# AMD "Zen" CPU Prototypes Tested, "Meet all Expectations"



## btarunr (Nov 3, 2015)

AMD reportedly finished testing some of its first "Zen" micro-architecture CPU prototypes, and concluded that they "meet all expectations," with "no significant bottlenecks found" in its design. This should mean that AMD's "Zen" chips should be as competitive with Intel chips as it set them out to be. The company is planning to launch its first client CPUs based on the "Zen" micro-architecture in 2016, based on its swanky new AM4 socket, with DDR4 memory and integrated PCIe (a la APUs). Zen sees AMD revert to the large, monolithic core design, from its "Bulldozer" multi-core module design with a near doubling of number-crunching machinery per-core, compared to its preceding architecture.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## cdawall (Nov 3, 2015)

Let's hope it is a redux al la core2duo over pentium 4.


----------



## GhostRyder (Nov 3, 2015)

Sounds good, however we need to see these for our selves before we can make a decision on to whether they are good.  I am glad they ditched the Bulldozer method of cores and are going to push this new design  which is more in line with it roots as that can help them become more competitive core to core.  They could really use that and have more OEM's willing to put these into high end machines.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 3, 2015)

bulldozer was a cool idea we just didn't have software that utilized it.


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 3, 2015)

Like Fiji versus GM200, I'm hanging onto my old 3930k until Zen versus Intel's next process or shrink.


----------



## Jhelms (Nov 3, 2015)

Very much looking forward to this chip lineup. I run both AMD and Intel but have always rooted for AMD. If the chip is even equal to current intel or slightly older intel chips - I am game for several new systems in the house.

One of my main concerns is TDP / efficiency. Will be interesting to see if they can be even somewhat competitive in this category.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 3, 2015)

btarunr said:


> "meet all expectations,"



Well that depends on what specifically the expectations were doesnt it?


----------



## cdawall (Nov 3, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Well that depends on what specifically the expectations were doesnt it?



I hope the expectations were to beat the 6th gen 8 core xeons. That is my hope.


----------



## 64K (Nov 3, 2015)

It's still vague what AMD means by what they are reporting. I'm hoping for a home run but who knows right now.


----------



## happita (Nov 3, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Well that depends on what specifically the expectations were doesnt it?



Exactly.

However, I'm sure that AMD knows if Zen doesn't kill it in sales, they won't have much longer to stay in the game. Like was said before, if Zen is close or matches Intel's current offering in the future with a reasonable price target then I will build my first AMD-based CPU system. They need to do some SMART marketing once they get a feel for how good it is when it officially hits shelves.


----------



## GoldenX (Nov 3, 2015)

I only hope AM4 is still compatible with AM2/AM2+/AM3/AM3+/FM1/FM2/FM2+ heatsinks.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Nov 3, 2015)

I never understand those graphs at all, all I see is the same process on both side with a few more blocks on one.
Also the 128 vs 256 obviously.

How does this make Zen look anything better then the older design?
Or is there a lot more at play there that these graphics dont show, and if so, then whats the point of the graphs?


----------



## cdawall (Nov 3, 2015)

ZoneDymo said:


> I never understand those graphs at all, all I see is the same process on both side with a few more blocks on one.
> Also the 128 vs 256 obviously.
> 
> How does this make Zen look anything better then the older design?
> Or is there a lot more at play there that these graphics dont show, and if so, then whats the point of the graphs?



It doesn't mention a lot, but the big thing they are saying will improve performance are the way the pipelines are setup.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 3, 2015)

happita said:


> They need to do some SMART marketing once they get a feel for how good it is when it officially hits shelves.



Then they will need to use External marketing   Because their own internal PR machine is Sh>>>>>>>>>>>>it


----------



## robal (Nov 3, 2015)

AMD's last gasp for air in x86 space. No pressure...


----------



## Patriot (Nov 3, 2015)

Giggity...  /me waits expectantly for 3rd party benches.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Nov 3, 2015)

Take it with a huge grain of salt, courtesy of wccftech (http://wccftech.com/amd-zen/) :

Original source of the info:
http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Whispers.jpg


----------



## AsRock (Nov 3, 2015)

Let the Hype begin.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 3, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Well that depends on what specifically the expectations were doesnt it?



AMD CPU engineer: "It didn't catch fire when we applied power."
AMD CPU engineering manager: "That's a wrap folks, start shipping 'em!"
AMD marketing: "To put a positive spin on the product we're going to focus on its fireproof capabilities in our brochures."
AMD board: "RAMP UP TO FULL PRODUCTION IMMEDIATELY!!!"


----------



## Casecutter (Nov 3, 2015)

So... there's this guy, who knows a guy (supposedly former employee) who still has "connections" (ie: beers) with his old buddies?  

Looks like the start of the forum "drum beating" on what Zen is suppose to be.  All this does is over-simulate expectations .  While all fun to read, IT MEANS NOTHING, I will wait patiently for what if any information from AMD.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 3, 2015)

Casecutter said:


> Looks like the start of the forum "drum beating" on what Zen is suppose to be. All this does is over-simulate expectations . While all fun to read, IT MEANS NOTHING, I will wait patiently for what if any information from AMD.



I would Sooner Wait for Information from sources not connected to AMD publicity machine    its been proven not to be Trusted


----------



## Sasqui (Nov 3, 2015)

I'm seeing bulldozer architecture shuffled around a little.  L2 cache no longer says "shared" but it sure still looks like it is.


----------



## BiggieShady (Nov 3, 2015)

btarunr said:


> "no significant bottlenecks found"


Makes me wonder how much insignificant are bottlenecks that are found.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2015)

Pretty much my reaction:


----------



## swaaye (Nov 3, 2015)

I sense AMD would do well to offer preorders.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 3, 2015)

So is Zen going to be on a new socket? Also a new chipset to go with it with native USB 3.0 and PCIe 3.0 support, and all the new current stuff that has been going into Intel boards?


----------



## john_ (Nov 3, 2015)

It is 4 years from the introduction of Bulldozer architecture and from that day until today I still can't believe their colossal stupidity.


----------



## ThomasDM (Nov 3, 2015)

Saw the news a couple of days ago. The source is basically some random guy on the Internet claiming he talked to someone who allegedly worked at AMD and heard from an ex-colleague that Zen is doing great.

Here's the original source:



> By: lurker (lurker9000.delete@this.realemail.mail), October 29, 2015 3:12 pm
> 
> Regarding Zen performance, a guy who worked for AMD (at least his linkedin profile says that) and who, as he claims, worked on designing L2 cache for Zen and K12 said that their focus was to be competitive against Intel. He no longer works there but apparently his old colleague who still works there said Zen chips have already been tested and so far "it has met all expectation" and they "haven't found any significant bottlenecks". Apparently they haven't finalized the specifications for the clocks and TDP, but their partners in server market are "very excited".
> It's not much detail, but I think if there was a problem from having only 2 AGUs, it would count as a significant bottleneck.
> Also this is my first post ever, I just usually lurk here and this is the first time I have something useful to add to the discussion. Please no bully.



http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=154302&curpostid=154823


----------



## Fiery (Nov 3, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> So is Zen going to be on a new socket? Also a new chipset to go with it with native USB 3.0 and PCIe 3.0 support, and all the new current stuff that has been going into Intel boards?



Yes, correct. AM4 is set to be rolled out in cca. 6 months from now, with the Bristol Ridge APU that still uses Excavator cores. Bristol Ridge is basically a desktop Carrizo on steroids. How much steroids? Hard to tell at this point, but I wouldn't expect much of a performance gain over the current Carrizo. Then, around the end of next year Summit Ridge CPU, using up to 8 Zen cores should be rolling out as a high-end desktop offering -- competing with the likes of Broadwell-E. Then, in the middle of 2017 we should see the first APUs using Zen cores, most likely 4 Zen cores, as Raven Ridge. All those 3 processors use the same AM4 platform with the Promontory chipset (well, FCH, so a single-chip chipset, just like Intel PCHs).

AMD will also roll out some very interesting many-core (16? 24? 32? we'll see) server CPUs as well, probably only in 2017, along with a Zen-inspired ARM core based APU for Android devices. Exciting times ahead, but it all will ride on how great Zen performs. It will make or break AMD.

Oh, and let's not forget Stoney (or Stoney Ridge), a low-end APU that will also arrive in the new AM4 socket (and also BGA). Imagine a Carrizo cut in half, that will be basically it. The point? Hard to tell. Probably some very low-power parts for ultrabooks and tablets, taking over the role of Jaguar/Puma core based APUs...


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 3, 2015)

While I did jump to X99 platform early and didn't wait for Zen, I'm happy Zen is turning out the way AMD wanted. Because that's good for us consumers and AMD in general. Looking forward for the benchmarks


----------



## AsRock (Nov 3, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> I would Sooner Wait for Information from sources not connected to AMD publicity machine    its been proven not to be Trusted




Sadly lately only to true.


----------



## DeadSkull (Nov 3, 2015)

Hopefully Intel won't throw a pansy fit and throw billions at OEM pc makers forcing them to ignore AMD chips.

That's what happened when K7 and K8 lineup was dominating. AMD couldn't get any marketshare because all the OEM PC makers were forced to enter exclusionary contracts with Intel, aka Intel pulled a Mafia move.


----------



## RejZoR (Nov 3, 2015)

And same happened with K7 and same happened with AXP's and same happened with Athlon64's etc etc. That's why AMD never really gets any decent share which is load of crocked BS. Still, at the end of the day, we face the price/performance ratio dilemma and that's why I have an Intel CPU in my PC even though I sometimes absolutely hate Intel for what they do.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 3, 2015)

DeadSkull said:


> Hopefully Intel won't throw a pansy fit and throw billions at OEM pc makers forcing them to ignore AMD chips.
> 
> That's what happened when K6 was dominating. AMD couldn't get any marketshare because all the OEM PC makers were forced to enter exclusionary contracts with Intel, aka Intel pulled a Mafia move.



That issue was a lot more prevalent during K7 and K8 days. K6 1/2/3 were all very close performers to intel and k6-2 honestly sucked.


----------



## Dave65 (Nov 3, 2015)

didn't we hear the same hype from AMD when Bulldozer was on the horizon?
I hope for AMD's sake it is a true winner..


----------



## rooivalk (Nov 3, 2015)

DeadSkull said:


> Hopefully Intel won't throw a pansy fit and throw billions at OEM pc makers forcing them to ignore AMD chips.
> 
> That's what happened when K6 was dominating. AMD couldn't get any marketshare because all the OEM PC makers were forced to enter exclusionary contracts with Intel, aka Intel pulled a Mafia move.


I don't remember K6 dominating?





Maybe the price? but Celeron 300A @ 450Mhz seems a better deal.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 3, 2015)

rooivalk said:


> I don't remember K6 dominating?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah because 1 old chart with 1 specific game proves your point.

Tom's Hardware 1997:

"The K6 233 will be priced lower than the Pentium MMX 200 and it's faster than this CPU in almost every respect"

"The current choice is only 'K6 or Pentium Pro' . Even when the Pentium II comes out officially (I know you can buy it already, but you can't buy boards, haha) it will be much too expensive for its little performance increase over the Pentium Pro."

"The Pentium Pro is a very good CPU and its internal L2 cache is making it unique. However the K6 is still even cheaper than that, it is just as fast"

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel,22-10.html

The Celeron 300A came out a full year after the K6.  By then AMD was readying the K6-2.


----------



## buildzoid (Nov 3, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> So is Zen going to be on a new socket? Also a new chipset to go with it with native USB 3.0 and PCIe 3.0 support, and all the new current stuff that has been going into Intel boards?



Kaveri support PCI-e 3.0 natively.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Nov 3, 2015)

Dent1 said:


> Yeah because 1 old chart with 1 specific game proves your point.



I also don't remember it dominating really. OK Thunderbird was the first 1GHz stone but truly K8 was the first one to mop the floor with P4.

First of all no motherboards could hold a candle to i440BX and later i815, only when nforce2 came AMD got a good performing chipset.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 3, 2015)

Dent1 said:


> Yeah because 1 old chart with 1 specific game proves your point.
> 
> Tom's Hardware 1997:
> 
> ...



One CPU? K6-2 sucked balls. Intel didn't really limit anything from AMD back then it was k7/k8 when there were issues.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 3, 2015)

cdawall said:


> One CPU? K6-2 sucked balls. Intel didn't really limit anything from AMD back then it was k7/k8 when there were issues.



My point is the K6s were pretty dominate. It wasn't the sided Intel affair we see today.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 3, 2015)

Dent1 said:


> My point is the K6s were pretty dominate. It wasn't the sided Intel affair we see today.



K7 and K8 dominated. K6-2 wasn't really competitive and K6-3 wasn't stable.


----------



## DeadSkull (Nov 3, 2015)

rooivalk said:


> I don't remember K6 dominating?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My bad. 

K7 and K8 so from 01 to 06 when Core architecture first showed up AMD had excellent competitive performance.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 3, 2015)

This is PR fluff.

Tell me objectively:
1) What these expectations were.
2) What percentage of the initial goal is sufficient to "meet" them.
3) Quantify how production parts will match to the limited sample batches.


The entire article is AMD trying to say that Zen will be amazing.  They're promising us this after they said the same about bulldozer, and they think we're stupid enough to believe it without a single question.  I'd be insulted, if I had any respect for the AMD PR department left.


I'm hoping that manufacturing and engineering can pull off a genuine win here.  Lord knows, we don't need another two generations of Intel offerings that make very little progress.  That said, I'm not dumb enough to take this at face value.  I'll only accept it once AMD demonstrates some independent verification of their PR.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 3, 2015)

Considering who designed it I will be astounded if they are a flop for performance.


----------



## GhostRyder (Nov 3, 2015)

Assimilator said:


> AMD CPU engineer: "It didn't catch fire when we applied power."
> AMD CPU engineering manager: "That's a wrap folks, start shipping 'em!"
> AMD marketing: "To put a positive spin on the product we're going to focus on its fireproof capabilities in our brochures."
> AMD board: "RAMP UP TO FULL PRODUCTION IMMEDIATELY!!!"


 Someone's still mad they only have 3.5gb of VRAM.



cdawall said:


> Considering who designed it I will be astounded if they are a flop for performance.


I agree, mostly that this should be a competitive product especially if the price is right which is what they really need in the future.  They need a chip that more OEM's will start putting in machines again that can offer consumers real advantages over other chips more than a better integrated GPU (Which is mostly only better on the mobile market).


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 3, 2015)

I hope AMD doesn't fall into the trap in thinking high performance will solve all their problems. AMD's biggest issue is internal, too much spending, borrowing and repaying loans at high interest. Their second biggest issue is the failure to capture a wide audience marketing wise, and then thirdly its CPU performance. They need to find a way of bringing all these changes together.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 3, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> This is PR fluff.


Yes, but by "leaking" through anonymous "sources", AMD have plausible deniability. The company have played it this way since the whole Barcelona fake benchmarks and overoptimistic hype debacle. Much easier to feed rumour sites and watch social media spread the gospel. You can pretty much guarantee that official performance expectations will be few and rather vague. The "leaked" performance will however be off the charts. Signal-to-noise ratio should be predictably very low.

A good indicator of the architectures actual performance will be HPC/Server/Data Center contracts being signed (or at least MoU's being announced) well in advance of any launch, just as big iron companies queuing up to jettison AMD ahead of Zambesi/Vishera's entrance was a portent of their relative attributes.


----------



## Musaab (Nov 3, 2015)

Maybe AMD is rely going back? Maybe we can see K7/K8 era again? Maybe we are looking a K9? Maybe Lisa Su is not BSing like the other AMD CEOs. I am waiting.


----------



## alucasa (Nov 3, 2015)

Well, it would be nice to build an AMD rig. I think it's been years... Actually, I haven't touched AMD after i7-920. I am stuck with Nvidia for GPU tho due to CUDA rendering.


----------



## nem (Nov 3, 2015)

Seems sales of INTEL gone to the $hit..


----------



## Musaab (Nov 3, 2015)

nem said:


> Seems sales of INTEL gone to the $hit..


Sorry but in your dreams. They can't even secure a fab that can secure a decent supply of the chip.


----------



## Jermelescu (Nov 3, 2015)

I may be short-minded, but I strongly believe that Zen will be successful.
Why? Keller.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 3, 2015)

nem said:


> Seems sales of INTEL gone to the $hit..


You should stick to shilling and trolling at WTFtech where most of the people can't read a financial statement

*Chip maker Intel today beat analysts’ estimates for financial results in the third quarter of this year, coming up with $3.1 billion in net income, or 64 cents in earnings per share, and $14.5 billion in revenue.*

Q3 2015....$14.5bn in revenue
Q2 2015....$13.2bn in revenue
Q1 2015....$12.8bn in revenue


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 3, 2015)

If they can even compete against 6-core SB-E chips it would be a good thing since no AMD CPU can compete against a 4 year old enthusiast chip from Intel.


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 3, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> And same happened with K7 and same happened with AXP's


AXP is also K7 chip.


----------



## Casecutter (Nov 3, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> This is PR fluff


 


lilhasselhoffer said:


> The entire article is AMD trying to say that Zen will be amazing.


 
The article is fluff... a bunch of text crafted around a three word blip someone said... Interestingly AMD is not the author who posted this or any of it, we need to cease beating the drum over idle talk.  Did AMD plant this, are others hoping to draw-out AMD to reveal something?  I can’t say and nobody else can say, what’s truth.  So it's just a rumor... about nothing.


----------



## Parn (Nov 3, 2015)

I sincerely hope Zen lives up to the expections. I'm still wondering when the geniuse who designed K7/K8/K10 for AMD would strike another home-run.

I used AMD CPUs exclusively between 1st gen Athlon and Phenom X4. When 1st gen bulldozer hit the market, I was sad to see its performance was nowhere near the hype that had been building up towards launch. As a result my AM3+ motherboard still carries on with only a Phenom X4 in my Linux server.

Compare 6700K/6600K to 4770K/4670K, there is a huge bump in launch price. I really hope AMD could bring some solid competitions for Intel or otherwise future mainstream i7s will probably cost more than an entire system from 2 years ago.

If Zen is released in 2016 and its top-end part can go head to head (or within 5% difference) against Kaby Lake, I will surely replace my aging AM3+ server with it.


----------



## qubit (Nov 3, 2015)

I'll be gobsmacked if this brings performance parity with Intel. Still, even if it significantly closes the gap that will still be very useful for competition.


----------



## Parn (Nov 4, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> I also don't remember it dominating really. OK Thunderbird was the first 1GHz stone but truly K8 was the first one to mop the floor with P4.
> 
> First of all no motherboards could hold a candle to i440BX and later i815, only when nforce2 came AMD got a good performing chipset.



True. Inferior chipsets was the major plague for AMD until nForce2. Then NV seemed to have lost focus after nForce4 and AMD were back to square one until they bought ATI and released 790FX.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 4, 2015)

I want to believe but... it's the AMD PR machine, man. It's a track record of showing us fancy looking diagrams and lackluster results.

Did Bulldozer "meet all expectations," before release? 

See what AMD has done? It has made me a cynical bastard.


----------



## natr0n (Nov 4, 2015)

I am very excite.


----------



## truth teller (Nov 4, 2015)

> blah blah blah our new cpu design seems to work blah blah


why is this article worthy? come on @btarunr ...


----------



## R-T-B (Nov 4, 2015)

truth teller said:


> why is this article worthy? come on @btarunr ...



You haven't been around much have you?

Pretty much anything that goes across the tech PR wire gets posted here, newsworthy or not.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Nov 4, 2015)

> AMD "Zen" CPU Prototypes Tested, "Meet all Expectations"


Finally, an AMD CPU that can compete head to head with Intel?!


----------



## cdawall (Nov 4, 2015)

9700 Pro said:


> If they can even compete against 6-core SB-E chips it would be a good thing since no AMD CPU can compete against a 4 year old enthusiast chip from Intel.



They compete fine when you use multithreading. Should AMD have designed something that utilized current coding styles? yes very much so, but they do perform excellent in a server environment when you take the word intel out of the equation. Go open source linux and run an application that uses all of the threads. Watch the "lackluster" AMD cpu's perform, in heavily multithreaded environment using encoders that are not brand specific the 8320 (and 8150 for that matter) perform better than the 6700K.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Nov 4, 2015)

cdawall said:


> bulldozer was a cool idea we just didn't have software that utilized it.



The problem is we have software that needs FPU.

"fury X" also met their "expectations".


----------



## RealNeil (Nov 4, 2015)

At this point, I can't bring myself to get excited about this until I read ~real~ reviews that are done by my favorite tech sites. (TPU and others)
After that, I'll wait to see if AMD _prices_ them like they did their Fury GPUs. If they do, I'll stick with my FX-9590 and the three i7 systems that I have.

As I see it, _ZEN can only achieve zen-like status_ if it's priced low, and performs righteously.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 4, 2015)

cdawall said:


> They compete fine when you use multithreading. Should AMD have designed something that utilized current coding styles? yes very much so, but they do perform excellent in a server environment when you take the word intel out of the equation.


AMD's x86 server market share pre-Bulldozer: 6.5%. AMD's x86 market share now: 1.3 - 1.7%
Not all of it down to the CPU. The platform as a whole determines sales revenue, and AMD's Opteron platforms are a virtual dinosaur in today's market. Blaming software coders really only goes so far. HPC applications tend to use a high proportion of hand-tuned code for the architecture, yet how many new/upgraded clusters use AMD Opteron? AMD talked up the Cray XK7 Titan like there was no ceiling to what Opteron could achieve, yet as soon as Cray knew what lack of improvement Vishera would bring, dropped AMD faster than you can say Xeon, with the legacy XK7 and XE7 being the only interest the company has with AMD, while the new XC's are exclusively Intel powered.


RealNeil said:


> At this point, I can't bring myself to get excited about this until I read ~real~ reviews that are done by my favorite tech sites. (TPU and others)


Even some info from a respected site might not go amiss, but WCCFtech are about as far from that as it is possible to be. Clickbait bs is their usual m.o., this just looks like more of the same to feed their mentally defective comments section.


----------



## RealNeil (Nov 4, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> I want to believe but... it's the AMD PR machine, man. It's a track record of showing us fancy looking diagrams and lackluster results.
> 
> Did Bulldozer "meet all expectations," before release?
> 
> See what AMD has done? It has made me a cynical bastard.



Didn't AMD fire most of its PR staff after Bulldozer underwhelmed us?


----------



## Serpent of Darkness (Nov 4, 2015)

truth teller said:


> why is this article worthy? come on @btarunr ...



The article is meat to start setting up expectations and "light the beacons of Gondor" moment about AMD Zen.  Until 3rd party benches are released, the only natural step is to be on the lookout for any news.  The members of this forum and others, will continue their natural state of speculation, QQ-ing, arguments about the fails and wins of AMD Zen.

To answer your question, it gets the community members coming back to the website.  Since the website is probably displaying ads for funding, the more members who recirculate back to see it, the better for TPU's benefit because they get a cut from it.  Anything with focus words like "AMD ZEN" or "NVIDIA GTX Titan HBM 16GB PASCUAL" or "AMD R9-690x appears from the darkness" to name a few, will have community members coming back, and they will see the ads or pop-ups.  Similar situation occurs on YouTube when you monetize videos.  If consumers are watching some random person's videos, they will see the ads with the videos.  The owner of the videos gets a cut of the money spent to put up the ads, and the cut goes up when more viewers watch the video because it equates to a greater chance that the viewer will purchase the product from newegg or an online store.  So in a since, btarunr's actions could be justified to sustain the website on a financial level, if it was important.  To go even further, Guru3D.com left their "QQ" post last week.  It's a similar situation where pop-up blockers were stopping the ads from being displayed to community members and site visitors.  Since less ads were being viewed, Guru3D makes less money in the process.  Thus, this is the justification for the "QQ" post.


----------



## Pumper (Nov 4, 2015)

Best thing to do here is to ignore everything that AMD claims. They have been overstating the performance figures of their hardware for 5-6 years now.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 4, 2015)

When you feel so contrived to calla product "Zen"... sheesh. It's all cool, daddy-o.


----------



## geon2k2 (Nov 4, 2015)

Too bad the source is not very reliable.

A guy, which knows from a guy which used to work at AMD and who knows from another guy which still works there ... and which is posting for the first time on a forum.

And how are they going to convince people with pretty new i5/i7 Haswell or Skylake to move over ... its not clear to me. For few more years from now on, GPU replacement will bring better performance than just replacing the CPU. And new shiny GPUs on 16 or 14 nm are on the way.


----------



## hellowalkman (Nov 4, 2015)

I believe Zen will be within 20% of Kaby Lake's IPC and that should be great for a lot of people if priced correctly.

    By the way,  AMD isn't claiming or hyping anything right now so if Zen fails they shouldn't be blamed.  They can only do so much in the financial jeopardy that they are.


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 4, 2015)

Serpent of Darkness said:


> The article is meat to start setting up expectations and "light the beacons of Gondor" moment about AMD Zen.  Until 3rd party benches are released, the only natural step is to be on the lookout for any news.  The members of this forum and others, will continue their natural state of speculation, QQ-ing, arguments about the fails and wins of AMD Zen.
> 
> To answer your question, it gets the community members coming back to the website.  Since the website is probably displaying ads for funding, the more members who recirculate back to see it, the better for TPU's benefit because they get a cut from it.  Anything with focus words like "AMD ZEN" or "NVIDIA GTX Titan HBM 16GB PASCUAL" or "AMD R9-690x appears from the darkness" to name a few, will have community members coming back, and they will see the ads or pop-ups.  Similar situation occurs on YouTube when you monetize videos.  If consumers are watching some random person's videos, they will see the ads with the videos.  The owner of the videos gets a cut of the money spent to put up the ads, and the cut goes up when more viewers watch the video because it equates to a greater chance that the viewer will purchase the product from newegg or an online store.  So in a since, btarunr's actions could be justified to sustain the website on a financial level, if it was important.  To go even further, Guru3D.com left their "QQ" post last week.  It's a similar situation where pop-up blockers were stopping the ads from being displayed to community members and site visitors.  Since less ads were being viewed, Guru3D makes less money in the process.  Thus, this is the justification for the "QQ" post.



Saying Guru are 'QQ' about ad-blocking is unfair.  Most tech sites have no financial backing so run all costs on ads revenue.  Only other alternative is paid subscription or sponsorship (fixed banner - no pop ups) both of which are bad.  It's mobile that's worse by far but also some sites use really invasive, page blocking ads.  The ones used here and at Guru etc are tucked away neatly.  Ad Blocking is useful for some but a selfish move.  It's a case of 'I want free media' yet people forget that in real life , most things have a cost. 

So is this new click bait? Who cares, it's rumour and we all love rumour.


----------



## F-Zero (Nov 4, 2015)

I must admit 2016 is going to be a very interesting year for us. AMD finally waking up and bringing us ZEN. We finally ditched 28nm and going for 16/14nm. nVidia Pascal, Amd Arctic Island, HBM2 i hope i didn't forget something. Very excited about 2016.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 4, 2015)

Serpent of Darkness said:


> The article is meat to start setting up expectations and "light the beacons of Gondor" moment about AMD Zen.  Until 3rd party benches are released, the only natural step is to be on the lookout for any news.  The members of this forum and others, will continue their natural state of speculation, QQ-ing, arguments about the fails and wins of AMD Zen.
> 
> To answer your question, it gets the community members coming back to the website.  Since the website is probably displaying ads for funding, the more members who recirculate back to see it, the better for TPU's benefit because they get a cut from it.  Anything with focus words like "AMD ZEN" or "NVIDIA GTX Titan HBM 16GB PASCUAL" or "AMD R9-690x appears from the darkness" to name a few, will have community members coming back, and they will see the ads or pop-ups.  Similar situation occurs on YouTube when you monetize videos.  If consumers are watching some random person's videos, they will see the ads with the videos.  The owner of the videos gets a cut of the money spent to put up the ads, and the cut goes up when more viewers watch the video because it equates to a greater chance that the viewer will purchase the product from newegg or an online store.  So in a since, btarunr's actions could be justified to sustain the website on a financial level, if it was important.  To go even further, Guru3D.com left their "QQ" post last week.  It's a similar situation where pop-up blockers were stopping the ads from being displayed to community members and site visitors.  Since less ads were being viewed, Guru3D makes less money in the process.  Thus, this is the justification for the "QQ" post.



Wow.............


----------



## 64K (Nov 4, 2015)

nem said:


> Seems sales of INTEL gone to the $hit..



Still trying to spread disinformation I see.

Let's take a look at reality instead. Read post #54 and then have a look at this

http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/press-release-2015apr16.aspx

http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/press-release-2015jul16.aspx

http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/press-release-2015oct15.aspx

Note that those figures include their GPU sales and the sales for chips for all three consoles too as well as CPU and APU.

Will Zen help AMD? Only if AMD can get a larger market share in the PC and server market. They have to sell the Zen chips to computer manufacturers. That is what will make or break AMD on the CPU side of their business.


----------



## Musaab (Nov 4, 2015)

Serpent of Darkness said:


> The article is meat to start setting up expectations and "light the beacons of Gondor" moment about AMD Zen.  Until 3rd party benches are released, the only natural step is to be on the lookout for any news.  The members of this forum and others, will continue their natural state of speculation, QQ-ing, arguments about the fails and wins of AMD Zen.
> 
> To answer your question, it gets the community members coming back to the website.  Since the website is probably displaying ads for funding, the more members who recirculate back to see it, the better for TPU's benefit because they get a cut from it.  Anything with focus words like "AMD ZEN" or "NVIDIA GTX Titan HBM 16GB PASCUAL" or "AMD R9-690x appears from the darkness" to name a few, will have community members coming back, and they will see the ads or pop-ups.  Similar situation occurs on YouTube when you monetize videos.  If consumers are watching some random person's videos, they will see the ads with the videos.  The owner of the videos gets a cut of the money spent to put up the ads, and the cut goes up when more viewers watch the video because it equates to a greater chance that the viewer will purchase the product from newegg or an online store.  So in a since, btarunr's actions could be justified to sustain the website on a financial level, if it was important.  To go even further, Guru3D.com left their "QQ" post last week.  It's a similar situation where pop-up blockers were stopping the ads from being displayed to community members and site visitors.  Since less ads were being viewed, Guru3D makes less money in the process.  Thus, this is the justification for the "QQ" post.


We need TPU, we need Guru3D, we need Tomshardware. We need every tech site out there. Why? Because they are still give us something to read and place to discuss and sometimes fight for the sake of the brands we love. And it's free so we accept the adv as part of word free. Thanks for everyone make internet fun and free.


----------



## vega22 (Nov 4, 2015)

F-Zero said:


> I must admit 2016 is going to be a very interesting year for us. AMD finally waking up and bringing us ZEN. We finally ditched 28nm and going for 16/14nm. nVidia Pascal, Amd Arctic Island, HBM2 i hope i didn't forget something. Very excited about 2016.



upgrades to storage data paths.

intel+micron vs sandisk+hp in ssd dimm.

vr finally getting good headsets that we can all afford.

4k screens the same too.

pc gaming finally getting a real poster boy as steam starts to push itself as such.

tiss really looking like being a great year for pc fans across the boards


----------



## Casecutter (Nov 4, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> across the tech PR wire


But this isn't near any Public Relation release, it's just a backdoor rumor.  One might speculate AMD planted this... or Intel plants it to start the forum world to "hype-over-sell" expectations.  Or it has a shred of truth in that some person who has some "in" to AMD engineering said in passing it *"meet all expectations" and "no significant bottlenecks found".*  And that's the problem I have with what _btarunr_ wrote is there's no mention of a source unless you go to the article he referencing at OC3D.net.  And then we find as others here indicate, what that tells us is it's all left to speculation.  We need to leave it as that... speculation and rumor and give it no more "life" than that.



the54thvoid said:


> So is this new click bait? Who cares, it's rumour and we all love rumour.


While I don't have a problem with an "unsubstantiated rumors", this click-bait is worse as it appears many members see it as offering substantial value, and/or delineated from AMD as _btarunr and other sites _include slides from AMD to give it an air of distinction.


----------



## Dieinafire (Nov 4, 2015)

I bet intel has some intel on layaway ready to destroy Zen


----------



## RealNeil (Nov 4, 2015)

Dieinafire said:


> I bet intel has some intel on layaway ready to destroy Zen



They always seem to,.....NVIDIA too. 

It seems like they're both always holding onto their best, and only releasing whatever they're "forced to" to stay slightly ahead of the competition.
I resent this, because they don't care to give us their best gear when they could. Only when they have to.

They have us all on a schedule.


----------



## dj-electric (Nov 4, 2015)

Of course they are. It takes only about 55W for intel today to make a powerful I7 quadcore CPU, practically without its ridicules iGPU. Do you think they will have any issues going ham when their competitor offers the same kind of performance for 95W?

No... not really. Pulling out a 6 core 3.6Ghz+ monster within 95W TDP for mainstream socket is something intel could easily do, if they gave a hoot.


----------



## GhostRyder (Nov 4, 2015)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> No... not really. Pulling out a 6 core 3.6Ghz+ monster within 95W TDP for mainstream socket is something intel could easily do, if they gave a hoot.


 I highly doubt that with any of the chips unless they have something really special hidden away.  Even the low clocked 5820K is still using quite a lot of power on the X99 platform so even with the changes in architecture and a few things taken out I doubt its possible currently without heavy binning and clock reductions.



the54thvoid said:


> Saying Guru are 'QQ' about ad-blocking is unfair.  Most tech sites have no financial backing so run all costs on ads revenue.  Only other alternative is paid subscription or sponsorship (fixed banner - no pop ups) both of which are bad.  It's mobile that's worse by far but also some sites use really invasive, page blocking ads.  The ones used here and at Guru etc are tucked away neatly.  Ad Blocking is useful for some but a selfish move.  It's a case of 'I want free media' yet people forget that in real life , most things have a cost.
> 
> So is this new click bait? Who cares, it's rumour and we all love rumour.


 ^
Yea, I feel some people just want everything handed to them for free.  I admit there are times where ads are overly abused or the ads themselves are beyond obnoxious/ridiculous but for most sites that's where they get their money whether its a youtube channel or a tech site.  Mobile is really the only area that can be grey area in my book because of limited data when it comes to ad's but its still necessary.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 4, 2015)

Dieinafire said:


> I bet intel has some intel on layaway ready to destroy Zen



An interesting proposition.  May I offer a counter?

Intel is basically making an APU with their consumer level hardware.  They haven't offered a true CPU in that bracket since Sandy Bridge.  On the other hand, AMD will be offering a true CPU, that well be 10-20% under performing per die area, but have an extra 20-30% die space (I'm ball parking on space here, so please take the numbers with a huge grain of salt) to work with.  Even those who swear by Intel have to admit what a huge benefit that is, because Intel is doing the same thing with the much more expensive enthusiast platforms.


I'd gladly forego Intel's wattage superiority to have less wasted space, more cores, and a platform which has more than 3 years of upgrade path.  I'm currently running Intel CPUs only because AMD is a crap competitor.  If they could release something even just within striking distance (not necessarily superior) of Intel I'd gladly make them a part of my next build.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 4, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Intel is basically making an APU with their consumer level hardware.  They haven't offered a true CPU in that bracket since Sandy Bridge.  On the other hand, AMD will be offering a true CPU, that well be 10-20% under performing per die area, but have an extra 20-30% die space (I'm ball parking on space here, so please take the numbers with a huge grain of salt) to work with.  Even those who swear by Intel have to admit what a huge benefit that is, because Intel is doing the same thing with the much more expensive enthusiast platforms.


Shouldn't be a problem for Intel to manufacture the desired parts if they feel their market requires the presence. Haswell-EP for example is a pretty modular design. 14-18 cores (662mm^2) scales down to 4-8 cores (354mm^2) and 80-90W, and that still provides for a huge 20MB L3. I wouldn't think Broadwell or Skylake would be any different WRT modularity, so it probably comes down to mix-and-match core/TDP and turbo stepping/L3 and IGP/no-IGP options. Skylake (4C) with a more mainstream 8MB L3 is only 73mm^2 sans IGP, so package size wouldn't be a problem. Probably depends on how much of a threat Intel perceives Zen to be. Personally, I couldn't see Intel releasing a consumer part without at least some IGP functionality - even if rudimentary. Intel gain nothing by offering "chipsets" with no display out functionality.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 4, 2015)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> Of course they are. It takes only about 55W for intel today to make a powerful I7 quadcore CPU, practically without its ridicules iGPU. Do you think they will have any issues going ham when their competitor offers the same kind of performance for 95W?
> 
> No... not really. Pulling out a 6 core 3.6Ghz+ monster within 95W TDP for mainstream socket is something intel could easily do, if they gave a hoot.


http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/D/X10SDV-8C-TLN4F.cfm
http://ark.intel.com/products/87039/Intel-Xeon-Processor-D-1540-12M-Cache-2_00-GHz
http://www.servethehome.com/intel-xeon-d-1540-performance-comparison/

If Intel can do a 8c/16t Xeon SoC in a 45-watt TDP envelope, I think Intel can do a lot more than what they're offering the run of the mill consumer.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 5, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> Shouldn't be a problem for Intel to manufacture the desired parts if they feel their market requires the presence. Haswell-EP for example is a pretty modular design. 14-18 cores (662mm^2) scales down to 4-8 cores (354mm^2) and 80-90W, and that still provides for a huge 20MB L3. I wouldn't think Broadwell or Skylake would be any different WRT modularity, so it probably comes down to mix-and-match core/TDP and turbo stepping/L3 and IGP/no-IGP options. Skylake (4C) with a more mainstream 8MB L3 is only 73mm^2 sans IGP, so package size wouldn't be a problem. Probably depends on how much of a threat Intel perceives Zen to be. Personally, I couldn't see Intel releasing a consumer part without at least some IGP functionality - even if rudimentary. Intel gain nothing by offering "chipsets" with no display out functionality.



My only problem with the proposition is that it requires Intel to admit that they have to give up on IGP to compete with an offering from AMD.  That seems like a huge reversal of course, and it also seems like a complete loss from the PR side.  In my experience, Intel doesn't do that sort of thing until they've been demonstrated to be so massively wrong that it's the only option.

Frankly, I don't believe Zen could ever do that.  It'd have to be one hell of a magic rabbit to be so much better than the Intel offering that it would force a change in their plans.  I'm honestly just hoping for viable competition (on the high-end mainstream or low end enthusiast markets).  Nobody in their right mind should believe AMD will somehow find the way to magically come back from near extinction to be a viable competitor to Intel with one CPU line.  If it sounded like I was saying that then I've made an error in tone.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 5, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> My only problem with the proposition is that it requires Intel to admit that they have to give up on IGP to compete with an offering from AMD.  That seems like a huge reversal of course, and it also seems like a complete loss from the PR side.  In my experience, Intel doesn't do that sort of thing until they've been demonstrated to be so massively wrong that it's the only option.


Maybe, but AMD will market Zen as an enthusiasts "FX" platform, so unless AMD price it to compete with Intel's mainstream platform it will go up against whatever enthusiast SKU/HEDT Intel have. AMD could price down to Intel's mainstream, but that strategy hasn't worked particularly well up til now. Intel also have the option of dropping chipset prices back to X58 levels or lower (I'm sure the $50 they charge for X99 isn't warranted in any case) or offering a stratified chipset option if AMD look like achieving any serious inroads into Intel's business.


lilhasselhoffer said:


> Frankly, I don't believe Zen could ever do that.  It'd have to be one hell of a magic rabbit to be so much better than the Intel offering that it would force a change in their plans.  I'm honestly just hoping for viable competition (on the high-end mainstream or low end enthusiast markets).  Nobody in their right mind should believe AMD will somehow find the way to magically come back from near extinction to be a viable competitor to Intel with one CPU line.  If it sounded like I was saying that then I've made an error in tone.


I would doubt it as well given the R&D of both companies. Even if Zen closed the gap completely ( I agree, extremely unlikely), AMD don't have the brand awareness, and are saddled with a management whose track record of success would put Sisyphus to shame in its ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


----------



## xvi (Nov 5, 2015)

Hopefully power consumption will be a bit more tame this time around. I turned a blind eye to it for a while, but it really was getting a bit much. I suppose the main concern is getting performance competitive though.

C'mon, AMD. We're rootin' for ya'.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 5, 2015)

I have a feeling it will "_meat _the expectations"...


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 5, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> Maybe, but AMD will market Zen as an enthusiasts "FX" platform, so unless AMD price it to compete with Intel's mainstream platform it will go up against whatever enthusiast SKU/HEDT Intel have. AMD could price down to Intel's mainstream, but that strategy hasn't worked particularly well up til now. Intel also have the option of dropping chipset prices back to X58 levels or lower (I'm sure the $50 they charge for X99 isn't warranted in any case) or offering a stratified chipset option if AMD look like achieving any serious inroads into Intel's business.
> ...



An interesting point.  I always saw AMD as offering the better deal for upgrades, because your FX level processors and your standard processors all utilized the same chipsets (given, there was some distinction, but definitely not the fragmented mish-mash of Intel).  I make this statement, looking at Intel right now.  The PCH for SB and IB was basically the same offering (but requiring you purchase a new motherboard to insure compatibility with new CPUs and better PCI-e 3.0 support).  Haswell finally got full SATA III support (and some M2), but that was about it.  Broadwell never materialized.  Skylake adds almost nothing to the mix that wasn't present in Haswell (at least nothing useful in the next 18 months based upon current trends and pricing).  With each of these generations having at least 3 variants (and usually more), it was a pain in the butt to try and explain why one board cost more than another without having to whip out a comparative chart for features.  Heck, that doesn't even cover the enthusiast lines and server lines (of which there was some cross-over).

While you're dealing with the Intel alphabet soup you had two or three chipset choices from AMD, that work with all their processors.  If you bought a good motherboard when AM3+ came out it could see multiple processors over several years, assuming that you could live without some of the baked in features that Intel pushes with every minor revision.  Right now I'm looking at several computer which have no real upgrade path (SB and IB), yet their PCH features are largely still sufficient for everything that I need today.  Even if the CPUs weren't keeping up, the PCH would be enough for the next couple of years.  That kind of logic works with AMD (or at least it did in the past), but Intel gives you 18-36 months (depending upon if there is a refresh).  


I'm conjecturing that Intel only needs three cards to win most markets, and none of them is the raw performance card.  They claim that they've got the most innovative features, by citing cost savings to businesses using their iGPU.  They claim best thermal performance, to lock the server market.  After that, the only card they need to play is recognition.  Even if AMD went toe-to-toe, Zen couldn't beat these cards.  

AMD has to win the enthusiast market for Zen to live, which wouldn't be hard with a sub $300 6 core or better CPU.    Throw in all the PCH features that Skylake has, with an additional few PCI-e lanes, and you've got a platform worth spending some money on (it's easy once you admit that CPU upgrades will happen more often than new peripherals get added which will require drastic PCH changes).  It's not like Intel gives a crap, based upon their enthusiast level PCH options (yes, I'm still stewing over the x79 PCH  being both expensive and underwhelming).  If AMD can make a decent dent on enthusiast CPUs they have a chance for their next CPU line to be a real success.  I can't even count how many times over the past 5 years when somebody pointed out a cheap AMD system, and I immediately dismissed the savings because the performance wouldn't have justified it.  If you can get people like us to seriously consider recommending AMD then they have a chance at being implemented.  As it stands, I think the lackluster previous products prevent builders from recommending their product.  They'll never get the server lines to survive, because you're right to say Intel will utterly stomp them with only minor changes to existing product.  Cheaper CPUs are the only reason that AMD is still even in the CPU game, but that business is low margin and high volume (read: not enough money to support the R&D for future projects).  I don't want to see AMD die, but even if Zen is a huge success it'll take a huge amount of effort to counteract the death spiral AMD management is making.  Zen alone can't do that if they can't rebuild the loyal fan base.


I'm loathe to admit this, but AMD need people like SonyXperia.  It needs die hard fans willing to buy day 1, and in order to do that AMD has to undo their reputation of mediocrity.  The best way to do that isn't to compete with Intel, but to give those Intel has been ignoring a voice again.  I can't be the only one angry that an ever increasing iGPU, lackluster generational performance increases, and consistently stupid choices (giving up solder, FIVR, etc..) has made buying a new Intel system feel like extortion over the past 5 years.  Don't get me wrong, SB was the best overall platform I've ever seen.  At the same time, IB, Haswell, and largely Skybridge have given me no reason to want to spend money on a platform.  Assuming Zen isn't a flop for performance, I want to give AMD my business just to force Intel to get off their lazy backsides and make some real progress.  

Let's also be people for just a moment here.  Let's say Intel follows up Zen with Kaby Lake, and suddenly we see a generational improvement of 15%.  I know that would piss me off to no end, because it'd be Intel telling customers that they only care about delivering their best products whenever there was competition.  As a consumer, that's tantamount to being given the middle finger.  Wouldn't that piss you off enough to take a minor loss in performance, just to give Intel the finger right back?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 5, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> An interesting point.  I always saw AMD as offering the better deal for upgrades, because your FX level processors and your standard processors all utilized the same chipsets (given, there was some distinction, but definitely not the fragmented mish-mash of Intel).  I make this statement, looking at Intel right now.  The PCH for SB and IB was basically the same offering (but requiring you purchase a new motherboard to insure compatibility with new CPUs and better PCI-e 3.0 support).


