# AMD Demos Breakthrough Performance of the ZEN CPU Core



## btarunr (Aug 18, 2016)

At an event last night in San Francisco, AMD provided additional architectural details and a first look at the performance of its next-generation, high-performance "Zen" processor core. AMD demonstrated the "Zen" core achieving a 40% generational improvement in instructions per clock, delivering a landmark increase in processor performance.

During the event, AMD demonstrated an 8-core, 16-thread "Summit Ridge" desktop processor (featuring AMD's "Zen" core) outperforming a similarly configured 8-core, 16-thread Intel "Broadwell-E" processor when running the multi-threaded Blender rendering software with both CPUs set to the same clock speed. AMD also conducted the first public demonstration of its upcoming 32-core, 64-thread "Zen"-based server processor, codenamed "Naples," in a dual processor server running the Windows Server operating system.



 

 

 




"The performance and efficiency of our 'Zen' core showcases AMD at its best," said Dr. Lisa Su, president and CEO of AMD. "Over the last four years we have made significant investments to develop a high-performance, multi-generation CPU roadmap that will power leadership products. Customer excitement for 'Zen' continues to grow as we make significant progress towards the launch of new products that will span from the datacenter to high-end PCs."

The "Zen" processor core features multiple architectural advances designed to increase the performance, throughput, and efficiency of AMD's future products. "Zen" is based on a clean-sheet design and features a new cache hierarchy, improved branch prediction and simultaneous multithreading (SMT). These advances will allow the "Zen" core to scale to meet the needs of a broad range of applications, including fanless 2-in-1s, embedded systems, high-performance computing, and the datacenter.



 

"An engineer may get one chance in their career to work on a project of this size and scope, and maybe never one with as much potential to impact the future as much as 'Zen,'" said Mark Papermaster, senior vice president and chief technology officer at AMD. "With 'Zen' we aim to do what many never thought possible - deliver a 40 percent generational improvement in instructions per clock while maintaining power requirements in line with our previous generation technology."

"AMD invested where it counts, with an x86 core that can scale from PCs to high-performance servers," said Linley Gwennap, principal analyst, Linley Group. "Consumers today expect to get the most out of their systems to create transformative experiences. The versatile design of 'Zen' delivers highly-efficient performance that should provide increased computing capabilities across the spectrum - from devices to cloud computing."



 

Expected to launch first, the "Zen"-based "Summit Ridge" desktops will utilize the AMD AM4 socket, a new unified socket infrastructure that is compatible with 7th Generation AMD A-Series desktop processors - previously codenamed "Bristol Ridge" - for exceptional performance and connectivity scalability required by AMD partners and customers. The first desktop systems featuring 7th Generation AMD A-Series processors and new AM4 sockets are scheduled to ship in the second half of 2016 in OEM PC designs.

With dedicated PCIe lanes for cutting-edge USB, graphics, data and other I/O, the AMD AM4 platform will not steal lanes from other devices and components. This allows users to enjoy systems with improved responsiveness and benefit from future-ready technologies that the AM4 platform provides with a powerful, scalable and reliable computing solution.

AMD AM4 platform key technology features include: 
 DDR4 Memory
 PCIe Gen 3
 USB 3.1 Gen2 10Gbps
 NVMe
 SATA Express
Additional "Zen" architectural features will be detailed next week in a presentation at Hot Chips 28.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## natr0n (Aug 18, 2016)

I'm really excited for this cpu.


----------



## Estaric (Aug 18, 2016)

Well dang if the reviews turn out good sign me up


----------



## Disparia (Aug 18, 2016)

Cool.


----------



## Jism (Aug 18, 2016)

This thing just blew intel's latest 8core/16threads CPU as seen on 










AMD IS BACK BABY!


----------



## KarymidoN (Aug 18, 2016)

That's the problem with AMD, it always tries to match the Current Intel processors, while Intel always tries to overcome the processors that are already on the market. Zen will be another generation of weak and poorly optimized processors that will only pay off in overclock (I'm an AMD User for over 3 years).


----------



## Nokiron (Aug 18, 2016)

Jism said:


> This thing just blew intel's latest 8core/16threads CPU as seen on
> 
> AMD IS BACK BABY!


You should cool down the hype and wait for reviews, like every other release..

There was an asterix with this, since they matched the frequency which meant downclocking the Intel.

The most worrying thing is the lack of numbers for single-threaded performance, which still is the biggest part for general computing.


----------



## Mathragh (Aug 18, 2016)

While surpassing Intel using the same amount of cores and threads in any benchmark at all is an achievement worthy of much praise, the fact that they showcased the performance at equal clocks could mean a potential deficiency in clockspeed on AMDs side compared to Intels competing chips.
Much of the rumor mill has been spewing out signs that would suggest the same, which would fit the alledged current state of Globalfoundries' 14nm process (if they are building Zen at GF at all, some rumors also suggest AMD using TSMC for Zen instead).


----------



## Kevin King (Aug 18, 2016)

Hmm, the Broadwell-e was clocked wayyy below it's normal clock speed, 3.0GHz versus what it's sold as, 3.7GHz. This tells me that Summit Ridge likely won't be clocked at a similar frequency to Broadwell-E, otherwise they would've shown that comparison, right? It's exciting, sure, but if it's not able to match the clock rate of Intel, I'm not exactly hyped...


----------



## Jism (Aug 18, 2016)

Nokiron said:


> You should cool down the hype and wait for reviews, like every other release..
> 
> There was an asterix with this, since they matched the frequency which meant downclocking the Intel.
> 
> The most worrying thing is the lack of numbers for single-threaded performance, which still is the biggest part for general computing.



Does'nt matter. If a 3GHz 8/16 ZEN beats a 3GHz 8/16 Broadwell-e CPU then the goal of AMD is done. It means that we consumers and businesses will have the pick on latest AMD cpu's for far better prices, meaning intel will lower their prices as well.


----------



## 64K (Aug 18, 2016)

I hope AMD does well with Zen but I'm waiting on the reviews as well.


----------



## natr0n (Aug 18, 2016)

Jism said:


> This thing just blew intel's latest 8core/16threads CPU as seen on
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nothing more needs to be said now.
Queue the haters...3.2.1


----------



## Nokiron (Aug 18, 2016)

Jism said:


> Does'nt matter. If a 3GHz 8/16 ZEN beats a 3GHz 8/16 Broadwell-e CPU then the goal of AMD is done. It means that we consumers and businesses will have the pick on latest AMD cpu's for far better prices, meaning intel bill lower their prices as well.


Sure, you keep believing that. One specific scenario which is obviously best case (why would they otherwise show it?) judges the complete performance.

Again, cool down the hype.

Im all down for buying high-end Zen if it performs similarly, but I really doubt it.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 18, 2016)

Man i been waiting for this


----------



## Jism (Aug 18, 2016)

Nokiron said:


> Sure, you keep believing that. One specific scenario which is obviously best case (why would they otherwise show it?) judges the complete performance.
> 
> Again, cool down the hype.
> 
> Im all down for buying high-end Zen if it performs similarly, but I really doubt it.



It's always never enough with you people. They go core to core thread to thread clock to clock, on a bench that is HIGLY reliant on all cores / threads. Outcome is that AMD finishes up that test FASTER then Intel's counterchip. I dont think they would be clocking down that intel chip by putting the bclk down, slower memory speeds and all but simply set for a 30x MP and not 37x.

Bottom point is is that AMD actually offers something with raw power that COMPETES with intel's 8c/16t CPU worth 1000$.


----------



## fullinfusion (Aug 18, 2016)

good for AMD, I'm happy they got a wonderful CPU that's a fast bastard...

I've been waiting to dam long for this and been with Intel for a while and really.... gawd I hope they pull this off!!

Edit @Jism don't say (  you ppl ) there isn't a can of troll spry big enough to ease there FH's


----------



## m1dg3t (Aug 18, 2016)

Nice! Now give me an enthusiast class iTX MoBo to go along with it so i can rid myself of Intel.


----------



## RealNeil (Aug 18, 2016)

I can't wait for the reviews to start rolling in on these things. If they're good, I will buy one.


----------



## Nokiron (Aug 18, 2016)

Jism said:


> It's always never enough with you people. They go core to core thread to thread clock to clock, on a bench that is HIGLY reliant on all cores / threads. Outcome is that AMD finishes up that test FASTER then Intel's counterchip. I dont think they would be clocking down that intel chip by putting the bclk down, slower memory speeds and all but simply set for a 30x MP and not 37x.
> 
> Bottom point is is that AMD actually offers something with raw power that COMPETES with intel's 8c/16t CPU worth 1000$.


Never enough? I think you got that backwards. 

Why would they use anything but the multiplier? How do you know this won't be just as expensive or just barely cheaper?

What we do know though, like going to a 128-bit FPU instead of Intels 256-bit is quite the compromise. This will lower performance in certain applications.

Again don't hype this up just yet, there are too many unknowns for this.


----------



## Jism (Aug 18, 2016)

Nokiron said:


> Never enough? I think you got that backwards.
> 
> Why would they use anything but the multiplier? How do you know this won't be just as expensive or just barely cheaper?
> 
> ...



I'll qoute you for this and whenever Wizzard gets his hands on a ZEN cpu and it proves that it actually competes or is even better i'll haunt you till the end of days in these forums. Kthx.


----------



## Nokiron (Aug 18, 2016)

Jism said:


> I'll qoute you for this and whenever Wizzard gets his hands on a ZEN cpu and it proves that it actually competes or is even better i'll haunt you till the end of days in these forums. Kthx.


Because im not overhyping products? What kind of logic is this?

What if it doesn't?


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 18, 2016)

Kevin King said:


> Hmm, the Broadwell-e was clocked wayyy below it's normal clock speed, 3.0GHz versus what it's sold as, 3.7GHz. This tells me that Summit Ridge likely won't be clocked at a similar frequency to Broadwell-E, otherwise they would've shown that comparison, right? It's exciting, sure, but if it's not able to match the clock rate of Intel, I'm not exactly hyped...


http://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz
Processor base frequency is 3.2, so they didn't have to down clock it much, and turning off turbo boost stops it from reaching its max of 4GHz.


----------



## rhythmeister (Aug 18, 2016)

Jism said:


> This thing just blew intel's latest 8core/16threads CPU as seen on
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Blew it or blew it away?


----------



## alucasa (Aug 18, 2016)

Nokiron said:


> Because im not overhyping products? What kind of logic is this?
> 
> What if it doesn't?



Neutrals can use logic. Fanboys cannot.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 18, 2016)

I wonder if they it will be priced around $1000? Since the intel is around $1500 AUS


----------



## Steevo (Aug 18, 2016)

Im going to guess they locked the processors both at 3.0Ghz and turned off all boost features on both to make sure they were an apples to apples comparison, or maybe that is where the boost algorithm of both would allow either to reach the same clock speeds.


I hope this is true, and await some more reviews of the chips. I hope as well that they are using TSMC or someone else to make the performance Zen cores for the obvious performance and power benefits , but perhaps GloFlo will be able to make them cheaper so instead of paying through the nose for a chip with low yields and limited availability, we can have a good old fashioned price war again.



Kevin King said:


> Hmm, the Broadwell-e was clocked wayyy below it's normal clock speed, 3.0GHz versus what it's sold as, 3.7GHz. This tells me that Summit Ridge likely won't be clocked at a similar frequency to Broadwell-E, otherwise they would've shown that comparison, right? It's exciting, sure, but if it's not able to match the clock rate of Intel, I'm not exactly hyped...



http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117645


Um, no. Intel 140W at 3.2Ghz with 3.7 boost on a over $10000 chip. 

Would I take a chip that can only reach 3.0Ghz at 140W out of the box for $500? All day long.


----------



## alexsubri (Aug 18, 2016)

I've been waiting patiently since I had my AMD 965 BE @ 3.8Ghz -> FX 6300 -> FX 8370. 

Good thing I just bought some shares too in AMD because I have a good feeling that Zen will make heads roll. 

Intel has amazing chips, but its good to see AMD stepping up the bar again and making the CPU market more competative. Granted reviews are great, I won't mind it if it beats or is on par with the $1,000 Intel CPU. This is great because the AMD Zen will probably retail between $200-$350. Looks like I will be upgrading Q1 2017!


----------



## Pumper (Aug 18, 2016)

You guys need a history lesson?

https://www.techpowerup.com/138328/bulldozer-50-faster-than-core-i7-and-phenom-ii


----------



## ZoneDymo (Aug 18, 2016)

KarymidoN said:


> That's the problem with AMD, it always tries to match the Current Intel processors, while Intel always tries to overcome the processors that are already on the market. Zen will be another generation of weak and poorly optimized processors that will only pay off in overclock (I'm an AMD User for over 3 years).



Well there is a lot more to that statement.
1. AMD has overcome its processors with this by a mile it seems.
2. AMD tried something new/different with Bulldozer which in the end did not really pay off, but I can only applaud the effort, I wish a lot LOT more developers of everything would try different new technologies.
(Intel project larrabee for real time ray tracing, where is my real time raytracing, why is everything polygons for forever now since we used to have other tech as well like Vector graphics, explore damn it, explore!)
3. Intel only has to overcome its own processors and with all due respect barely has done that since the 2600k probably because of the lack of competition but that does not change that fact.


----------



## Jism (Aug 18, 2016)

Pumper said:


> You guys need a history lesson?
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/138328/bulldozer-50-faster-than-core-i7-and-phenom-ii



That source was relatively unknown, and now we have actual video, 2 systems, hopefully identical, and still showing it actually outperforms a 1000$ CPU of intel.

I'm pretty confident that the ZEN will compete, if not now then in any other second refresh of those ZEN CPU's. The baseline is set. They need to work, refine and perfect that design.


----------



## alucasa (Aug 18, 2016)

I am keen on Zen, mainly because it will bring competition and 4 core for mainstream taboo could be broken.

Due to my PC usage, rendering, I am close on pulling trigger on purchasing 5820K or an 12core ES Xeon chip from China with a X99 board.

If Zen is even remoteply competitive with Broadwell-E with a clear price advantage, it's somethig I'd consider. However, I will not trust any claims and benchmarks from either camp because the history has shown they can never be trusted especially AMD claims.
I want reviews from several independent websites and make my own conclusion before pulling the trigger.

Which means this AMD's demo is like water off a duck's back.


----------



## rhythmeister (Aug 18, 2016)

m1dg3t said:


> Nice! Now give me an enthusiast class iTX MoBo to go along with it so i can rid myself of Intel.


I hear ya! I'm still using an old Athlon II X4 in a Shuttle SN78SH7 but it must be upgrade time soon.


----------



## noname00 (Aug 18, 2016)

Jism said:


> It's always never enough with you people. They go core to core thread to thread clock to clock, on a bench that is HIGLY reliant on all cores / threads. Outcome is that AMD finishes up that test FASTER then Intel's counterchip. I dont think they would be clocking down that intel chip by putting the bclk down, slower memory speeds and all but simply set for a 30x MP and not 37x.
> 
> Bottom point is is that AMD actually offers something with raw power that COMPETES with intel's 8c/16t CPU worth 1000$.



All we know so far is that a Zen processor clocked at 3 GHz has marginally better performance in one application than an underclocked intel CPU with the same number of cores and threads. We don't know anything about the rest of the configuration used by both processors (first of all the memory configuration). Until we will have an official review and the price for the new processors, we actually don't know anything.

I hope they will deliver what they have promised, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Pumper (Aug 18, 2016)

Jism said:


> That source was relatively unknown, and now we have actual video, 2 systems, hopefully identical, and still showing it actually outperforms a 1000$ CPU of intel.
> 
> I'm pretty confident that the ZEN will compete, if not now then in any other second refresh of those ZEN CPU's. The baseline is set. They need to work, refine and perfect that design.



Even if the performance is real, why do you think that AMD will be selling these CPUs cheaper than Intel's equivalents? They won't (current AMD CPUs are cheap because their performance sucks ass).


----------



## Nokiron (Aug 18, 2016)

Steevo said:


> Um, no. Intel 140W at 3.2Ghz with 3.7 boost on a over $10000 chip.


Just to nitpick, it's 4Ghz not 3,7. Turbo Boost 3.0.
http://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz


----------



## Melvis (Aug 18, 2016)

Pumper said:


> Even if the performance is real, why do you think that AMD will be selling these CPUs cheaper than Intel's equivalents? They won't (current AMD CPUs are cheap because their performance sucks ass).



Because AMD always have no matter what! even when AMD was king of the hill they still sold there CPU's cheaper.

I think you are the one that needs a history lesson


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 18, 2016)

Nokiron said:


> Just to nitpick, it's 4Ghz not 3,7. Turbo Boost 3.0.
> http://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz


I posted this on the previous page, he obviously didn't read the thread and was eager to post his opinion.


----------



## rhythmeister (Aug 18, 2016)

Pumper said:


> Even if the performance is real, why do you think that AMD will be selling these CPUs cheaper than Intel's equivalents? They won't (current AMD CPUs are cheap because their performance sucks ass).


Sucks ass? My 4 year old FX6300 that cost me £100 STILL let's me play all current games at their highest settings combined with a GTX 1060 and it's even cheaper now!


----------



## alexsubri (Aug 18, 2016)

Pumper said:


> Even if the performance is real, why do you think that AMD will be selling these CPUs cheaper than Intel's equivalents? They won't (current AMD CPUs are cheap because their performance sucks ass).



Because that's where the consumer market share is. The sweet spot is around the $250-$350 price point.


----------



## alucasa (Aug 18, 2016)

Melvis said:


> Because AMD always have no matter what! even when AMD was king of the hill they still sold there CPU's cheaper.



Not by much if my memories serve me correctly.

I used to own AMD 4x4 platform and its CPUs were as much as (but were cheaper, yes) Intel's Pentium Xtreme edition CPU.


----------



## Jism (Aug 18, 2016)

Pumper said:


> Even if the performance is real, why do you think that AMD will be selling these CPUs cheaper than Intel's equivalents? They won't (current AMD CPUs are cheap because their performance sucks ass).



Where is current ZEN CPU pricing? how would you know? We only know there's a various TDP enveloppe starting from 35W up to 95W and perhaps a FX with 125/140W TDP.

On the other hand, it's useless to make CPU for upper high-end market alone. It's on the low and mid end where the 'good stuff' happens. Where the main consumers and businesses are who need a decent computer.

Just as the RX 480, sitting on 220$ up to 260$ avg still offering -5 to -10% performance compared to the much more expensive 1060.


----------



## alexsubri (Aug 18, 2016)

rhythmeister said:


> Sucks ass? My 4 year old FX6300 that cost me £100 STILL let's me play all current games at their highest settings combined with a GTX 1060 and it's even cheaper now!



I agree with this. I had my 6300 @ 4.3-4.5ghz for 5 months until I've upgraded to 27'' 2560x1400 GYSNC 144Hz monitor. It would bottleneck like crazy. But at 1080p the 6300 does wonders. I agree with you on that. As for myself, I just got the 8370 @ 4.5ghz (since Zen will be more mainstream come Q1 2017). The 8370 with 16GB Ram, GTX1070 plays A LOT of games amazingly at ultra settings in 1400p resolutions. I was surprised. There is a little bit of bottleneck, but no where close to what I would experience with the 6300


----------



## noname00 (Aug 18, 2016)

rhythmeister said:


> Sucks ass? My 4 year old FX6300 that cost me £100 STILL let's me play all current games at their highest settings combined with a GTX 1060 and it's even cheaper now!



If you become GPU limited, then yes, the FX6300 is enough.


----------



## efikkan (Aug 18, 2016)

I'm not aboard the hype train, but I'm hoping AMD will finally help make real 8-cores mainstream. It's not expected that Zen will match Intel in overall performance, but I'm hoping AMD will compete in the mid-range desktop segment.

Higly clocked 8+ cores from Intel is too expensive today, but models with low clocks are actually bargains already, like the E5-2630 V4 2.2 GHz, 10 cores at $667 or the E5-2620 V4 2.1 GHz, 8 cores at $417.


----------



## Nokiron (Aug 18, 2016)

Melvis said:


> Because AMD always have no matter what! even when AMD was king of the hill they still sold there CPU's cheaper.


I remember the X2 4800+ was more expensive than the Pentium 965EE


----------



## alucasa (Aug 18, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Higly clocked 8+ cores from Intel is too expensive today, but models with low clocks are actually bargains already, like the E5-2630 V4 2.2 GHz, 10 cores at $667 or the E5-2620 V4 2.1 GHz, 8 cores at $417.



If you are willing to risk, take 50% off that on Chinese ES chips.


----------



## efikkan (Aug 18, 2016)

alucasa said:


> If you are willing to risk, take 50% off that on Chinese ES chips.


Which is also illegal, BTW.


----------



## HD64G (Aug 18, 2016)

Anyone who doesn't want Zen to compete to Intel's offerings is a blue fanboy. Anyone wishing the Zen to succeed is either a red fanboy or a customer waiting for better products and lower prices.


----------



## alucasa (Aug 18, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Which is also illegal, BTW.



Doesn't matter to me. I've used ES chips from Conroe era. Not always but at times when my wallet was thinner.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 18, 2016)

System picture here - http://hothardware.com/gallery/Article/2515?image=big_amd-summit-ridge-8-core-zen-system.jpg

Very odd SATA port placement of at least two of the ports.


----------



## Pumper (Aug 18, 2016)

HD64G said:


> Anyone who doesn't want Zen to compete to Intel's offerings is a blue fanboy. Anyone wishing the Zen to succeed is either a red fanboy or a customer waiting for better products and lower prices.



I doubt that there's anyone who does not want good CPUs from AMD. We just don't trust their claims, because they have shown time and again to be untrustworthy when it comes to pre-release performance figures.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 18, 2016)

Nokiron said:


> Just to nitpick, it's 4Ghz not 3,7. Turbo Boost 3.0.
> http://ark.intel.com/products/94196/Intel-Core-i7-6900K-Processor-20M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz




Yes, if you install the TBD 3.0 driver and have a board that supports it, and only for some cores if they are efficient enough, and only during single threaded applications running.

So all else being equal, in modern games that utilize 4 cores or more, 3.7 is as high as it will go under the right conditions, and if all cores are fully loaded and the TDP is hit it may be 3.2Ghz for all cores.


But the big gripe against AMD has been

1) IPC
2) cache latency
3) pipeline stalls
4) math performance
5) Power consumption


For years its been, pick one, and we will improve that some. Now they seem **SEEM** to have fixed their issue and are trying to show that clock for clock against a current generation Intel, they are faster in a real world scenario/benchmark that is common.




Caring1 said:


> I posted this on the previous page, he obviously didn't read the thread and was eager to post his opinion.



I did miss your comment. I was busy looking up exactly what you had posted to see if AMD was using biased hardware and software to show their offering better.


----------



## Jism (Aug 18, 2016)

TheLostSwede said:


> System picture here - http://hothardware.com/gallery/Article/2515?image=big_amd-summit-ridge-8-core-zen-system.jpg
> 
> Very odd SATA port placement of at least two of the ports.



Looks like engineering-board. It's up to vendors such as Asus, Gigabyte and all on how they make their boards look.


----------



## Fx (Aug 18, 2016)

I have been waiting for years to build a new gaming rig. It will be Zen-powered.


----------



## dwade (Aug 18, 2016)

Couldn't care less about clock for clock comparison since they are 2 different architectures. Only metric that matters is performance per watt.


----------



## iO (Aug 18, 2016)

Still waiting for someone to comment: "They used the open sourced Blender so they can cripple the code on the Intel system!!!1!"


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 18, 2016)

Good for AMD, if this all turns out to be completely true.  One thing I still await is how its going to be clocked and how it overclocks.  However, if it is a little below it when overclocked and at stock yet a much lower price it will be a game changer since the 8 core/16 thread CPU's from Intel cost quite alot.  Still though, this needs to do well otherwise they may not have a chance to recover.


----------



## lanlagger (Aug 18, 2016)

"oh it is lsower than broadwelll because it is 3.0 ghz, but broadwell goes..." lets clear one thing - performance dos NOT matter! what matter is price/performance in a segment... till this day AMD had nothing in i3 and above segment - so intel only competed with him self (tried to lure in someone to upgrade their older intel system - for basically no gains)... now I do not believe that 8c/16t zen will compete with 8c/16 broadwell... but you damn right it will compete with 4c/8t i7's and anything below... and it looks good for AMD - because prices are also inflated (slowly) in that segment too... and forget about product pricing as "welll - there is costs and RD, and sales expenses then we add up all this , plus taxes, logistics etc" - that is what they tell you, but in reality it is more like:  "so we have a product... now how high can we push the prices so potential clients will still buy? what are competittion prices?" 
AMD will give us noting for free ( it wont sell us 4c/8t i7 killer for existing FX price), but it will make intel get back to earth with his pricing... look how out of hand intel got with his latest HEDT - zero gains (even overclocks worse than previous gen) and price bumps from +10 to +60%... why? - obviously not  because "RD, taxes, logistics and production" and other bs, because it is not even the latest artchitecture and same architecture in xenon line did not receive any price bumps (but still got some performance bumps because of core count increase)


----------



## Fouquin (Aug 18, 2016)

Melvis said:


> Because AMD always have no matter what! even when AMD was king of the hill they still sold there CPU's cheaper.
> 
> I think you are the one that needs a history lesson



Sorry, but you are completely and provably wrong. Here's a wonderful price breakdown from June 2005, a year after AMD launched the 939 FX chips, showing their less-than consumer friendly pricing structure when they were on top in performance:


----------



## noname00 (Aug 18, 2016)

iO said:


> Still waiting for someone to comment: "They used the open sourced Blender so they can cripple the code on the Intel system!!!1!"



There are plenty of ways to cripple the Intel CPU. They can use DDR4 memory in single or dual channel mode, clocked at 1000 MHz and CL16 instead of quad channel at 2400 MHz and CL14. Or they could just simply lie about the frequencies used, as no frequency was showed at all in the video. 

Let's just wait for Zen to be launched, and to see some actual reviews. That's what I will be doing. Kaby Lake and Zen shootout.

I also want to see how the quad core version performs.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 18, 2016)

Fouquin said:


> Sorry, but you are completely and provably wrong. Here's a wonderful price breakdown from June 2005, a year after AMD launched the 939 FX chips, showing their less-than consumer friendly pricing structure when they were on top in performance:
> 
> View attachment 78006



Erm no, hate to tell you and about 10 000 other people on this forum will tell you just the same thing that AMD was cheaper on the 939 socket, the FX57 and 60 was around $1000-$1200 and the Pentium EE was around $1500 AUS, its just a fact 

Anyone can post a pic like you did that is from god knows what source, and from even before launch date where in actual fact I never saw any CPU from AMD (price to performance comparison) be more then Intel.


----------



## noname00 (Aug 18, 2016)

Fouquin said:


> Sorry, but you are completely and provably wrong. Here's a wonderful price breakdown from June 2005, a year after AMD launched the 939 FX chips, showing their less-than consumer friendly pricing structure when they were on top in performance:
> 
> View attachment 78006



Thank you.


----------



## Fouquin (Aug 18, 2016)

Melvis said:


> Erm no, hate to tell you and about 10 000 other people on this forum will tell you just the same thing that AMD was cheaper on the 939 socket, the FX57 and 60 was around $1000-$1200 and the Pentium EE was around $1500 AUS, its just a fact
> 
> Anyone can post a pic like you did that is from god knows what source, and from even before launch date where in actual fact I never saw any CPU from AMD (price to performance comparison) be more then Intel.



It's just a completely unsupported fact, or no wait that's called a conjecture. Also, we're not discussing AUS pricing, we're discussing USD pricing. Your pricing system is never a reflection of retail costs in the US, nothing against Australia but you almost never see proper retail pricing on anything.


----------



## Nokiron (Aug 18, 2016)

Melvis said:


> Erm no, hate to tell you and about 10 000 other people on this forum will tell you just the same thing that AMD was cheaper on the 939 socket, the FX57 and 60 was around $1000-$1200 and the Pentium EE was around $1500 AUS, its just a fact
> 
> Anyone can post a pic like you did that is from god knows what source, and from even before launch date where in actual fact I never saw any CPU from AMD (price to performance comparison) be more then Intel.


965EE was cheaper here, not by much. As said though, MSRP was lower.

That source is rechreport.


----------



## Grings (Aug 18, 2016)

nobody gave a shit about the flagship overpriced processors from either platform back then, as they could overclock the cheap ones easier


----------



## Fouquin (Aug 18, 2016)

Grings said:


> nobody gave a shit about the flagship overpriced processors from either platform back then, as they could overclock the cheap ones easier



Everybody gave a shit because it jacked prices on the cheaper chips.


----------



## acperience7 (Aug 18, 2016)

Gotta admit, I'm on the hype train with this one. I'm itching for a full system upgrade.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 18, 2016)

Still has roughly half the cache of the Intel chips out right now. I'm betting these will compete, but not quite beat them overall.  It has me worried that they limited it to 3ghz, I wonder how they will clock.


----------



## alexsubri (Aug 18, 2016)

AMD Stocks are rising up to ~5% today! Glad I bought my shares cheap ^___^


----------



## OneMoar (Aug 18, 2016)

remember people don't trust AMD they have a history of creative truth bending

watch for real and proper benchmarks before believing a single syllable of anything they say

multi thread benchmarks are a *TRAP *it doesn't show what the real performance improvement are and makes AMD's chips look really good


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Aug 18, 2016)

well.. finally. this looks very promising but truth be told, with no independent reviews this is just hype. i really hope AMD did it right this time.


----------



## OneMoar (Aug 18, 2016)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> well.. finally. this looks very promising but truth be told, with no independent reviews this is just hype. i really hope AMD did it right this time.


I doubt it the last so called 'leaked' benchmark was ashes and we all know how much that (and I use this term very loosely)`game` favors lots of threads
theres been no superpi or luxmark single thread or cinbench


----------



## Jism (Aug 18, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> remember people don't trust AMD they have a history of creative truth bending
> 
> watch for real and proper benchmarks before believing a single syllable of anything they say
> 
> multi thread benchmarks are a *TRAP *it doesn't show what the real performance improvement are and makes AMD's chips look really good



Then what is a solid test then? If anyone is buying an 8 core intel or AMD equivalent, it's not for their single-core-performance but their multithreaded, where maximum amount of cores and / or threads count, not just 2 or 4 cores alone.

AMD did a test, and proved, clock by clock to be a little faster then a recent Broadwell-E model running on 3Ghz. Now how that test has performed does'nt really matter. You cant really cheat a multi-threaded test unless you cripple some cores, multipliers and choice of memory. If AMD does that in order to make the AMD product look better, then they will fail eventually and proberly be sued for promissing something they did'nt deliver.

Architect on K10 (Jim keller) was lead on that project for a few years. They defenitly know what they are doing my friend.


----------



## alexsubri (Aug 18, 2016)

Here is the YouTube demo of Zen playing the new Deus Ex @ 4k resolution with an R9 GPU.

[youtube]







[/youtube]


----------



## OneMoar (Aug 18, 2016)

alexsubri said:


> Here is the YouTube demo of Zen playing the new Deus Ex @ 4k resolution with an R9 GPU.
> 
> [youtube]
> 
> ...


O look a DX12 title where cpu performance doesn't matter nearly as much

don't be dense people

always assume that AMD(or any vendor) is lying they have a history of it they are not to be trusted they are guilty until proven innocent
full stop on that hype train please


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Aug 18, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> I doubt it the last so called 'leaked' benchmark was ashes and we all know how much that (and I use this term very loosely)`game` favors lots of threads
> theres been no superpi or luxmark single thread or cinbench


look, even marketing idiocy has its limits, there has to be some truth at least. i doubt that zen will be faster, but imo it will be within 10% of the corresponding intel counterpart. at this point that will have to do.


----------



## TRWOV (Aug 18, 2016)

Well, this was pleasantly unexpected  

The only drawbacks I think Zen will have is that the CPUs will sport a higher TDP; I'm thinking about 165w for a 8C/16T part at 3.2Ghz or so. I'm pretty sure AMD is brute forcing all of this performance for the time being and will later be refined. Maybe I'll pick up the revised Zen.


----------



## OneMoar (Aug 18, 2016)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> look, even marketing idiocy has its limits, there has to be some truth at least. i doubt that zen will be faster, but imo it will be within 10% of the corresponding intel counterpart. at this point that will have to do.



I hope so but don't count on it and certainly don't give anybody any money until you see numbers


----------



## alucasa (Aug 18, 2016)

It's simple really.

Make judgement - *after* - it's released, not *before*.


----------



## Jism (Aug 18, 2016)

"We are on par with our performance targets"

Sums about it. And if anyone has any doubts about that blender render, please count the time from the moment that button was pressed until that bench finished up. Compare results to other systems and do your own math.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 18, 2016)

alexsubri said:


> AMD Stocks are rising up to ~5% today! Glad I bought my shares cheap ^___^



Sell them before the review sites do their independent analysis. It'll be the best AMD CPU for a long time, no doubts but I think the people (evil speculators and shysters) who make the main play with stocks will not like it's performance.


----------



## alucasa (Aug 18, 2016)

Jism said:


> And if anyone has any doubts about that blender render, please count the time from the moment that button was pressed until that bench finished up. Compare results to other systems and do your own math.



As someone who uses Blender everyday, I can tell you that it's really easy to rig the rendering time. For a simple image like in the Youtube, 500 sample render will look identical to 5,000 sample render.


----------



## evernessince (Aug 18, 2016)

Kevin King said:


> Hmm, the Broadwell-e was clocked wayyy below it's normal clock speed, 3.0GHz versus what it's sold as, 3.7GHz. This tells me that Summit Ridge likely won't be clocked at a similar frequency to Broadwell-E, otherwise they would've shown that comparison, right? It's exciting, sure, but if it's not able to match the clock rate of Intel, I'm not exactly hyped...



We can't say for sure yet.  I doubt AMD's current samples will be the final result.  The last benchmark with Zen we saw was clocked at 2.8 Ghz so they obviously managed to increase the clock speed.  Even without the same clock speed this  would mean AMD is competitive again.  All they need to do is release a successor to the quad core low end athlon and they win the biggest part of the market, the budget end.  Intel's low end pentiums only have 2 cores and don't even have hyper-threading.  An AMD quad-core of even remotely close IPC would make Intel's offerings look silly.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Aug 18, 2016)

Jism said:


> It's always never enough with you people. They go core to core thread to thread clock to clock, on a bench that is HIGLY reliant on all cores / threads. Outcome is that AMD finishes up that test FASTER then Intel's counterchip. I dont think they would be clocking down that intel chip by putting the bclk down, slower memory speeds and all but simply set for a 30x MP and not 37x.
> 
> Bottom point is is that AMD actually offers something with raw power that COMPETES with intel's 8c/16t CPU worth 1000$.



What you're ignoring, is that at their real speeds, running in the wild, the AMD will not be able to keep up unless (A) They can speed the clocks up, and (B) demonstrate its single core supremacy.    By slowing down the Intel for the demonstration, they may be showing that the Intel is slower at completing instructions...at that speed.  But real life speeds, which is where consumers will actually use them, and what consumers will judge on, the Broadwell will win because it is clocked higher, and people will buy accordingly.

Don't get me wrong, I want Zen to be great and succeed!  Just don't read too much into this.


----------



## Supercrit (Aug 18, 2016)

I really hope that will force i3 becoming quad cores or at least turbo enabled, with the whole line have less disabled features just because intel could with no competition.


----------



## HD64G (Aug 18, 2016)

dwade said:


> Couldn't care less about clock for clock comparison since they are 2 different architectures. Only metric that matters is performance per watt.



If we suppose linear performance to clocks for the Intel CPU in this comparison and we assume that this 8C/16T Zen is the one that is going to be sold as the 95W, with 140W for Intel's Zen is 20% better in Perf/W. Simple assumptions there. Future reviews will prove if this benchmark is accurate or not.


----------



## Dimi (Aug 18, 2016)

I remember the AMD hype from back in the days of the FX processors.

I think i jumped from Intel to an AMD Athlon 64 4000 (San Diego) cpu while shortly after it got rendered useless compared to a cheaper intel core duo. I think i paid close to 400 euro for the AMD cpu while the i3 was like 120 ish.

I'm not falling for this hype again.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 18, 2016)

ROFL.

choo-choo! All aboard the hype train!


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 18, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> ROFL.
> 
> choo-choo! All aboard the hype train!



What do you know about CPU's?   /sarcasm.


----------



## alexsubri (Aug 18, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> ROFL.
> 
> choo-choo! All aboard the hype train!



That's right! You _BETTER_ hop on that Zen train!


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 18, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> What do you know about CPU's?   /sarcasm.


This is the sort of launch I can't miss. But I dunno... might be a bit late.


----------



## OneMoar (Aug 18, 2016)

I think TPU should just refuse to cover anything AMD
I mean we are totally bias here right its not like we have been lied to time and time again or anything


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 18, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> I think TPU should just refuse to cover anything AMD
> I mean we are totally bias here right its not like we have been lied to time and time again or anything


Meh. Put it in my hands and let me play with it, and I'll be honest. I wasn't one to buy into the hype in the past; you can find my posts denying it from the get go and even explaining why.


----------



## Fx (Aug 18, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> ROFL.
> 
> choo-choo! All aboard the hype train!



It isn't just hype that has some of us aboard the train. I am one of AMD's customers that continues to purchase their products to support them. Their processors have plenty of power needed for gaming. I use Xeons for my servers.

If Zen can improve its generational performance leap by 20-30% compared to the 40% it is claiming, I will be more than happy.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 18, 2016)

Fx said:


> It isn't just hype that has some of us aboard the train. I am one of AMD's customers that continues to purchase their products to support them. Their processors have plenty of power needed for gaming. I use Xeons for my servers.
> 
> If Zen can improve its generational performance leap by 20-30% compared to the 40% it is claiming, I will be more than happy.


AMD does a great job of pricing their product accordingly for the most part, so they'll do well. But they are a tiny CPU company, so I just don't expect much. It just doesn't matter how fast Zen is; it'll be priced according to its true value anyway. Ultimately THAT is what matters.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Aug 18, 2016)




----------



## Frick (Aug 18, 2016)

Melvis said:


> Erm no, hate to tell you and about 10 000 other people on this forum will tell you just the same thing that AMD was cheaper on the 939 socket, the FX57 and 60 was around $1000-$1200 and the Pentium EE was around $1500 AUS, its just a fact
> 
> Anyone can post a pic like you did that is from god knows what source, and from even before launch date where in actual fact I never saw any CPU from AMD (price to performance comparison) be more then Intel.



Different continents. I am too quite sure that AMD was just as expensive as Intel when they were competitive. They often, iirc, offered a bit more punch for your money and often overclocked decently, but they weren't magical people giving stuff away if they could charge for it and get away with it, which they did.

Annywaay, real world test is nice. But I don't expect it to last if they perform different tests. Remember the goal was Haswell-ish performance, iirc.


----------



## D007 (Aug 18, 2016)

Lol and so the war of the fanboys ensues.. Like always.. Why can't people just be happy, that AMD may finally make a processor worth a shit? lol.
I'm happy for them.. I go with performance.. Idc about cost. If AMD can beat intel, I'll be looking at it. Anyone with sense would do the same thing.
But don't make huge assumptions based on half tests..


----------



## dozenfury (Aug 18, 2016)

I'm excited and looking forward to Zen too.  *However* AMD has also shown a strategy of embellishing in their marketing pretty extremely.  Their problem is that real performance gains generally take big $ R&D, money which Intel has and AMD doesn't.  It's far cheaper to market something as faster than to actually make a faster chip.

So I hope maybe AMD gets lucky and has a surprise performance breakthrough despite fighting an underdog battle without the huge R+D spend Intel has, because I would love to be able to go back to AMD and the competition is badly needed.  But...I'll believe it when I see it, as in third-party real released product benchmarks.  We've been hearing about your secret weapon Piledriver/Steamroller, etc. cpu for the past 10 years and have been let down every time, prove the doubters wrong this time AMD.


----------



## slozomby (Aug 18, 2016)

I'm confused. so the zen chip at 3k outperforms an underclocked 6900k. I wonder if they turned off boostclock as well.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 18, 2016)

slozomby said:


> I'm confused. so the zen chip at 3k outperforms an underclocked 6900k. I wonder if they turned off boostclock as well.


It doesn't matter really, does it? Being even within a few % of Haswell-E on a clock-per-clock basis is better than I could have hoped for.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Aug 18, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> I hope so but don't count on it and certainly don't give anybody any money until you see numbers


i dont have any money so..


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Aug 18, 2016)

i think that many people here are reading this the "wrong" way. maybe AMD just wanted to show that clock per clock core per core they are equal to Intel. nothing more nothing less. in the end, even if they managed to do that (no real benchmarks yet) it doesn't mean that they "won", Intel has 80% of the market, that isn't something that changes in one night, and also they can respond much more easily since they are in that position and have vast resources in their possession.


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 18, 2016)

Looks good.


----------



## dyonoctis (Aug 18, 2016)

About the whole downclocking thing, a reviewer at hardware.fr explained this :
"No no, AMD just wanted to make a comparison at 3.0 GHz with equal frequency  (by disabling the turbo etc.) to showcase its progress on the architecture side (that's the idea of this first wave of communication from AMD). We did the same thing to compare architectures in our tests"

Even *if we are supposing* that zen will not get clock as high as intel, the price will certainly be great for the performance. And 3D rendering is great to mesure up brute speed.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Aug 18, 2016)

I'm sold


----------



## ensabrenoir (Aug 18, 2016)

....i want to believe.... By the time this comes out Intel will have possiblly two new architectures out.  We needed this 3rd quarter last year.  Read somewhere intel gonna unify the platforms so one board could run anything from a dual core to a 10 core monster. Truely exciting times ahead.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Aug 19, 2016)

I have this weird feeling that the CPU they keep putting up front is going to be the 8C/16T CPU that will be released at 2.8 GHz with 3.2 GHz turbo. It will be treated like some kind of second coming with a $400+ price tag for "enthusiast". It will over shadow the 4C/8T and 6C/12T models because those are the ones that will be clocked at 4.0 GHz or higher that most gamers will be buying. Assuming this is all real of course.

I think the first gen of Zen will be a mixed bag of great 4C/8T and 6C/12T CPUs for decent price that will win them some market share back, but I think they are going to fumble the 8C/16T somehow.


----------



## Basard (Aug 19, 2016)

Holy crap I totally wanna bang Lisa Su right now!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 19, 2016)

ensabrenoir said:


> ....i want to believe.... By the time this comes out Intel will have possiblly two new architectures out.  We need this 3rd quarter last year.  Read somewhere intel gonna unify the platforms so one board could run anything from a dual core to a 10 core monster. Truely exciting times ahead.


That's a ways off ,have you seen Kaby lake, 4/8 cores/threads still, it could get messy, definitely looking like something I might like.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Aug 19, 2016)

Basard said:


> Holy crap I totally wanna bang Lisa Su right now!


----------



## cdawall (Aug 19, 2016)

OneMoar said:


> theres been no superpi or luxmark single thread or cinbench



I'm going to stop you right here. Even when amd held the performance crown by leaps and bounds, Intel still lead in at least two of those benchmarks. Not clock for clock, but overall. If you even remotely think that superpi is a good measure of cpu performance really in anyway you should stop arguing either side and buy a tablet.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Aug 19, 2016)

Kevin King said:


> Hmm, the Broadwell-e was clocked wayyy below it's normal clock speed, 3.0GHz versus what it's sold as, 3.7GHz. This tells me that Summit Ridge likely won't be clocked at a similar frequency to Broadwell-E, otherwise they would've shown that comparison, right? It's exciting, sure, but if it's not able to match the clock rate of Intel, I'm not exactly hyped...



This....


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Aug 19, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> It doesn't matter really, does it? Being even within a few % of Haswell-E on a clock-per-clock basis is better than I could have hoped for.



Shows how low your hopes were...


----------



## cdawall (Aug 19, 2016)

dalekdukesboy said:


> This....



It's actually only a 3.2ghz chip

http://ark.intel.com/m/products/941...-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz#@product/specifications

Turbo is anything from 3.3-4.0 depending on core usage. In theory AMD had a prerelease cpu that was set to 3ghz and wanted to compare it to an Intel at the same speed. AMD may not have final turbo numbers finished on their prerelease product, but hurry up and base every decision you will make AMD on a cpu that isn't out and a single slide from a PR show.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Aug 19, 2016)

I doubt anyone here wants the AMD processor to suck.  I was about to comment on that cool graphic showing the old pentium 4's and the amd fx-55/57 etc when the pentium had to be clocked to hell to even be sorta close to the AMD...and yes I owned an fx-55 and loved it.  However, we also know that simply by the age of that slide when AMD was ahead shows how long they have trailed and time after time underwhelmed in performance AND efficiency as well.  So I think a healthy dose of skepticism at this point is perfectly reasonable, and with luck at the least AMD has a product that is within 10 percent or so of the Intel + or - and then we may have a ball game again and we all will win.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Aug 19, 2016)

dalekdukesboy said:


> I doubt anyone here wants the AMD processor to suck.  I was about to comment on that cool graphic showing the old pentium 4's and the amd fx-55/57 etc when the pentium had to be clocked to hell to even be sorta close to the AMD...and yes I owned an fx-55 and loved it.  However, we also know that simply by the age of that slide when AMD was ahead shows how long they have trailed and time after time underwhelmed in performance AND efficiency as well.  So I think a healthy dose of skepticism at this point is perfectly reasonable, and with luck at the least AMD has a product that is within 10 percent or so of the Intel + or - and then we may have a ball game again and we all will win.





...........saw you avatar and thought you were that other guy (he's AMD given human form)


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 19, 2016)

As always, if those CPUs are faster than Intel's equivalents in Games and basic stuff, it will have a huge success. If not.... good luck.


----------



## slozomby (Aug 19, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> It doesn't matter really, does it? Being even within a few % of Haswell-E on a clock-per-clock basis is better than I could have hoped for.



I dunno. ops/clock don't mean much to me . where as as ops/$ or total ops are what I use to make decisions. I don't really care that at 3ghz chip a is faster than chip b. I either care about which chip completes my task faster or which chip at $x completes my task faster. that chip a is technically superior at Y Ghz isn't part of the math.

sometimes I care about it: which chip completes the task in a given time frame with the least power and heat.

so while the demo was technically interesting. what I'm going to consider is if I spend $x which will be faster and if chip b costs $400 more will I see that performance realized in saved time.


----------



## BirdyNV (Aug 19, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> As always, if those CPUs are faster than Intel's equivalents in Games and basic stuff, it will have a huge success. If not.... good luck.


Thing is, if they don't have to outperform intel. Same thing as not having to outperform NVidia. Because they have the Price to performance game on lock.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Aug 19, 2016)

10 bajillion bitching about low clock...everyone OCs anyway...   (plus how useless boost is under heavy load).

Wait...is it 8MB L3 per module of 4 cores?  That's much better.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 19, 2016)

slozomby said:


> I'm confused. so the zen chip at 3k outperforms an underclocked 6900k. I wonder if they turned off boostclock as well.


You wouldn't be confused if you actually read this thread.
Clocks were held at 3.0GHz.


----------



## Makaveli (Aug 19, 2016)

Melvis said:


> Erm no, hate to tell you and about 10 000 other people on this forum will tell you just the same thing that AMD was cheaper on the 939 socket, the FX57 and 60 was around $1000-$1200 and the Pentium EE was around $1500 AUS, its just a fact
> 
> Anyone can post a pic like you did that is from god knows what source, and from even before launch date where in actual fact I never saw any CPU from AMD (price to performance comparison) be more then Intel.



That isn't some unknown source looks like it was taken from www.techreport.com


----------



## bpgt64 (Aug 19, 2016)

I like that they took a Broadwell-E processor, and matched it clock for clock.  Showing the IPC difference on Zen is neck and neck with it.  While, it's good to see AMD trading blows with intel.  There are only really two concerns left.

1.  How much can that 3.0 Ghz chip be overclock(and how easily)
2.  Price point match up, do they take this and kick intel in the balls by pricing a 1100 Intel chip at 300 US.

Answer those two questions, and we'll see what real value you have here.

Valid Points Intel Fans will make;

Broadwell-E is has been out for a few months, and we have no idea when Zen will be street available.

Valid Points AMD Fans will make;

This is just a starting chip for them, who knows what's coming after, and this is a hell of alot better than the Bulldozer/Thuban era.  Competition benefits everyone by making prices come down.  The only people not rooting for AMD are people with more money than sense.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Aug 19, 2016)

ensabrenoir said:


> ...........saw you avatar and thought you were that other guy (he's AMD given human form)


Yes I think I posted in same forum as that guy and it was odd because we both had Tom Baker as Doctor Who as our avatar with same picture.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 19, 2016)

bpgt64 said:


> 1.  How much can that 3.0 Ghz chip be overclock(and how easily)
> 2.  Price point match up, do they take this and kick intel in the balls by pricing a 1100 Intel chip at 300 US.



1. I think that if they could do more than that 3 GHz reliably, they would have. That is, if they are smart. I think you could realistically predict that in order to do what they have seem to have done, the CPU pipeline is going to be relatively short, cache will get hit often, and run hot, kind of like Intels CPUs. That means it's all up to the process, and not AMD. 

2. Based on recent behavior for pricing at AMD, they'll likely go somewhere directly between that. They simply have to be able to meet demand, and that's not going to be easy for them if its good and if they price it too low. If they can match Intel performance and clocks, they are best to simply slightly undercut intel across the board. That might not be the best for enthusiasts, but its best for AMD for sure.

Maybe?


----------



## Frick (Aug 19, 2016)

dalekdukesboy said:


> Shows how _realistic_ your hopes were...



Very true.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 19, 2016)

Basard said:


> Holy crap I totally wanna bang Lisa Su right now!


Aaaaa.....NO.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Aug 19, 2016)

More board details http://www.anandtech.com/show/10581...-naples-32cores-dual-socket-platforms-q2-2017


----------



## HisDivineOrder (Aug 19, 2016)

bpgt64 said:


> This is just a starting chip for them, who knows what's coming after, and this is a hell of alot better than the Bulldozer/Thuban era.  Competition benefits everyone by making prices come down.  The only people not rooting for AMD are people with more money than sense.




I agree with the point about AMD needing to have a winner to save us all from the slow escalation of pricing by Intel and nVidia.  We're frogs and they're ramping up the heat...er...cost slowly.  Remember when Gx104 products were the high mainstream at $300-450?  Gx106 were the low end at $150-200?  Remember when Intel felt a need to release products with more cores instead of just the same repeat of core count and clock speed with minor architectural improvements at ever increasing cost?  Add $15-25 for each generation at the 6600k/6700K class CPU levels to predict next year's MSRP.  That's with them pushing generations to three CPU's for each fab change now (ie., 4770k, then 4790k).

We absolutely need AMD to step up and stop dragging down the GPU division with constant failures that leak into all areas of the company's budget.

That said and having prefaced myself, I also think it bears repeating:

It is not "a hell of alot (sic) better than the Bulldozer/Thuban era."  It is not.  They did this exact same style of promises using limited benchmarks and canned game demos along with a protracted series of delays and screeching to the public about how THIS will be the one.  THIS IS THE ONE, they told us, with Phenom AND Bulldozer.  THIS WILL BE THE ONE THAT BRINGS US BACK!

It's exactly the same as last time.  It's absolutely no different.  Not better, not worse.  It's the same.  That's why it's worrisome.  Those of us old enough to remember have seen AMD do this song and dance twice over already.

And they have failed to save us from the tyranny of Intel every time they've done it.  At this point, I'm not even wholly blaming them if it fails to impact because GloFo is a lead weight that could drag any company's best efforts into bankruptcy and they seem to have no option except to keep using them no matter how badly they botch fabrication time and again...

The day they sold their corporate soul to GloFo was the day they seem to have sealed their fate.

And ours.


----------



## cyneater (Aug 19, 2016)

Who knows how well Zen will do.

All I know Zen was designed by Jim Keller who designed the K8 x86-64 the Athlon 64 .. so maybe there is some hope.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 19, 2016)

cyneater said:


> Who knows how well Zen will do.
> 
> All I know Zen was designed by Jim Keller who designed the K8 x86-64 the Athlon 64 .. so maybe there is some hope.


As long as it wasn't Helen Keller


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 19, 2016)

Just doing a little cleanup, don't get upset if I delete your post because of a quote that's now deleted.... thank you.


----------



## Jism (Aug 19, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> 1. I think that if they could do more than that 3 GHz reliably, they would have. That is, if they are smart. I think you could realistically predict that in order to do what they have seem to have done, the CPU pipeline is going to be relatively short, cache will get hit often, and run hot, kind of like Intels CPUs. That means it's all up to the process, and not AMD.



It makes no sense, on a public demonstration to use a overclocked processor, which perhaps marginally makes it to 3.4 / 3.6 / 3.8GHz and later sell models that reach 3GHz for a base clockspeed.

You create a chip that balances in performance, power usage and efficiency, not max OC. The OC is just a gimmick which we might find important but not the AMD's primary goal.

So they have a ES which settles for 3GHz and perhaps 65 to 95W of TDP, and is able to compete against intels latest and best offering with 8 cores / 16 threads, and it beats it with a percentage.

If i'm not mistaken, that CPU is made from the same stuff the RX 480 is made of. And by all the looks of it it is a worthless OC'er since many cards dont reach 1400Mhz for longer then 5 minutes stable (watercooling that is). So knowing this AMD proberly pushes these CPU to already the TDP limit and we need a beefy motherboard with beefy VRM and all that, in order to push for even more.



> 2. Based on recent behavior for pricing at AMD, they'll likely go somewhere directly between that. They simply have to be able to meet demand, and that's not going to be easy for them if its good and if they price it too low. If they can match Intel performance and clocks, they are best to simply slightly undercut intel across the board. That might not be the best for enthusiasts, but its best for AMD for sure.
> 
> Maybe?



AMD needs sales in the low / mid section, but the higher section as well. Dont forget that enterprise market is WAYYY more important then consumers such as us, and that where enterprise is where the money is.

The SOC is actually a decent design, you only need a motherboard with simply AM4 socket, a decent TDP rating and your good to go. No more difference in socket, chipsets or mostly bios updates. However this cuts the ability to get cherry picked chipsets on for example the high-end AM3+ motherboards for example. Buying a crosshair IV or Z guaranteees you are able to hit 350Mhz HTT and more then 200W of TDP.

I'm confident that AMD has a decent chip, the work put into is paying off, now it needs contracts, decent pricing and they'll have a boost in sales, which is exactly what they need. Never forget the underdog, they already have all major contracts with Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, their graphics part will be more and more important in the future when pushing for asynchronous compute.

And that is exactly where those Radeon cards will shine in. The RX480 is better then the 1060 when using Doom.


----------



## qubit (Aug 19, 2016)

As AMD have to underclock - ie hamstring - the Intel CPU to beat it, then it doesn't look good at all for them. They should compare stock with stock running at stock, as that's the true comparison, not a gimped competition.

If the -E CPU is too strong for it, then they should have compared it with the mainstream models instead for a fair comparison.

It looks to me like there will be some useful performance improvements with Zen, but AMD are gonna continue playing catch-up with Intel, like always. Shame AMD squandered their lead with the A64 series a decade ago. They really blew it.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Aug 19, 2016)

qubit said:


> As AMD have to underclock - ie hamstring - the Intel CPU to beat it, then it doesn't look good at all for them. They should compare stock with stock running at stock, as that's the true comparison, not a gimped competition.
> 
> If the -E CPU is too strong for it, then they should have compared it with the mainstream models instead for a fair comparison.
> 
> It looks to me like there will be some useful performance improvements with Zen, but AMD are gonna continue playing catch-up with Intel, like always. Shame AMD squandered their lead with the A64 series a decade ago. They really blew it.



Depends on what you want to show right? if its the improvement of performance per clock speed then yeah you have to have to match them...which is what they wanted to and what they did so yeah...


----------



## qubit (Aug 19, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> Depends on what you want to show right? if its the improvement of performance per clock speed then yeah you have to have to match them...which is what they wanted to and what they did so yeah...


I haven't had time to look at that properly yet, but yeah, if they wanted to show IPC improvements they would do that. From the looks of it though they crucially don't state the IPC performance. In the end, all that matters is that stock performance comparison which they're not showing you, so we should be right to be suspicious that they're hiding performance deficits again. And again, the official reviews will show the true performance.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Aug 19, 2016)

qubit said:


> I haven't had time to look at that properly yet, but yeah, if they wanted to show IPC improvements they would do that. From the looks of it though they crucially don't state the IPC performance. In the end, all that matters is that stock performance comparison which they're not showing you, so we should be right to be suspicious that they're hiding performance deficits again. And again, the official reviews will show the true performance.



true they will, but you can compare different things to show performance, you argue they should leave everything factory stock and there is something to say for that type of comparison but then I might as well throw in that price should matter then as well.
Often times people compare the most high end AMD has to offer vs the most high end Intel has to offer in terms of performance when there is a massive price difference they then casually cast aside.
That is just as much part of the "stock" compare experience as anything else.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 19, 2016)

Does the average consumer even care about IPC performance/improvements?  they either want cheap or they want competitive or both of course.... all out of the box, it's meaningless to say to the average consumer, "_our IPC performance has improved by 40%_", what I want to hear is something like "_We have designed a CPU that offers the same performance (or better) than our competitor for the same or lower price" _and when I don't hear this I am suspicious, and truly that's not because I want fail, but because I want success, it's been far too long since I have had an AMD CPU.  To be fair, even if all it got was close I would still buy one simply because 11 years has been too long.


----------



## chuck216 (Aug 19, 2016)

I for one think this is promising. AMD has done something they haven't come close to doing in years... matching (or even slightly surpassing) an Intel flagship CPU clock for clock. 
Sure there were no boost/turbo clocks enabled but would there be in the real world if all 16 threads were being utilized @ 100%?

Now they just need to keep it at a reasonable "consumer friendly" price and make up the difference in raw sales.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 19, 2016)

I would buy one if I had the money, just so I could play with it and see personally what it is capable of.


----------



## noname00 (Aug 19, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> I would buy one if I had the money, just so I could play with it and see personally what it is capable of.



I will buy one only if it will have good reviews, and I will compare it with a friend's 4690k (this is the price level I am looking at). I will keep it only if it will confirm the reviews.

Let's not forget the other dirty trick that AMD used in the past - selling a small number of graphic cards/CPUs just after the launch where you could unlock a few more cores. And it didn't always worked, but some of us bought them hoping their CPU could be unlocked. 
My father uses my old 960T now .... with 8GB of ram, a HD6770 and a Samsung 650 SSD, Spider Solitaire never ran faster


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 19, 2016)

noname00 said:


> I will buy one only if it will have good reviews, and I will compare it with a friend's 4690k (this is the price level I am looking at). I will keep it only if it will confirm the reviews.
> 
> Let's not forget the other dirty trick that AMD used in the past - selling a small number of graphic cards/CPUs just after the launch where you could unlock a few more cores. And it didn't always worked, but some of us bought them hoping their CPU could be unlocked.
> My father uses my old 960T now .... with 8GB of ram, a HD6770 and a Samsung 650 SSD, Spider Solitaire never ran faster


Yeah the bastards ,how dare they sell you what you paid for and only offer a slim chance of a free bonus , and all without advertising any of it.
Was it Amd who announced some ref 4Gb Rx480's could have memory unlocked, no.
Was it Amd who sold Cpus on a vague promise of bonus cores, again no.
My 8350 clocked a bit beats a 4690k in the right app or game already and many say its 4 year old ass was always shit ,I say, as I said not so and I look forward to Zen , finally Intel's micro opp and wide core rescources for 1thread tactic is getting countered, hold onto your pants cos imho Kaby lakes getting served its own ass.
And how come so many new names turn up in these Amd threads always eager to trash or downplay Amd,I think dual tpu accounts should be banned.


----------



## TRWOV (Aug 19, 2016)

qubit said:


> As AMD have to underclock - ie hamstring - the Intel CPU to beat it, then it doesn't look good at all for them. They should compare stock with stock running at stock, as that's the true comparison, not a gimped competition.
> 
> If the -E CPU is too strong for it, then they should have compared it with the mainstream models instead for a fair comparison.
> 
> It looks to me like there will be some useful performance improvements with Zen, but AMD are gonna continue playing catch-up with Intel, like always. Shame AMD squandered their lead with the A64 series a decade ago. They really blew it.




They just wanted to show up how the architecture stands agains Intel's current offerings. To do that a comparison at the same clockspeeds is a must.  Of course this is just one test and is very possible that in some other benchmark Broadwell would pull ahead but still even if overall AMD is behind Intel by single digit percentage that would be a huge milestone considering the handicap that AMD is playing with (huge amounts of debt, waaay smaller team, bigger manufacturing process, etc., etc,. etc).

We've seen the Zen ES go from 1.8Ghz to 2.3 and now 3Ghz in this presentation. I don't expect these to be clocked beyond 3.5Ghz. The TDP will likely be above Intel's too (165w is my guess) but the stars of the show will be the 4c/8t and 6c/12t parts.


----------



## HD64G (Aug 19, 2016)

Tatty_One said:


> Does the average consumer even care about IPC performance/improvements?  they either want cheap or they want competitive or both of course.... all out of the box, it's meaningless to say to the average consumer, "_our IPC performance has improved by 40%_", what I want to hear is something like "_We have designed a CPU that offers the same performance (or better) than our competitor for the same or lower price" _and when I don't hear this I am suspicious, and truly that's not because I want fail, but because I want success, it's been far too long since I have had an AMD CPU.  To be fair, even if all it got was close I would still buy one simply because 11 years has been too long.



And you all wait for AMD to show the Zen's true power months before they go out for sale? With clocks and TDP of the final product? All they showed there was that they promised +40% IPC and they delivered. The clocks @3GHz aren't finals and Intel's 8C/16H is in reality a 3,2GHz CPU@stock when pushed on full load at all its cores. So, it is a pretty valid comparison imho. Not sure what it will do in all applications and games and computing power yet but this comparison showed exactly that the new arch is very promising when compared to Intel's newest 8C @1000 cpu it manages to be somehow equal. Interesting times ahead, that's for sure.


----------



## noname00 (Aug 19, 2016)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Yeah the bastards ,how dare they sell you what you paid for and only offer a slim chance of a free bonus , and all without advertising any of it.
> Was it Amd who announced some ref 4Gb Rx480's could have memory unlocked, no.
> Was it Amd who sold Cpus on a vague promise of bonus cores, again no.
> My 8350 clocked a bit beats a 4690k in the right app or game already and many say its 4 year old ass was always shit ,I say, as I said not so and I look forward to Zen , finally Intel's micro opp and wide core rescources for 1thread tactic is getting countered, hold onto your pants cos imho Kaby lakes getting served its own ass.
> And how come so many new names turn up in these Amd threads always eager to trash or downplay Amd,I think dual tpu accounts should be banned.



You did not understand my comment. They did not advertise all of this, but they made it easy for the end user to try it. And all the fanboys created a hype that was better for them than any advertising.
However you put it, this hope for a free performance bonus enabled AMD to set the price for some CPU's a bit higher. 
BTW - I am new to this forum, I don't have multiple accounts, and I am not just thrashing AMD. I'm just dissapointed by the hype created around them every time before a launch. And they almost never deliver at least what's expected.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 19, 2016)

HD64G said:


> And you all wait for AMD to show the Zen's true power months before they go out for sale? With clocks and TDP of the final product? All they showed there was that they promised +40% IPC and they delivered. The clocks @3GHz aren't finals and Intel's 8C/16H is in reality a 3,2GHz CPU@stock when pushed on full load at all its cores. So, it is a pretty valid comparison imho. Not sure what it will do in all applications and games and computing power yet but this comparison showed exactly that the new arch is very promising when compared to Intel's newest 8C @1000 cpu it manages to be somehow equal. Interesting times ahead, that's for sure.


I am not waiting for anything, I don't play the speculation game however I actually think they at least eluded to the fact that it would be very competitive with Intel's "current" lineup, after 11 years I am hesitant to believe anything anyone's marketing department tells me from whatever camp.  If it's good I will buy it, if not I will go elsewhere.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 19, 2016)

noname00 said:


> You did not understand my comment. They did not advertise all of this, but they made it easy for the end user to try it. And all the fanboys created a hype that was better for them than any advertising.
> However you put it, this hope for a free performance bonus enabled AMD to set the price for some CPU's a bit higher.
> BTW - I am new to this forum, I don't have multiple accounts, and I am not just thrashing AMD. I'm just dissapointed by the hype created around them every time before a launch. And they almost never deliver at least what's expected.


Well you need to play fair then it was the enthusiast community that hyped up core unlocking not Amd and they didn't adjust prices for it , I guess some blame should go to motherboard makers who designed core unlocking(making itis easier for consumers)because it was them that hyped it as a feature.
As for Amd hyping there releases they only do what ALL companies do its communities that over hyped then over slated them ,I mean my 8350 cost 159 UK notes and has done 3 years folding 24/7 and I'm still gaming at ultra settings on almost every game ,how can that be a bad buy ,Zen looks a much stronger proposition, but ill wager that when Amd get close to Intel's Ipc in shops, intel advotees will pull another spec or facet ie efficiency to deride Intel's enemy's stuff


----------



## ZoneDymo (Aug 19, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> I would buy one if I had the money, just so I could play with it and see personally what it is capable of.



heh I think we are all like that with every piece of hardware that comes out 
we are hardware enthusiasts after all


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 19, 2016)

Even if it won't be a speed king (of the hill), it's still looking good. And if they'll price it well, this thing can be a VERY interesting alternative. Plus, you have that X factor owning an AMD CPU. C'mon, admit it, it is cool.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Aug 19, 2016)

When one can buy such CPUs?


