• 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.

Zen news 'Going forward'

I get the feeling AMD have been a bit more pragmatic this time. Too often their hardware ideas are too far ahead of the software or need curve. I had an AMD 64bit chip years before I ever needed it. I still know lots of people running 32 bit software.

Zen sounds a little more conventional. If I was them I'd do away with the iGPU and devote all the space to outperforming Intel. After all who uses the integrated graphics on a high end desktop?
 
Have AMD not said in the past that the future for them is APU and that is where they have been putting their chips?

With the rise and rise of tablets/phones, it makes sense.

x64 fablet?
 
Gimpymoo said:
Have AMD not said in the past that the future for them is APU and that is where they have been putting their chips?
Click to expand...

Yep, it's no coincidence that since they (a CPU manufacturer) incorporated ATI (a GPU manufacturer) they've been pushing heterogeneous computing. It makes sense to push the direction that suits their IP, and should make for much faster devices as the technology improves.
 
AMD seem to be a little realistic and a little less idealistic these days. They are often ahead f the curve but they don't have the resources to take the hit if they get it wrong. This time they seem to be more conventional in their approach. If as reported they can get some good multi core cpus, some with "hyperthreading" either on par with Intel or priced in proportion to their relative performance they will sell well.

Personally I want the fastest processor I can get for the budget, so whoever makes the fastest CPU in the up to £250 price bracket gets my money. I'd prefer that to AMD but I won't buy an inferior product because I like their approach to business.

Fingers crossed they deliver...
 
I hope they do deliver as well but I have a feeling it will be little too late. By the time they release them for buying and if they are around
Haswell performance, it will be close to 2017 by then where Intel is supposedly be releasing their next in line extreme platform Skylake-E.
 
That's the thing, if you want an e-core and don't mind the cost who's offering the fastest cpu's is not likely to change but if you want a mainstream priced cpu and would like to try something with more than 4 cores they'll be the go to option if they deliver. I'm on a 4790k at the moment and it was pushing the high end of what I'd like to pay yet the replacement has gone up in price by quite a bit and rumour is there's no plan on the next gen going beyond 4 cores.

For me as a gamer a lot will depend on how they game, Will games be trending towards using more than 4 cores and will it make a difference?
 
On more than 4 cores, there is a use for it, Modern game engines are so well optimised and do so many things even in DX11 that even relatively modern Intel 4 cores CPU's overclocked are struggling.

I haven't even got Voxel GI turned on in this, that uses ASynchronous CPU calc and knocks the i5 flat on its back, my FX-9590 actually did better in some area's.

Affordable high performance 6 core CPU's can't come soon enough.

 
Boomstick777 said:
5820K says hello.
Click to expand...

Yeah £300 is not too bad, but i think that was Intel having a lapsing moment, 4790K is only £20 cheaper.... don't expect a Sky Lake 6 core to be priced anything like that.

If AMD come up with a sub £300 5820K next year i'll be happy.
 
Last edited:
yup, just sold all my 4960x kit (similar to 5820K), and back to a crappy i5 mitx system lol. I've already got the itch to buy another system but going to hold out as I want to go back to AMD again.

Whatever their high-end chip is I'll just get it, been with Intel since my Phenom II X6 - miss being with the underdog lol (as long as its sandy/ivy performance I'll be happy - cus lets face it, little needs more performance)
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
On more than 4 cores, there is a use for it, Modern game engines are so well optimised and do so many things even in DX11 that even relatively modern Intel 4 cores CPU's overclocked are struggling.

I haven't even got Voxel GI turned on in this, that uses ASynchronous CPU calc and knocks the i5 flat on its back, my FX-9590 actually did better in some area's.

Affordable high performance 6 core CPU's can't come soon enough.

Click to expand...

Except that even a 5960X scores less than a 4790k in the vast majority of games released in 2015 still....

The only game I can think of where it had a 1-2! FPS advantage was GTA5.

I5's/I7 quad cores will still be able to max out any game released in the coming year or two - developers would be fools after all if they released a game that 'needed' a hex core, as less than 1% of PC gamers own one.

Why do you think Steam, Origin and other content delivery services have hardware surveys? The want to know what the average spec machine is, and then develop games for it.

Of course, they'll pickup the 5960x/4 way Titan X's in their survey, though do you really think they'll take the time (money) to develop extra options in the game that benefit hex/octa cores for the 1%? I dont think so, not until Intel release a main stream I7 - something they clearly don't want to do.

Zen may force Intel's hand, though even then, it will take years upon years until a sizeable % of the PC userbase have actually upgraded to a hexcore.
 
zoomee said:
yup, just sold all my 4960x kit (similar to 5820K), and back to a crappy i5 mitx system lol. I've already got the itch to buy another system but going to hold out as I want to go back to AMD again.

Whatever their high-end chip is I'll just get it, been with Intel since my Phenom II X6 - miss being with the underdog lol (as long as its sandy/ivy performance I'll be happy - cus lets face it, little needs more performance)
Click to expand...
If it matches bog standard ivybridge. that wont be too bad. But it needs to be priced well. So to match the 4790k, (im not including the 6700k as it's price is laughable) it has to come in at a max of £220.00 with a decent included cooler, run cool, (soldered ihs). It's all well and good thinking that amd will deliver, but based on previous release's im very sceptical.
 
Dave2150 said:
Except that even a 5960X scores less than a 4790k in the vast majority of games released in 2015 still....

The only game I can think of where it had a 1-2! FPS advantage was GTA5.

I5's/I7 quad cores will still be able to max out any game released in the coming year or two - developers would be fools after all if they released a game that 'needed' a hex core, as less than 1% of PC gamers own one.

Why do you think Steam, Origin and other content delivery services have hardware surveys? The want to know what the average spec machine is, and then develop games for it.

Of course, they'll pickup the 5960x/4 way Titan X's in their survey, though do you really think they'll take the time (money) to develop extra options in the game that benefit hex/octa cores for the 1%? I dont think so, not until Intel release a main stream I7 - something they clearly don't want to do.

Zen may force Intel's hand, though even then, it will take years upon years until a sizeable % of the PC userbase have actually upgraded to a hexcore.
Click to expand...

"But will it run Crysis?" clear scaling for higher threaded CPU's here.... even beyond 8 threads. Cryengine as it currently stands will run 16 threads A-Synchronously, tho it is continuously evolving.



It has a lot to do with the fact that it streams shading and lighting rather than it being pre-baked, its why games built with it look so gorgeous and dynamic, Star Citizen is a prime example, Crysis 3 i would argue still looks incredible even today.

I'm not talking so much about today, games that were released weeks or months ago; Apart from a few they are still built on ancient engines far less sophisticated than the Cryengine version that Crysis 3 was built on, FarCry 4 and FallOut 4 to name two.

The problem is with DX11 being even more ancient than the DUNA Engine FC4 was built on there has been no incentive for Engine Developers to modernise their junk, altho CryTek have never let that be a hindrance, they are a bit like Nvidia Driver Developers getting far more from what they have to work with than you'd think they could.

In any-case with DX12 now in Developers hands it is no longer the case that they as individuals have reached the pinnacle of whats possible with what they have, the problem of how to synchronise a large array of threads has solved its self.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom