over whatsoever.
Soldato
Yes. Sadly this. For all the flack AMD took for having "fake" cores (when most workloads didn't use FP calculations that much anyway), they were closer than the 4c/8t stuff that Intel was selling and which many people think of as being equivalent to 8c when it frequently isn't. I was surprised when I looked into performance comparisons on my 8350 to some Intel chips and found that actually for my work (lot of DB and programming work), the 8350 was actually better, even though in games the Intel chip was rated much higher.
AMD gambled on the software world moving to multi-core a lot faster than it actually has. But in the right scenario, it's not bad. I'm actually pretty wary of AMD's SMT as they've not done it before and it's an approach that took Intel quite a long time to mature and AMD don't have that much resource.
To do a clock-for-clock comparison, obviously. Their engineering sample is only at 3 GHz so they clocked the Broadwell-E part to the same speed to compare instructions per clock.
Hopefully AMD's final parts will well exceed 3 GHz, otherwise they'll have a lame duck again.
Soldato
Couple of reasons. Primarily so that you can do an Apples to Apples comparison of IPC. Their intent isn't to show that their chip has more performance than Broadwell-E. Indeed, it might not. Their intent is to show how much better their new architecture is over the old, for which they want to show its IPC (Instructions per clock) is great. And they do that by setting the clock on both chips to 3GHz so you can see it matches a recent Intel.
Secondly, if they compare to a specific Broadwell chip that could get them in legal trouble if final performance is better. They don't want big customers suing them because they "said" that their chip was faster than <specific Intel chip> and turned out not to be. So they keep it generic.
But mainly the first. We don't know how fast Zen will run yet, but now we know that architecturally it has an impressive IPC.