• 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) ***

DragonQ said:
It's very vague. "Performance" could mean anything and that's compared to 16 nm IIRC, not 14 nm. They also claim they're aiming for clock speeds of 5 GHz, so who knows.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I think intel was saying +15% performance every generation and it was only speed increase, I just assumed AMD would play nice:D
 
haszek said:
Didn't they say 10%+ performance not speed? This would mean minimum 10% increased IPC
Click to expand...

That refers to the processing node, not the CPU architecture, those actually making the Transistors also have limits on how fast those transistors can switch states once printed on the sub-strait.

So basically CPU's built on the new node will clock at least 10% higher than they do on the old 14nm node.

That would make your 1700 about 4.3Ghz or more.
 
humbug said:
That refers to the processing node, not the CPU architecture, those actually making the Transistors also have limits on how fast those transistors can switch states once printed on the sub-strait.

So basically CPU's built on the new node will clock at least 10% higher than they do on the old 14nm node.

That would make your 1700 about 4.3Ghz or more.
Click to expand...

I should add this (not the CPU its self) is why Ryzen doesn't clock high, the 14nm GloFo node is a 3Ghz node, AMD obviously have higher Mhz than that out of it but they are using trickery and more than optimal volts and stuff to do it.

Ryzen 2 will clock at least 10% higher.
 
Last edited:
Curlyriff said:
Double edge sword that one though. The consumer market is in decline because there has been no real reason to upgrade in 7 years for a start. So all the people who are sitting on these is a market that they could pick up tens of millions of people if we actually got the 40% performance improvement that is being touted for 2019 it would be something Intel need to consider I would think.
Click to expand...
Nah I was talking about the pc market declining due to the emergence of tablets, phones and cloud based computing taking over the tasks that a traditional pc would perform. So it's a smaller market meaning smaller revenue streams and we know that is more important than almost anything else.
 
Doobedoo said:
Nah I was talking about the pc market declining due to the emergence of tablets, phones and cloud based computing taking over the tasks that a traditional pc would perform. So it's a smaller market meaning smaller revenue streams and we know that is more important than almost anything else.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I certainly agree with that but what market there is just isn't being utilised because the jumps in performance just are not happening. It isn't just the hardware though. Software development really hasn't caught up to the hardware for the most part either. We are often not utilising 100% of anything bar the GPU because of the types of workload we do and how the software handles the different components.

The tablets and phones are taking over tasks because those tasks no longer need cutting edge tech.
 
AthlonXP1800 said:
First Ryzen 5 2600 benchmark leaked:

https://wccftech.com/amd-2nd-generation-ryzen-5-2600-asus-crosshair-vii-hero-x470-leak/

http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...d5e2d3ead9e0d1f785b888aecbae93a385f6cbf3&l=en

Could be about 10% faster than Ryzen 5 1600.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm the article says they've managed to get an extra 200 MHz, yet the table suggests both base and boost clocks are up by 400 MHz. Considering there's going to be an R5 2600X to replace the R5 1600X and there needs to be sufficient difference between the R5 2600 and R5 2600X, it's likely this means they have indeed increased the clock speed ceiling above ~4.0 GHz.

EDIT: The 200 MHz increase is correct, the table originally had the wrong clock speeds listed for the R5 1600.
 
Last edited:
Looks good, but again, just another small step forward in the grand scheme of things.

Really looking forward to Zen 2 though on 7nm, i think that is the generation where we might finally have a decent "leap" in the cpu space. I'm hoping for Zen 2 that those mainstream 12 core/24 thread 5ghz monsters might actually be close to reality. Roll on 2019!
 
Its a 7% bump in clock speed for the 2600 vs the 1600.

If the 1600 overclocks an average to 3.9Ghz? from 3.2 to 3.9 is +23%
The 2600 at 3.4Ghz + 23% = 4.2Ghz, that's not bad. i have to be honest its not quite as high as i was expecting but its not far off and the 1600/2600 is one of the lowest clocked ones, i'm thinking the 2800X should have a base clock of 4Ghz with a 4.2Ghz boost and overclock to 4.5Ghz. that's respectable.
 
humbug said:
Its a 7% bump in clock speed for the 2600 vs the 1600.
Click to expand...

6.25% you don't round up to 7% if anything you round down. :p;):p

A little disappointing, as I along with many others were expecting a bit more.
I wouldn't be surprised if the clock ability is nowhere near 23%, if all they could manage was a 6% ;) boost in base speeds.

Hopefully just the first of many leaks and benches and others will be better.
 
bru said:
6.25% you don't round up to 7% if anything you round down. :p;):p

A little disappointing, as I along with many others were expecting a bit more.
I wouldn't be surprised if the clock ability is nowhere near 23%, if all they could manage was a 6% ;) boost in base speeds.

Hopefully just the first of many leaks and benches and others will be better.
Click to expand...
Agreed, if 200 MHz is all they can manage it'll be disappointing. Note though that even the boost speeds of the R5 1600 chips aren't at the top-end of what Summit Ridge is capable of, so we can't say for sure based on this what the maximum clocks of Pinnacle Ridge will be. 200 MHz would only be "good" if they also get a half-decent IPC boost (say 5%), IMO.
 
bru said:
6.25% you don't round up to 7% if anything you round down. :p;):p

A little disappointing, as I along with many others were expecting a bit more.
I wouldn't be surprised if the clock ability is nowhere near 23%, if all they could manage was a 6% ;) boost in base speeds.

Hopefully just the first of many leaks and benches and others will be better.
Click to expand...

You're nitpicking over fractions of a percentage, you're like the manic depressant who likes to work hard to bring everyone down to his mood.

As i said its not what i was expecting but its also one of their lowest clocked chips, as they have with the 1600 and 1700 they need to have some out of the box clock rates in hand for the mid and higher end chips, the difference for example between the 1700 and 1800X is 23.33% ;)

Cheer up man, its already an excellent chip made better and we can't say for sure or make any assertions about the whole product range based on one production sample on one data sheet, the same was leaked pre Ryzen one and that had everyone up in arms about how its only clocked at 2.8Ghz.

Look how those predictions and assertions turned out.
 
Just started to take a keen interest on the 2400G. If I don't upgrade my HTPC with my spare 3570K, a Ryzen system would be ideal but obviously a lot more expensive. I just need a solution that can do all the HTPC stuff including 4K and some light gaming at 1080p.
 
Expecting slightly more than 10% total performance gain.

The move to 12nm is apparently a 10% increase in frequency, based on https://www.extremetech.com/computi...ew-globalfoundries-12nm-node-future-cpus-gpus
Also saw something confirming this on semi-wiki but canny find it today.

I also heard from a few places that the IMC is having a few tweaks for lower latency and higher clock rates. Kind of hoping for a bit more performance as running 3200MHz+ RAM will giving single % benefits as it clocks the infinity fabric higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom