• 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) ***

humbug said:
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?
Click to expand...

not condemning them i have had amd cpus systems for years still have one.its just in this day and age and tech you don't jump in front without serious changes or big money.

we all know where AMD sit in the same position of 10-15 years where they have sat. what was the last competitive cpu realistically ?

there is your answer. for budget people it will be ideal but for top end intel hold it.

would i buy a amd cpu ? yes in a heart beat if it was in the right budget for what i require.

i have no loyalty to brands only what is best for my money.cpus from amd i owned.

amd 2000xp , 3000xp , 939 3500 , 940 3800x2 , 5200 x2 , 940 x4 , 955x4,

so i dont mind amd just we wont get a revelation when its out.
 
DragonQ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah I get the requirement to have comparable clock-for-clock for comparison reasons.

But to only get 3ghz out of a engineering sample? Seems a bit low to me.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
not condemning them i have had amd cpus systems for years still have one.its just in this day and age and tech you don't jump in front without serious changes or big money.

we all know where AMD sit in the same position of 10-15 years where they have sat. what was the last competitive cpu realistically ?

there is your answer. for budget people it will be ideal but for top end intel hold it.

would i buy a amd cpu ? yes in a heart beat if it was in the right budget for what i require.

i have no loyalty to brands only what is best for my money.cpus from amd i owned.

amd 2000xp , 3000xp , 939 3500 , 940 3800x2 , 5200 x2 , 940 x4 , 955x4,

so i dont mind amd just we wont get a revelation when its out.
Click to expand...

Budget vs what? Premium?

If the performance is the same as Skylake for less money where is Intel's added value premium?

People often use the term "Budget" as 'inferior' laid at product of lower cost there in must be inferior based purely on cost. A simpletons logic.
 
humbug said:
Budget vs what? Premium?

If the performance is the same as Skylake for less money where is Intel's added value premium?

People often use the term "Budget" as 'inferior' laid at product of lower cost there in must be inferior based purely on cost. A simpletons logic.
Click to expand...

you really think amd is going to match intels performance for less ? that's simpleton.there is no logic about it.AMD haven't launched a cpu that competed for as i said over 10 years.

do you really expect that if they cant do it in that time period that somehow they have managed to change it this time round ?

i think its you who seem to be missing the very simpleton logic you trying to apply to amd.

the cpu will be pretty decent but not competing with what people are thinking.as said amds market isnt high end.its budget.

480 for eg. its basically a 2 year old card performance.if it was out the first time when a 970 was out would have been amazing but thats exactly what i mean. they to late to the party.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
not condemning them i have had amd cpus systems for years still have one.its just in this day and age and tech you don't jump in front without serious changes or big money.

we all know where AMD sit in the same position of 10-15 years where they have sat. what was the last competitive cpu realistically ?

there is your answer. for budget people it will be ideal but for top end intel hold it.

would i buy a amd cpu ? yes in a heart beat if it was in the right budget for what i require.

i have no loyalty to brands only what is best for my money.cpus from amd i owned.

amd 2000xp , 3000xp , 939 3500 , 940 3800x2 , 5200 x2 , 940 x4 , 955x4,

so i dont mind amd just we wont get a revelation when its out.
Click to expand...

Just have no clue what you are talking about?
 
~>Dg<~ said:
you really think amd is going to match intels performance for less ? that's simpleton.there is no logic about it.AMD haven't launched a cpu that competed for as i said over 10 years.

do you really expect that if they cant do it in that time period that somehow they have managed to change it this time round ?

i think its you who seem to be missing the very simpleton logic you trying to apply to amd.

the cpu will be pretty decent but not competing with what people are thinking.as said amds market isnt high end.its budget.

480 for eg. its basically a 2 year old card performance.if it was out the first time when a 970 was out would have been amazing but thats exactly what i mean. they to late to the party.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to suggest otherwise?
 
Well technically we will probably never see a true like for like comparison - remember intel owns the x86 compiler so they will always have the advantage (and we all now they try to gimp any non-intel chip with it)

Like others here say if an 8c/16thread zen cpu keeps up with (or is slightly behind) the intel equivelant I'll be glad to support the underdog and ditch intel.
 
Same here. If AMD can give Sandybridge performance with a 16 thread chip and brand new motherboard, I'll be all over it like a hobo on a ham sandwich.
 
if the moon is made of gold and you can buy it for 15 pound i will buy it.

look its a given.if the performance is great and its cheap people will buy it.thats almost stupid putting it in words as its a certainty.

jigger i get you want it but just be realistic about it.

if chips got sandy bridge performance and such and such i will buy it. sandy bridge is how old !!!

the exact point i was making has just been illustrated in your post.your willing to settle for less than stellar performance available for years !

AMD seem to come with new products at tail end or to late with cpu performance.yes its reasonable but what is reasonable could have been market taking if developed at the time when intel have a similar product.

AMD dont seem to want to compete.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
if the moon is made of gold and you can buy it for 15 pound i will buy it.

look its a given.if the performance is great and its cheap people will buy it.thats almost stupid putting it in words as its a certainty.

jigger i get you want it but just be realistic about it.

if chips got sandy bridge performance and such and such i will buy it. sandy bridge is how old !!!

the exact point i was making has just been illustrated in your post.your willing to settle for less than stellar performance available for years !

AMD seem to come with new products at tail end or to late with cpu performance.yes its reasonable but what is reasonable could have been market taking if developed at the time when intel have a similar product.

AMD dont seem to want to compete.
Click to expand...

No you don't get it. Thats the problem :p
 
I for one was pleasantly surprised with this demonstration. I was not expecting this...

From what I understand though, top clock speeds and top single-core performance will stay with Intel. So the absolute best in gaming CPUs is likely to remain blue.

AMD seem to be targeting two things:

1) Server market where clock speed and single-core-boost is not a big factor. Throughput per watt is the name of the game here and having the IPC of a Broadwell-E means AMD will be well-placed to compete here.

2) Laptop APUs where they use one CCX (CPU Complex is what they call the basic quad-core Zen block) and a Polaris chip. This should be close to Intel in CPU power but embarrassingly more powerful in graphics tasks.

I'm quite surprised to be honest. They seem to be in a much more competitive position than anyone expected...
 
~>Dg<~ said:
[..]
if chips got sandy bridge performance and such and such i will buy it. sandy bridge is how old !!!

the exact point i was making has just been illustrated in your post.your willing to settle for less than stellar performance available for years !
Click to expand...

AMD is talking about an 8 core 16 thread chip as a desktop part. So the accurate comparison would be with two Sandy Bridge i7 chips together (assuming a Zen at the same clock speed as a Sandy Bridge i7). That would be pretty stellar performance by current standards.

Zen isn't going to have everyone selling their Intel kit to buy it, but it does look like it might well be a viable alternative.

Even if Zen is 20% lower in performance and 20% lower in price, it will be competitive to a degree. I remember when AMD's CPUs were a cheaper alternative to the lower end of Intel's line and AMD did all right with that. There's still quite a bit of volume at the lower end. I also remember when AMD's CPUs were just plain better than Intel's. People didn't expect that, but it happened.
 
akarypid said:
I for one was pleasantly surprised with this demonstration. I was not expecting this...

From what I understand though, top clock speeds and top single-core performance will stay with Intel. So the absolute best in gaming CPUs is likely to remain blue.

AMD seem to be targeting two things:

1) Server market where clock speed and single-core-boost is not a big factor. Throughput per watt is the name of the game here and having the IPC of a Broadwell-E means AMD will be well-placed to compete here.

2) Laptop APUs where they use one CCX (CPU Complex is what they call the basic quad-core Zen block) and a Polaris chip. This should be close to Intel in CPU power but embarrassingly more powerful in graphics tasks.

I'm quite surprised to be honest. They seem to be in a much more competitive position than anyone expected...
Click to expand...

Pretty accurate summary, imo. Server is AMD's priority because the server market is still growing and very healthy. The Desktop market is falling and will continue to fall. With laptops being as capable as they are these days, most people are just getting a laptop and that suits all their needs. They'll just dock it when they want a monitor.

So AMD are focusing on server and laptops (APUs). This is the future for the most part.
 
akarypid said:
2) Laptop APUs where they use one CCX (CPU Complex is what they call the basic quad-core Zen block) and a Polaris chip. This should be close to Intel in CPU power but embarrassingly more powerful in graphics tasks.
Click to expand...
Not sure how well that'll work out judging by the power usage of the RX 480. :o
 
DragonQ said:
Not sure how well that'll work out judging by the power usage of the RX 480. :o
Click to expand...

It should work very well according to people who know what they're talking about.

If you want to look it up and even learn something, Intel's graphics is a joke and only comes close to any sort of meaningful performance due to a ridiculous amount of die space being allocated to "eDRAM".

So the problem here is not Polaris at all as it is extremely superior to Iris graphics and will make short work of it. AMD can use all that die space for a smaller mobile version of Polaris AND save some power AND increase yields...

The only thing that's still up for debate is whether Zen will be as good as people hope it to be. If it is, Zen+Polaris should create a huge window for AMD to compete in laptops.
 
Polaris has a woeful power curve, likely in part due to the process. Mobile parts binned off from a second batch and with a 850-900mhz clock would probably be pretty good.

The clock for clock Zen demo was quite impressive and very aggressive imo, they aren't pulling punches inviting comparisons with Intel octocores
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom