AMD "Zen" A Monolithic Core Design

[RealNeil]

As excited as I am for the possibilities of Zen I think almost all of us feel this way deep down. Zen sounds amazing, but no true enthusiast buys blindly.

I build PCs for friends. I try to match what I build to the needs that they express to me before I do their builds. As often as I can, I make AMD CPUs a part of the build. I believe that AMD needs to survive, just to keep Intel's prices from running amuck.
The choices that we have, help us out in the long run. I also like to use AMD GPUs.

AMD is necessary in this market.

 

[librin.so.1]

I build PCs for friends. I try to match what I build to the needs that they express to me before I do their builds. As often as I can, I make AMD CPUs a part of the build. I believe that AMD needs to survive, just to keep Intel's prices from running amuck.
The choices that we have, help us out in the long run. I also like to use AMD GPUs.

AMD is necessary in this market.

I also build PCs for friends and most of the time, I get them AMD cpus. While I also do it for the same reason why You do it, I mainly do it because of the simple fact that with their often quite constrained budgets, I can build them an overall much better AMD-based build than it would be possible with Intel. Intel based systems are just too damn expensive.

 

[Captain_Tom]

I build PCs for friends. I try to match what I build to the needs that they express to me before I do their builds. As often as I can, I make AMD CPUs a part of the build. I believe that AMD needs to survive, just to keep Intel's prices from running amuck.
The choices that we have, help us out in the long run. I also like to use AMD GPUs.

AMD is necessary in this market.

Well a $100 FX-6300 is an easy reccomendation over a $130 i3 lol. Once DX-12 hits the FX-6300 will compete with the weaker i5's, and the FX-8320 will be in-between the i5's and i7's that cost twice as much. This is already true in some current well-optimized games.

 

[costeakai]

incoming amd

 

[suraswami]

Looking forward to Zen II.

 

[RealNeil]

Well a $100 FX-6300 is an easy reccomendation over a $130 i3 lol. Once DX-12 hits the FX-6300 will compete with the weaker i5's, and the FX-8320 will be in-between the i5's and i7's that cost twice as much. This is already true in some current well-optimized games.

The real news wouldn't be DX12 and current 6 and 8 core CPUs if Zen really is as good as they're saying it will be.

I agree that DX12 will bring better utilization of cores, but Zen will bring much more to the table if it isn't Bullshit.

 

[Regenweald]

Am I the only one here going to get one of these badboys to browse internet and watch youtube?

lol. right there with you. ON PRINCIPLE.

p.s don't forget Twitch.

 

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

lol. right there with you. ON PRINCIPLE.

p.s don't forget Twitch.

Well I don't know all about that web browsing and youtube stuff, but I am getting one to make my Solitaire experiencing even better.

 

[newtekie1]

Well a $100 FX-6300 is an easy reccomendation over a $130 i3 lol. Once DX-12 hits the FX-6300 will compete with the weaker i5's, and the FX-8320 will be in-between the i5's and i7's that cost twice as much. This is already true in some current well-optimized games.

For friends on a budget I still often build AM3+ rigs. A lot of the time I throw in the FX-4350 since the extra 2 cores of the FX-6350 rarely make a difference and I've found I can push the FX-4350 to higher clocks with inexpensive coolers. With a CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Evo I can hit 5GHz with an FX-4350 in some builds and come pretty darn close(4.8-4.9GHz) in all the rest. And I have yet to find a game were this setup noticeably impacts gaming.

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

if I understand this correctly, AMD will have their own version of hyperthreading this time around? I love this thing with Intel CPU's. It's the reson why my ancient Core i7 920 is still so competitive. It churns out 8 threads and that still works incredibly well with file compression, video coding, audio conversion, large image processing etc. I know it's not like a full core on it's own but it certainly makes a huge difference.

It's almost like a full core because (from what I understand) today's CPUs back end is very wide and the front end almost always fails at filling it with a single thread. But with SMT the back end can be fed which results in the performance increase you end up seeing.

 

[rruff]

With a CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Evo I can hit 5GHz with an FX-4350 in some builds and come pretty darn close(4.8-4.9GHz) in all the rest. And I have yet to find a game were this setup noticeably impacts gaming.

But you could also stick in an i3, not overclock it, and wouldn't it be just as fast? And cheaper in the long run.

 

[RejZoR]

It's almost like a full core because (from what I understand) today's CPUs back end is very wide and the front end almost always fails at filling it with a single thread. But with SMT the back end can be fed which results in the performance increase you end up seeing.

Yes, but how programs and games see those "cores"? In case of HyperThreading they behave the same as physical cores even though they aren't. Where with AMD's cores, at least in Bulldozer they were presented to the OS a bit differently afaik. Never owned one so I can't say it for sure...

 

[newtekie1]

But you could also stick in an i3, not overclock it, and wouldn't it be just as fast? And cheaper in the long run.

No, a stock i3 isn't just as fast as a 5.0GHz FX-4350. And by cheaper in the long run I assume you mean because of power consumption being lower, but that actually makes very little difference. The two use almost the same power when idle, which is what state the computer is in most of the time. So unless you are running the computer at load 24/7 you won't make up the difference.

 

[rruff]

No, a stock i3 isn't just as fast as a 5.0GHz FX-4350. And by cheaper in the long run I assume you mean because of power consumption being lower, but that actually makes very little difference. The two use almost the same power when idle, which is what state the computer is in most of the time. So unless you are running the computer at load 24/7 you won't make up the difference.

Do you have any supporting evidence for that? I was curious, so looked up some benchmarks. I couldn't find any direct comparisons between a modern i3 and the FX-4350 OC'd but on stock clocks the i3 beats it by a lot. one example: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0 I think a 5 GHz OC might put it close to parity (on average), but it would be close.

Also on power consumption a stock 4300 or 4350 seems to use ~15W more than an i3 (system power), even at idle. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_7.html#sect0 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/6

Won't idle power consumption also increase if you OC?

 

[Mussels]

Do you have any supporting evidence for that? I was curious, so looked up some benchmarks. I couldn't find any direct comparisons between a modern i3 and the FX-4350 OC'd but on stock clocks the i3 beats it by a lot. one example: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0 I think a 5 GHz OC might put it close to parity (on average), but it would be close.

Also on power consumption a stock 4300 or 4350 seems to use ~15W more than an i3 (system power), even at idle. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_7.html#sect0 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/6

Won't idle power consumption also increase if you OC?

An i3 can certainly be faster in 1-2 threaded applications, thats intels whole deal - fast performance per core.

AMD has a big core advantage, and the simple fact is its up to the user which one suits their preferences.

 

[rruff]

An i3 can certainly be faster in 1-2 threaded applications, thats intels whole deal - fast performance per core.
AMD has a big core advantage, and the simple fact is its up to the user which one suits their preferences.

That's why I showed the link. The only times an FX 4350 would take the lead are in applications that are super efficient in multi-core. In that case the 4 cores of the FX will beat the 4 threads of the i3. It wasn't the case in any of the games they tested, and no games fit that description that I'm aware of.

 

[Mussels]

That's why I showed the link. The only times an FX 4350 would take the lead are in applications that are super efficient in multi-core. In that case the 4 cores of the FX will beat the 4 threads of the i3. It wasn't the case in any of the games they tested, and no games fit that description that I'm aware of.

DX11 games are more heavily multi threaded with some outright requiring quads these days, which is the only reason why i dont recommend dual core i3's, unless they have HT.

 

[rruff]

All the i3 desktop processors have HT.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Whatever they do, I hope they retain the depth and detail available to overclockers.

whilst I can fully understand people's argument's against Am3+ and the FX chips they usually are a joy to overclock(from the point of so many options and things to push) , shit even if you never do see 5Ghz (i can)
just the arsein about alone is good for a fair few weeks of benching joy(am i weird).

no platform before or since is beating it for tweekables ,imho.

 

[newtekie1]

Do you have any supporting evidence for that? I was curious, so looked up some benchmarks. I couldn't find any direct comparisons between a modern i3 and the FX-4350 OC'd but on stock clocks the i3 beats it by a lot. one example: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0 I think a 5 GHz OC might put it close to parity (on average), but it would be close.

You can look at something like BF4, which shows a i3-4630 getting 95FPS and the FX-4350 getting 87FPS. Throw a 20% overclock on the FX-4350 and you'll easily gain 10FPS. And keep in mind the i3-4630 isn't the entry level i3, it is actually $150. The i3-4160 would be the entry level at about $125, and it is clocked 100MHz slower than the 4360 and has 1MB less cache.

Bioshock Inifite shows 146FPS vs 134FPS. Again, a 20% overclock should net about 15FPS putting the FX in the lead.

F1 2013, same story.

Sleeping Dogs, same story.(This time look at the FX-4300, as there is no FX-4350 in the list. The FX-4300 is actually clocked lower, so the gap would be less with an FX-4350.)

Also on power consumption a stock 4300 or 4350 seems to use ~15W more than an i3 (system power), even at idle. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_7.html#sect0 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/6

Won't idle power consumption also increase if you OC?

A 15w difference is essentially nothing. In my area we pay about $0.10/KWh. So assuming the computer is on 24/7/365 the cost difference would be about $13 a year in power use.

And idle power consumption doesn't increase with overclocking anymore. You raise the maximum multiplier and the maximum voltage, but when the processor is idle it still downclocks to the idle power state.

 

[de.das.dude]

amd did say they didnt have plans for the non-apu series this year... so them playing out zen with apus first does confirm that.

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

Yes, but how programs and games see those "cores"? In case of HyperThreading they behave the same as physical cores even though they aren't. Where with AMD's cores, at least in Bulldozer they were presented to the OS a bit differently afaik. Never owned one so I can't say it for sure...

With HT the cores are presented a bit differently. If you are running 4 threads on a 4C/8T CPU it will use all 4 physical cores (it will behave like a 4C/4T CPU) instead of using 2 physical cores and 2 logical cores (2C/4T).

 

[rruff]

You can look at something like BF4, which shows a i3-4630 getting 95FPS and the FX-4350 getting 87FPS. Throw a 20% overclock on the FX-4350 and you'll easily gain 10FPS.

Thanks for the info. None of the games appear to be very sensitive to CPU once you get to a decent level.

A 15w difference is essentially nothing. In my area we pay about $0.10/KWh. So assuming the computer is on 24/7/365 the cost difference would be about $13 a year in power use.

If you keep it say 4 years, that $50+ isn't trivial compared to the cost of the CPU. Once you add a decent overclocking MB and a cooler and add the electric cost, you are definitely spending more on the FX. You are in i5 territory.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Thanks for the info. None of the games appear to be very sensitive to CPU once you get to a decent level.



If you keep it say 4 years, that $50+ isn't trivial compared to the cost of the CPU. Once you add a decent overclocking MB and a cooler and add the electric cost, you are definitely spending more on the FX. You are in i5 territory.

4 years? You monster!

ALL stock coolers are trash nowadays. I won't even install one for funsies. It's a waste of time and dealing with 70+ C temps under load is a joke.

 

[rruff]

ALL stock coolers are trash nowadays. I won't even install one for funsies. It's a waste of time and dealing with 70+ C temps under load is a joke.

On non-OC Intel CPUs (or a mild OC) they are very adequate.