AMD "Summit Ridge" Die Pictured?

[nem..]

Zen
- 512KB Cache L2 per core
- 16 MB Cache L3
- 8 full cores
- 8 virtual cores

skylake i7-6700
- 256KB per core,
- 8 MB Cache L3
- 4 phisic cores
- 4 virtuals

look the old FX 32nm versus Intel I7 22nm
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...g-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html

 

[john_]

And nobody buys a brand new AM4 motherboard to slap a 6 core bulldozer on it either. And why would they, when zen will most likely grind excavator into the ground? Any cost associated with putting a 8 core excavator chip (considering the excavator has no variants with l3 cache or more then 4 cpu cores, and NO construction cores have ever been made on 14nm finfet) on AM4 would be better spent on getting zen out the door. Even the AM4 excavator APUs are still 28nm.

Consider having a Thuban, like me, or an 6/8 core FX. Would you go back to a 4 core? This is something I was considering for myself. Getting a Bristol Ridge to replace the AM3 Thuban system. Then my next thought was "Go from a 6 core to a 4 core?". Definitely NOT happening. If AMD was coming out with a 6core CPU or APU with only 128 stream processors at about $100-$120 I would do the switch and wait for Zen. Out of curiosity mostly to see the new platform.

Now I will just wait for Zen which will probably come in 6-9 months for desktops and in the beginning will be expensive for my taste. And I just realized that in my previous post I forgot that Zen will have Hyperthreding capabilities. So probably I should say $200 for the 4 core + Hyperthreding and over $400 for the 8 core model plus Hyperthreding. That mens 4 core Excavator APUs, or Piledriver CPUs if you want something cheaper than Zen architecture models. AMD NEEDs 6 and 8 core Excavator models in June 1st. BADLY. DDR4, you know? You can't stay one more year selling FX processors with DDR3 to cover the market between Bristol Ridge and Summit Ridge. It's ridiculous. And if there is a $100 Zen with 4 real cores, or 2 cores and Hyperthreding, I am staying with Thuban. If I wanted less cores but faster, I would had bought a i5 long ago. Years ago.

You will have 2 and 4 core APUs, and a six and eight core zen. You dont need anything in the middle there. Gamers will go for the 6 and 8 core, the 2 and 4 core will find its way into OEM and mini itx builds. And I dont see why their $100+ mobos would sell any worse then intels, and those sell pretty well. Even AM3+ sold well considering it was so badly outdated. A modern AMD chipset with a modern CPU will sell like hotcakes.

Intel's motherboards can support from a Celeron to a i7 from day one. And you know how i7 performs from day 1 also. On the other hand do you really pay $150 for a motherboard so you throw an APU on it and just hope AMD doesn't mess up with Zen? And how much will those Zen chips cost? Do you know for sure that if Zen performs like a Broadwell or even Haswell, not to mention Skylake or Kaby lake, AMD is going to give you those chips for $100-$150? If Zen is like a Haswell in IPC, the 4 cores model will cost over $100 and that's with Hyperthreding capabilities disabled. Prices will go much higher from there, by increasing cores or enabling Hyperthreding.

 

[RejZoR]

Eh the bulldozer series was fine, dont exaggerate like that.
Truthfully AMD would be in much better waters atm if Intel did not do that shady price fixing bs they got a fined for by at least Europe.
Most people by far dont even need something as good as many a bulldozer chip.

It wasn't. For multicore it was and if trend for that actually continued, AMD could beat Intel quite well with it. But the trend continued to less faster cores. And there Bulldozer was just mediocre due to module design. Also a lot of people couldn't get past the fact old series Phenom X6 was hammering the new arrival. Which made it even more silly, a last gen high end still beating new high end. It just made no sense at all and people remembered that. It only got better with the FX 8300 generation where they really became competitive in term of price and performance.

 

[john_]

Either you're too young or you've forgotten the days when an AMD FX processor would cost you $999...
AMD has had plenty of premium products that have sold for more than Intel's equivalent, so that's not what we're talking about there.

Oh and people do go to McD for silly burgers that are far more expensive than their regular menu items, so that's kind of a bad comparison as well, unless you live somewhere McD doesn't offer premium products.

But yes, you do have a point that AMD can't start charging $999 with it's first generation of hopefully competitive products, but at the same time, they're not going to sell a $500 for $200, as it doesn't make financial sense.

How AMD, which is not a fabless semiconductor manufacturer is going to be able to compete on price with Intel, I do not know, as that's not really going to be possible. That'd be like, taking your McD example, having Five Guys sell their burgers at McD prices...

He is right. AMD build momentum with it's Athlon and Athlon XP line and they where lucky to get Athlon64 out the door before the PR numbers on the latest Athlon XP series become completely ridiculous. And even then with Athlon64's FX and Opterons, even then Intel used it's monopoly to keep AMD out of many OEM business PCs. Even then people who didn't had enough contact with hardware where considering a Pentium 4 a superior chip "it runs at 3GHz and it is Intel", even then retail shops where pushing Pentium chips to their customers instead of AMD superior models(higher profit margins from Intel chips - AMD chips are incompatible and get hot).

AMD will have a chance to become a premium brand not with Zen, not even with Zen+, but with Zen+++ if they keep being competitive with Intel and also start beating them with Zen+ and ALL latter models.

 

[ZoneDymo]

It wasn't. For multicore it was and if trend for that actually continued, AMD could beat Intel quite well with it. But the trend continued to less faster cores. And there Bulldozer was just mediocre due to module design. Also a lot of people couldn't get past the fact old series Phenom X6 was hammering the new arrival. Which made it even more silly, a last gen high end still beating new high end. It just made no sense at all and people remembered that. It only got better with the FX 8300 generation where they really became competitive in term of price and performance.

I am well aware of all of that but for that VAST majority of people it did not matter because they dont use their PC for stressfull things or they dont care about hardware to begin with, they just buy a new PC.
So yeah for the vast majority it does not matter at all, sneaky illegal price fixing however....

 

[thesmokingman]

Why not? AMD was pretty much spanking Intel for an entire decade not too long ago. Until they sold all their fabs and bought ATI.... (Hmm, yeah, I guess AMD is kinda stupid)

They're great engineers and thinkers but terrible at business.

 

[Melvis]

8 physical zen cores (that is expected to be on intels SandyBridge level)

Huh? The 8350 is already equal to the 2600K (at stock clocks for both) in alot of different benchmarks, regardless of IPC

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_8320_6300_processor_4300_performance_review,1.html

 

[fullinfusion]

Go AMD GO!!! I need a new build

 

[Naito]

Zen
- 512KB Cache L2 per core
- 16 MB Cache L3
- 8 full cores
- 8 virtual cores

skylake i7-6700
- 256KB per core,
- 8 MB Cache L3
- 4 phisic cores
- 4 virtuals

It may look good on paper, but AMD hasn't been able to compete on IPC/single-thread performance for a while. Here's hoping they do. this time around.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't think they need to. D3D12, Vulkan, Metal, etc. are all multithreaded on the CPU side. Finally, there really is no need for a few fast cores when you can more economically spread it across lots of slower cores.

 

[Steevo]

I just want them to come out with some real benchmarks instead of conjuring up specific scenarios where it might be faster.


Single threaded clock for clock comparison to Intel, Multi-threaded clock for clock comparison, and power consumption at clock.

 

[thesmokingman]

He is right. AMD build momentum with it's Athlon and Athlon XP line and they where lucky to get Athlon64 out the door before the PR numbers on the latest Athlon XP series become completely ridiculous. And even then with Athlon64's FX and Opterons, even then Intel used it's monopoly to keep AMD out of many OEM business PCs. Even then people who didn't had enough contact with hardware where considering a Pentium 4 a superior chip "it runs at 3GHz and it is Intel", even then retail shops where pushing Pentium chips to their customers instead of AMD superior models(higher profit margins from Intel chips - AMD chips are incompatible and get hot).

AMD will have a chance to become a premium brand not with Zen, not even with Zen+, but with Zen+++ if they keep being competitive with Intel and also start beating them with Zen+ and ALL latter models.

Add to that the damage caused by Intel freezing AMD out of OEM contracts, ie. they thus could not become a household name in that sector seriously damaging them for a decade. All that potential revenue with which they could build for the future, that potential gone. AMD needs to really take their business with a dose of adversarial intent. But for Zen we have to wait and see, been there done that with faildozer so I'm not gonna get too excited.

 

[RejZoR]

I know way to many people who bought Intel just because it was Intel, even though it was releasing crap CPU's at the time (Pentium 4) while AMD had far superior Athlons. I still remember AMD Athlon 1GHz (Thunderbird). It was 1GHz, but in all benchmarks I've done, it was as fast as 1.2 GHz Intel Pentium CPU's. And I think that was actually even before P4. When they introduced Athlon XP, they even increased this when they used the PR ratings instead of clock. Had the AMD Athlon XP 2400+ and it was as fast as 2.4 GHz P4's while running at just 2 GHz. AMD really had the IPC game on their side at that time.

 

[Naito]

I don't think they need to. D3D12, Vulkan, Metal, etc. are all multithreaded on the CPU side. Finally, there really is no need for a few fast cores when you can more economically spread it across lots of slower cores.

Without knowing the technical side of these graphics libraries and how easy they make multithreading, from my very limited experience with programming multiple threads, it can be quite tedious to manage. This can lead to laziness from developers. Single-thread performance will probably remain relevant for some time.

 

[AsRock]

Without knowing the technical side of these graphics libraries and how easy they make multithreading, from my very limited experience with programming multiple threads, it can be quite tedious to manage. This can lead to laziness from developers. Single-thread performance will probably remain relevant for some time.

But with AMD having the console market company's with have to make multi threaded games, so those people who are to lazy to program for it will either die off one way or another or move with the times.

 

[Naito]

But with AMD having the console market company's with have to make multi threaded games, so those people who are to lazy to program for it will either die off one way or another or move with the times.

That is an excellent point. The need to prolong the consoles lifespan by squeezing every bit of performance out of them is of utmost importance. Keeping them around longer is beneficial for the developers bottom line in more ways than one. That covers the gaming aspect of it anyway.

 

[Frick]

I know way to many people who bought Intel just because it was Intel, even though it was releasing crap CPU's at the time (Pentium 4) while AMD had far superior Athlons. I still remember AMD Athlon 1GHz (Thunderbird). It was 1GHz, but in all benchmarks I've done, it was as fast as 1.2 GHz Intel Pentium CPU's. And I think that was actually even before P4. When they introduced Athlon XP, they even increased this when they used the PR ratings instead of clock. Had the AMD Athlon XP 2400+ and it was as fast as 2.4 GHz P4's while running at just 2 GHz. AMD really had the IPC game on their side at that time.

Even the Pentium 3 beat the Pentium 4.

 

[Basard]

Even the Pentium 3 beat the Pentium 4.

Kinda like Phenom beats the newer FX chips Sorta....

 

[Dent1]

Even the Pentium 3 beat the Pentium 4.

Blanket statement which gets recycled. It depends on which version of the P4 we are talking about. There was many iterations.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Without knowing the technical side of these graphics libraries and how easy they make multithreading, from my very limited experience with programming multiple threads, it can be quite tedious to manage. This can lead to laziness from developers. Single-thread performance will probably remain relevant for some time.

About the only engine that hasn't gone heavily multithreaded is Unity. They're going to have to if they don't want lose even more business to competing engines like Unreal Engine.

Only bad programmers put everything on one thread these days.

 

[Frick]

Blanket statement which gets recycled. It depends on which version of the P4 we are talking about. There was many iterations.

I'm fairly confident a 1.2 Ghz Tualatin would spank anything at 1.2 Ghz from Willamette to at least Prescott. vOv Not that it matters.

About the only engine that hasn't gone heavily multithreaded is Unity. They're going to have to if they don't want lose even more business to competing engines like Unreal Engine.

Only bad programmers put everything on one thread these days.

And Paradox Studios, though I hear Stellaris actually is multi threaded...

 

[Dent1]

Even the Pentium 3 beat the Pentium 4.

I'm fairly confident a 1.2 Ghz Tualatin would spank anything at 1.2 Ghz from Willamette to at least Prescott. vOv Not that it matters.

I agree. But you are talking about a specific P4 now, before you was clustering all the P4s together.

The Willamette were criticised for showing little gain over the P3s

By the time Northwoods and Prescotts and started breaking the 3GHz barrier and started pushing 3.8GHz the P3 wouldn't be worthy enough to utter in the same sentence.

 

[refillable]

I hope they didn't mess up for the second time. They just can't, otherwise they want to only become a history.

And marketing too, of course. Get OEMs to use their APU. Even as of now, a chip like the FX-8800P (for laptops) which is an interesting choice, is non-existent, well they do exist but severely tampered for whatever reason, or they add an unnecessary dGPU which makes the price uncompetitive.

 

[cyneater]

Even the Pentium 3 beat the Pentium 4.

and guess what the pentium M was based off ? the pentium 3..

Intels Israeli research team played with the Pentium m and Pentium 3 then we got the core series of processors. If it wasn't for the core2 duo intel would a different company today.

 

[Aquinus]

The new Global Memory Interconnect (GMI) bus provides a 100 GB/s path between two sockets.

Am I the only person pumped that they're replacing HyperTransport 3.1 with a bus that has twice the bandwidth?