• 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 performing better than expected. Greater than 40% improvement.

Like most people here I would like the glory days of AMD back. P3 couldn't touch an orignal athlon and p4 couldn't touch and AMD Athlon 64
 
Look at how crap the FX line performs in some of the latest games. Fallout 4 springs to mind, the 9590 spanked by the i3-4160 and challenged by the dual core, non hyperthreaded G3258k @ a modest 4.2Ghz!

AMD need a miracle they're so far behind, 40% wouldn't actually even bridge the margin between the FX and Intel range to the point of swaying people.

I remember when having a Pentium 4 or Pentium D was a source of shame. Then Core 2 happened....and AMD are struggling to play catch up ever since.

A 1st gen i7 from 2009 beats the FX line in many games.
 
Terrorfirmer said:
Look at how crap the FX line performs in some of the latest games. Fallout 4 springs to mind, the 9590 spanked by the i3-4160 and challenged by the dual core, non hyperthreaded G3258k @ a modest 4.2Ghz!

AMD need a miracle they're so far behind, 40% wouldn't actually even bridge the margin between the FX and Intel range to the point of swaying people.

I remember when having a Pentium 4 or Pentium D was a source of shame. Then Core 2 happened....and AMD are struggling to play catch up ever since.

A 1st gen i7 from 2009 beats the FX line in many games.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the 40% is based from Excavator and not the ancient Piledriver core used in the FX series.

We already have a thread on this :p: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18665505
 
Hopefully this is true and Zen is amazing.

However, considering all the hype Bulldozer got vs what it delivered, best to not get excited until official reviews are here.
 
Mauller said:
Will be good stuff. Will love to see how the HPC apu with 6 channels of HBN2 turns out.
Click to expand...

That was a hypothetical product.

Dave2150 said:
Hopefully this is true and Zen is amazing.

However, considering all the hype Bulldozer got vs what it delivered, best to not get excited until official reviews are here.
Click to expand...

We already know it won't beat Intel so I'm not sure what people are expecting exactly, personally I am interested from a technological aspect to see if it has anything new in the design.
 
Last edited:
Orangey said:
That was a hypothetical product.

We already know it won't beat Intel so I'm not sure what people are expecting exactly, personally I am interested from a technological aspect to see if it has anything new in the design.
Click to expand...

CPUs have long reached "good enough" for the majority of people. Even gamers. It's other aspects that hold back AMD chips, imo. Power consumption, lack of PCI-e lanes (esp. PCI-e 3.0 which is unavailable on their non-APUs), weak memory controllers and DDR4 support. Other things too probably, if I thought about it.

So long as AMD get reasonably close to Intel in IPC and can do it at a cheaper price, then they'll be competitive because Zen will have these modern features that AMD have been missing. Though of course, I'm assuming that. If they don't, I'm not interested.
 
If AMD have any sense they will price it in line with the relative performance and try to offer extras Intel aren't i.e. more PCI-e lanes. They are already going for one socket which is a good move. I also think they're offering some of the higher end CPU's without the iGPU which may help.

I'd also like to see plenty of choice in the high end high quality motherboards. If they want people to switch they need some compelling reasons for us to make the change. I'd love to go back but it won't be just based on liking the company, they must be good too.
 
It would also be nice if AMD didn't pull an Intel, and start disabling various features in order to differentiate their budget, consumer, gaming and business CPUs.

Ie, VT-x, ECC mem support, hyperthreading, overclocking, and various other things.

It's annoying that on Intel, only Xeons support ECC mem, for example. And you have to choose between overclocking and virtualisation features.
 
As much as I want AMD to be competitive again I will believe it if I see it when the cpu's are out and reviewed. If AMD's cpu's were as good as the bs they spout leading up to a product launch then they would be years in front of Intel by now. What normally happens is AMD tell's us all how great and game changing something is going to be only for it to be mediocre or just a complete flop at launch.

AMD may not be the budget brand any longer if the Fury launch was anything to go by. I wouldn't be surprised if Zen launches with pricing around Intel's cpu's, especaill if it actually turn's out to be good for once.
 
A more competitive performance (even if not matching Intel) but priced appropriately would make me interested in them. I no longer need the absolute best performance but just "good enough". At current prices I am unlikely to buy a new high end Intel chip but I could be tempted by a good performing AMD chip at lower cost.

However I'll reserve judgement until it's actually out in the real world.
 
Terrorfirmer said:
Look at how crap the FX line performs in some of the latest games. Fallout 4 springs to mind, the 9590 spanked by the i3-4160 and challenged by the dual core, non hyperthreaded G3258k @ a modest 4.2Ghz!

AMD need a miracle they're so far behind, 40% wouldn't actually even bridge the margin between the FX and Intel range to the point of swaying people.

I remember when having a Pentium 4 or Pentium D was a source of shame. Then Core 2 happened....and AMD are struggling to play catch up ever since.

A 1st gen i7 from 2009 beats the FX line in many games.
Click to expand...

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...-stories-Test_GPU-RPG-Fallout_4-test-proz.jpg

li26x7T.jpg


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-fallout-4-4023

dc2wemR.png


The game is more or less locked to 60FPS without modding the files due to physics glitches with the Creation engine which was the same with Skyrim.

The game is known to use 4 threads reasonably well,as if you look at the frametimes dual cores without HT are somewhat worse than even a Core i3 which has HT enabled:

http://www.custompcreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/fallout4_1080p-1440p-cpu-scaling.jpg
http://www.custompcreview.com/wp-co...allout4_1080p-1440p-cpu-scaling-frametime.jpg
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...stories-Test_GPU-RPG-Fallout_4-test-intel.jpg
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...s-stories-Test_GPU-RPG-Fallout_4-test-amd.jpg

So Fallout 4 is a very poor example to use,and I have 200+ hrs in the game too.

Edit!!

What AMD need to do is concentrate on lowering power consumption somewhat too,as that will make them easier to get into gaming laptops and SFF desktop PCs,which are more and more popular.

Personally I think they might get closer to IB/Haswell IPC if things work out,but with more cores or threads for the price.
 
Last edited:
Orangey said:
And where is the proof of this? Do you know what "on die" means?
Click to expand...

If AMD can get the power consumption of a quad core with HT Zen APU down to the 35W class,something like an SKU with 8GB of HBM2 on an interposer might work quite well for a high performance laptop which does not weight a metric ton.

OFC,this hinges entirely on the performance of the CPU,as it would be an expensive to make part like the higher end Iris Pro SKUs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom