AMD hints at high-performance Zen x86 architecture

[Frick]

So you honestly think the i3 wins in MOST applications?

So are you telling me the i3 can outperform the FX-8 core in Encoding, 3D Rendering, Photo Manipulation, File compressing, Folding, General Multi-tasking etc.

Mr. Batou1986 you have gone quiet!!!!!!



I personally don't use Photoshop. But I give you the benefit of the doubt. Across most applications not called "gaming" the i3 shouldn't be uttered in the same sentence as the FX 8-core. Really surprised this community accepts what Batou1986 says as fact without a fight.

I don't use PS meself, so I don't really know, I just threw out something there's a bench for. The argument dates back to w1z's granddad (or so it feels). There has been numerous charts thrown around, and I'm surprised it's still a debate at all.

We measured the performance in Adobe Photoshop CS6 using our own benchmark made from Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test that has been creatively modified. It includes typical editing of four 24-megapixel images from a digital photo camera.

The gist of it is benchmarks shows that Vishera is placed all the way from below the lowest Ivy Bridge i3 to above the fastest Ivy i7. What this means in real life is that FX is awesome depending on what you're doing, whereas just a teeny more bit of money gives you an i5, which is good across the board while using less power. A 8320 is never a bad CPU, it's just that - as has been proven again and again - it's inconsistent. And at this point it's almost three years old.

But I/we digress.


Sledgehammer was an awesome name. They should have called Zen BullHammer.

 

[Batou1986]

See the problem really isn't AMD's CPU's its that most software doesn't use multi threading properly.
Software that I personally use like photoshop games etc benefit much more from better single threaded performance.
The only benefit I occasionally get from my FX is faster encoding times for making .webm's.

So yes the i3 IMO is better in most circumstances because most circumstances are single threaded.
Additionally you always have the option in the future of upgrading to an i5 or i7 whereas with AMD you already have the "high performance" chip.

If AMD wants to catch up to intel they need to make their CPUs better at working with current software and not banking on people making software to play nice with integer cores and other nonsense that never panned out.
That is the only way their new CPU's will be high performance.

 

[0zzy]

I'm pretty sure AMD is slower than intel on purpose. I mean why would the manufacturer not now the reason for why their chip is slower?

 

[HumanSmoke]

I'm pretty sure AMD is slower than intel on purpose. I mean why would the manufacturer not now the reason for why their chip is slower?

Please...

 

[0zzy]

Yea because the i3 performs better than the "high end" fx's?
Lol, Yeah guys because photoshop benchmarks are very exciting

 

[xfia]

if you want to get all conspiracy about it you could say intel figured out how to access information on the crystal skulls and left amd behind haha

 

[Caring1]

if you want to get all conspiracy about it you could say intel figured out how to access information on the crystal skulls and left amd behind haha

Or Intel conspire with benchmark writers to make Intel appear better

 

[Batou1986]

Yea because the i3 performs better than the "high end" fx's?
Lol, Yeah guys because photoshop benchmarks are very exciting

Ok lets end this non debate, the current i3 walks all over anything AMD has to offer except in Cinebench and by a small margin in video encoding.
inb4 bit tech is a lie paid review etc, go find another review site on your time if you care enough to see the same thing
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/14/intel-core-i3-4130-haswell-review

Besides its a well known fact that the older Phenom X4 and X6 beat the FX series in single threaded performance.
Like I said previously AMD has only one option and that is to design a CPU arch that works equally as well in multi threaded and single threaded environments with no funny cores that only work fast when the software devs code specifically for it.

 

[Frick]

Ok lets end this non debate, the current i3 walks all over anything AMD has to offer except in Cinebench and by a small margin in video encoding.
inb4 bit tech is a lie paid review etc, go find another review site on your time if you care enough to see the same thing
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/14/intel-core-i3-4130-haswell-review

This discussion will not end any time soon will it? Those results are very far from the definition of "walks all over".

 

[Batou1986]

This discussion will not end any time soon will it? Those results are very far from the definition of "walks all over".

Considering the i3 is a 54w? dual core budget CPU and it beats an 125w+ 8 core in anything contributes to my view of it walking all over AMD

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Considering the i3 is a 54w? dual core budget CPU and it beats an 125w+ 8 core in anything contributes to my view of it walking all over AMD

well then you arent being realistic cos at NO POINT will a modern computer ever do 1 thing at any time, your i3 is going to get smashed into the weeds by one game and one virus scan.

my old 8 core might well get pimped on IPC but id bench all day against an i3 and win in tit for tat bench picks, id obv pick a multi core aware test every time, you would pick a single thread using test, but you wouldnt walk over my pc in ANY way bar power consumption so get wise to the real world uses of most and stop filling intel's butt with balls.

 

[krusha03]

I am pretty satisfied with my FX-6300 overclocked to 4.55GHz. I could push more but I want my PC silent. I can crunch 5 tasks at a time and still have enough juice left for watching a movie or youtube in HD or streaming music while surfing the web or working in office. With this i pull 250W from the wall including my monitor and speakers

 

[Dent1]

well then you arent being realistic cos at NO POINT will a modern computer ever do 1 thing at any time, your i3 is going to get smashed into the weeds by one game and one virus scan.

my old 8 core might well get pimped on IPC but id bench all day against an i3 and win in tit for tat bench picks, id obv pick a multi core aware test every time, you would pick a single thread using test, but you wouldnt walk over my pc in ANY way bar power consumption so get wise to the real world uses of most and stop filling intel's butt with balls.

I am pretty satisfied with my FX-6300 overclocked to 4.55GHz[/B]. I could push more but I want my PC silent. I can crunch 5 tasks at a time and still have enough juice left for watching a movie or youtube in HD or streaming music while surfing the web or working in office. With this i pull 250W from the wall including my monitor and speakers

Funny how the haters have been quiet for 4 days after you guys said that lol

 

[R-T-B]

This may be slightly offtopic, but I'm out of date on AMD's offering and feel like stoking the fire here a bit...

How does a first gen i7 system like mine compare to a cutting edge AMD system, from a 1-core vs 1-core perspective? Are the i7 cores still more potent?

 

[xfia]

o there is still a large gap in per core performance with these new cores even if they go to desktop with a 100w tdp. they have always been good at closing the gap in threaded applications witch it is 2015 and is not jumping through hoops to use a few cores to get the job done. hsa is really about how efficient it can get tasks done with unified memory like reduced cache dependency, not having memory copies and reduced power draw for a given task.
cant go wrong reading about it http://developer.amd.com/resources/...hat-is-heterogeneous-system-architecture-hsa/
I dont think anyone can speak for the potency of zen cores yet but if recent developments from amd can speak for the future it looks pretty good especially if prices are competitive.

 

[Aquinus]

See the problem really isn't AMD's CPU's its that most software doesn't use multi threading properly.

Please don't reduce this problem to a it to a statement like this. It's not that most software doesn't use multi-threading properly because a lot of software does. It's that most situations don't constitute a speedup by simply using more threads because the task isn't parallel in nature. Depending on the workload, the speedup could be huge or it could be tiny but, for most applications that react to human intervention, there is a good bet that most of it is done in a single thread because tasks that are mostly serial in nature will only run slower when you attempt to divvy them up and the amount of speedup is proportional the amount of the application that can actually be run in parallel.

So please be careful with this statement because a lot of applications aren't conducive to being accelerated by using more threads and running parts of the application in parallel depends on the workload itself. You can't efficiently run tasks in parallel if each tasks relies on output from previous one. One doesn't simply make an application multi-threaded.

 

[Assimilator]

This may be slightly offtopic, but I'm out of date on AMD's offering and feel like stoking the fire here a bit...

How does a first gen i7 system like mine compare to a cutting edge AMD system, from a 1-core vs 1-core perspective? Are the i7 cores still more potent?

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-W3690-vs-AMD-FX-8350

tl;dr Clock for clock, a 5-year-old Intel design still outperforms AMD's latest and greatest, while using less power. This is why the title of this thread made me laugh hysterically, because "AMD" and "high performance CPU architecture" don't belong on the same continent, let alone in the same sentence. (Before the fanboys accuse me of bias, let me point out the "Intel" and "high performance integrated graphics" don't belong together either.)

If you are looking to upgrade, you should be able to find second-hand Sandy or Ivy Bridge systems going for cheap. Personally though, I'd wait for Skylake and DDR4 later this year.

 

[HumanSmoke]

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-W3690-vs-AMD-FX-8350

tl;dr Clock for clock, a 5-year-old Intel design still outperforms AMD's latest and greatest, while using less power.

That should come as no surprise to anyone. Mike Butler's Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture attempted to add cores at the expense of overall IPC and caching penalties to the extent that all AMD's hype (mostly in the form of John Freuhe's guerrilla marketing) turned out to well short of actual performance

....and fell well short of it's own previous K10 (or 10h) architecture, let alone Intel Nehalem....leading to AMD's excuse wrapped as an almost apology (shades of JHH's GTX 970 letter)
( Quick reference: Opteron 6174 is 10h/K10, Opteron 6276 is Bulldozer, X5670 is Westmere/Nehalem, Xeon 2690 is Sandy Bridge)

 

[R-T-B]

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-W3690-vs-AMD-FX-8350

tl;dr Clock for clock, a 5-year-old Intel design still outperforms AMD's latest and greatest, while using less power. This is why the title of this thread made me laugh hysterically, because "AMD" and "high performance CPU architecture" don't belong on the same continent, let alone in the same sentence. (Before the fanboys accuse me of bias, let me point out the "Intel" and "high performance integrated graphics" don't belong together either.)

If you are looking to upgrade, you should be able to find second-hand Sandy or Ivy Bridge systems going for cheap. Personally though, I'd wait for Skylake and DDR4 later this year.

I kind of expected that outcome, ironically I expected the 1st gen intel lead to be larger though, heh.

Still pretty sad. I don't think I'd be wrong to say you'd think it was positive for the market for AMD to make a good CPU core for a change though, amirite?

 

[HumanSmoke]

I kind of expected that outcome, ironically I expected the 1st gen intel lead to be larger though, heh.

Probably depends upon the workloads used for the rating criteria. Anandtech's bench has better transparency.