----------



## Nordic (Aug 20, 2016)

Let's say this lives up to the hype. AMD did it. They matched or are negligibly close in performance with a great price. Is anyone here at all curious what intel will put out in response? Amd hasn't been close to intel in many years. What might they be willing to pull out of their sleeve given the a little competition?


----------



## ZoneDymo (Aug 20, 2016)

james888 said:


> Let's say this lives up to the hype. AMD did it. They matched or are negligibly close in performance with a great price. Is anyone here at all curious what intel will put out in response? Amd hasn't been close to intel in many years. What might they be willing to pull out of their sleeve given the a little competition?



probably a ton considering they have given us copy paste since the 2600k....
but that should not matter, support AMD if this Zen works out.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Aug 20, 2016)

Frick said:


> Very true.



Hey, don't change my wording  I said how LOW his expectations were.  I reiterate, I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh at how radically everyone is reacting as this little snippet of performance by a demo sent to us by AMD (very impartial source) either is the best thing since sliced bread or is proof the processor will be as good as a square wheel...look, I think as some here said it looks good, be nice if it at least is competitive but a decade of history precedes this where AMD has been woefully outdone, that's just the facts maam.  So as I said I hope it's competitive and gives an alternative and maybe gives intel real competition so they can't sell their latest cpus for 2k or so but it's only a demo and we just have to wait and see. But it's promising.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 20, 2016)

noname00 said:


> Let's not forget the other dirty trick that AMD used in the past - selling a small number of graphic cards/CPUs just after the launch where you could unlock a few more cores. And it didn't always worked, but some of us bought them hoping their CPU could be unlocked.


There was no dirty tricks on their behalf, and there was never a guarantee unlocking would work with those chips.
They were intentionally sold gimped as three core CPU's, with the chance that one could be unlocked, it was a risk many purchasers took, not all were lucky.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 20, 2016)

qubit said:


> As AMD have to underclock - ie hamstring - the Intel CPU to beat it, then it doesn't look good at all for them. They should compare stock with stock running at stock, as that's the true comparison, not a gimped competition.
> 
> If the -E CPU is too strong for it, then they should have compared it with the mainstream models instead for a fair comparison.
> 
> It looks to me like there will be some useful performance improvements with Zen, but AMD are gonna continue playing catch-up with Intel, like always. Shame AMD squandered their lead with the A64 series a decade ago. They really blew it.



It's somewhat hard to compare an 8 core 16 thread mainstream chip when your competitor doesn't have one. Every single person would have cried if AMD ran it against a 6700k in a multithreading benchmark. Double the cores and thread need to compete with the same no?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 20, 2016)

cyneater said:


> All I know Zen was designed by Jim Keller who designed the K8 x86-64 the Athlon 64 .. so maybe there is some hope.


I'm continually amazed how many people get the development of this pivotal product in AMD's history wrong. Keller worked on the original K8 project. This was shelved and the actual K8 was designed by a team led by AMD's chief architect Fred Weber.
What did Keller actually achieve at AMD? He led the team at DEC that developed the EV6 bus. AMD later purchased the EV6 IP and Keller continued his work. EV6 now named HyperTransport. 
Keller was also a part of the team that developed AMD64, along with Dirk Meyer, David Cutler and Robert Short (both working at Microsoft), and SUSE - who developed the compiler,


cadaveca said:


> 1. I think that if they could do more than that 3 GHz reliably, they would have. That is, if they are smart. I think you could realistically predict that in order to do what they have seem to have done, the CPU pipeline is going to be relatively short, cache will get hit often, and run hot, kind of like Intels CPUs. That means it's all up to the process, and not AMD.


Which brings us to Intel's second gen 14nmFF process versus Glofo's 14nm. A process they have already had issues with meeting clock/power envelope targets with the RX480. Glofo's yield, ramp, and inability to supply top binned parts on previous process nodes is near legendary.


theoneandonlymrk said:


> finally Intel's micro opp and wide core rescources for 1thread tactic is getting countered, hold onto your pants cos imho Kaby lakes getting served its own ass.


I think you'll find that Intel has been spending more resources developing an improved thread scheduling engine. It might not be ready for Kaby Lake which is already shipping, but Cannonlake will surely have it.

To the argument over pricing of Athlon X2 64 and Pentium EE's, pricing was highly variable based on availability since AMD had supply issues. You can find instances where pricing changed on a monthly or weekly basis. Here's a single snapshot I quickly found from my mountain of old magazines


Spoiler


----------



## qubit (Aug 20, 2016)

cdawall said:


> It's somewhat hard to compare an 8 core 16 thread mainstream chip when your competitor doesn't have one. Every single person would have cried if AMD ran it against a 6700k in a multithreading benchmark. Double the cores and thread need to compete with the same no?


Yeah, you'd think so, but we've seen 4 core Intel CPUs handily beat AMD's "8-core" siamesed CPUs even without using HT since the IPC is so much better.

In general companies should show fair performance comparisons between their products and the competition's by choosing a competing product that's in a similar price / performance segment. It looks like here they've gone for Intel's very top end, know then can't really compete with it in a fair head-to-head comparison, so have put out some fudged stats to try and look better which are making people like me, @Tatty_One  and others suspicious that we have another Bulldozer underperforming fiasco on our hands.

Of course, in the end, it doesn't matter what we speculate here, the official benchmarks at product launch will reveal the truth.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Aug 20, 2016)

qubit said:


> Yeah, you'd think so, but we've seen 4 core Intel CPUs handily beat AMD's "8-core" siamesed CPUs even without using HT since the IPC is so much better.
> 
> In general companies should show fair performance comparisons between their products and the competition's by choosing a competing product that's in a similar price / performance segment. It looks like here they've gone for Intel's very top end, know then can't really compete with it in a fair head-to-head comparison, so have put out some fudged stats to try and look better which are making people like me, @Tatty_One  and others suspicious that we have another Bulldozer underperforming fiasco on our hands.
> 
> Of course, in the end, it doesn't matter what we speculate here, the official benchmarks at product launch will reveal the truth.



I think that they were trying to show that they can now compete in IPC with Intel. About the clocks I agree on them to be conservative at this stage, I mean if they cannot deliver their target clocks (yields etc..) within a reasonable TDP, they will have to lower their target speed, so I think it kinda makes sense for AMD to be conservative with their clock speeds and claims.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 20, 2016)

qubit said:


> Yeah, you'd think so, but we've seen 4 core Intel CPUs handily beat AMD's "8-core" siamesed CPUs even without using HT since the IPC is so much better.
> 
> In general companies should show fair performance comparisons between their products and the competition's by choosing a competing product that's in a similar price / performance segment. It looks like here they've gone for Intel's very top end, know then can't really compete with it in a fair head-to-head comparison, so have put out some fudged stats to try and look better which are making people like me, @Tatty_One  and others suspicious that we have another Bulldozer underperforming fiasco on our hands.
> 
> Of course, in the end, it doesn't matter what we speculate here, the official benchmarks at product launch will reveal the truth.



And we have seen single core amd chips out perform Intel dual cores (athlon 64 vs pentium d) using the past as a basis for future performance is ignorant in the tech world. This was again a single benchmark showing that they could be competitive on one front. People know how the rest performs we just aren't privy to the information yet. I'll hold judgment until real benchmarks and pricing hit.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 20, 2016)

HumanSmoke said:


> Which brings us to Intel's second gen 14nmFF process versus Glofo's 14nm. A process they have already had issues with meeting clock/power envelope targets with the RX480. Glofo's yield, ramp, and inability to supply top binned parts on previous process nodes is near legendary.


Meh. You know what burned my ass was Bulldozer and a certain blonde lady saying 5 GHz. The architecture was capable, sure, but it took forever for yields to reach that level reliably (if they even are now). In hindsight, that blonde heard a good line and ran with it, but it did AMD more bad than good in the end.

I could care less about RX480, and what it does on similar silicon. It's cache organization that really kills a CPU's scaling, and a GPU doesn't really reveal too much about that, IMHO. I hear what you are saying, but I am going to choose to ignore that for now. 

What AMD needs, is order to gain consumer acceptance, if a chip that either beats 6700K or matches 6900K. There are two ways to do that. I surmise, however, that what we'll get will be directly between the two.


----------



## 64K (Aug 20, 2016)

If AMD scores a touchdown with Zen then they should be rew


cadaveca said:


> What AMD needs, is order to gain consumer acceptance, if a chip that either beats 6700K or matches 6900K. There are two ways to do that. I surmise, however, that what we'll get will be directly between the two.



What AMD needs to survive is to get PC/Server manufacturers to buy more of their chips. That's all. End of story. It doesn't matter not a a fuck if Zen runs rings around Kaby Lake or not really in the long run. That's what we enthusiasts look at but that's a small blip on the sales radar.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 20, 2016)

64K said:


> If AMD scores a touchdown with Zen then they should be rew
> 
> 
> What AMD needs to survive is to get PC/Server manufacturers to buy more of their chips. That's all. End of story. It doesn't matter not a a fuck if Zen runs rings around Kaby Lake or not really in the long run. That's what we enthusiasts look at but that's a small blip on the sales radar.



Bulldozer did that reasonably well for a short period of time before intel pulled their head out of their ass and released some products that could actually multithread.


----------



## 64K (Aug 20, 2016)

Bulldozer was a fucking embarrassment for AMD but whatever.

I'm forward thinking to Zen and Kaby Lake and let's see the benches.

Bring on the benches and let's see what's what.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 20, 2016)

64K said:


> Bulldozer was a fucking embarrassment for AMD but whatever.



I would say it should never have been released to consumers, a throttled up jaguar core would have been a much better choice. In massively multithreaded loads bulldozer has not been touched by intel until haswell, in the server industry that is fine. In the consumer industry when the software developers are lazy its an issue.


----------



## 64K (Aug 20, 2016)

Really, it's not about the performance. That's what we enthusiasts look at but it's about getting PC/server manufacturers to buy more of their chips an have a way of selling their product.


----------



## Ubersonic (Aug 20, 2016)

This is huge news, AMDs previous 8 cores could barely beat Intels 4C8T i7's, if they are beating Broadwell 8C16T CPUs clock for clock that's a massive boost and potentially a game changer.

To put this in perspective Intel charge £930 for an 8C16T Broadwell i7 that Turbos to 4GHz, after the FX-9590 fiasco AMD will not dare to charge anything remotely like that, and their top CPUs may even come it at more than 4GHz.

Potentially this could be the dawning of another Athlon XP era of value for money.



