# AMD "Zen" Processors to Feature SMT, Support up to 8 DDR4 Memory Channels



## btarunr (Feb 12, 2016)

CERN engineer Liviu Valsan, in a recent presentation on datacenter hardware trends, presented a curious looking slide that highlights some of the key features of AMD's upcoming "Zen" CPU architecture. We know from a recent story that the architecture is scalable up to 32 cores per socket, and that AMD is building these chips on the 14 nanometer FinFET process. 

Among the other key features detailed on the slide are symmetric multi-threading (SMT). Implemented for over a decade by Intel as HyperThreading Technology, SMT exposes a physical core as two logical CPUs to the software, letting it make better use of the hardware resources. Another feature is talk of up to eight DDR4 memory channels. This could mean that AMD is readying a product to compete with the Xeon E7 series. Lastly, the slide mentions that "Zen" could bring about IPC improvements that are 40 percent higher than the current architecture.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Parn (Feb 12, 2016)

40% IPC improvement over A10-7870K. Hope this is true as it will definitely bring Zen on par with Haswell at minimum.


----------



## Kurt Maverick (Feb 12, 2016)

This all sounds great, but this isn't the first time AMD promises the moon only to end up delivering...well, Bulldozer.

Besides, AMD is merely catching up with Intel with that "SMT" and "40% more IPC" that they mention so much (the extra IPC comes most surely from fixing the Bulldozer mess and implementing one FPU per core). They're lucky that Intel are so technologically stagnated as of currently, if not AMD could probably never catch up with them in terms of performance.

Zen has a good chance on fixing the bad picture I currently have about AMD due to the Bulldozer fiasco. Let's hope they don't drop the ball again.

BTW, I'd really love to know how many PCIe lanes will Zen CPU's have....


----------



## Kurt Maverick (Feb 12, 2016)

Parn said:


> 40% IPC improvement over A10-7870K. Hope this is true as it will definitely bring Zen on par with Haswell at minimum.



The difference between Haswell and Skylake is pretty low anyway....if Zen reaches the same level as Haswell does, they may as well reach even Kaby Lake's performance (which, let's face it, they will most surely be merely a Skylake bugfix).

To be honest, I don't see even Cannonlake reaching a big performance leap. If the difference between 28 nm and 14 is that minimum, from 14 to 10 it'll probably be even less.

I'm not putting myself in AMD's side anyway...it's only natural for progress to be slower as silicon limits are reached. AMD is just catching up to Intel with Zen after Intel already reached the goal line, that's all.


----------



## Frick (Feb 12, 2016)

Now we just need a new Crysis to make a mass appealing need of performance.


----------



## EntropyZ (Feb 12, 2016)

@Frick Doesn't The Witcher III already use a bunch of CPU resources at highest settings? But yes I agree, software in the current decade is lagging behind to the point where my old i5-2400 can run almost anything, while hardware has seen a fair share of improvement, all that strength that's provided is almost always never fully utilized by games on PC. This and bad PC ports, little to no optimization and game developers preferring to make game titles run better for certain hardware, makes me think that triple AAA titles lack innovation and game developers have become lazy or they're pushed by the publishers to release turds as fast as they can and we know how well all that turns out.

I guess I want to see another one of those "killer apps", but you have to remember "according to EA" *cringe* Crysis didn't sell well at all. I wonder how much it would have sold if Crysis was released 4-5 years ago, during the time which the majority of people still had interest in First Person Shooters. Someone would really have to think everything through before even engaging in development.

OT: To me personally "Zen" just looks too good to be true since it has been a long time since I've seen a good CPU improvement over AMD Phenom offerings. Like most people, I will wait for some game benches and either be blown away, or just keep shaking my head in disappointment.

Going Phenom II X6 -> I5-2400 didn't seem like much of an upgrade for me, but I was wrong since most games still run better on Intel hardware for some obvious reasons and some that are unknown to me.

My expectations are: A reasonably priced, four core 95W TDP CPU that's on par with a "Haswell" i5 in game performance. Not a very tall order, they should be able to pull it off and hopefully they do.

From my point of view it doesn't even look like Intel and AMD are competing in the consumer/enthusiast market anymore (did I miss something?). It's just AMD playing in Intel's sandbox and it's looks plain embarrassing to me. I don't think it's good for them, and definitely not good for us consumers, but most people here know that already.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 12, 2016)

Now I am curious if this hints at 8 channel memory in the same way the current opterons have quad channel. Which is really just two dual channel controllers for the currents is two 4 channels for zen


----------



## Aquinus (Feb 12, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Now I am curious if this hints at 8 channel memory in the same way the current opterons have quad channel. Which is really just two dual channel controllers for the currents is two 4 channels for zen


You mean just like how the 16c Opterons are just two 8c dies in one? That could indicate 16c and quad channel consumer CPUs.


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 12, 2016)

Sounds good. Just bring it already AMD!


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 12, 2016)

AMD still playing catch up.
A 40% improvement in IPC will still leave them behind Intel.


----------



## Frick (Feb 12, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> AMD still playing catch up.
> A 40% improvement in IPC will still leave them behind Intel.



Which should come as no surprise. I'm just hoping the overclocking will be there.


----------



## btarunr (Feb 12, 2016)

Parn said:


> 40% IPC improvement over A10-7870K. Hope this is true as it will definitely bring Zen on par with Haswell at minimum.



Yeah, per core, at a given clock speed. It's not that an 8-core Zen will be just 40% "better" than a 7870K.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 12, 2016)

I'm not betting on it with up to 32 cores, they will probably limit that to keep heat down.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 12, 2016)

I'm betting on a modular design, 16 core 32thread 4channel enthusiast chip, each set of four cores features a channel, so dual channel 8 core standard desktop part, and single channel quad core or lower parts. I would also bet they have the ability to turn single cores off based on core metrics to allow other cores to run higher boost speeds.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Feb 12, 2016)

So 4 modules 16 cores quad channel memory @ 3200mhz and I bet it will compete with an i5...is my best guess


----------



## ShurikN (Feb 12, 2016)

Parn said:


> 40% IPC improvement over A10-7870K. Hope this is true as it will definitely bring Zen on par with Haswell at minimum.


Hasn't AMD already claimed that the 40% improvement was compared to Excavator, or am I mistaken. A10-7870 is steamroller as far as I recall.


----------



## HD64G (Feb 12, 2016)

If the 40+% increase on average performance from Kaveri is true, it will for sure shake Intel from its throne since the modular design will make it easy for AMD to cover all price and performance points quick enough. I just hope they start selling having a halo product which shows off they are in the game again and a few cpus in the $100-200 price range to allow anyone who sees that the halo cpu is great to go and buy and build up the momentum AMD needs. It is almost sure that with Samsung's 14nm tech they will make a decent product. I wish they make a great product though.


----------



## ZeDestructor (Feb 12, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Now I am curious if this hints at 8 channel memory in the same way the current opterons have quad channel. Which is really just two dual channel controllers for the currents is two 4 channels for zen



By and large that's how the higher core count Xeons (10+cores) are setup, with a pair of dual-channel controllers wired into 2 QPI rings (one for the local cluster, one for the whole chip). The difference is small between that setup and the single quad-channel setup of a low core count chip due to a combination of being so close and fairly large caches (2.5MB per core)


----------



## Patriot (Feb 12, 2016)

ZeDestructor said:


> By and large that's how the higher core count Xeons (10+cores) are setup, with a pair of dual-channel controllers wired into 2 QPI rings (one for the local cluster, one for the whole chip). The difference is small between that setup and the single quad-channel setup of a low core count chip due to a combination of being so close and fairly large caches (2.5MB per core)



Since amd is using a modular 4c unit I would imagine they will also be using a ringbus to connect to memory controllers.

4c-32c chips designs available...


----------



## truth teller (Feb 12, 2016)

even if this info is the top specs for server grade skus, the "consumer grade" will probably still be appealing to me.
dont fail me now amd, i wanna make a custom thin mini-itx build (apu powered with ac wifi) that packs a punch and i can still "haul" it whenever needed between places (only 4 cables on each place needed: pwr, kb, mouse, hdmi; kinda like with a docking station and a laptop) without having to carry it on a bag on on my shoulder.


----------



## xorbe (Feb 12, 2016)

I hope it at least closes the performance gap to get within the ballpark.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 12, 2016)

http://vrworld.com/2016/02/12/cern-confirms-amd-zen-high-end-specifications/


----------



## GoldenX (Feb 12, 2016)

I hope it's not a Nuclear FX Reactor. A DDR4 Zen APU sounds like a great low cost/low power upgrade for my old Deneb+HD7750.


----------



## Kurt Maverick (Feb 12, 2016)

Patriot said:


> http://vrworld.com/2016/02/12/cern-confirms-amd-zen-high-end-specifications/



Wow, DDR4-3200 support? Sounds amazing...in theory.

No mention of the avaliable PCIe lanes thou.....let's hope thay don't skim on them. If they don't indeed, and (more importantly), AMD DELIVERS, then maybe that's gonna be my next CPU.


----------



## cracklez (Feb 12, 2016)

It's not just AMD that needs a win this coming next generation, we ALL need it too. If they fail to meet our expectations, I'm afraid that prices will never go down on Intel & Nvidia products for the life of their products, only replaced.


----------



## Kurt Maverick (Feb 12, 2016)

cracklez said:


> It's not just AMD that needs a win this coming next generation, we ALL need it too. If they fail to meet our expectations, I'm afraid that prices will never go down on Intel & Nvidia products for the life of their products, only replaced.



Nvidia has slightly superior but generally fair prices to their producs, it's mainly Intel the ones that are being absolutely abusive and inmobile about them.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 12, 2016)

Kurt Maverick said:


> Nvidia has slightly superior but generally fair prices to their producs, it's mainly Intel the ones that are being absolutely abusive and inmobile about them.



It isn't like AMD doesn't jack up their prices when they can.  It feels like everyone forgets the $1,000 FX-57 and FX-60.  When AMD has the lead, they are real quick to jack up those prices.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 12, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> It isn't like AMD doesn't jack up their prices when they can.  It feels like everyone forgets the $1,000 FX-57 and FX-60.  When AMD has the lead, they are real quick to jack up those prices.



Straw man. Those were very top end parts akin to EE CPUs. You will always pay a premium.

Also, you can charge that when it's decimating the competition. Intel never lowered prices when they sucked b/c they ruled through _marketing_ and bribing publications.

Let's not forget they literally owned Bapco and literally rigged Sysmark. Many still don't know about this. They tried to cover it up when people called them out on Sysmark 2002.
This pile of shit was printed in ACADEMIC books as proof of how awesome intel was. It was pure propaganda. Intel has many methods for their propaganda machine.


----------



## xfia (Feb 12, 2016)

they have been planning this for years..  hit them with shitty apu's for at least 4 gens and then when intel leasts expects it use a get out of jail free card signed by samsung haha to make them high powered hsa apu's and cpu's for gaming workstations and servers.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 12, 2016)

GoldenX said:


> I hope it's not a Nuclear FX Reactor. A DDR4 Zen APU sounds like a great low cost/low power upgrade for my old Deneb+HD7750.


It seems they can do whatever they want with the new design, low power high efficiency/ high performance and high power, low efficiency/maximum performance parts. 

Also the latest AMD architecture is "Excavator" not "Steamroller" (as in A10 7870). A new Athlon with Excavator cores was already released. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10009/amd-launches-excavator-on-desktop-the-65w-athlon-x4-845-for-70


----------



## Frick (Feb 12, 2016)

GoldenX said:


> I hope it's not a Nuclear FX Reactor. A DDR4 Zen APU sounds like a great low cost/low power upgrade for my old Deneb+HD7750.



HBM APU.


----------



## 64K (Feb 12, 2016)

xfia said:


> they have been planning this for years..  hit them with shitty apu's for at least 4 gens and then when intel leasts expects it use a get out of jail free card signed by samsung haha to make them high powered hsa apu's and cpu's for gaming workstations and servers.



Intel is washed up.

Intel only made a paltry 11.4 billion dollar profit last year while AMD went further into the red by 660 million dollars.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...-4-billion-q4-revenue-of-14-9-billion.219260/

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-reports-2015-fourth-quarter-and-annual-results.219376/

Intel's pathetic market cap of 133 billion dollars compared to AMD's 1.47 billion dollar market cap and that Intel outspends AMD 10 to 1 on R&D and the fact that AMD owes about twice as much as what they are worth and can't hope to repay their debts unless a miracle drops down from heaven on them proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intel will be begging Lisa Su for scraps from her table soon.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockdetails/fi-126.1.INTC.NAS

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockdetails/fi-126.1.AMD.NAS


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 12, 2016)

64K said:


> Intel is washed up.
> 
> Intel only made a paltry 11.4 billion dollar profit last year while AMD went further into the red by 660 million dollars.
> 
> ...



Someone's sarcasm detector is broken.

Also, intel is still copying AMD. This has been going on for...13 yrs now?


----------



## 64K (Feb 12, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> Someone's sarcasm detector is broken.
> 
> Also, intel is still copying AMD. This has been going on for...13 yrs now?



Yeah, I guess you're right. Intel is copying AMD's superior IPC per core and AMD's moar cores solution to everything.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 12, 2016)

64K said:


> Yeah, I guess you're right. Intel is copying AMD's superior IPC per core and AMD's moar cores solution.


Oh pls, no fanboy battles here. Yeah Intel is better, they are the big bad ass Empire and AMD are only the (smart) peasant Rebels. Maybe they blow up the Death Star, but it's unlikely. Who knows...


----------



## 64K (Feb 12, 2016)

Kanan said:


> Oh pls, no fanboy battles here. Yeah Intel is better, they are the big bad ass Empire and AMD are only the (smart) peasant Rebels. Maybe they blow up the Death Star, but it's unlikely. Who knows...



It could happen and I hope so. Intel deserves to get slapped down.


----------



## rruff (Feb 13, 2016)

Kurt Maverick said:


> Nvidia has slightly superior but generally fair prices to their producs, it's mainly Intel the ones that are being absolutely abusive and inmobile about them.



If Intel chips were any cheaper, AMD would be out of business. Even with pricing as it is, the smart money always goes to Intel.

I want a rational reason to use AMD. I hope it happens.


----------



## xfia (Feb 13, 2016)

rruff said:


> If Intel chips were any cheaper, AMD would be out of business. Even with pricing as it is, the smart money always goes to Intel.
> 
> I want a rational reason to use AMD. I hope it happens.



http://news.yahoo.com/amd-wants-know-processors-handle-230507383.html 

its honestly not at all bad to still use a fx 8 core for years into the future for gaming..  where dx12 and well optimized dx11 games is a concern its just as good as a i5 and amd seems to have enough confidence in the fx's multi threading to even recommend a fx 6 core for vr. 

damn amd and microsoft keeping everyones hardware good for so long is such bs


----------



## Prima.Vera (Feb 13, 2016)

64K said:


> It could happen and I hope so. Intel deserves to get slapped down.


That's Utopia. Just look the RND budget of Intel and the one of AMD's. Even if by some miracle AMD will pull an ace out of its sleeves, I'm more than sure that the sleeping giant will immediately counterattack with something that will put back AMD into its place. 
Sadly I stopped believing in fairytales and fantasies a long time ago....


----------



## xfia (Feb 13, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> That's Utopia. Just look the RND budget of Intel and the one of AMD's. Even if by some miracle AMD will pull an ace out of its sleeves, I'm more than sure that the sleeping giant will immediately counterattack with something that will put back AMD into its place.
> Sadly I stopped believing in fairytales and fantasies a long time ago....


linus is live now and he says intel cpu's will get more power efficient and not faster at all.. maybe even a little slower.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 13, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> Straw man. Those were very top end parts akin to EE CPUs. You will always pay a premium.
> 
> Also, you can charge that when it's decimating the competition. Intel never lowered prices when they sucked b/c they ruled through _marketing_ and bribing publications.
> 
> ...



Intel's $1,000 parts are very top end parts too.  The point is, as soon as AMD can, it will jack up its prices.  They aren't selling cheap CPUs because they want to.


----------



## AsRock (Feb 13, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> It isn't like AMD doesn't jack up their prices when they can.  It feels like everyone forgets the $1,000 FX-57 and FX-60.  When AMD has the lead, they are real quick to jack up those prices.



And so they should, they need to but i bet nVidia and Intel will tighten the belt if that happens.

AMD started a price war that bit them right back, i just hope that if they plan another price war that they make sure they can afford it.


Tell you the truth Intel and nVidia are waiting for AMD to do a kick ass product but i bet AMD gets a smack in the face as they can up the anti and still make a profit.


----------



## Kurt Maverick (Feb 13, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> That's Utopia. Just look the RND budget of Intel and the one of AMD's. Even if by some miracle AMD will pull an ace out of its sleeves, I'm more than sure that the sleeping giant will immediately counterattack with something that will put back AMD into its place.
> Sadly I stopped believing in fairytales and fantasies a long time ago....



Even if that would happen, even a giant like Intel would need time to develop something to counteract Zen. That's time that AMD would have to 'regroup' thanks to Zen's success (IF it's a success indeed).

Anyway, like I said, unless there's a materiel change (towards graphene probably), I don't see any more big jumps from Intel in the near-far future. I doubt that shrinking 4 extra nm like Cannonlake will do will offer little more than academical performance gains compared to Kaby Lake. IMO, if Zen is alright, the next battle will be about who's the one who abandons silicon the sooner.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 13, 2016)

64K said:


> Yeah, I guess you're right. Intel is copying AMD's superior IPC per core and AMD's moar cores solution to everything.



Pedantry does suit you, but give me a break. From direct connect architecture to APUs to the upcoming HBM on CPU, they copy it all.



newtekie1 said:


> Intel's $1,000 parts are very top end parts too.  The point is, as soon as AMD can, it will jack up its prices.  They aren't selling cheap CPUs because they want to.



We're in agreement lol. I just meant that intel will keep prices inflated no matter how crappy their CPUs are by leveraging their monopolistic strategies.


----------



## the54thvoid (Feb 13, 2016)

The larger company (especially when it's orders of magnitude) will always leverage its position against the competition. That's called business. Intel and AMD have abused positions in the past. And simply by being far larger, Intel has more leverage to influence (unfairly or not) their position far more.
I don't think Intel will win many friends with the pricing of Broadwell-E, if rumours are correct so that might help Zen by making prospective buyers think twice about buying Intel. Unfortunately, Zen is so far out they look like missing the Broadwell-E and Kaby Lake releases. So people may feel the urge to jump twice before Zen desktops arrive.
As for pricing, AMD are not the fan favourite. They stopped budget competing on release way back with the 7970 (of which I bought two). That initial pricing caught many off guard. Fast forward to Nano (niche as it is) and it was too expensive. Now it's been price slashed.
Anyone that thinks either company wants to make cheaper products needs a reality check. Anyone that thinks large companies don't cheat also need to think again. Big money and the options for investors to profit on a product dictate pricing, not any loyalty to the consumer.


----------



## Kurt Maverick (Feb 13, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> Pedantry does suit you, but give me a break. From direct connect architecture to APUs to the upcoming HBM on CPU, they copy it all.



Yeah, because APU's are soooo useful outside of budget and office builds....

Also, AHEMAHEM Intel HT ---> AMD SMT....how much did AMD took to implement that...?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 13, 2016)

Kurt Maverick said:


> Yeah, because APU's are soooo useful outside of budget and office builds....
> 
> Also, AHEMAHEM Intel HT ---> AMD SMT....how much did AMD took to implement that...?



Nothing. Intel didn't invent SMT or use it first lol. Intel used it purely for marketing early on (it wasn't worth a crap until the i series).  And if you knew anything about bulldozer, the FPU uses SMT (although this was basically a cost cutting measure).
It didn't make fiscal sense for AMD to use it before. They've never had the budget to make the chips even more complex (could barely get them out the door as it was). Zen has been in the works for a long time and with the node shrinks, they have more room to implement better features.

Keep on blabbing. If APUs are so worthless, then why did intel copy it? Is your foot tasty?


----------



## xfia (Feb 13, 2016)

microsoft change the thread scheduler for fx cpu's a long time ago.. windows reads each amd module as 1 core that is split into 2 logical threads. sound familiar?
funny thing is amd considers each module to have 2 cores haha 
before they changed the scheduler it was a horrible mess but anyway its all the same end game just the fx is split more on a integrated hardware level and ht is done more so logically if you will.


----------



## 64K (Feb 13, 2016)

Well, hopefully this Zen CPU lives up to the hype but bear in mind that it's going up against Kaby Lake when released with 10nm Cannonlake right around the corner and even if Zen is a homerun performance wise it will have little impact on AMD's bottom line if they can't get the big computer manufacturers to buy them in large quantities.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 13, 2016)

Kurt Maverick said:


> Nvidia has slightly superior but generally fair prices to their producs, it's mainly Intel the ones that are being absolutely abusive and inmobile about them.



Eh if you look beyond the titan no they don't. AMD offers 10bit color in consumer cards nvidia offers 8, and offers full dx12 on gpu, the fury cards have hbm, nvidia has gddr5, the nano offers better performance per watt, gcn offers better performance with resolutions higher than 1080p etc. Actually once you get past the hype and cards should be wiping the floor with nvidia in sales.


----------



## Kurt Maverick (Feb 13, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Eh if you look beyond the titan no they don't. AMD offers 10bit color in consumer cards nvidia offers 8, and offers full dx12 on gpu, the fury cards have hbm, nvidia has gddr5, the nano offers better performance per watt, gcn offers better performance with resolutions higher than 1080p etc. Actually once you get past the hype and cards should be wiping the floor with nvidia in sales.



And here I thought I was talking about prices....of course, people take whatever context they damn want to suit their needs.

BTW, AMD doesn't offer full DX12 (12_1) support, Nvidia has offered 10-bit support *since the Geforce 200 Series* (http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answ...-bit-per-color-support-on-nvidia-geforce-gpus), and AFAIK Nvidia has beaten AMD in almost every DX11 game out there. I don't know (neither care) what DX12 will mean for the actual gen, but my argument about that is that transitional generations sucks, and that the real DX12 battle begins this year.

So that only leaves you with the HBM argument. Woohoo! Enjoy it for the few more months that remains, fanboy.



TheGuruStud said:


> Nothing. Intel didn't invent SMT or use it first lol. Intel used it purely for marketing early on (it wasn't worth a crap until the i series).  And if you knew anything about bulldozer, the FPU uses SMT (although this was basically a cost cutting measure).
> It didn't make fiscal sense for AMD to use it before. They've never had the budget to make the chips even more complex (could barely get them out the door as it was). Zen has been in the works for a long time and with the node shrinks, they have more room to implement better features.
> 
> Keep on blabbing. If APUs are so worthless, then why did intel copy it? Is your foot tasty?



Maybe because, like I said, there's a market for them? How dense can you be? The fact that I said that APUs have no use for gamers or other resource-hungry apps doesn't mean that they wouldn't be sold at all.

And the absurd argument of "OMG INTEL/AMD INVENTED IT FIRST, SO IT'S BETTER/THEY'RE MORALLY BETTER THAN THE OTHER!" is just the last resort of fanboys to justify their customer choice. Fortunately I'm smart enough as for making my choices based on raw performance and price/performance ratios, and not out of "loyalty" to a *CORPORATION* you don't even work in.

Seriously, fanboys of any kind are a nuisance, but I swear AMD fanboys are a _pest. _You can't say the slightest thing against 'their' brand, or in favor of the competition without them crying around in opposition.


----------



## cracklez (Feb 13, 2016)

No need to clash fists here, we can all keep it civil can't we?

The fact of the matter is that the companies AMD competes with have a bigger budget and more resources at their disposal. This means that *most* of the time they will have the upper hand in price, performance, marketing, business deals, partnerships, etc.
This does not mean that AMD can't have their niche and survive if not flourish in their segments. It's just that they have been in the negative for so long, at this point they really are struggling to survive. If Jim Keller has done a miracle on the design of his ZEN, it will be a success on that front. If it fails, it will be 100% AMDs fault. Once the engine gets revved up to start getting these chips out on shelves, they need to do some *HEAVY* marketing to appeal to the masses otherwise I'm afraid it won't look good on that balance sheet of theirs.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 13, 2016)

Kurt Maverick said:


> And here I thought I was talking about prices....of course, people take whatever context they damn want to suit their needs.
> 
> BTW, AMD doesn't offer full DX12 (12_1) support, Nvidia has offered 10-bit support *since the Geforce 200 Series* (http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answ...-bit-per-color-support-on-nvidia-geforce-gpus), and AFAIK Nvidia has beaten AMD in almost every DX11 game out there. I don't know (neither care) what DX12 will mean for the actual gen, but my argument about that is that transitional generations sucks, and that the real DX12 battle begins this year.
> 
> So that only leaves you with the HBM argument. Woohoo! Enjoy it for the few more months that remains, fanboy.



In your link it states that you need a quadro card to use 10 bit color. My exact wording was consumer card and I used it for a reason.

If you want to be really specific in performance the and dual gpu card from 2 generations ago is still the fastest single "card" solution. Of you look past 1080P the fury series beats everything but the titan and does beat the titan in some games. Again it's exactly what I already posted.

And again if you would look just a little closer into dx12. You will notice somethings. 

I am no fanboy I have run both sets of cards and buy based off value/feature set. Last set of cards was three water cooled gtx470's. Those are to this day my favorite cards followed by my original ti4200, which currently holds some of the highest clock speed records ever recorded.


----------



## Kurt Maverick (Feb 13, 2016)

cdawall said:


> In your link it states that you need a quadro card to use 10 bit color. My exact wording was consumer card and I used it for a reason.
> 
> If you want to be really specific in performance the and dual gpu card from 2 generations ago is still the fastest single "card" solution. Of you look past 1080P the fury series beats everything but the titan and does beat the titan in some games. Again it's exactly what I already posted.
> 
> ...



And how many "non-professional" 10-bit monitors you currently see in the market, huh? And how much they'd be overshadowed by the future HDR monitors anyway?

Whatever. Like I said, it's not my point, and I'm absolutely tired of fanboyisms. Don't expect me to reply to any more of them. The same I say to anyone else.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 13, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Eh if you look beyond the titan no they don't. AMD offers 10bit color in consumer cards nvidia offers 8, and offers full dx12 on gpu, the fury cards have hbm, nvidia has gddr5, the nano offers better performance per watt, gcn offers better performance with resolutions higher than 1080p etc. Actually once you get past the hype and cards should be wiping the floor with nvidia in sales.



10-Bit color has no affect on the consumer market.  10-Bit panels are expensive, though they are getting cheaper, but your still looking at $350 for a GW2765HT, and that is an exception to the rule, the next cheapest panel after that is the $500 ASUS PB287Q. And 10-bit isn't noticeable better than 8-Bit to the average consumer(that is why almost no 4K TVs support it).  10-Bit is a Professional feature, that only professionals will notice if lacking.  And I know someone is going to post those BS pictures with the on on the left being 256 Color, and the one on the right being 8-bit, and claim "look at the difference 10-Bit makes!"  Don't waste your time, those pictures all over exaggerate the actual difference.  On top of that, AMD cards lack HDMI 2.0, a far more consumer friendly feature than 10-bit.  There are a lot of people that like to connect their computer to their TV.  I'm sure there are a lot of consumers, a lot more than those that care about 10-bit support, that only can afford to buy one 4K device, and that is their TV, but also want to connect their high end gaming computer to it, to play games in 4K.  Not with AMD cards you aren't, because most 4K TVs don't have displayport.  So it's an extra $30 for an adapter if you want to do that.

DX12 right now doesn't matter, and probably isn't going to matter for this generation of cards.  Tomb Raider is the first AAA game we are likely to see utilize it, maybe, and it is likely the nVidia GPUs will support every feature necessary.

HBM shouldn't be a marketing bullet when HBM cards are still losing in performance to GDDR5 cards.  So does it really make a difference?  Are people with the Fury cards going "Hey look, my card is so much better because it has HBM...even though it still performs worse...but it is so much better because HBM!"?  And what happens when the next generation of nVidia cards come out with HBM2 and AMD is still using HBM1?  Are you going to say the nVidia card is now better because it is using the better form of HBM, the next generation of HBM?  Somehow I doubt it.  HBM isn't a value added feature.

The Nano doesn't offer better performance per watt.  It is worse than the 980 and ties the 980Ti at 4K, it is worse than the 980Ti and 980 at 1440p, and is worse than the 970, 980, and 980Ti at 1080p.

GCN only manages to close the gap at higher resolutions, it doesn't offer better performance.  The Fury X is the best GCN card available, and it merely ties with the 980Ti at 4K, and the pre-overclocked 980Ti's are actually crushing the Fury X with 15%+ better performance at 4k.  And since the Fury X's overclocking is lackluster, to say the least, there is no making that difference up by overclocking the Fury X.


----------



## Kurt Maverick (Feb 13, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> DX12 right now doesn't matter, and probably isn't going to matter for this generation of cards.  Tomb Raider is the first AAA game we are likely to see utilize it, maybe, and it is likely the nVidia GPUs will support every feature necessary.



According to my data, the first full DX12 game (no betas or any other crap) will probably be Hitman (March 11 release date), with Quantum Break being the first DX12-only game (April 5). That is unless Tomb Raider's DX12 patch is released sooner than that...


----------



## xfia (Feb 13, 2016)

Kurt Maverick said:


> And here I thought I was talking about prices....of course, people take whatever context they damn want to suit their needs.
> 
> BTW, AMD doesn't offer full DX12 (12_1) support, Nvidia has offered 10-bit support *since the Geforce 200 Series* (http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answ...-bit-per-color-support-on-nvidia-geforce-gpus), and AFAIK Nvidia has beaten AMD in almost every DX11 game out there. I don't know (neither care) what DX12 will mean for the actual gen, but my argument about that is that transitional generations sucks, and that the real DX12 battle begins this year.
> 
> ...


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 13, 2016)

Kurt Maverick said:


> According to my data, the first full DX12 game (no betas or any other crap) will probably be Hitman (March 11 release date), with Quantum Break being the first DX12-only game (April 5). That is unless Tomb Raider's DX12 patch is released sooner than that...



And it will really be interesting to see how much of a difference it will actually make.  Obviously Microsoft is doing the same thing with Quantum Break as they did with Halo, making it DX12 only to try to force people to Windows 10(maybe I'll finally get around to formatting my main computer and installing it).  

And when you look at the Steam survey, you've to almost 60% of the users running Windows 7 or 8 and only 35% running Windows 10.  So is DX12 going to be a game changer this year?(pun not intended) No, I don't think so.


----------



## ZeDestructor (Feb 13, 2016)

xfia said:


>



Eventually, even the people who try and avoid the arguments snap from the constant shitty, uninformed circlejerk. I did so myself several threads ago when people were whining about how Intel wasn't innovating on the CPU side (here and later on in the same thread, here).. Here, it looks like @Kurt Maverick had his fill of the constant "AMD can do no bad and has never done any anti-consumer behaviour" circlejerk (spoiler: they're just as bad as Intel and nVidia when they're in the lead.. they're just not in the lead more often than not).


----------



## rruff (Feb 13, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> GCN only manages to close the gap at higher resolutions, it doesn't offer better performance.  The Fury X is the best GCN card available, and it merely ties with the 980Ti at 4K, and the pre-overclocked 980Ti's are actually crushing the Fury X with 15%+ better performance at 4k.  And since the Fury X's overclocking is lackluster, to say the least, there is no making that difference up by overclocking the Fury X.



I suspect that will be as good as it gets for Zen also. Almost competitive, late to market, only makes sense if sold cheap. Hard to make money that way. 

AMD has dug such a deep hole in the last 10 years, it would take a miracle for them to crawl out of it. Even if they manage to put out something that *beats* Intel and Nvidia on price/performance, Intel and Nvidia can just drop the price on competing products to retain market share, and keep AMD where they are. That would be nice for consumers while it lasts, but it probably isn't going to make AMD profitable. They'd need to keep that going for years. 

The only way out that I see, is AMD hitting homeruns for the next few years to demonstrate that the company has potential, and then they merge with a company that has cash to invest. Or is that even possible with the licenses?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 13, 2016)

Kurt Maverick said:


> Yeah, because APU's are soooo useful outside of budget and office builds....



It doesn't matter.  That is 98% of the CPU/APU business...not enthusiasts like us.  So yeah, AMD's APU's are extremely useful.


----------



## Kurt Maverick (Feb 13, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> And it will really be interesting to see how much of a difference it will actually make.  Obviously Microsoft is doing the same thing with Quantum Break as they did with Halo, making it DX12 only to try to force people to Windows 10(maybe I'll finally get around to formatting my main computer and installing it).
> 
> And when you look at the Steam survey, you've to almost 60% of the users running Windows 7 or 8 and only 35% running Windows 10.  So is DX12 going to be a game changer this year?(pun not intended) No, I don't think so.



It's still the future. I think that if there has even been a chance of a new API being a real game-changer, that's DX12 / Vulkan.



rtwjunkie said:


> It doesn't matter.  That is 98% of the CPU/APU business...not enthusiasts like us.  So yeah, AMD's APU's are extremely useful.



And 99% of the people on the Internet thinks that a given percentage is false. Especially when it suits your argument so conveniently.

Anyway, I never denied that there's no market for them.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 13, 2016)

Kurt Maverick said:


> And 99% of the people on the Internet thinks that a given percentage is false. Especially when it suits your argument so conveniently.



I don't have an argument. I merely point out that the enthusists are an EXTREME minority.  The majority of cpu's and apu's sold go to business, followed by regular users who don't do anything special.  

I'm sorry if you're disappointed that yours and my desires don't count for anything with either AMD or Intel.


----------



## xfia (Feb 14, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> I don't have an argument. I merely point out that the enthusists are an EXTREME minority.  The majority of cpu's and apu's sold go to business, followed by regular users who don't do anything special.
> 
> I'm sorry if you're disappointed that yours and my desires don't count for anything with either AMD or Intel.


gaming is a lot of money tho and gaming laptops sell well..  a lot of people actually know that you want to see a amd or nvidia logo somewhere. thats about it tho and well msi and asus have been making other laptop oem's put up a better fight to stay in business


----------



## ZeDestructor (Feb 14, 2016)

xfia said:


> gaming is a lot of money tho and gaming laptops sell well..  a lot of people actually know that you want to see a amd or nvidia logo somewhere. thats about it tho and well msi and asus have been making other laptop oem's put up a better fight to stay in business



Gaming is big money for GPU manufacturers, because on the consumer-facing side of things, that's the only thing still needing serious power. The rest of the time, an iGPU is just fine. For Intel on the other hand, gaming and enthusiast is but a tiny bit of marketshare. It's mostly the same story for AMD's CPU side, just slightly less skewed because AMD have no mobile CPUs worth talking about (when is the last time you saw a major laptop vendor ship AMD?).


----------



## xfia (Feb 14, 2016)

ZeDestructor said:


> Gaming is big money for GPU manufacturers, because on the consumer-facing side of things, that's the only thing still needing serious power. The rest of the time, an iGPU is just fine. For Intel on the other hand, gaming and enthusiast is but a tiny bit of marketshare. It's mostly the same story for AMD's CPU side, just slightly less skewed because AMD have no mobile CPUs worth talking about (when is the last time you saw a major laptop vendor ship AMD?).


i think i just seen maybe dell or hp is shipping with a 380m for gaming but other than that. ya it wasnt a good situation before maxwell and then only got worse but i do recall some pretty nice gaming laptops being made with 290m and so is the 5k mac


----------



## cdawall (Feb 14, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> 10-Bit color has no affect on the consumer market.  10-Bit panels are expensive, though they are getting cheaper, but your still looking at $350 for a GW2765HT, and that is an exception to the rule, the next cheapest panel after that is the $500 ASUS PB287Q. And 10-bit isn't noticeable better than 8-Bit to the average consumer(that is why almost no 4K TVs support it).  10-Bit is a Professional feature, that only professionals will notice if lacking.  And I know someone is going to post those BS pictures with the on on the left being 256 Color, and the one on the right being 8-bit, and claim "look at the difference 10-Bit makes!"  Don't waste your time, those pictures all over exaggerate the actual difference.  On top of that, AMD cards lack HDMI 2.0, a far more consumer friendly feature than 10-bit.  There are a lot of people that like to connect their computer to their TV.  I'm sure there are a lot of consumers, a lot more than those that care about 10-bit support, that only can afford to buy one 4K device, and that is their TV, but also want to connect their high end gaming computer to it, to play games in 4K.  Not with AMD cards you aren't, because most 4K TVs don't have displayport.  So it's an extra $30 for an adapter if you want to do that.
> 
> DX12 right now doesn't matter, and probably isn't going to matter for this generation of cards.  Tomb Raider is the first AAA game we are likely to see utilize it, maybe, and it is likely the nVidia GPUs will support every feature necessary.
> 
> ...



A lot of this is very true my only argument would be one those adapters aren't $30 for me and I wouldn't by any fury other than the nano. Overclock it and you have a cheaper fury x.

I also haven't really seen any benchmark showing gddr5 beating hbm?


----------



## Pumper (Feb 14, 2016)

If past AMDs PR and the real world performance figures are of any indication, the claimed 40% improvement will be just a best case scenario figure in one out of 50 difference benchmarks, while the average performance increase will be 20% tops.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 14, 2016)

Pumper said:


> If past AMDs PR and the real world performance figures are of any indication, the claimed 40% improvement will be just a best case scenario figure in one out of 50 difference benchmarks, while the average performance increase will be 20% tops.



This is normally the case. I am hoping for once (and considering who designed the CPU) that this is not the case.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 14, 2016)

cdawall said:


> A lot of this is very true my only argument would be one those adapters aren't $30 for me and I wouldn't by any fury other than the nano. Overclock it and you have a cheaper fury x.
> 
> I also haven't really seen any benchmark showing gddr5 beating hbm?



I haven't seen a Displayport to HDMI2.0 adapter yet that was cheaper than $30.

Just look at the latest 980Ti Matrix benchmark here on TPU.  It beats the Fury X by 17% at 4K.  Sure, HBM provides more memory bandwidth than GDDR5, but when the overall card is still slower what's the point?


----------



## xfia (Feb 14, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> I haven't seen a Displayport to HDMI2.0 adapter yet that was cheaper than $30.
> 
> Just look at the latest 980Ti Matrix benchmark here on TPU.  It beats the Fury X by 17% at 4K.  Sure, HBM provides more memory bandwidth than GDDR5, but when the overall card is still slower what's the point?


its changing tho too and fiji gets better scaling with crossfire. its more than about the bandwidth that hbm provides.. its the low latency architecture that it comes with. it benefits vr among a long list of everything. duel fiji will be shown to blow away 980ti sli in the some situation. 
about the article...
it looks like some serious architecture backing up those shiny new 14nm cores. not just low latency but high bandwidth. 
along with dx12 its like turning a 4 lane highway into a 20 lane and making the speed limit 100% faster. the async highway


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 14, 2016)

xfia said:


> its changing tho too and fiji gets better scaling with crossfire. its more than about the bandwidth that hbm provides.. its the low latency architecture that it comes with. it benefits vr among a long list of everything. duel fiji will be shown to blow away 980ti sli in the some situation.



Whenever someone says "some situations" I immediately add "but those situations are the exception to the norm" in my head.


----------



## xfia (Feb 14, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Whenever someone says "some situations" I immediately add "but those situations are the exception to the norm" in my head.


it does happen a lot when vram becomes the processing bottleneck and does happen at 4k and up.


----------



## alucasa (Feb 14, 2016)

Me is not gonna say anything until I see an ES chip review (or leak). Right now, we have nothing other than words.


----------



## Jermelescu (Feb 14, 2016)

For the sake of competition I hope Mr. Keller delivered magic.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 14, 2016)

Here is the thing with news about Zen.  What we see isn't anything that is going to be available on the desktop market.  "Up to" 32 Cores, we'll never see that on the desktop market.  8 DDR4 Channels, we'll never see that on the desktop market.  There are already 16-core Bulldozer processors, but we don't see them on the desktop market.



Jermelescu said:


> For the sake of competition I hope Mr. Keller delivered magic.



I don't think he had to deliver magic, he just had to do what he was good at doing.  AMD doesn't have to top Intel, and it probably won't.  If they can get something out that is competitive with an 115X i7, then they will be in a good position, and I think(or hope) Jim Keller is capable of that.

What I think we will see on the desktop market is:

Up-To 8 Zen Cores with SMT for 16 threads
Up-To 4 DDR4 memory channels

But I don't think they are going to break the market up into the mainstream and HEDT like Intel does.  Instead I think they will go with some kind of middle ground.  So we'll likely see:

2-Core w/ SMT
4-Core w/out SMT
4-Core w/ SMT
8-Core w/out SMT
8-Core w/ SMT

I also think we'll see the motherboards that look more like the standard ATX boards we are used to with 115X, with only 4 RAM slots.  Even if the boards support 4-Channel DDR4.  You just have to populate all 4 slots if you want 4-Channel, if you only populate 2 slots, you get dual-channel(with a not so big performance hit, I'm guessing).  Of course I'm sure we'll see the big players release HEDT motherboards with 8 RAM slots too, like the HEDT 2011, the difference will be they will still be using the same socket.  

And I think that is the key for AMD, no matter what, they have to keep their desktop market all on the same socket.  They can't try to break it up like Intel and AMD have been doing in the past.  They tried to break it up with bulldozer, and have the HEDT market on AM3+ and the APU/Mainstream desktop market on FM2/+, and it didn't work.  AMD has marketed on upgradability in the past. That is part of what made them a good choice.  You would buy an AM2+ or even AM2 motherboard, and when AM3 processor came out you didn't have to replace your entire motherboard.  When AM3+ came out, you could replace your motherboard and keep your AM3 processor.  This allowed people to upgrade in steps instead of needing to replace the motherboard and processor all at once.  You can buy a low end Zen computer, and stick one of the cheap processors in it to start, then when you save up a little more funds, you upgrade to the 8-Core monster.


----------



## LightningJR (Feb 15, 2016)

I never did like the words "up to" it's very fishy.

32 cores even on 14nm is a tall order, it'll be clocked awfully low if they want to keep a 140W TDP. Not that they're afraid of a higher TDP..

If a consumer Zen 16 core releases we'll either have a low clocked 16 core or another high TDP AMD CPU, upwards of 220W I expect.

Obviously this is all speculation and depends on if we believe that AMD's 40% ipc improvement is fact.

40% sounds exactly like what you would expect if you turned the bulldozer cores into proper cores.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 15, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> I haven't seen a Displayport to HDMI2.0 adapter yet that was cheaper than $30.
> 
> Just look at the latest 980Ti Matrix benchmark here on TPU.  It beats the Fury X by 17% at 4K.  Sure, HBM provides more memory bandwidth than GDDR5, but when the overall card is still slower what's the point?


I get a nice discount the markup on adapters is ridiculous.


----------



## LemmingOverlord (Feb 15, 2016)

Parn said:


> 40% IPC improvement over A10-7870K. Hope this is true as it will definitely bring Zen on par with Haswell at minimum.



Entirely disagree: a 40% IPC boost means that the "next-gen" Zen will be still underperforming in both single- and multi-threaded tasks when compared to an out-of-date Haswell.

In other words, and much to my disappointment because I don't fancy a world where Intel is king of the hill, AMD's best effort will still trail Haswell in IPC (by quite a lot) AND Skylake (+Skylake refresh) when Zen arrives.

This will be a very poor showing for AMD. In fact it will be the last nail in the coffin for a company that has done its utmost to drive itself into the ground.

I am not an AMD or Intel fan boy, I am pro-market, and FWIW, AMD has been run by people who - to ensure that they aren't kicked out of office - have cared only about the stock value in the short term, and failed to see what the company would be selling 1-, 3- even 5- years ahead. The only thing AMD management has been able to do so far is shore up its defences for its own demise. Even the creation of the Radeon Technologies Group is a way for management to secure some form of revenue in case the company goes tits-up. When things get worse, AMD has packaged all its worthwhile assets in a nice little parcel with a perky little bow on top, ready to be sold off to the highest bidder. I am sure this is a condition the stockholders demanded be met to ensure support.

When Zen comes out (and fails) it will be a short hop to the "we are now a fabless graphics technology semiconductor design company" announcement, "available to license our graphics technology to anyone who wishes to acquire a license", who will adopt an ARM-like strategy towards the market. AMD will be no more and RTG will be its spiritual successor. Heads will roll, golden umbrellas will be paid, Chapter 13 will be filed, AMD restructured, x86/AMD64 people laid off and only RTG will remain, which will then be sold off.

I'm just speculating here, but Zen would've been a hit... like in mid-2015. Not in early 2017.


----------



## 64K (Feb 15, 2016)

Jermelescu said:


> For the sake of competition I hope Mr. Keller delivered magic.



He's a very talented man and I'm sure he did the best job he could but AMD just doesn't have the R&D budget that Intel has. That is why I'm skeptical that Zen will be good competition for Intel chips. We may never know what was said between Keller and Lisa Su but I suspect that once Keller went back to work for AMD he saw that they had no real focus on what would come after Zen and that they basically are just trying to survive until 2019 when one of their big debts comes due. Keller had no reason to remain with AMD if they aren't planning something for after Zen.

AMD faces difficulties even if Zen is good competition for Kaby Lake and Cannonlake. They will probably have to sell the Zen chips to computer manufacturers for cheap prices just to get them to use AMD chips and their strategy of selling cheap just puts them further in the red. Hell, they have the console market all to themselves and they posted their largest losses to date in 2015. I don't know what they are making per console for their chips but I suspect they aren't making much.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 15, 2016)

LemmingOverlord said:


> Entirely disagree: a 40% IPC boost means that the "next-gen" Zen will be still underperforming in both single- and multi-threaded tasks when compared to an out-of-date Haswell.
> 
> In other words, and much to my disappointment because I don't fancy a world where Intel is king of the hill, AMD's best effort will still trail Haswell in IPC (by quite a lot) AND Skylake (+Skylake refresh) when Zen arrives.



Underperforming compared to haswell in single threaded, yes probably still a little.  However, the multi-threaded tasks should beat haswell without a problem.  The 8-Core AMD parts are already within spitting distance of a 4790K in multi-threading when both are clocked the same.  My multi-threading scores on a 4.6GHz FX-8350 are only about 10% behind my scores on a i7-4970k.  So if they bring the single threaded performance up 40%, the multi-threaded will easily beat a 4790K and likely a 6700k as well.


----------



## Kevin-HTPC (Feb 15, 2016)

AMD can’t compete with Intel when it comes to CPU reliant tasks, but on average AMD Kaveri APU’s outperform Intel’s latest Skylake processors when it comes to gaming (without dedicated graphics).

Admittedly performance isn’t ground-breaking, but from my own personal tests the A10-7800 can average around 37fps in Battlefield 4 at 1680x900 on medium settings, compared to the similarly priced Intel Core i3-6100 which gets around 24fps on the same settings.  In Grid 2 the A10-7800 achieves 35fps at 1920x1080 on high settings, compared to 18fps for the i3-6100.  But games which are more CPU dependant such as Far Cry 3 the gap is smaller with the A10-7800 hitting 20fps at 1680x900 on medium settings and the i3-6100 averaging at 18fps.

So depending on what type of system you are trying to build the AMD Kaveri chips can offer good value.

If AMD can improve on Kaveri IPC by 40% and also further improve on the integrated Radeon graphics, plus add in extra features such as H.265 decoding, then AMD could have the first APU that can be used for more than just casual gaming, allowing you to build a very small system that can do a bit of everything.

I think a well-balanced APU with ‘good enough’ processing and ‘good enough’ graphics at a low price point will appeal to a large market, not everyone is interested in absolute performance and that final 10% or 20% of performance for much higher cost, but instead are interested in smaller computers with a good media/gaming experience at low to medium price points.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 15, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> AMD still playing catch up.
> A 40% improvement in IPC will still leave them behind Intel.



Competitive mid range is all we need.
AMD was stuck on 28nm for too long.




Kurt Maverick said:


> Nvidia has slightly superior but generally fair prices to their producs, it's mainly Intel the ones that are being absolutely abusive and inmobile about them.



Let's compare 960 vs 380, shall we?
amazon.de

960 is 230Euro-ish
380 is slightly below that

For 10% faster, 20% more power hungry chip. (that not even taking into account "TDP target" feature of AMD, that allows  you to downscale chip a bit for not so demanding games)

Maybe high range-ish?
980 vs Fury Nano

On par power consumption, faster yet cheaper Nano with unique features.

What is fair about that?




newtekie1 said:


> It isn't like AMD doesn't jack up their prices when they can.  It feels like everyone forgets the $1,000 FX-57 and FX-60.  When AMD has the lead, they are real quick to jack up those prices.



AMD Athlon 64 FX-57: The Fastest Single Core
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1722/2

PS
Remind me Intel EE costs pretty please.



newtekie1 said:


> Intel's $1,000 parts are very top end parts too.  The point is, as soon as AMD can, it will jack up its prices.  They aren't selling cheap CPUs because they want to.


Back in 2004-5 I've upgraded to Athlon64 X2, new mobo, new mem, new CPU. All under 220$.
So, nope.



Kurt Maverick said:


> Nvidia has beaten AMD in almost every DX11 game out there.


What, on earth, are you talking about?


----------



## LemmingOverlord (Feb 15, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Underperforming compared to haswell in single threaded, yes probably still a little.  However, the multi-threaded tasks should beat haswell without a problem.  The 8-Core AMD parts are already within spitting distance of a 4790K in multi-threading when both are clocked the same.  My multi-threading scores on a 4.6GHz FX-8350 are only about 10% behind my scores on a i7-4970k.  So if they bring the single threaded performance up 40%, the multi-threaded will easily beat a 4790K and likely a 6700k as well.



I won't lie to you, I haven't benchmarked an FX-8350, much less an overclocked one, but I've benchmarked other CPUs of the same architecture and extrapolating results (to me), and checking on benchmark sites, there is no chance the 8350 comes within that 10% window - clock for clock in multithreading - _unless you are quoting one very specific benchmar_k (that's the problem with benchmarks, right?). It does come down to what benchmark you are running and whether the system is somehow bottlenecked by something... i.e.: do you have to flush something to disk? (from your sig, you have overclocked your FX-8350 and it's got 32GB of RAM which might play a role in this). Clock for clock, single or multithreading, Haswell beats Piledriver...

ALSO: upping IPC by 40% does definitely not mean they are increasing single-threaded performance by the same ratio. In order to get IPC up 40% they will surely rein in the CPU clock. AMD is doing to its processors what Intel did when it about-faced on Netburst: it's improving execution (reducing pipeline length, branch prediction, etc... we'll see when it surfaces).

ALSO: Intel is not frozen in time, right...? It'll be a little over 2.5 years between the launch of Zen and Haswell (if Zen is on time)...  Concern yourself with the fact that AMD has not been making any progress in CPUs for the past couple of years, while Intel integrated graphics have been steadily improving, generation after generation.

Don't get me wrong: I want Zen to succeed, but AMD has so far given me nothing but reasons to doubt their promises/expectations. They have systematically fallen short on delivering the gains they promise, time and again.

If things go pear-shaped, CES 2017 will be a very - believe me - VERY public place to crash and burn. Hence my "doom-and-gloom prediction".

*There should be a betting pool for this... Anyone?
*
Here is a link to a site with full sets of benchmarks on both the i7 4790K and the FX-8350


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 15, 2016)

medi01 said:


> AMD Athlon 64 FX-57: The Fastest Single Core
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/1722/2
> 
> PS
> Remind me Intel EE costs pretty please.



Right at about $1,000.



medi01 said:


> Back in 2004-5 I've upgraded to Athlon64 X2, new mobo, new mem, new CPU. All under 220$.
> So, nope.



I'm going to have to call complete and utter bullshit on that one.

The Athlon x2 3800+, the cheapest of the Athlon x2 processors, didn't come out until Aug. 2005 and cost $350 at launch.  The 4200+, 4400+, 4600+, and 4800+ came out a little earlier in May 2005, but they were priced at an insane $530, $580, $800, and $1,000 respectively.  Even their single core parts weren't cheap, the Athlon64 4000+, which came out in 2004, cost $730 at launch.  The 3800+? $720. The 3500+? $500.

But AMD would _neeever_ jack up prices when the are in the lead.  They didn't do that.  And I'd like to point out that, in the same time frame of the Athlon X2 processor, around May 2005, Intel's Pentium D series was substantially cheaper.  The Pentium D 830 came out almost the exact same time as the Athlon X2 4200+ though 4800+, and it was priced at $300 at launch.  The Pentium D 820, again launched May 2005, was $240 at launch.  The Pentium D 805 came out Dec 2005, and was freakin' $145!  It was at the time easily the cheapest dual core you could get, and thanks to the low FSB(533 instead of 800) and the high multiplier, it overclocked like crazy.  You could throw something like a Thermalright Ultra-120 on it, push the FSB to 800, and be running at 4.0GHz very easily.  But the point is, when Intel knew they were behind, their mid-range products, the ones that most consumers were actually buying, were priced lower than AMD's.  Their niche products, the EE line, remained overpriced, but those product lines from both companies are always overpriced.



LemmingOverlord said:


> won't lie to you, I haven't benchmarked an FX-8350, much less an overclocked one, but I've benchmarked other CPUs of the same architecture and extrapolating results (to me), and checking on benchmark sites, there is no chance the 8350 comes within that 10% window - clock for clock in multithreading - _unless you are quoting one very specific benchmar_k (that's the problem with benchmarks, right?). It does come down to what benchmark you are running and whether the system is somehow bottlenecked by something... i.e.: do you have to flush something to disk? (from your sig, you have overclocked your FX-8350 and it's got 32GB of RAM which might play a role in this).



That is indeed very true, but you'll note my 4790K system has 32GB of RAM as well, and faster RAM at that.  Yes, the benchmark used makes a difference, and I'll admit I haven't exactly had the time to run either system through a gauntlet of tests.  But in the few tests that I have run on both, in multi-threading the 8350 at the same speed as the 4790K is about 10% behind.

I actually put together the 8350 for video encoding, because I was tired of having my main rig tied up for hours encoding H254 video.  The video encoding is very multi-threaded. And the 8350 is slower than the 4790k, but only by about 10%-15%. So when you really get all of those cores working, the 8350 isn't that far off.



LemmingOverlord said:


> Clock for clock, single or multithreading, Haswell beats Piledriver...



Oh, most definitely.  But Piledriver isn't the latest Bulldozer core.  We have Steamroller after Piledriver and Excavator after Piledriver.  Excavator just came out.

The real problem is we haven't seen how Piledriver and Excavator really perform in full form.  All we have seen is the APU versions, which cut out the L3 to make room for the GPU.  Obviously the big issue is they are only 4 cores.  But the other issue is they cut the L2 from 1MB/Core to 512KB/Core on Excavator and completely cut out the L3 on all the APUs to make room for the GPU.  The Bulldozer architecture really loves large cache.  It really cripples the architecture when you take that away.  That is why, if you just look at the CPU performance, the FX-4350 still outperforms the latest Excavator based Athlon X4 845 clock for clock even though the 4350 is technically 2 generations older than the 845.  That cache just makes a massive difference.


----------



## LemmingOverlord (Feb 15, 2016)

Kevin-HTPC said:


> AMD can’t compete with Intel when it comes to CPU reliant tasks, but on average AMD Kaveri APU’s outperform Intel’s latest Skylake processors when it comes to gaming (without dedicated graphics).



This is the crux of the issue, isn't it? AMD's Zen is an architecture. This architecture will later break down into a number of different configurations - some more suited for workstations/servers, others for gaming PCs, others for HTPCs and so forth... 12-core, 8-core, 4-core, with GPU, without GPU, etc... How each one will perform is anyone's guess. Right now all we hear from AMD is that it has come up with a unicorn CPU architecture that does everything really well (if we are to believe the slideware hype).


----------



## xfia (Feb 15, 2016)

LemmingOverlord said:


> This is the crux of the issue, isn't it? AMD's Zen is an architecture. This architecture will later break down into a number of different configurations - some more suited for workstations/servers, others for gaming PCs, others for HTPCs and so forth... 12-core, 8-core, 4-core, with GPU, without GPU, etc... How each one will perform is anyone's guess. Right now all we hear from AMD is that it has come up with a unicorn CPU architecture that does everything really well (if we are to believe the slideware hype).


yaaay for slides!!  the ones with the most colors are my favorite


----------



## LemmingOverlord (Feb 15, 2016)

btarunr said:


> CERN engineer Liviu Valsan, in a recent presentation on datacenter hardware trends, presented a curious looking slide that highlights some of the key features of AMD's upcoming "Zen" CPU architecture. We know from a recent story that the architecture is scalable up to 32 cores per socket, and that AMD is building these chips on the 14 nanometer FinFET process.
> 
> Among the other key features detailed on the slide are symmetric multi-threading (SMT). Implemented for over a decade by Intel as HyperThreading Technology, SMT exposes a physical core as two logical CPUs to the software, letting it make better use of the hardware resources. Another feature is talk of up to eight DDR4 memory channels. This could mean that AMD is readying a product to compete with the Xeon E7 series. Lastly, the slide mentions that "Zen" could bring about IPC improvements that are 40 percent higher than the current architecture.
> 
> ...



Hey.

Not sure if anyone's made this comment but I don't see any reference: It's not _exactly _32 cores per socket. Apparently Mr Valsan _also_ mentioned that it was a unique two-CPUs-one-socket using a special interconnect for the CPUs (probably the Exascale Coherent Processor they were going on about a while back). A bit like dual-GPU solutions, I guess.


----------



## Basard (Feb 15, 2016)

LemmingOverlord said:


> Entirely disagree: a 40% IPC boost means that the "next-gen" Zen will be still underperforming in both single- and multi-threaded tasks when compared to an out-of-date Haswell.
> 
> In other words, and much to my disappointment because I don't fancy a world where Intel is king of the hill, AMD's best effort will still trail Haswell in IPC (by quite a lot) AND Skylake (+Skylake refresh) when Zen arrives.
> 
> ...



So, kinda like SEGA then?


----------



## xenocide (Feb 16, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Maybe high range-ish?
> 980 vs Fury Nano
> 
> On par power consumption, faster yet cheaper Nano with unique features.



Walking the line between misleading and flat out lies.

Power Consumption - Fury Nano is 50% higher while idle, ~400% higher during Blu-Ray playback, 20% higher average power consumption, and has a slightly higher peak\maximum draw.  They are not on par, the 980 is better in literally every category.

Performance - The Fury Nano does better at 4K and slightly better at 2560x1440, but they are tied with the 980 often edging it out at 1080p.  The ace in the hole for the 980 though is that it overclocks--and quite well.  I imagine even a higher tier factory overclocked 980 would edge out the Nano Fury in almost all situations.

Features - Not sure what unique features the Nano has that the 980 doesn't have comparable versions of.  I guess the Nano has HBM?  But that doesn't affect the experience all that much other than making it better at 4K.

Price - You can get 3rd Party GTX 980's for as little as $470 (and one model that is $480 with a $30 MIR effectively making it $450) on Newegg, compared to Fury Nano's starting at $490 and most being above $500.



medi01 said:


> Back in 2004-5 I've upgraded to Athlon64 X2, new mobo, new mem, new CPU. All under 220$.
> So, nope.



No you didn't.  The Athlon64 X2's didn't come out until mid-late 2005, and even a year after release the Athlon64 X2 3800+ was about $250.  I know this because I bought 2--one for myself and one for a friends build--and both times they were at least $200 (I think the one for myself I bought in 2007).


----------



## Kanan (Feb 16, 2016)

It's just "Nano" not "Fury Nano" and not "Nano Fury". lol

The unique thing would simply be it's size, but your other points are somewhat okay, just that the Nano certainly isn't a 1080p card and therefore no one really cares (or should care) about its performance there. Also wait for the performance leap DX12 will give the Nano (and not give the GTX 980, because it's already at maximum). 

Overclocking? You are funny. The Nano transforms into a Fury X if overclocked, the GTX 980 even with highest overclocks has no chance. I'd call your post Nvidia-biased, because you mention "Nvidia can overclock to reach AMD" but not mention that the Nano can be overclocked too, and runs easily away (from the GTX 980) if so. 

Also the Steamroller APU has 2x2 MB Cache, not 2x 1MB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113359
The new Excavator CPU has only 1x1 MB, but I'd call that an exception. 

Lots of misinformation in this thread. Also I very much dislike those nay-sayers and negative talkers here. "AMD Zen will most likely be shit, but I don't want it to be shit". Sorry that's crazy. 

We will see. My opinion is, Zen will be a LOT better than the FX processors are now, and this is a good thing, and will help AMD to get some marketshare back. I'd even bet on it. Same with their coming GPUs.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 16, 2016)

Kanan said:


> Also the Steamroller APU has 2x2 MB Cache, not 2x 1MB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113359
> The new Excavator CPU has only 1x1 MB, but I'd call that an exception.



It doesn't much matter, the lack of L3 is what really cripples the CPU performance.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 16, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> It doesn't much matter, the lack of L3 is what really cripples the CPU performance.



I am really hoping for a large L3 and decently sized "L4"


----------



## Kanan (Feb 16, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> It doesn't much matter, the lack of L3 is what really cripples the CPU performance.


Thought the same, but the 2x2 MB is enough for "4" cores on the A10 APUs (someone told me or I read up in some reviews) - not sure about the 2x1 MB Excavator CPU though. 

@cdawall : I'm pretty sure it will have a large L3, because AMD has it on their main CPU line since Phenom II. L4? You mean HBM for the APUs? If so, yes, that'd be nice. Really really nice, because it would erase the bandwidth problems current APUs have with their GPUs.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 16, 2016)

Kanan said:


> Thought the same, but the 2x2 MB is enough for "4" cores on the A10 APUs (someone told me or I read up in some reviews) - not sure about the 2x1 MB Excavator CPU though.



Depends on what you consider "enough".  Sure, they'll work with 1MB per core, heck they'll work with 512KB per core. And performance will be acceptable.  But performance will be a lot worse than if they had that large L3.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 16, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Depends on what you consider "enough".  Sure, they'll work with 1MB per core, heck they'll work with 512KB per core. And performance will be acceptable.  But performance will be a lot worse than if they had that large L3.


I meant it didn't really lose much compared to a Phenom II with 6 MB or FX with 8 MB cache. IPC was higher, bandwidth problems pretty non-existant, but I'd need to find the review for clarification. For now I'd say 2x1 MB is (a lot) more of a problem than 2x2 MB.


----------



## xfia (Feb 16, 2016)

xenocide said:


> Walking the line between misleading and flat out lies.
> 
> Power Consumption - Fury Nano is 50% higher while idle, ~400% higher during Blu-Ray playback, 20% higher average power consumption, and has a slightly higher peak\maximum draw.  They are not on par, the 980 is better in literally every category.
> 
> ...


what is this bullock of half information..  do you work for nvidia? haha


----------



## medi01 (Feb 16, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> I'm going to have to


Read it again and think what 2004-5 could mean.

I repeat, for 220 Euros, I've got dual core Athlon 64, new mainboard and mem. (don't remember amount though :S)

I don't remember what date it was, Wow released at least 1 year before that, roughly at that time. Wow was the reason I was upgrading.

Mobo was about 55Euro, CPU under 100, maybe as low as 80.

My gmail can't look back that far, or else I'd had exact numbers.




xenocide said:


> Walking the line between misleading and flat out lies.
> 
> Fury Nano is 50% higher while idle, ~400% higher during Blu-Ray playback, 20% higher average power consumption, and has a slightly higher peak\maximum draw.


Are you on nVidia's payroll or something?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9621/the-amd-radeon-r9-nano-review/16


----------



## Frick (Feb 16, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Read it again and think what 2004-5 could mean.
> 
> I repeat, for 220 Euros, I've got dual core Athlon 64, new mainboard and mem. (don't remember amount though :S)
> 
> ...



The dual cores came out in 2005. In september 2005 I bought a single core Venice 3000+ for more than €100, from one of those terrible, cheap stores. No cooler. I remember dreaming about that x2 3800+, but I just couldn't afford it. And here's an old review that puts the street price of the cheapest dual core at $354. Flash forward two years and yeah then.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 16, 2016)

Frick said:


> The dual cores came out in 2005. In september 2005 I bought a single core Venice 3000+ for more than €100, from one of those terrible, cheap stores.



I recall it was before first WoW expansion came,  so, Burning Cruzade, released in  Jan 2007.


----------



## Frick (Feb 16, 2016)

medi01 said:


> I recall it was before first WoW expansion came,  so, Burning Cruzade, released in  Jan 2007.



First gen AM2 then, and those dual cores still was hundreds of €. €100 would still get you a single core AMD. September 2007 I bought an Intel e4300 for a bit less than €100. After TBC was released, when Core 2 had made its splash felt, I can imagine you getting an x2 3600+ for something like that if it was on sale. And now we're three years from 2004 and two from 2005.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 16, 2016)

Frick said:


> when Core 2 had made its splash felt, I can imagine you getting an x2 3600+ for something like that if it was on sale.


It was before Conroe, when AMD reigned supreme.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 16, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Read it again and think what 2004-5 could mean.



I know what 2004-5 means.  If that is indeed true, you would have had to have bought them right when they were released at mid to end of 2005, and you definitely didn't get the motherboard RAM and processor for $220.



medi01 said:


> Read it again and think what 2004-5 could mean.
> 
> I repeat, for 220 Euros, I've got dual core Athlon 64, new mainboard and mem. (don't remember amount though :S)
> 
> ...



First of all, you wrote "220$".  $ =/= €
$ means Dollars
€ means Euros

Now you're just changing your story to try to save face.  But even if we go with the idea that you meant Euros, €220 wouldn't buy you a Athlon X2 a motherboard and RAM.  At least not at retail prices.  Maybe if they fell off the back of a truck. The exchange rate for the Euro back in 2005 wasn't that strong.  It was about €1.25=$1.  So even if you bought the cheapest 3800+, that would still be €280 just for the processor.  So there is no way, at anytime in 2004-5 that you bought a Athlon X2, motherboard, and RAM for €220.

The fact is, as soon as AMD was on top, they started charging crazy prices for their processors. Up to $1,000 for non-Extreme processors even!  And it didn't go back down again until Intel released the Core 2 series and topped AMD again.



medi01 said:


> I recall it was before first WoW expansion came,  so, Burning Cruzade, released in  Jan 2007.



That would have been late 2006-early 2007.  So, go back and read again, and think really hard what 2004-5 means.

And at that point, Intel had released their Core 2 line.  Which, as I said, topped AMD and caused them to drastically lower the prices.



medi01 said:


> It was before Conroe, when AMD reigned supreme.



Ok, seriously, you gotta get your story straight.  If it was before Conroe, then it was WAAAAAY before Burning Crusade.  And if it was before Conroe, then the processor were super expensive.  Unless you got it at that very short time right before Conroe came out, when all the venders were slashing X2 prices just to clear stock before Conroe's launch.  But even still, that doesn't prove the original point you were arguing, that AMD didn't jack up their prices when they were in the lead.


----------



## xenocide (Feb 17, 2016)

xfia said:


> what is this bullock of half information..  do you work for nvidia? haha



I linked directly to TPU's own review.


----------



## DigitalUK (Feb 17, 2016)

LemmingOverlord said:


> I won't lie to you, I haven't benchmarked an FX-8350, much less an overclocked one, but I've benchmarked other CPUs of the same architecture and extrapolating results (to me), and checking on benchmark sites, there is no chance the 8350 comes within that 10% window - clock for clock in multithreading - _unless you are quoting one very specific benchmar_k (that's the problem with benchmarks, right?). It does come down to what benchmark you are running and whether the system is somehow bottlenecked by something... i.e.: do you have to flush something to disk? (from your sig, you have overclocked your FX-8350 and it's got 32GB of RAM which might play a role in this). Clock for clock, single or multithreading, Haswell beats Piledriver...
> 
> ALSO: upping IPC by 40% does definitely not mean they are increasing single-threaded performance by the same ratio. In order to get IPC up 40% they will surely rein in the CPU clock. AMD is doing to its processors what Intel did when it about-faced on Netburst: it's improving execution (reducing pipeline length, branch prediction, etc... we'll see when it surfaces).
> 
> ...




heres some benches from my 8350 at stock and at 4.5ghz with a comparison on the i7-6700k
13% difference multi thread at stock and the 8350 is afew Years older, also my system has a lot of dev stuff running on it plus mssql many instances etc

Stock AMD 8350 4Ghz vs i7-6700k 4ghz stock






AMD 8350 with quick oc to 4.5ghz






if zen really has 40% ipc over pd it will monster intels current lineup, single thread is a weak point.

thought I better add the single thread is approx. 40-42% behind the i7-6700k in this quick bench, so if the ipc was on single thread it would be on par with current gen intel and multi thread if improved and I cant imagine why it wouldnt be beyond intels current gen.


----------



## Frick (Feb 17, 2016)

medi01 said:


> It was before Conroe, when AMD reigned supreme.



Then it couldn't have been that low, unless you bought it for way less than the retailers did.


----------



## LemmingOverlord (Feb 17, 2016)

DigitalUK said:


> heres some benches from my 8350 at stock and at 4.5ghz with a comparison on the i7-6700k
> 13% difference multi thread at stock and the 8350 is afew Years older, also my system has a lot of dev stuff running on it plus mssql many instances etc



Hey. Well, like I said, it depends on what benchmarks you're using, the link at the bottom of my other post shows 4790K benchmarks on a number of uses (both gaming and non-gaming) trouncing anything from AMD. I am not too familiar with the CPU-Z benchmark, but according to it my 3770k just obliterates a 4790k, while being clocked 500MHz lower. Still, it's a synthetic benchmark and most end-user apps, despite multi-threaded, are still far from optimized...

Anywho. I eagerly await the release of the Zen dreadnought upon the unsuspecting masses. It will be a make-or-break deal for AMD, and that is what ticks me off, no-one in the industry is looking at Zen with the notion that it will either catapult AMD into the mainstream again, or kill it outright..

The more a "build-up" a brand has to a product, the worse it will turn out... either because of our own exaggerated expectations, or because the marketing BS will just cherry-pick scenarios and applications to underline a very specific gain in performance and give the public a sense of "overall" performance gains. If Su starts talking more and more at investors on the gains, and benchmarks start "leaking"... I'll be concerned.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 17, 2016)

Frick said:


> Then it couldn't have been that low, unless you bought it for way less than the retailers did.


Yes it was, 220 total price for mobo + cpu + mem. 
At the same time my guildmate built "fastest (non EE) Intel you can get" PC and it was a Prescott.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 17, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Yes it was, 220 total price for mobo + cpu + mem.
> At the same time my guildmate built "fastest (non EE) Intel you can get" PC and it was a Prescott.



Yeah, I think we've established there was no way that is possible.

Intel Released the E6600 Jul-2006 for $316. Proof
Intel Released the E6700 Jul-3006 for $530. Proof
AMD Released the AM2 FX-62 May-2006 for $1031. Proof
AMD Released the AM2 X2 5000+ May-2006 for $696. Proof
AMD Released the AM2 X2 4400+ May-2006 for $514. Proof
AMD Released the AM2 X2 3800+ May-2006 for $323. Proof

This shows what AMD's prices were just 2 months before Conroe was released.  So there is no way you bought an X2, motherboard, and RAM for 220 € or $ before Conroe's launch.

The other interesting thing I'd like to point out is that everyone rags on Intel for keeping prices high.  But even though the E6600 was faster than 5000+, and basically just as fast or slightly faster than the FX-62, they priced it at $316.  That is cheaper than even the X2 3800+, and it crushes that processor.  It is actually Intel that forced AMD to lower their prices from ridiculous levels to more something more reasonable.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 17, 2016)

Yeah, it was Sept 2007, 9 month into BC, mia culpa.

Here is the list:

Bezeichnung : Athlon64 X2 4000+
Einzelpreis : 63,55
Gesamtpreis : 63,55
Anzahl      : 1
Bezeichnung : Ultra DIMM 2 GB DDR2-800 Kit
Einzelpreis : 74,34
Gesamtpreis : 74,34
Anzahl      : 1
Bezeichnung : M2A-VM
Einzelpreis : 50,68
Gesamtpreis : 50,68

It actualy was *188.57 Euro* total for GPU + Mainboard + Mem.
I bought it from MIx Computers de, if that matters.



newtekie1 said:


> AMD Released the AM2 FX-62 May-2006 for $1031.





newtekie1 said:


> even though the E6600 was faster than 5000+, and basically just as fast or slightly faster than the FX-62


You conveniently forgot Pentium Extreme Editions, that have actually established the 1k$ price point, that FX-62 thoroughly wiped the floor with.






http://www.anandtech.com/show/2012/9


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 17, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Yeah, it was Sept 2007, 9 month into BC, mia culpa.
> 
> Here is the list:
> 
> ...



So now it has gone from 2004-5, to sometime in 2006 but definitely before Burning Crusade, to it was definitely before Conroe, to now late 2007.  So again I ask you, what you asked me, *do you know what 2004-5 means?*

So, yeah, completely bullshit, like I said.  And by the way, Sep. 2007 was a long while after Conroe was released. I went over this, once Conroe was released AMD had no choice to slash prices.  The E6600 beating their $1000 5000+ and only being priced at $316 forced them to drastically cut prices. In fact, you bought your Athlon X2 after Allendale was released, with the E4300 besting the X2 4600+, and biting at the heals of the 5000+.  All for $163 at launch.  So no wonder you got an X2 4200+ so cheap.

You're cost to buy an Athlon X2 when AMD was not in the lead doesn't help your argument that AMD didn't jack up prices when they were in the lead.



medi01 said:


> You conveniently forgot Pentium Extreme Editions, that have actually established the 1k$ price point, that FX-62 thoroughly wiped the floor with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, I didn't forget them. I clearly said the EE is a niche market that is always overpriced.  Intel might have set the $1000 price point, but AMD is the one that priced non-Extreme processor at that $1k price point. However, Intel's prices in the mainstream market are, and have been, reasonable.


----------



## LemmingOverlord (Feb 18, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> So now it has gone from 2004-5, to sometime in 2006 but definitely before Burning Crusade, to it was definitely before Conroe, to now late 2007.  So again I ask you, what you asked me, *do you know what 2004-5 means?*



To both of you, not singling out anyone: I just want to point out this has gone a bit off-topic (we're no longer debating the specs on Zen and its potential).

Let's move on? mmmmkay?


----------



## medi01 (Feb 18, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Intel might have set the $1000 price point, but AMD is the one that priced non-Extreme processor at that $1k price point


So, AMD is guilty of pricing CPU that was FASTER than competitors 1k$ CPU whopping 1031$. Mind boggling.

4000+ that I bought in Sept 2007 for 74 Euro was released in May 2006.



LemmingOverlord said:


> Let's move on?


Fair enough.
Just checked the "latest FX" vs i5 review. So, what we have now:

1) Intel has single thread IPC lead of about 60% (i7)
2) Intel 14nm Perf/Watt is about 2.2 times better than AMD on 28nm

If AMD achieves 40% IPC increase and Samsung's 14nm allow to cut power consumption in half, we can see competitive low and mid range AMD CPUs. However, AMD still hinting at "even moar coars" makes me worry, they actually won't... =(


PS


newtekie1 said:


> By that logic, Intel should have...


Jeez Christ.... Here is the 999$  Conroe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core#Core_2_Extreme


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 18, 2016)

medi01 said:


> o, AMD is guilty of pricing CPU that was FASTER than competitors 1k$ CPU whopping 1031$. Mind boggling.



By that logic, Intel should have priced the E6600 or E6700 at over $1,000 too, and the E4300 at over $300.  But they didn't.  They easily could have, and kept prices high, but they didn't.



medi01 said:


> 4000+ that I bought in Sept 2007 for 74 Euro was released in May 2006.



I don't see why that matters.



LemmingOverlord said:


> Let's move on? mmmmkay?



Sounds good.


----------



## vega22 (Feb 18, 2016)

DigitalUK said:


> if zen really has 40% ipc over pd it will monster intels current lineup, single thread is a weak point.
> 
> thought I better add the single thread is approx. 40-42% behind the i7-6700k in this quick bench, so if the ipc was on single thread it would be on par with current gen intel and multi thread if improved and I cant imagine why it wouldnt be beyond intels current gen.



zen is ment to be 40% ahead of their latest apu, not the older 8350. based on those loose figures zen will beat skylake clock per clock.


----------



## Super XP (Feb 26, 2016)

Parn said:


> 40% IPC improvement over A10-7870K. Hope this is true as it will definitely bring Zen on par with Haswell at minimum.


40% IPC improvement over Excavator. Based on the actual design of the CPU. Everything else such as the Process Node is extra. I would assume we are looking for as much as 60% if not more versus Excavator.

ZEN should easily compete with Intel's future Gen CPU's, not just Haswell. Skylake no problem and even Cannonlake, which is simply a die shrink of Skylake.



vega22 said:


> zen is ment to be 40% ahead of their latest apu, not the older 8350. based on those loose figures zen will beat skylake clock per clock.


This 40% IPC improvement over Excavator is independent of the process node. That alone is a testament, Skylake may have a difficult time keeping up with ZEN.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 29, 2016)

Super XP said:


> This 40% IPC improvement over Excavator is independent of the process node. That alone is a testament, Skylake may have a difficult time keeping up with ZEN



Let's hope, but news about 32 core chips likely mean that single thread performance is not that great.


----------



## Frick (Feb 29, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Let's hope, but news about 32 core chips likely mean that single thread performance is not that great.



They'd have to reduce the clocks so ... obviously.


----------



## LemmingOverlord (Feb 29, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Let's hope, but news about 32 core chips likely mean that single thread performance is not that great.



For clarity's sake: there are no "32 core" chips, there is a dual 16-core design with a new interconnect which brings everything together. This will probably look like the quad-cores of yore (2x2 instead of 4x1).

Also, 16-core CPUs will certainly have lower clocks than your run-of-the-mill desktop Zen, and the way to make up for that in terms of performance (without changing the chip architecture) is to introduce copious amounts of L3 cache, which is exactly what Intel does with Xeons.

From what I've read around this wonderful web:

the Zen APU parts lack any L3 cache (meaning they'll be roadkill for Intel on single core performance). While I understand the strategy, it means that the APUs will fight an uphill battle, focusing on price rather than on performance.
the Zen server parts are _*expected*_ to carry 8MB of L3 cache per 4-core clusters, meaning a 16-core processor would sport 32MB L3 cache. A little under Intel's Xeons, but still a worthwhile performer if the performance AMD claims isn't BS.
Another of my concerns about Zen is "what niche is it addressing"? By the time Zen is out, Intel will have released its next-gen Grantley-EP Xeons (ES-46xx v3) which will up the ante to 22 cores (44 threads).


----------



## Super XP (Mar 1, 2016)

It's never to late in this industry. Once ZEN is release this yes it will eventually replace AMD'S entire line of Desktop CPU's and APU's. 

And why are people worried about Single Threading Performance on ZEN? ZEN is not Bulldozer. ZEN should have the ability to outperform it's competition in both Multithreading and Single Threading real world performance.  

ZEN I am brand new design built by one of the world's best CPU Architect.


----------



## LemmingOverlord (Mar 1, 2016)

Super XP said:


> And why are people worried about Single Threading Performance on ZEN? ZEN is not Bulldozer. ZEN should have the ability to outperform it's competition in both Multithreading and Single Threading real world performance.



People will stop worrying about single thread performance on Zen, the day AMD actually delivers what it promises.

IMHO: When a company overstates its CPU features and performance like it has repeatedly done, for the sole sake of a misguided product strategy which is framed by financial KPIs and exec bonus payouts, any expectations on Zen's final performance is strictly BS.


----------



## xfia (Mar 1, 2016)

idk what you guys are going on here but zen wont be faster per core but it will probably be better at multithreading and the lack of l3 means nothing at all with the arch


----------



## Kanan (Mar 1, 2016)

xfia said:


> idk what you guys are going on here but zen wont be faster per core but it will probably be better at multithreading and the lack of l3 means nothing at all with the arch


Only APU will lack L3 because the space is needed for the GPU, afait(heorize).


----------



## Super XP (Mar 2, 2016)

LemmingOverlord said:


> People will stop worrying about single thread performance on Zen, the day AMD actually delivers what it promises.
> 
> IMHO: When a company overstates its CPU features and performance like it has repeatedly done, for the sole sake of a misguided product strategy which is framed by financial KPIs and exec bonus payouts, any expectations on Zen's final performance is strictly BS.


Bulldozer was BS. That Design was the one they over stated. 
ZEN is a different Story. AMD is not foolish enough to pull off the same thing. ZEN is life and death of this company. That's why they are not BS'ing.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 27, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> AMD still playing catch up.
> A 40% improvement in IPC will still leave them behind Intel.



Not necessarily. That 40% improvement is independent of the process node. It's based on the physical design of the chip clock for clock. The process node and any other chip/ chip-set improvements will be added to that 40% gain.
Theoretically, we could be looking at 50% to 60% IPC improvement, if not more.



medi01 said:


> Let's hope, but news about 32 core chips likely mean that single thread performance is not that great.



There's no basis to your reasoning it seems. 32 Core Chips or Multi-CPU platforms are needed for Servers and Workstations. I don't believe we will see 32 Core Chips for performance desktop setups. 
What interests me is ZEN's Quad-Channel memory interface. It's about bloody time. Based on what I've read about ZEN, this will surely be my next major upgrade.


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 27, 2016)

Super XP said:


> Theoretically, we could be looking at 50% to 60% IPC improvement, if not more.


Can't really say that because IPC is short for instructions per clock, so you can't count in potential clock difference and still call the metric IPC.
Nevertheless, I predict Zen won't be clocked higher than bulldozer (they went up to 5 GHz stock ffs) but much less power hungry and all performance gains will come from extra floating point units, shorter pipeline (lesser branch missprediction penalty), sound cache hierarchy, better instruction scheduler and memory controller.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 27, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> Can't really say that because IPC is short for instructions per clock, so you can't count in potential clock difference and still call the metric IPC.
> Nevertheless, I predict Zen won't be clocked higher than bulldozer (they went up to 5 GHz stock ffs) but much less power hungry and all performance gains will come from extra floating point units, shorter pipeline (lesser branch missprediction penalty), sound cache hierarchy, better instruction scheduler and memory controller.


Fair enough.  
Either way, hopefully ZEN pulls a rabbit of it hat an surprises us all.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 31, 2016)

Hopefully we get some Samples of this Monster Chip that should save this company and bring them back into head strong competition. My PC is dying for a ZEN upgrade.


----------



## Super XP (Apr 11, 2016)

Just seen it says supports 8 Channels. Does this mean the new ZEN will have Quad Channel Memory Controller or a 8 Channel one? Just Curious.


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 11, 2016)

8 channels is 8 channels.


----------



## ZeDestructor (Apr 11, 2016)

Super XP said:


> Just seen it says supports 8 Channels. Does this mean the new ZEN will have Quad Channel Memory Controller or a 8 Channel one? Just Curious.





Caring1 said:


> 8 channels is 8 channels.



Calm your excitement guys, you won't be seeing 8 DDR4 channels in consumer parts, else AMD platforms would already be shipping quad-channel like the server parts (Opterons on Socket G34, since 2010) right now.


----------

