AMD to Emphasize on "Generation" with Future CPU Branding

[$ReaPeR$]

lets see the products. the waiting is killing me!

 

[RejZoR]

I hope they pull it off, and perhaps they will; they did it before... Back in the Pentium 4 era they all were pretty slow, so maybe it was easier to jump ahead a little. But it's difficult now, when your rival has billions more $ to pour into R&D. The problems that need to be solved now involve efficiency, as electricity costs rise, and more people value principles of "quiet computing". This is where AMD always fell short, their CPUs, GPUs, and APUs generally consume almost twice the power of similar performing Intel or nVidia chips. Zen will hopefully address this issue, at least on the CPU side. Not an AMD hater, just disappointed so far.

AMD's slow during Pentium 4 era? It was AMD that forced Intel to drop NetBurst architecture, because they couldn't keep up with AMD's efficient AthlonXP cores. It's because of AMD we god amazing Core architecture from Intel. Otherwise Intel would still be selling us crappy overpriced P4's...

 

[Dent1]

Back in the Pentium 4 era they all were pretty slow, so maybe it was easier to jump ahead a little..

The Athlon XP dominated the Pentium 4 performance wise with a 50% clock disadvantage. In fact some low end Sempron were able to outperform the prestigious Pentium 4.

If you thought the Athlon XP was slow than the Pentium 4 was stationary.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Anyone else feel as if AMD is giving us the middle finger?

Intel started the whole generations thing whenever they switched from the core processors to the i series. It has since proven to be an absolute BS numbering scheme, and you only have to look at the current enthusiast offerings to see that. One processor is based upon Haswell, another is Broadwell, but the both have the same generational name.... Thank you deceptive marketing.

AMD does the same, only half-assed. They don't start from 1, they back number their hardware to match up with Intel's numbering. They assume consumer stupidity, so the number just so happens to coincide with Intel. One generation ahead, and the lack of a generational performance gap tells people not to buy AMD, but one generation behind and you are assumed to believe the hardware is old. I'm both being told that I'm an idiot because I need a number, and being assumed stupid enough to be led to a conclusion based upon an arbitrary number.


Sorry AMD, screw off. Release a good product, and call it whatever you need to. Don't think I'll buy the AMD 7th generation of processors just because 7 is bigger than 6 so Intel must be slower.


As a side note, if Zen is absolutely amazing I'd be grateful. Intel hasn't given us a compelling reason to buy something new since Sandy Bridge. 10 percent or less improvement per generation, while losing overclocking headroom, is just sad. That type of complacency should lead to a bloody eye. I don't believe you'll do it, but being proven wrong would be awesome.