64K said:


> Bulldozer was a fucking embarrassment for AMD



Indeed, it was their Netburst.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 21, 2016)

cdawall said:


> I would say it should never have been released to consumers, a throttled up jaguar core would have been a much better choice. In massively multithreaded loads bulldozer has not been touched by intel until haswell, in the server industry that is fine. In the consumer industry when the software developers are lazy its an issue.



I agree, they should of help out longer before bringing us Bulldozer as i found it to be a rush job, as Piledriver that came out like what? less then a yr later was what Bulldozer, or what AMD wanted to bring to the table the first time around, has been a decent performer for AMD. Patients is a virtue!


----------



## Frick (Aug 21, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> What AMD needs, is order to gain consumer acceptance, if a chip that either beats 6700K or matches 6900K. There are two ways to do that. I surmise, however, that what we'll get will be directly between the two.



If they pull of that they have beat their own goals. Me I'm glad if they match Haswell.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Aug 21, 2016)

64K said:


> Bulldozer was a fucking embarrassment for AMD but whatever.
> 
> I'm forward thinking to Zen and Kaby Lake and let's see the benches.
> 
> Bring on the benches and let's see what's what.



I dont agree, call me crazy but I appreciate/promote companies trying different things whether it works out or not at least they tried something


----------



## RealNeil (Aug 21, 2016)

64K said:


> Bulldozer was a fucking embarrassment for AMD



Only due to the outrageous claims made by AMD's advertising dept. (didn't AMD fire most of them afterward?)
If they hadn't raised everyone's expectations so high, people wouldn't have been so pissed-off about it.
I had a few Bullys that met my lowered expectations without any problems.


----------



## 64K (Aug 21, 2016)

RealNeil said:


> Only due to the outrageous claims made by AMD's advertising dept. (didn't AMD fire most of them afterward?)
> If they hadn't raised everyone's expectations so high, people wouldn't have been so pissed-off about it.
> I had a few Bullys that met my lowered expectations without any problems.



I think they learned a lesson from that and aren't going to over-hype Zen before release and a part of the Bulldozer hype train was also AMD fans hyping it. Really I can't blame AMD for hyping their product before release. Most companies do it. I just take it with a grain of salt until I see actual reviews from tech sites like this one.


----------



## rruff (Aug 21, 2016)

64K said:


> Really, it's not about the performance. That's what we enthusiasts look at but it's about getting PC/server manufacturers to buy more of their chips an have a way of selling their product.



But why would manufacturer's buy them? There needs to be a performance/cost angle. Servers in particular care about efficiency, and I haven't seen too much on that score relating to Zen.


----------



## RealNeil (Aug 21, 2016)

64K said:


> part of the Bulldozer hype train was also AMD fans hyping it



Like what's happening now?
This is why I suggest a ~steady as she goes~ attitude until an actual release that we can sink our teeth into. Something that is measurable.


----------



## 64K (Aug 21, 2016)

rruff said:


> But why would manufacturer's buy them? There needs to be a performance/cost angle. Servers in particular care about efficiency, and I haven't seen too much on that score relating to Zen.



I don't know how AMD is going to increase their market share. In the past they have tried to sell their chips cheap but this is a failing strategy imo. For example do you remember when AMD landed the contracts for all 3 console makers? People were saying that this would turn AMD around and they would once again be profitable and yet they went into the red at record levels after that. I don't know how else that can be explained other than they were not charging MS, Sony and Nintendo enough for their chips. One could still make the argument that AMD did the right thing to gain more traction in the video game industry since most games are made for the console first and later ported to the PC. 

The thing is that AMD needs to be charging more. It does little good to have the console market sewed up if they end up bankrupt from their efforts. If Zen is decent competition for Kaby Lake then I hope to see AMD being able to charge as much as Intel. The problem is that to gain market share they may have no other choice but to sell cheaper than Intel and not make a decent profit. It's a vicious cycle at this point and I don't know what they can do about it at this time.


----------



## xenocide (Aug 22, 2016)

64K said:


> I think they learned a lesson from that and aren't going to over-hype Zen before release and a part of the Bulldozer hype train was also AMD fans hyping it. Really I can't blame AMD for hyping their product before release. Most companies do it.



4 in 5 AMD fans suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

Being serious though, there's a difference between promoting an upcoming product and misleading marketing which is what they did with Bulldozer... and Phenom II... and Phenom I... and almost all of their APU's.  AMD has a history of using misleading slides and data to indicate their products will be substantially better than they actually are.  Say what you will about Intel, but even if it's not the best news they stay reasonable with their claims, and are always pretty accurate.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 22, 2016)

xenocide said:


> 4 in 5 AMD fans suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
> 
> Being serious though, there's a difference between promoting an upcoming product and misleading marketing which is what they did with Bulldozer... and Phenom II... and Phenom I... and almost all of their APU's.  AMD has a history of using misleading slides and data to indicate their products will be substantially better than they actually are.  Say what you will about Intel, but even if it's not the best news they stay reasonable with their claims, and are always pretty accurate.


Like accurately refusing that gpu's are necessary nope cos they force a shit one on almost everyone bar Pentium ,they think they have Vr covered with Moorestown but hey you keep listening closely bro.


----------



## rruff (Aug 22, 2016)

64K said:


> The thing is that AMD needs to be charging more.



Their market share has plummeted in both dGPU and CPUs and you think they need to charge more? That would make it worse. They have inferior architecture (poor performance and efficiency) that is expensive to produce. They won the contract for game consoles because they were the low bidder. There may be little profit, but the alternative would be worse. 

The only way out of the hole is *superior product, high performance and low cost (to produce)*. Their current size puts them in a bad spot. They simply don't have the resources to compete. Weak budgets for R&D, design, support, marketing, etc. It would take a miracle for AMD to pull back significant market share IMO, and profits will be negative to thin until they do.


----------



## Frick (Aug 22, 2016)

rruff said:


> The only way out of the hole is *superior product, high performance and low cost (to produce)*. Their current size puts them in a bad spot.



I'd say what they need is to have a modern chip that offers decent power/price/performance ratios. They have a long, long way to go to be superior to Intel.


----------



## rruff (Aug 22, 2016)

Frick said:


> I'd say what they need is to have a modern chip that offers decent power/price/performance ratios.



Inferior designs *have* to be sold cheap, if they want to sell any at all. Apparently so cheap that the profit gets squeezed down to nothing. It's really hard to make money that way in the CPU and GPU markets. If AMD wants to compete with that strategy then they need a lower performance design that is *inherently cheap to produce*. But that is an engineering feat in itself. And it can't be very far behind in performance, else it makes more sense to get a lower tier Intel chip.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 22, 2016)

If inferior products have to be sold cheaply why did Intel sell the Netburst junk at a similar if not higher price than AMD? Proper marketing can sell inferior products at the same price if not higher. As long as the consumer of the products believes they purchased something of value than no harm done. 

This has been proven on a multitude of occasions in multiple markets. It quite honestly doesn't matter what the performance of AMD's next batch is, it will not be a sink or swim instance simply for the fact that even selling junk they are profitable. As long as AMD can hold the console contracts and gain some more server contracts (already seen with the China deal) they have already garuanteed their existence. 

Right now what AMD needs is a good PR core to push their products. They need to offer discounts for full AMD setups to OEM's and fix the firepro crap so it can actually compete with the Quadros. If they can accomplish that and put a positive spin back into their name then they will gain a larger foothold. I still to this day believe a simple AMD logo at the boot up of the Xbox/ps4 would have sold more products than anyone could imagine.


----------



## 64K (Aug 22, 2016)

rruff said:


> Their market share has plummeted in both dGPU and CPUs and you think they need to charge more? That would make it worse. They have inferior architecture (poor performance and efficiency) that is expensive to produce. They won the contract for game consoles because they were the low bidder. There may be little profit, but the alternative would be worse.
> 
> The only way out of the hole is *superior product, high performance and low cost (to produce)*. Their current size puts them in a bad spot. They simply don't have the resources to compete. Weak budgets for R&D, design, support, marketing, etc. It would take a miracle for AMD to pull back significant market share IMO, and profits will be negative to thin until they do.



Yes, they need to be charging more for their chips. They're bleeding red ink selling too cheaply. They've sold off most of their properties. Borrowed over two billion dollars which they can't even pay the interest on. Laid off employees. What else can they sell? Maybe Radeon Group but where would that leave them on integrated graphics on their future CPUs. Part of my comment was that they probably can't charge more and gain market share at the same time even if Zen delivers when it comes to market. They have a huge chunk of debt coming due in 2019 (600 million dollars) and no way to repay it without rolling over the debt, borrowing more from a different source or diluting the value of their shares by printing up and selling more shares. Read that as pissed off investors. Especially those buying in right now.


----------



## ZeDestructor (Feb 19, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I still to this day believe a simple AMD logo at the boot up of the Xbox/ps4 would have sold more products than anyone could imagine.



The problem is that none of the console makers will let em have that logo on boot. According to the rumour mill, that was a part for nV walking away in particular - no chance to market while also having to drop the price? who's gonna say yes?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 19, 2017)

xenocide said:


> 4 in 5 AMD fans suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
> 
> Being serious though, there's a difference between promoting an upcoming product and misleading marketing which is what they did with Bulldozer... and Phenom II... and Phenom I... and almost all of their APU's.  AMD has a history of using misleading slides and data to indicate their products will be substantially better than they actually are.  Say what you will about Intel, but even if it's not the best news they stay reasonable with their claims, and are always pretty accurate.



Intel lies less? LOL  That's not even funny, really. Really short memory? I mean, they just said their new refresh they pulled out of their ass, which is the same as the sky/shit lake, is 15% faster (just like shit lake was faster than skylake).


----------



## Vlada011 (Feb 20, 2017)

Intel processors and Radeon GPUs were great combination before, probably and now.
Intel Skylake Xtreme + Vega or Broadwell Xtreme + Vega.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 20, 2017)

xenocide said:


> ...has a history of using misleading slides...


Lol, yeah, only AMD has a history of using misleading slides.
"Much faster than 480"

PS
Phenoms where fine.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Feb 20, 2017)

All advertisements are 100% true about stuff that does not matter. Company slides are designed to highlight the good and pretend like the bad never happened and ever company on planet earth has done that since the dawn of companies.

Here is the new thing. It does A, B, F, and G better than the previous one. Nothing changed about C or D and H is just F&^%ed. Ok, make the slide show about A, B, and G. Then we will "leak" F later and pretend like its new information. Hide C and D in the white paper and after the initial release we will tell people that H will be fixed in the next one. <= EVERY company ever.


----------



## RealNeil (Feb 20, 2017)

64K said:


> I think they learned a lesson from that and aren't going to over-hype Zen before release and a part of the Bulldozer hype train was also AMD fans hyping it. Really I can't blame AMD for hyping their product before release. Most companies do it. I just take it with a grain of salt until I see actual reviews from tech sites like this one.



It seems like there is close communication between PR and manufacturing this time around. There are no outrageous claims to muddy our perception of Ryzen.
They're playing their cards right with a much better product and letting it speak for itself with calculated 'leaks'

They have my attention.


----------