It's why I run a supposedly antiquated 2600K @ 4.8G on an entry level Z77 board to this day. I suspect the same rationale exists for a lot of the group loosely termed enthusiasts. If I hadn't had the option of sifting through over two dozen 2600K's for a good clocker and a discounted board, I might still be using my old i7 950 /X58 combo. In the end "we" don't drive the market though, ODM/OEM's do. "Q" and "H" chipset boards sporting non-"K" CPUs are huge sellers for Intel, and the reason that locked processors sell for almost the same price as their unlocked brethren. Tell an OEM that they can put together an unspectacular box using a 400W PSU and minimal cooling with no concerns about product delivery and a built in "name brand" partner and they'll line up around the block to get the handshake, especially if it's bundled with server contracts  also offering a smooth delivery schedule.


lilhasselhoffer said:


> While you're dealing with the Intel alphabet soup you had two or three chipset choices from AMD, that work with all their processors.  If you bought a good motherboard when AM3+ came out it could see multiple processors over several years, assuming that you could live without some of the baked in features that Intel pushes with every minor revision.  Right now I'm looking at several computer which have no real upgrade path (SB and IB), yet their PCH features are largely still sufficient for everything that I need today.  Even if the CPUs weren't keeping up, the PCH would be enough for the next couple of years.  That kind of logic works with AMD (or at least it did in the past), but Intel gives you 18-36 months (depending upon if there is a refresh).


The only issues I see are that AMD has also dabbled with shortened socket/chipset life in recent times WRT APUs, and being at the budget end of the market, people driven by value for money aren't as likely to upgrade as often as those indulging at the sharp end of the industry.


lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'm conjecturing that Intel only needs three cards to win most markets, and none of them is the raw performance card.  They claim that they've got the most innovative features, by citing cost savings to businesses using their iGPU.  They claim best thermal performance, to lock the server market.  After that, the only card they need to play is recognition.  Even if AMD went toe-to-toe, Zen couldn't beat these cards.


The big one is time-to-market and delivering on promises. Large stockists and ODM/OEMs tend to shy away if product cycle cadence slips and/or the feature set gets watered down. AMD have done themselves no favours (albeit GloFo shoulders a large part of the blame in some instances) with limited supply of the -particularly, the top SKUs when a new product line is launched (APUs being a prime example), hit-or-miss delivery schedules, and missing features ( Opteron A1100's missing the promised Freedom Fabric and its protracted delay virtually killed any momentum it had) will all give large customers pause for thought.


lilhasselhoffer said:


> AMD has to win the enthusiast market for Zen to live, which wouldn't be hard with a sub $300 6 core or better CPU. Throw in all the PCH features that Skylake has, with an additional few PCI-e lanes, and you've got a platform worth spending some money on (it's easy once you admit that CPU upgrades will happen more often than new peripherals get added which will require drastic PCH changes).  It's not like Intel gives a crap, based upon their enthusiast level PCH options (yes, I'm still stewing over the x79 PCH  being both expensive and underwhelming)...[  ]...They'll never get the server lines to survive, because you're right to say Intel will utterly stomp them with only minor changes to existing product.


I agree wholeheartedly. If AMD deliver on what has been publicly disseminated, it should revitalize the market for both them and the motherboard vendors living off 800/900-chipset crumbs. They still need outright IPC and performance-per-core/thread/watt to take it to the next stage - the x86 server market, where the buyers are more discerning, the stakes are higher, and schedules are paramount....and no, I think AMD have burned too many bridges and Intel hasn't put a step out of place ( Buying InfiniBand and Cray's interconnect business is a declaration of intent in no uncertain terms) for AMD to regain anything more than crumbs from x86 server/HPC.


lilhasselhoffer said:


> I don't want to see AMD die, but even if Zen is a huge success it'll take a huge amount of effort to counteract the death spiral AMD management is making.  Zen alone can't do that if they can't rebuild the loyal fan base.


That's my question as well. If Zen does well it is great, but what AMD needs to do is follow up, because Intel don't stand still so AMD still need to match Intel's cadence. In the past, AMD have put out good product, but its increments after the first iteration have lasted more product cycles than they ought to


lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'm loathe to admit this, but AMD need people like SonyXperia.  It needs die hard fans willing to buy day 1, and in order to do that AMD has to undo their reputation of mediocrity.  The best way to do that isn't to compete with Intel, but to give those Intel has been ignoring a voice again.


You'll need to see a pervasive market presence from AMD to achieve that, and to get wide exposure and get the brand front and centre. For that to happen AMD need to execute to gain the confidence of the vendors who would elevate the AMD brand as they would (hopefully) use it to elevate their own. Many more people gain exposure to an IHV by buying Dell, HP, Toshiba, Lenovo etc. than the DIY enthusiast sector. The latter generate a buzz, but the former brings the brand awareness that stands it in good stead when a repeat purchase or a move to a custom build beckon.


lilhasselhoffer said:


> Let's also be people for just a moment here.  Let's say Intel follows up Zen with Kaby Lake, and suddenly we see a generational improvement of 15%.  I know that would piss me off to no end, because it'd be Intel telling customers that they only care about delivering their best products whenever there was competition.  As a consumer, that's tantamount to being given the middle finger.  Wouldn't that piss you off enough to take a minor loss in performance, just to give Intel the finger right back?


It's my understanding that Kaby Lake is a cut'n'paste product line. The succeeding Ice Lake/Cannonlake and the Union Point chipset are supposed to be the larger technology jump.


----------



## CjStaal (Nov 5, 2015)

I love AMD/ATI, and I really really hope they kick the shit out of Intel/Nvidia. But for now I'm sticking with Intel/Nvidia. Once the benchmarks come, maybe I'll build another rig and use the rig I just built as a virtualization host.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 5, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> ...
> It's my understanding that Kaby Lake is a cut'n'paste product line. The succeeding Ice Lake/Cannonlake and the Union Point chipset are supposed to be the larger technology jump.



Damn.  I was hoping that Kaby Lake would be worth something, given what Skylake brought to the picture (mainstream DDR4).  It's a shame to think Kaby Lake will be another increment, but at least that means AMD might have a chance to put out Zen before Intel has something which truly eclipses it.


Edit:
I found the time to fully read that article, and I think I'm pissed.

It reads that Cannonlake is disappearing, with Kaby Lake taking its place.  That's the source of my confusion with Kaby Lake not being just a minor increase,  What galls me though is the reintroduction of FIVR.  

Sorry folks, but that's another strike against Intel in my books.  The reason Skylake is seeing some of the overclocks its seeing can be directly tied back to FIVR being booted to the curb.  Now Intel wants to reintroduce it, with the justification that "it keeps people from burning out their processors."  WTF?

They say outright overclocking voids warranties.  They say outright that the FIVR exists as a measure to limit overclocking.  After saying all of this, I think back to Intel saying that they're reaching out to the enthusiast community (their PR BS behind the new thermal interface for Devil's Canyon processors).  All I can say is I really hope AMD pulls something special with Zen.  I don't want to give Intel another penny if I don't have to.  They seem to think we're idiots, so telling them to sit and spin with my money would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 5, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Damn.  I was hoping that Kaby Lake would be worth something, given what Skylake brought to the picture (mainstream DDR4).  It's a shame to think Kaby Lake will be another increment, but at least that means AMD might have a chance to put out Zen before Intel has something which truly eclipses it.



If Zen is based off of Jaguar (which it looks like it is even if it is loosely) you are looking at a 100% clock for clock IPC increase over Phenom II (thuban), with the same multithreading ability and performance we saw with FX. _Assuming_ AMD can scale that into a full scale 8 core CPU at a higher clock speed the loose information they have let loose is completely plausible and they should be competitive with intel's current 6th gen bare minimum.


----------



## Vlada011 (Nov 6, 2015)

It would be good if AMD launch something good.
Than Intel need to drop price of i7-7930K or even to launch 8 core Xtreme for 550$.
That would be fantastic because Skylake Extreme platform will be something really nice.
Off course with better AMD processor customers will know that Intel try best they can to offer nice performance.
They can't calculate with lower clock and next architecture to improve performance because higher clock only and similar things.
In period when Intel expect from AMD competitive processors they launch Sandy Bridge with flux solder and excellent performance. 
When AMD didn't offer nothing Intel launch processor capable to OC 300-400MHz on 85C.
Except Xtreme class, they had always good Xtreme processors like small Xeons good and for games and for serious work.
After I tried i7-3770K... and he served me so good and give me so much confidence in Intel processors that no way to look on AMD as chance for upgrade only as chance to Intel offer cheaper models and better performance.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 6, 2015)

In all honesty, if AMD can push a very good IPC and strong single thread with Zen, I could care less about performance/watt ratio's and if they get to equal performance levels as current or last-gen Intels and the price is about the same, I'm getting one. I'll pay a few bucks more on the energy bill to support AMD, but I won't take an inferior product for granted to do so. Let's hope for the best 

@Vlada011 I think that's abit premature. Intel still has a vast majority of the market, and even after a successful Zen launch and great performance, it is not like everyone is going to upgrade their system. This will take years, and thus it will also take several iterations of Zen and upgrades of Zen to recover market share. Intel has little to worry about and they can see it coming from miles away. I seriously doubt Intel is going to compromise its own high performance margins by 'adding cores' or pushing E-procs to a lower price bracket. If anything, it will create new product tiers that won't have the extra PCIE lanes etc. (Intel is already doing this with the most recent E-procs). Another big issue is that for both Intel or AMD there is absolutely zero benefit in starting a price war or even compete on price alone - AMD will lose the margins it so desperately needs, and Intel will comfortably adapt to it because of its huge reserves; if it goes the other way around, Intel will hand in on the budget which it desperately needs to get a foothold in ARM markets.

Another point many forget; there is only a very small market for the 'more cores' enthusiasts. Even if I look at myself, I see very little use for an octacore CPU when I have a fast quad core at this point. For gaming, it is pretty much a total waste especially with the consoles determining the market and performance ceilings, and with DX12 optimizations around the corner even a fast single thread becomes less important for future titles. The real bottleneck of this day and age is going to be GPU-related, and far less CPU-related for the consumer bracket. Think about VR: it will need beefy GPU to drive high FPS/high resolution, but the underlying game might even be more simple in terms of CPU tasks than legacy titles.


----------



## SviatA (Nov 6, 2015)

Huh, I would believe if some other engineers test any Zen unit and told that.
Surely, AMD will not lie, but marketers can tell anything to show that the new CPU/GPU/RAM is much better, while it is still on par or a little bit better.
Anyway, thumbs up for AMD. I'm still using an old-fashioned AMD FX-4300. But I had a choice, I would take a Phenom II rather than a Bulldozer or Piledriver.
PS: I saw that some retailers still have very old Phenom units, like PC24.de - there was an AMD Phenom II X2 3.3GHz. If that was a 4-core unit, I would take it...


----------



## Athlonite (Nov 7, 2015)

I much prefer the wait and see method as rumours and speculation are meaningless drivel which is unsubstantiated without real proof


----------



## RealNeil (Nov 7, 2015)

Athlonite said:


> I much prefer the wait and see method as rumours and speculation are meaningless drivel which is unsubstantiated without real proof



Especially since we have to wait and see anyway,...........


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 7, 2015)

I won't even buy a motherboard until I see hard proof.
I got stung by Bulldozer;not happening again.
Used to use AMD stuff all the time.


----------



## medi01 (Nov 11, 2015)

RCoon said:


> Well that depends on what specifically the expectations were doesnt it?



Main promise was +40% IPC.
Perf/watt should, erm, double, but this part I remember vaguely.




dorsetknob said:


> ...AMD publicity machine    its been proven not to be Trusted



Care to name "publicity machine" that has been proven "to be Trusted", please?



Dippyskoodlez said:


> The problem is we have software that needs FPU.
> 
> "fury X" also met their "expectations".


Remember, tthat 980Ti was released to spoil the Fury launch.



HumanSmoke said:


> That's my question as well. If Zen does well it is great, but what AMD needs to do is follow up, because Intel don't stand still so AMD still need to match Intel's cadence. In the past, AMD have put out good product, but its increments after the first iteration have lasted more product cycles than they ought to



I hope that, since:
1) "Moore's law" is dead, fab development has slowed down a lot and if we see huge improvements, they are unlikely to come from silicon shrinks
2) AMD doesn't need to cover fab R&D costs
3) IPC optimizations are close to diminishing returns

AMD still has a chance.

The only thing that bugs me, is that I cannot find AMD chip, that has better IPC than my ancient 45nm i5 750.


PS
combined posts into one.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 11, 2015)

medi01 said:


> Main promise was +40% IPC.
> Perf/watt should, erm, double, but this part I remember vaguely.





medi01 said:


> Care to name "publicity machine" that has been proven "to be Trusted", please?





medi01 said:


> Remember, tthat 980Ti was released to spoil the Fury launch.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please do not double or triple post. There is a multi-quote option for replying to multiple people, and there is also an edit button to add additional comments to your post.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 12, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/D/X10SDV-8C-TLN4F.cfm
> http://ark.intel.com/products/87039/Intel-Xeon-Processor-D-1540-12M-Cache-2_00-GHz
> http://www.servethehome.com/intel-xeon-d-1540-performance-comparison/
> 
> If Intel can do a 8c/16t Xeon SoC in a 45-watt TDP envelope, I think Intel can do a lot more than what they're offering the run of the mill consumer.


Well, at least HEDT is continuing its incremental core addition. Seems Broadwell-E gets an *i7-6950X with 10C/20T*. Entry level for the new series seems to be 6 core/12 thread.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 12, 2015)

HumanSmoke said:


> Well, at least HEDT is continuing its incremental core addition. Seems Broadwell-E gets an *i7-6950X with 10C/20T*. Entry level for the new series seems to be 6 core/12 thread.


Well, when skt2011-3 came out, the entry level Xeon was a 6c/6t chip for 200 USD, still is I think. Since then they've released a 4c/8t Xeon that has some power behind them (for E5 Xeons,) but, they're not the cheapest in the Xeon lineup, however they cost less than a 5820k.

Personally, I'm bummed that there isn't an quad-core i7 part for 2011-3 however, you can get just about every quad core Xeon option on 2011-3 for less than a 5820k, so for the 3820 in Xeon form, on skt2011-3 could get you all of your PCI-E lanes, 2 less cores, and ECC support, without a hit to cost. For anyone who was planning on using a lot of PCI-E and wasn't planning on overclocking, I would point them to something like the Xeon E5 1630 V3. It's the quad core part that should have had an i7 counter part. Problem is that it would probably cannibalize the 5820k because most people have no use for 6c/12t but, gamers and workstations alike would probably prefer to have their 40 PCI-E lanes for multi-GPU, SSDs, RAID, whatever. I know I would.

Either way, this is all beside the point. AMD has to make some serious progress on single-threaded performance to get Intel change their ways. Until something substantial happens, they're going to keep milking the technology they've had for years. All the while, it has given Intel valuable time to improve their iGPUs which they have been doing... significantly (consider the leaps in performance every generation.)


----------

